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

a reply to: Phage

Great follow up on that incident, phage.

This is why I don't watch any of these mystery or ancient alien diatribes anymore.

Same old content re-hashed and alien biased. They are not interested in solving any of the mysteries, and any evidence contrary to their speculation never gets aired. Absolute junk media where unsubstantiated sensationalism is the only agenda.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

"c- no i've lost it. It had big arms sticking out of it, it looked like. I only had it for just a minute. I got a couple of pictures with a movie camera and one with the hasselblad; but I was in free drift, and before I could get the control back I drifted and lost it."

How foolish or how intellectually dishonest can one be to disregard the statement above as "debris", based solely on those words?


One admissible approach could be: the man was hallucinating (but that would rise other questions). Another approach is: he was telling what he was seeing, and that seems to be a problem for some people ... god knows why.

Well, what do you think about that Buzz:

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

"c- no i've lost it. It had big arms sticking out of it, it looked like. I only had it for just a minute. I got a couple of pictures with a movie camera and one with the hasselblad; but I was in free drift, and before I could get the control back I drifted and lost it."

How foolish or how intellectually dishonest can one be to disregard the statement above as "debris", based solely on those words?

One admissible approach could be: the man was hallucinating (but that would rise other questions). Another approach is: he was telling what he was seeing, and that seems to be a problem for some people ... god knows why.

Here is the rest of the story about Jim McDivitt's "cylinder with arms sticking out of it" from the mouth of Jim McDivitt himself. I prefer to let him explain what he thinks he saw, considering that he was there:

The fact that I could see it was—pretty much meant to me that it was in our orbit. If it was in a different orbit, we would’ve—going 18,000 miles an hour, it would’ve went by us so fast that we’d have never seen it at all. I had no idea whether it was a little thing up close to the window or it was a big thing out a little bit further. It could’ve been the size of the Empire State Building for all I knew way out there. But I’m sure it was in the—in our orbit and it probably was a piece of ice that had fallen off the spacecraft someplace. Or maybe a piece of Mylar that had come out from behind the thing and come up in front.

The above excerpt is from page 45 of this PDF file:
Oral History Transcript - James A. McDivitt Interviewed by Doug Ward
(thanks to Phage for originally providing this link in one of his posts)

McDivitt may not have immediately known what he was looking at, which is evident from what the transcripts tell us he said in real time as he was looking at it, but upon retrospect, he felt that what he saw was probably ice or debris.

Well, what do you think about that Buzz:

It's funny how that TV show did not include the rest of Buzz Aldrin's story with that interview. Every time I hear Buzz tell that story, he ends the story by telling us what it is he thinks he saw. What Buzz says he thinks he saw was one of the four SLA panels from the top of the S-IVB. The SLA panels are four large panels that are the adapter panels between the top of the S-IVB booster and the Command Module (CM). They also serve as a cover for the Lunar Module (LM).

Ground control knew where the actual S-IVB was (they said it was 6000 miles away) but they did not know where the SLA panels were, as they are designed to break loose of the S-IVB in order to access the LM. However, this is done after the final main burn that is to get the astronauts to the Moon. Therefore, it is not implausible for parts (such as the SLA panels) to also be in a similar trajectory toward the Moon, along with the astronauts in the CM.

Here are one of those interviews which actually include the rest of Buzz Aldrin's story about that sighting. In this interview, he explains that he is 99% sure what he saw was an SLA panel (the whole video explains in detail what the SLA panels are, but the part germane to this discussion is between the 3:30 mark and the 5:20 mark):


Here is another interview with Buzz about that Apollo 11 sighting, this one an interview with Larry King. Again, watch the whole video, but specifically from the 3:30 mark to the end. Buzz again says that "technically" what he saw was a UFO, but he is 99.999% sure what he saw was a discarded SLA panel.

It does make me mad that that other UFO TV program in your Youtube link could be so disingenuous as to not include Buzz's entire story -- i.e., the part where he explains that he is 99% sure the UFO he saw was spacecraft debris (discarded SLA panels). NOT providing Buzz's entire story only creates or perpetuates misinformation and misunderstanding -- although I suppose it helps sell TV shows and make money for the producers of that show.

originally posted by: 2timesOO
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.

They're not using the words I think they should have used to describe normal objects...

Therefore ALIENS!!!!!

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Well, astronauts are like everybody else, after a while "reasoning" kicks in and interpretation starts ... I prefer to go with the transcripts and see the 3 pictures he claims he took (in a 1 minute span). His explanation, although possible (and I know for first hand experience how far your senses can be fooled), don't work very well with the time span of the sight (1 minute) nor the words exchange with ground control after the sight.
About what Buzz says, it was not my intention to mislead nobody. Sorry about that. But he is the only witness that came forward regarding that event. I think he's wrong (who am I to say such thing ... well, I'm not stupid and I don't buy his explanation, not without further questions getting answers) but he keeps a tradition of ambiguity: he knows it cannot be the S-IV B (6k nautical miles away), he admits they spent time looking at the thing (for how long?, paralel movement?, converging?, diverging?), and he ends up saying that it was a SLA panel (99.99% sure) ...
Well, how far the "unknown" had to be, to be out of visual range?
If it was flickering (and at no time he said it was flickering), and at what frequency, we could consider the panel (because it wouldn't be showing the broadest area all the time), otherwise, it can't be the panel. Do you agree?
Many other questions make me believe that the answer he gives is nothing more than an excuse
We can do the maths if you are interested.

originally posted by: Another_Nut why change the story if he had nothing to hide?

orders.

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: rebelv,,,,
You would think one
would think so, that is what I thought and one would think one would
expect Mission Control to be tracking all known man made satellites
during missions for obvious reasons.

And yet, Houston clearly was asking more questions than
providing answers.

I really think your guesses would improve with the addition
of greater familiarity with the Gemini-7 rendezvous exercise.

www.jamesoberg.com...

You're probably right.

Rebel 5

originally posted by: Another_Nut
am i the only one putting two and two together?

transscript taken for Jims site here

Spacecraft: Said we have a bogey at 10 o'clock high.

Capcom: Roger, Gemini 7, is that the booster or is that an actual sighting?

Spacecraft: We have several, looks like debris up here. Actual sighting.

Capcom: You have any more information? Estimate distance and speed?

Spacecraft: We also have the booster in sight.

Capcom: Understand you also have the booster in sight. Roger.

Spacecraft: Yeah, have a very, very many -- look like hundreds of little particles banked on the left out about 3 to 4 miles.

Capcom: Understand you have many small particles going by on the left. At what distance?

Spacecraft: Oh, about -- it looks like a path to the vehicle at 90 degrees.

now here we have 3 different objects being talked about
1.the bogey
2.the boost
3.the particles/debris

we know the bogey is

"bogey,' which is an old fighter pilot term.
-Borman

a term that means

7.(military slang) An unidentified aircraft, especially as observed as a spot on a radar screen, and often suspected to be hostile. (Also sometimes used as a synonym for bandit - an enemy aircraft)

from here
how do we know there were three objects?
because Capcom asks

Capcom: Were these particles in addition to the booster and the bogey at 10 o'clock?

Spacecraft: Roger

so we arnt talking about the booster or the particles

which makes this

"Right after we got into orbit we were supposed to "station keep' or fly formation with the booster," Borman says. "We were flying formation and taking photographs and infrared measurements and I started calling it a "bogey,

an utter lie seeing as how he differentiated between bogey and booster here

Capcom: Were these particles in addition to the booster and the bogey at 10 o'clock?

Spacecraft: Roger

so why change the story if he had nothing to hide?

just wow

eta:a reply to: rebelv

dont be fooled by 782 number the earth is 196.9 million sq miles

or , to put it in perspective, when the Gemini 7 mission was launched there was aprox

1 satellite for every 251,790 sq miles of earth

not exactly bumping into each other huh...

Great post Another Nut! This is a smoking gun! Great thread OP. S+F

Surely the astronauts took a photo of the UFO?

I think if the black knight was some kind of mysterious unknown sattilite that NASA would be just as interested,probably more interested, in it as we are and they would have found a way to capture it and bring it back to earth to get a close up look at it.

originally posted by: laurentius
A cylindrical object with a large arm, what country used that first?? and when??

The Gemini Program...


RM-81 Agena

a reply to: Saint Exupery

You're a maniqueist (that's not an offense, just a constatation).

I've just posted a summary of the latest 'improvement' to the old Black Knight myth, here
www.jamesoberg.com...

In discussion of Borman's 'bogie', I recommend weighing his OWN view of what he was talking about -- the event occurred precisely in the interval of the first-ever successful Gemini rendezvous maneuver, just as the McDivitt sighting followed shortly after an earlier near-rendezvous maneuver.

Advocates of the 'extraordinariness' hypotheses seem to argue this extremely unlikely if purely random timing is a bizarre coincidence, rather than the view that they represented cause-and-effect of never-before-attempted space maneuvers.

As to where Aldrin's SLA panels were, we're not restricted to single-witness sources. Several Apollo crews reported seeing the panels, and on some missions they were photographed by Earth telescopes in proximity to the CSMs -- google it.

a reply to: JimOberg

"As to where Aldrin's SLA panels were, we're not restricted to single-witness sources. Several Apollo crews reported seeing the panels, and on some missions they were photographed by Earth telescopes in proximity to the CSMs -- google it."

Answer to J. Oberg

Yes, flashes, either caught on film or video ... Buzz says nothing about a flickering or flashing object (which would make it a non event ... something that was seen in previous missions).

The answer end here.

Now, about accusing other people of being gullible (and some, certainly are), while accepting every official explanation, without questioning its reasonability (scientific validity), says much about one's posture and lack of critical thinking.

originally posted by: 2timesOO
a reply to: Saint Exupery

You're a maniqueist (that's not an offense, just a constatation).

I prefer to consider myself a satirist with a proclivity for hyperbole.

Actually, perhaps you can help me with a vocabulary question:
If a person who is a combat pilot and veteran astronaut with a doctorate from MIT in orbital rendezvous says that he is 99.999% sure he can identify an object he saw with his own eyes, and a second person with no such background and very limited knowledge of the subject claims that no, he's wrong, he must've seen something else, what would be a good word to describe that second person?

a reply to: Saint Exupery

A person that is not easily fooled ... and, well my scholar background is not from your account.

Now, I see that you are a man of faith (proper of a maniqueist, never question what the authorities (institutional, or self made (sometimes in a very cabotino way)) have to offer you. So I'll not expect you to answer that little question that would make the Buzz's unidentified object a panel or something else: was it flashing?

If you don't understand the meaning and reach of that question, never mind.

A person that makes a question and don't get any answer from supposed specialists ... because the answer don't fits their system of believes ... is all I need to make my mind on their mentality.

originally posted by: 2timesOO
a reply to: Saint Exupery

A person that is not easily fooled ... and, well my scholar background is not from your account.

Now, I see that you are a man of faith (proper of a maniqueist, never question what the authorities (institutional, or self made (sometimes in a very cabotino way)) have to offer you.

Laughably false. Among other things, we are not talking about what sinister, shadowy "authorities" (Oooh! Scary!) say; we're talking about the personal recollections of an eyewitness. Or rather, several eyewitnesses.

originally posted by: 2timesOO
So I'll not expect you to answer that little question that would make the Buzz's unidentified object a panel or something else: was it flashing?

Your expectation is wrong (as it had been repeatedly in this thread). Less that one minute of googling (recommended to you in this post) came up with this picture...



...which shows Apollo 8 and its SLA panels clearly flashing. Reports from astronomers tracking Apollo to the Moon using optical telescopes (Link) reported seeing the flashes visually.

It's not difficult to see why they should appear to be flashing: The dimensions of an SLA panel (15 seconds of googling) give it a maximum visible profile of over 300 square feet (which is larger than most satellites visible today), but it's also less than 1 foot thick when viewed edge-on. A curved piece of metal that big and that thin tumbling in sunlight and viewed from hundreds of miles away - Of course it's going to be flashing! You don't need Agent Smith and The Smoking Man to tell you that!

originally posted by: 2timesOO
A person that makes a question and don't get any answer from supposed specialists ... because the answer don't fits their system of believes ... is all I need to make my mind on their mentality.

Pot, meet Kettle.

a reply to: Saint Exupery

Yes, but BUZZ never said it was flashing, that would make it a non event ....
You know, googling for answers don't make you a specialist. If you spend 10% of the time you spend googling doing a little thinking, you wouldn't be so unpleasant.

originally posted by: Saint Exupery
I prefer to consider myself a satirist with a proclivity for hyperbole.

Actually, perhaps you can help me with a vocabulary question:
If a person who is a combat pilot and veteran astronaut with a doctorate from MIT in orbital rendezvous says that he is 99.999% sure he can identify an object he saw with his own eyes, and a second person with no such background and very limited knowledge of the subject claims that no, he's wrong, he must've seen something else, what would be a good word to describe that second person?

oooh, oooh, I know!! I know!

a truther!