NASA Project Gemini UFO Sightings - Stunning Astronaut UFO Black Knight Satellite Account

a reply to: 2timesOO
The object (the blanket) was released by an astronaut working on the ISS. It came from very nearby. There is no mystery about it. It is identified.

a reply to: Phage

I'm not talking about the blanket ... I'm keeping on the subject (Gemini).

a reply to: 2timesOO
In that case you're talking about the booster and other debris associated with the separation?

a reply to: Phage

No, debris and boosters are expected and you don't talk about them unless they are a threat or have a noteworthy behaviour (or you're a chimpanzee, they've just spend millions putting you in space, and you don't have much to do ... hei, let's talk about Those lights, blink ... yes the booster, blink ... yes those small particles, debris, 4 miles away!).

a reply to: 2timesOO

You'll find that boosters and associated debris are often mentioned. As well as how nice the view is up there.

a reply to: Phage

Never had the chance to contemplate the views from up there ... but if the question is "what the hell they were talking about?", either they were poets, which I don't believe, or they had serious communication problems and for sure didn't call things by their proper name ... in an endeavour like flying into space, where so many things can go wrong, you can't use colorful meaningless words unless you're looking to something colorful and for which you do not have a meaning.

a reply to: 2timesOO
You mean like this?

Ed was asleep. We were taking turns sleeping. And Ed was asleep, and I was doing something in the spacecraft. I looked outside, just glanced up, and there was something out there. It had a geometrical shape similar to a beer can or a pop can, and with a little thing like maybe like a pencil or something sticking out of it. That relative size, dimensionally. It was all white.

No. There’s nothing unusual about this at all. It was just—it’s sort of like John Glenn talking about the fireflies. I mean, those were just pieces of ice crystals that were falling off the spacecraft. And the same thing with this. It was just something that I’m sure came off the spacecraft.

And, since you mentioned the unliklihood of seeing another object in orbit:

They wanted to know if we wanted to see Echo. It was out at, like, 800 or 900 miles. And we said, “Oh yeah, let’s look at that.” So, we got the spacecraft oriented around in a certain direction, and I had a six-power telescope in the left-hand window of the spacecraft. And Dave [David R.] Scott went down in thelower equipment bay. He had to use a 28-power telescope down there. And so, they finally said, “Okay, it’s coming up in the sight now.” And Dave said, “Oh yeah, I’ve got it.” He had the telescope tracking it with the computer. And so, I looked out there and, “Oh yeah,” I said, “I can see it.” And Rusty was sitting over in the other window and he didn’t have anything, and he said, “Oh yeah, I can see it, too!” So, we were looking at this thing probably near 1,000 miles.

www.jsc.nasa.gov...

How cool to be able to hear the stories of these guys, straight from their mouths without all the UFO hoopla and speculation added by others who have never been there.

in an endeavour like flying into space, where so many things can go wrong, you can't use colorful meaningless words unless you're looking to something colorful and for which you do not have a meaning.

You should have a look at the transcripts. There's all sorts of color, poetry even, and a lot of joking.
www.jsc.nasa.gov...

a reply to: Phage

visual range ... not through a telescope (and they had to be oriented from ground). chances to cross path with an object in orbit are very low. i've never been there and in what concerns ufos, i have my share of unidentified objects (and i'm very critical with what my eyes see and use reason to guide my live ... but when something is statistically odd my eyebrows rise).

a reply to: 2timesOO

visual range ... not through a telescope

And Rusty was sitting over in the other window and he didn’t have anything, and he said, “Oh yeah, I can see it, too!”

(and they had to be oriented from ground)

So what?

chances to cross path with an object in orbit are very low

Well, crossing paths nearby is certainly unlikely. If the object is not associated with the spacecraft. Can you provide an example of this having occurred?

a reply to: Phage

Well, if you have no doubts, I have nothing to say to you. Otherwise:
The transcripts of the several flights have some strange sections that can be summarised in a sentence: a pilot should not use meaningless words to refer to prosaic and known objects ... unless they're not known. From your words, you don't find them strange, and think they're fully adequate. Do you agree?
The objects around the spacecrafts are debris (fuel, boosters, etc.) or are something that shouldn't be there. From your words, they are debris and nothing else. Do you agree?
From here we can begin to talk rationally.

a reply to: 2timesOO

a pilot should not use meaningless words to refer to prosaic and known objects

What meaningless words? You understand that as pilots, there is a lexicon which is common to them and not non-pilots? You understand that, as astronauts, there is technical language which is not familiar to many? You understand that much of the slang and cultural references of the 1960's doesn't age well? Think about this, I had to explain to my daughter what the term "dial a phone number" means.

From your words, you don't find them strange, and think they're fully adequate.

I'm not sure what you mean. Find what strange? Adequate for what? In any case, contrary to the title of the OP, I find nothing "stunning" about what is said. Fascinating from a historical point of view, yes. Even pretty funny when they crack jokes. Nothing stunning though.

From your words, they are debris and nothing else. Do you agree?

I believe the men who were there, when they say they think what they say was debris associated with their spacecraft, yes. Why shouldn't I? Don't you? Why not? Why believe distorted reports and third hand speculation?

a reply to: Phage

Thank you for your answer.
I disagree on your approach. I don't think that all can be summed up to slang. They were intelligent men, taking pictures of debris, talking about lights, asking to censor the records, etc.. I can read a text from the sixties and don't get lost (it's not a big deal). They were talking of lights outside the crafts (the perception of any object with our eyes results from light emission or reflection from the object, unless it's poking your eyeball) ... they were speaking english.
If you say they were talking of debris, why, whoever reads those transcripts, have such a hard time to verify your claim (not that they use synonyms like scraps, remains, garbage,etc., they just don't seem to be talking of debris!).

a reply to: 2timesOO

They were talking of lights outside the crafts (the perception of any object with our eyes results from light emission or reflection from the object, unless it's poking your eyeball)

Have you read those transcripts or are you just going by a few selected lines?

originally posted by: 2timesOO
a reply to: Phage

Thank you for your answer.
I disagree on your approach. I don't think that all can be summed up to slang. They were intelligent men, taking pictures of debris, talking about lights, asking to censor the records, etc...

Well, John Glenn called the ice crystals that fell off his craft and glistened in the sunlight "fireflies". That's not very technical, but that's still what he called them while talking to mission control.

Other Astronauts may see unknown objects and call them "bogeys" until the object is positively identified. Sometimes the "bogey" turns out to be a booster stage of their launch vehicle, and on some occasions they turned out to be reflections in the Window. James McDivitt was almost considered doing an emergency maneuver to miss a "cylindrical object" until the object disappeared. He later realized that the cylindrical object was just a reflection of a bolt in his multi-paned Window.

a reply to: Phage

No. When a few lines are controversial I don't skip them as you seems to be doing. If you are unable to cope with them, stop beating around the bush.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

And in what terms this affects the content of the transcripts? Do they loose any value because some made bad judgement of what they were seeing? A witness is only valid if they corroborate with your prejudice (sorry, opinion)?

originally posted by: 2timesOO
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

And in what terms this affects the content of the transcripts? Do they loose any value because some made bad judgement of what they were seeing? A witness is only valid if they corroborate with your prejudice (sorry, opinion)?

My prejudice? I'm confused, because the things I mention came straight from the mouths of the astronauts themselves. This has nothing to do with what I think or feel. This is simply what was said.

I'm also not sure what you mean by the transcripts "losing value". The transcripts are the transcripts -- i.e., the conversations had between the astronauts and others during the mission. If the transcripts are what was said, I don't know how they could have anything less than their value as transcripts.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

We were discussing the transcripts. So, if you didn't have nothing to say, you could restrain yourself, because you said a lot. Either your diatribe had it's focus on mistakes per part of the astronauts, with the intent of diminishing the value of what the astronauts said and that can be read in the transcripts, or it was a diversion, with you understanding of what a bogey is or could turn out to be in time ... well, nothing of what you said helps to clarify the transcripts.

a reply to: 2timesOO
Maybe if you would clarify what transcripts you are referring to it would help. What mission? What time stamp?

originally posted by: 2timesOO
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

We were discussing the transcripts. So, if you didn't have nothing to say, you could restrain yourself, because you said a lot. Either your diatribe had it's focus on mistakes per part of the astronauts, with the intent of diminishing the value of what the astronauts said and that can be read in the transcripts, or it was a diversion, with you understanding of what a bogey is or could turn out to be in time ... well, nothing of what you said helps to clarify the transcripts.

In general, and astronaut could have said something in real time (such as call an unknown object a bogey) that could have been identified later as something that is known.

That's "in general". I'm not sure what specific instance in the transcripts that you are talking about.