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

reply to post by ArMaP

Yes, snow=water, but "looks like snow" is not the same as snow, right?

if it looks like a duck.... is it a duck ?

And yes, Exuberant1 is the only person that is still on topic, and doing a great job!

yes he is doing a great job extracting these bizzare statements from the transcripts the Astronauts made during their flight to and from the Moon and while in orbit. i disagree with you that he is the only one on topic , sorry

if the Astronauts were discussing something they seen on the Moon or in space then there is nothing wrong with posting pictures of the Moon as it's all relative. also my post about the Gemini missions is completely relative to the topic because it's about the NASA space program and strange things observed and discussed by the crews.

if it's about NASA space missions , ufo's in NASA pictures , or the Moon , then it's on topic.







[edit on 4-10-2009 by easynow]

Originally posted by easynow
if it's about NASA space missions , ufo's in NASA pictures , or the Moon , then it's on topic.

Hey easynow... haven't you figured out yet that as soon as you try to inter-relate things the skeptics cry 'stay on topic' but when the skeptics stray off topic with deliberate misdirection from the point its okay ?



They know that if the silent watchers were to get a look at the bigger picture... they would truly understand there is something afoot So it's imperative for the skeptics to keep hacking at one point and if that fails find a way to distract the audience. And when that fails, all but a few resort to character attacks

Skylab 3 UFO incident 1973





[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0345c6e2a1e9.jpg[/atsimg]

astronauts Alan Bean, Owen Garriott and Jack Lousma spotted what they described as a red "satellite", which they photographed and mentioned during a subsequent debriefing:

LOUSMA: "Did you tell him about that satellite we saw?
BEAN: Yes, we saw a great satellite. We didn't know if we told you about it.
LOUSMA: The closest and brightest one we've seen.
BEAN: Huge one.


there was no man-made satellite that could explain this sighting and hence the object was truly anomalous.

www.dailygrail.com...

Garriott said later that the object did not lead the Skylab into sunset, but rather followed the Skylab into sunset.


the research was exploring different possibilities of why the object appeared the way it did in the sequence of photographs and one hypothesis was the UFO could have made an advancement toward Skylab during the ten minute encounter...

whereas previously it was assumed that the object maintained a roughly fixed, large distance during the time of the first three photos and then it suddenly made an "un-satellite-like" rapid motion toward the Skylab


conclusion...
based on the available information, these authors conclude that there was no man-made satellite that could explain this sighting and hence the object was truly anomalous. Further data are being sought.

www.brumac.8k.com...

LOUSMA: I saw a couple of satellites that appeared like a satellite would on earth.

I saw one that was not like one you would see on earth,

in the report done by Macabee about this case i am finding that Astronaut Garriott said this...

It's all debriefed in terms of time on channel A, so the precise timing and location can be picked up from there."


and then Oberg says this...

according to Oberg the Channel A tape recorder was not on, so the exact time cannot be determined.

both those statements cannot be true

one of them has to be either mistaken or lying .....wich one do you think it is ?




Astronaut Owen Garriott

www.jsc.nasa.gov...
en.wikipedia.org...

Astronaut Owen Garriott Performs EVA During Skylab 3

[edit on 4-10-2009 by easynow]

[edit on 4-10-2009 by easynow]

reply to post by zorgon


yes sir , i do know exactly what your saying. it's kinda obvious... i wish more people would wake up and take notice of it. it's already happened twice in this thread.

anyone that has looked at or investigated the many un-answered questions about NASA realizes we are far from the truth. it's easy to see for some people , others it takes a little more time i guess

always good to hear from you Zorgon , thanks

Originally posted by easynow
in the report done by Macabee about this case i am finding that Astronaut Garriott said this...

It's all debriefed in terms of time on channel A, so the precise timing and location can be picked up from there."


and then Oberg says this...

according to Oberg the Channel A tape recorder was not on, so the exact time cannot be determined.

both those statements cannot be true

one of them has to be either mistaken or lying .....which one do you think it is ?

Very nice

Can't wait to hear the explanation of this one

Originally posted by easynow
one of them has to be either mistaken or lying .....wich one do you think it is ?

I've got my notes from recent conversations with Garriott, Bean, and Lousma on this silly website claim. I'll be writing up an article at some point but, frankly, it's not all that important to me. They saw a point-like bright object moving like an orbiting satellite, brighter than usual (but then, in any collection of satellite sightings, there's always going to be one that's brightest). Garriott took four hand-held photographs. One of them shows a squiggle, the others show dots. The expert presumption is the squiggle was an exposure mis-setting or shutter hang-up issue [both have occurred at other times]. Don't let me stop you from believing in miles-wide alien spaceships that would have been starkly visible from the Earth beneath -- but nobody ever reported seeing.

.

Originally posted by ngchunter
I'm just telling you the facts of how orbital mechanics work.

Out of plane relative motion of a satellite and another object departing it, performs a periodic return to point of origin if not disturbed by exterior forces.


The US Space command published a book, Space Power Theory, in 1999, that had a special section on 'orbitology', which I have linked to in pdf form from my own home page, here:
Page 10
www.jamesoberg.com...


Page 10 has the chart of the zig-zagging motion that occurs naturally.

It's been useful to discover so clearly that people who claim to detect 'non-natural' motions of dots on shuttle videos have, in at least one present case, no real clue as to what 'natural' motion in space looks like. This explains a lot about their adherence to the 'un-natural' and 'non-prosaic' hypothesis.

Re the pressurized tanks in the discarded spacewalk gear -- their only possible significance is in contributing to the size and direction of the original departure vector, which is not known to any useful degree.


[edit on 4-10-2009 by JimOberg]

reply to post by JimOberg


i'm well aware that the picture could be an overexposed shot. you saying it is.... doesn't make it true.



maybe i posted this particular picture for a reason ?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0345c6e2a1e9.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by JimOberg

I have linked to in pdf form from my own home page

is that a joke ?


i wouldn't trust anything on that website.

here's one reason why...

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Raybo58

Originally posted by JimOberg
There's no zoom -- no focus adjustment -- going on. The changes in appearance are due to automatic gain control self-adjustment of detector sensitivity, which in low light conditions plays havoc with the image.

Seems like most of the activity moved over to the motion study thread. Just checked back here randomly.

But Jim, there most certainly is zoom occurring in the Stubbs video...

I stand corrected. Somehow I generalized the lack of focus control with no commanded zoom -- it certainly exists here, it's a standard capability, and my statement was wrong. Oops.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There's already a thread on Skylab squiggle -- let's bring this stuff over there. Why did you start it here anyway?

reply to post by ngchunter


Many thanks, looks like it is as you say indeed.

Originally posted by easynow
i wouldn't trust anything on that website.

Why, do you think Jim would fake the book?

After all, you can get the same information from other site, like this one, that has the whole book.

See, they even have the cover.

Apollo 14

"This is really a 2001 epic - it's unreal"

"A wild view" "A hell of a view"

[edit on 5-10-2009 by Exuberant1]

Apollo 14

"Well, I think it's got a reddish tint to it out the window.Sort of like, you know, the Southwest desert."

"And there really a lot more colour differences that I didn't expect"

"...the bench that looked like a quarry"

[edit on 5-10-2009 by Exuberant1]

The 'boulders' of Apollo 10 - Astronauts onboard LM enjoy the 'boulders'



"Hey - there are some huge boulders"

"Look at those bastards down in that crater"

"Oh, you bet your ass there's some huge boulders down there"

"Tremendous boulders" "Man, there are, Tom."

"Let me look at it. Let me look at that - let me look at this one here."


These boulders get the astronauts excited. I have reason to believe boulders may also be a code word for other things.

There is a point in one of these transcripts where they think they are catching one moving. Neat.


Edit: Zorgon, The astronauts talk about Tsiolkovsky crater alot. They know


[edit on 5-10-2009 by Exuberant1]

Apollo 10 LM - Unexpected Black boulders.

These black boulders are indicative of more recent volcanic activity. The moon is still geologically active. There are recent volcanisms spotted throughout the Apollo transcripts.

Speaking of volcanisms - Check this part out:


"Volcanic as the dickens"

"Yes. There are a lot of - a lot of things got to be volcanic, babe"

If it the moon is dead - it just died recently. Quite recently.

[edit on 5-10-2009 by Exuberant1]

I wish John Lear was here.

I'd really like to hear his take on this.

Darn


Edit: I'm off to find John Lear.



[edit on 5-10-2009 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by Exuberant1


If I understood it correctly John Lear was banned or left after argument about something with site admins? I remember watching a video from youtube or google video where he said something like that happened?

reply to post by Luppakorva


What do you think of the colour differences on the moon?

They have green and brown reddish brown and even gray - And how about that snow?

Snow on the moon, mind you....

reply to post by easynow


Hey Easy,

Snow will eventually turn to water, and you might just be left with a 'greenish layer' - like here at King Crater:

[edit on 5-10-2009 by Exuberant1]

Apollo 10 LM - More evidence of volcanisms and "it almost looks like this is a painting"...


"It tossed boulders right out of the stuff"

"Tossed boulders right out of the son of a gun"

"You know, it almost looks like this is a painting.Someone took a painting of something"

(hey Zorgon, remember those Langley images? )











Wow, now that I've posted all these transcripts portions of the astronauts saying how the moon looks unreal, looks like a painting and looks plaster-of-paris,and where the astronauts all agree they feel like they are in a simulator etc... Well, those excerpts are gonna go great with the bunch of Langley images you've got on the site. =



[edit on 5-10-2009 by Exuberant1]