NASA's Apollo DSE "Black Box" Transcripts - revealing the unscripted truth about the Moon & E.T.

Originally posted by Exuberant1

"Mining it"

Transcripts have lots of guesses at phonetic interprertations of mumbles - it bites everybody, remember the stupid "Stay vector" command allegedly given to UFO-observing spacewalkers? -- so I wonder what might sound vaguely like 'they're mining it' but be a geological topic consistent with the context.

Has the Apollo Lunar surface journal team commented on these transcripts?

[edit on 3-10-2009 by JimOberg]

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Here is one that will probably see some use in a moon hoax thread sometime in the future:

Or maybe they use familiar terms to describe the appearance of the lunar terrain. You can't simultaneously be advocating that what they saw were alien structures and that what they said indicated that they were faking the missions as part of a hoax. Those are mutually exclusive conspiracy theories. You seem to want to interpret the transcripts (and evidence in general) in whatever way fits the conspiracy theory you're subscribing to that minute. The mutual exclusivity being equally supported illustrates an important point; you can't quote mine hunting for evidence based on a personal bias or you'll just end up seeing what you want to see in the quotes, regardless of whether or not the theory is true, and regardless of whether or not the evidence really supports your theory. The infamous "pull it" quote from Larry Silverstein is a classic example of this. A good theory should make predictions about what you'll find within a bit of evidence. Non-random numbers at the first seconds digit within the transcripts is a prediction (what happened to that analysis, I must have missed it), quote mining is not.

[edit on 3-10-2009 by ngchunter]

Originally posted by Luppakorva
As I promised, here we go with further explanation:

What you're seeing is glare from the bright lunar surface within the optics and along the edge of the window itself. You can see it in any similar image taken with an exposure that bright. Here's another example, as12-47-7011:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b48333985681.jpg[/atsimg]
The key differences are that that 7011 was a shorter exposure, so the glare is harder to see, and it was taken with the horizon lower in the frame, allowing you to see another glare reflection off the TOP part of the Al's window, which is out of the frame in your image. That's why the window looks "cut off," but it's really all there.

Here's another example, this time from apollo 15. Note the horizontal banding the glare creates:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7bf26423187e.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 3-10-2009 by ngchunter]

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
What the?

The dot pattern in the lower left corner means something but I don't know what. Is it end of roll?

[edit on 3-10-2009 by Arbitrageur]

AS-12-47-7021, right? It is indeed the end of the roll. Just a partial frame that got screwed up. Man I do not miss film.

[edit on 3-10-2009 by easynow]

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Well, it is on the moon.

The only certainty is that it is on the photo, and that was what I meant, it's probably something on the photo (specially if it was scanned) instead of something on the Moon.

Mikesingh, Majorion and myself have been discussing this image which is a much larger version of as08-13-2244.

The version we are working with will be made available for ATS members shortly.

OK, I will wait for it.

Here is another structure which was found in the big version that we have

I don't see any structure in that photo, but that is not a surprise.

Here is something else we spotted down in one of the craters:

Once more, I see nothing special, only a resized image, with all the changes that the process creates.

the Gemini transcripts are also enlightening







incident with the Gemini 11 Astronauts.

On September 13, 1966 during their sixteenth revolution, the Gemini 11
astronauts, Charles "Pete" Conrad and Richard Gordon, Jr., sighted an object
which they could not identify

FROM THE TRANSCRIPT OF GEMINI-11, TAPE 133., PAGE 1 (SEPTEMBER 13, 1966):

"WE HAD A WINGMAN FLYING WING ON US GOING INTO SUNSET HERE OFF TO MY LEFT. A
LARGE OBJECT THAT WAS TUMBLING AT ABOUT 1 REV. PER SECOND, AND WE FLEW . . .
WE HAD HIM IN SIGHT, I SAY FAIRLY CLOSE TO US. I DON'T KNOW. IT COULD DEPEND
ON HOW BIG HE IS AND I GUESS HE COULD HAVE BEEN ANYTHING FROM OUR ELSS* TO
SOMETHING ELSE. WE TOOK PICTURES OF IT."

according to Mallan, Astronaut Gordon
stated that the object was first seen out their left window, it "flew out in
front of us and then we lost it when it sort of dropped down in front of
us." This direction of motion is roughly opposite to that of the Proton 3
according to the NORAD report quoted in Mallan's article (see Figure 6).

Thus we have inconsistency (e), the Proton was behind the Gemini spacecraft
and (f), the object(s) were not even travelling in the direction of the
Proton satellite and booster.

According to Mallan, NORAD claimed that they were not tracking anything in
front of the space capsule. Thus, for all of these reasons the object(s)
could not have been the Proton.

The photographic evidence presented in this paper appear to be totally
inconsistent with the hypothesis that the Gemini 11 astronauts photographed
the Proton 3 and/or its booster rocket. Verbal evidence presented by Mallan
supports this conclusion. This writer has found no evidence to support the
conclusion stated by Roach in the Condon Report. Note: This sighting is
carried as "unidentified" by NASA.

brumac.8k.com...









Jim Oberg say's in this video the Astronauts were tossing out junk and junk tends to Zig Zag back and forth. (in the vacuum of space)



can junk "Zig Zag" in the vacuum of space ?

Originally posted by easynow
can junk "Zig Zag" in the vacuum of space ?

Relative to another orbiting object in a similar but non-identical orbit, yes it can. As objects gain altitude in a given orbit their ground-relative speed slows. As objects lose altitude in a given orbit their ground-relative speed increases, all without any additional thrust. Therefore if two objects have orbits that intersect but have different nodes of periapsis/apoapsis, one object can pass the other before slowing down and being passed by the second object. From the second object's point of view it looks like the first object is zig-zagging ahead of it and then behind it. If the two objects have largely overlapping orbits with a small relative inclination in their orbital planes then a similar zig-zagging motion will be observed in a side to side direction. People underestimate the complexities of orbital motion between satellites, even satellites that are not actively maneuvering.

Originally posted by easynow
the Gemini transcripts are also enlightening

snip
incident with the Gemini 11 Astronauts.

On September 13, 1966 during their sixteenth revolution, the Gemini 11 astronauts, Charles "Pete" Conrad and Richard Gordon, Jr., sighted an object which they could not identify

FROM THE TRANSCRIPT OF GEMINI-11, TAPE 133., PAGE 1 (SEPTEMBER 13, 1966):

snip
can junk "Zig Zag" in the vacuum of space ?

When Oberg's views are criticized, it has to be kept in mind that he is one of the most knowledgeable people on this forum or any other forum you attend where he voices in about space topics.

But by the same token, his views are not always spot on simply because he has never been in space so he cannot speak with first hand experience and that's where we have him against the wall. Even though he's privvy to information that we're not, our opinions are based on the same videos that the public sees including Oberg. It's our evaluation that matters most to us although without his inside knowledge we may make errors of assumption. But not always.

[edit on 3-10-2009 by Skeptical Ed]

Originally posted by Phage

It looks like Allan Bean was trying to finish the magazine. He first pans from left to right then back to the left.
Here is the first image of the left side of the window. No sign of tampering.

True, no sign of tampering. But in my tampering I noticed that if the left edge is that of a window, there should be visible - after ramping up the image to near uselessness - details inside the window frame and craft wall as I don't think that the window edges were clear of detail.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
You guys will like this one...

"It looks like a snow covered prairie"

"Doesn't that look like a brown to you"

Edit : Pages 132 and 136 are missing from this Apollo 15transcript....





[edit on 3-10-2009 by Exuberant1]

I think the "snow covered prairie" is a reference to the high albedo that in photos is almost blinding.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Here is a neat bunch of stuff I found in that Apollo 8 moon picture I was looking at - It looks like a mining operation:



"Mining it"


[edit on 3-10-2009 by Exuberant1]

"mining operation" is an earthling assumption running rampant.

Originally posted by TrueBrit
I think its all very interesting to note, that much as people are prepared to say , and show compiled evidence for a conspiracy , they dont seem prepared to band together and force the government of the US and Nasa itself to reveal ALL it has ever known about space.
The trial of Gary Mckinnon should point (to those with a keen eye) to secrets being kept , when the fact is that american taxpayers are owed all the collected information in Nasa's databases EVEN those sections which fall under national security protocols. You payed for it , you are owed it. Go get it , and quit wasting time blowing gas !

One big mistake in the assumption that we are owed anything by "our" government. Taxpayers allow themselves to be taxed beyond mondo and there's no storming the bastille. It may be the government of the United States, but it's NOT our government! It is composed of powerful people who own politicians and who direct where the money goes. We may have the best "free governing body" but our money is being wasted left and right. No one can reign in the octopus called Uncle Sam.

Don't assume that we are owed anything since our liberties are shrinking and our rights are being limited.

Originally posted by ngchunter
reply to post by Exuberant1

 

I see nothing about it that would indicate an "unnatural" formation was present.

I've expressed similar sentiments.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Transcripts have lots of guesses at phonetic interprertations of mumbles ....

I wonder if this comment is based on interpreted mumbles....

[edit on 4-10-2009 by Exuberant1]

graet thread. i do believe the apollo crews saw ets on there trips. there is no way nasa lost ANY of the data be it audio or video so they must still have it and probly wont fully release it till they acuire new funding. thats my two cents

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by Luppakorva

 

I agree that's a really odd photo, I have no explanation. And it looks odd whether you check this source:
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Or the NASA site Phage mentioned:
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Just increase the gamma a little and it sure doesn't look like the edge of a window in either photo.

Check out the next photo in the series, it looks even stranger:


www.hq.nasa.gov...

What the?

The dot pattern in the lower left corner means something but I don't know what. Is it end of roll?

[edit on 3-10-2009 by Arbitrageur]

well the dots don t match exactly and it makes no sens at all but this pattern look like of this religious pattern.Just my imagination^^. I think it s just a photo artifact.

upload.wikimedia.org...

[edit on 3-10-2009 by Ray Amuro]

[edit on 3-10-2009 by Ray Amuro]

So NASA lets the people typing out the transcripts just add whatever they want when they can't understand what was said?

Transcript guy: Sir this section here is inaudible
NASA: Oh just add in whatever you want. It's only a history making moment you're dealing with.

reply to post by nightmare_david


Nice one ==

The transcribers use '...' when they don't understand a word or phrase (or if it is a curse word). they also use it when is something they'd rather not identify such as the '...' down in that crater.

Oberg would have us believe they just wing it....

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by nightmare_david

 

Nice one

==

The transcribers use '...' when they don't understand a word or phrase (or if it is a curse word). they also use it when is something they'd rather not identify such as the '...' down in that crater.

Oberg would have us believe they just wing it....

Remember the show FOX aired about the Moon landings being hoaxed?

There was a part where there was two clips shown. One clip had two astronauts in one area doing something. Then another clip of two astronauts who are supposed to be in a completely different area, yet both clips are actually the same exact place. They asked a guy (I believe a NASA guy) what the reason was behind that and he says something along the lines of: "Oh that's just bad editing"

Was that Oberg?

I know it's off-topic but that popped into my head as I was reading this thread earlier. I find it amazing that they can land on the moon, but can't correctly edit a video of a history making moment.

[edit on 4-10-2009 by nightmare_david]