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

Originally posted by easynow
if it looks like a duck.... is it a duck ?

It depends on the "looks like", what people consider "looks like" is not a measurable thing, so someone can consider that a sawn or a goose looks like a duck while other people consider that it does not.

There was mention of Dikes, triangular roads, and volacanic activity on the moon... the MOON. Yet, we are told that there is nothing to see? I for one would love to see the massive black boulders in the crater. I also would like to see the roads and dikes mentioned by the astronaunts. Not to mention the "snow", be it albedo or otherwise.

Something is going on up there and we are not being told nor can we see the photos. If nothing is being hidden, can someone explain what the hell I just read? Are the astronaunts hallucinating?

This is simply too important to get lost in a bunch of side arguments. Staying on topic is imperative.

^^ couldn't agree more, I'd like to see the boulders and stuff too, don't mind if we can't agree on what they are but interesting photos are always worth viewing !

Originally posted by IconoclasticTalamasca

Something is going on up there and we are not being told nor can we see the photos. If nothing is being hidden, can someone explain what the hell I just read? Are the astronaunts hallucinating?

Please study some field geology and get familiar with the terminology, before embarrassing yourself further.

Does anyone know if there is an index of the photos taken during the Apollo missions but indexed by time?

If such index exists then it would be easier to look for the photos that sometimes are referenced in these transcriptions.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by IconoclasticTalamasca

Something is going on up there and we are not being told nor can we see the photos. If nothing is being hidden, can someone explain what the hell I just read? Are the astronaunts hallucinating?

Please study some field geology and get familiar with the terminology, before embarrassing yourself further.

I strongly suggest you lose the attitude and stay on topic with me. Making such comments without offering anything in relation to your callous statement is by far a bigger embarrassment than my supposed "ignorance".

Again, the astronuants mention boulders INSIDE craters, vocanic activity, and dikes. Even if they are speaking in code, there is clearly something there that we have not seen.

Ever seen any of the bluish-green phenomena they are talking about on the moon? How about the vent tubes? Please point to the official photos released showing the triangular roads. How about the reddish colors that are mentioned?

That is what they said they saw. I want to see them as well as make my own judgment calls. Are they lying? I want to make the determination.

I am simply digging deeper and asking questions. You seem to have an inherent issue with that. Where is the embarrasment in asking for photos? I made the albedo reference because someone mentioned that it could possibly be the reason for the snow like appearance. If that is inaccurate, I want to see the photos that my tax dollars are paying for.

Edit: I apologize for calling you an idiot. I tend not to deal in personal attacks. However, the comment itself was idiotic. period.




[edit on 10/5/09 by IconoclasticTalamasca]

[edit on 10/5/09 by IconoclasticTalamasca]

Originally posted by IconoclasticTalamasca
I strongly suggest you lose the attitude and stay on topic with me. Making such comments without offering anything in relation to your callous statement is by far a bigger embarrassment than my supposed "ignorance".

My advice was offered constructively.

Accept it or not -- all the same to me.

More: visit the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal project website to see astronaut commentaries on lunar geology notated and explained in detail.

Originally posted by ArMaP
Does anyone know if there is an index of the photos taken during the Apollo missions but indexed by time?

If such index exists then it would be easier to look for the photos that sometimes are referenced in these transcriptions.

The Apollo Lunar Surface Journal project has a lot of information along these lines -- I highly recommend it.

reply to post by JimOberg

The problem is that only applies to when they were on the Moon itself, not in orbit, and the "Apollo Flight Journal" project does not have the photos listed at the times they were taken, at least I couldn't find it.

Also, these transcript do not appear on the conversations that are published on both projects.

reply to post by Exuberant1


I think that when they are talking about snow they refer to whiteness of the moon, that it's blinding white in sunlight like it would be snow.

But those red colors and so on ...well they say there's pretty much nothing than gray, black and white colors in the moon right? ..That doesn't sound like it at all. Still though, I'm waiting for smoking gun out from these conversations. Haven't heard one yet since lots of those comments can be explained quite easily. Don't get me wrong here, I don't believe into official story at all, there's something hidden behind of it and I have just really started to find out what that is

Funny thing, about that greenish moon.

This sure looks like greenish to me. I'm not saying it means anything, but it just looks greenish .

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by easynow
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 ?

When an object in orbit departs from a point of origin in a direction more-or-less perpendiclar to the original object's direction, it moves away at first but then curves back and returns to the area of origin. Over a period of several orbits it passes back and forth -- it zig-zags -- across that area.

That's why departing objects of any kind need to be observed for their motion in case there's a chance of recontact. This has always been true on space missions and is still true to this day.

The flight path looks like a zig-zag.

I'm a little late on that issue, but Jim Oberg it is the right when described the bolded statement, about objects moving out and then returning back along the orbital path.

Here is an experiment i've done:

I used "Gravity" (www.uranisoft.com... ), a software which simulate the motion of a number of objects influenced by their own gravity.
It already has in it's database, the Earth, the moon and other objects.

What i've done, was to use 4 objects:

*Earth
*Shuttle - an object at about 300 km altitude, having a speed 8000 m/sec
*debris1 - a small object suddenly (at moment T) going out from the shuttle perpendicular, toward the Earth, so going down if you want, going away from the shuttle with just a relative speed of 0.1 m/s
*debris2 - another small object suddenly (at the same moment T) going out from the shuttle perpendicular, AWAY from Earth, so going up if you want, going away from the shuttle with just a relative speed of 0.1 m/s

Then i recorded the entire motion, during two revolutions around the Earth.
The animation below shows only shuttle, debris1 and debris2 objects, the Earth is too big and further away to fit on screen.

Also, the entire motion is stick to the shuttle, so the shuttle appears on the center as static. This way, we have the shuttle as reference point, and we will see only the relative motion of the objects in orbit.

The green lines, are the vectors of gravity force of the Earth. So, the green line, points to the center of the Earth.

The red lines are vectors of speed, showing the direction (and size) of the speed relative to the Earth (about 8000 m/s with variations due to motion in orbit).

The zoom factor is 1, meaning one pixel on the screen represent 1 meter.
Again, the animation shows only two revolutions around the Earth.

And here is the animation:



link: files.abovetopsecret.com...

As you see, indeed, the two objects are going away and before respectively after the shuttle for some time for half an orbit or so, then, they go back to the shuttle.

Indeed, motion in orbit could fool us, the novices.

Of course, in reality, there are other forces which could affect the motion, for example atmospheric drag which could influence differently different objects.


now, back on those transcripts.






[edit on 5/10/09 by depthoffield]

Of course, in reality, there are other forces which could affect the motion, for example atmospheric drag which could influence differently different objects.

yes especially pressurized tanks like Obergy is claiming

Originally posted by easynow
yes especially pressurized tanks like Obergy is claiming

My debris objects in example, have a relative initial speed of 0.1 m/s, and therefore, during about 90 minutes of one orbit, one should expect to be a few hundred of meters away, but they go just only a few meters away near the shuttle as can be seen (and measured in the software)...strange indeed to mislead our first impressions.



[edit on 5/10/09 by depthoffield]

Originally posted by depthoffield
Here is an experiment i've done:

Excellent work as always DepthOfField!

It's nice to see someone actually research this in contrast to hearing claims about what orbital motions are or are not possible or normal, from people that haven't researched it like you have!

I must admit I haven't researched it much myself but I'm going to look into it now that I know about that program you mentioned, it looks like an interesting tool.

Please keep shining the light of truth onto the darkness of ignorance!

amazing !

skeptibunkers that have never seen a ufo and have zero knowledge about them up in here debunking things they have no clue about.

it's all just space junk

uh huh

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Apollo 14

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

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

thanks again Exuberant1 , nice find !

there are some really weird things near Chaplygin crater and i have no doubts they saw something strange in that area. the reference to 2001 say's alot wouldn't you agree ?

this anomaly is very close to Chaplygin crater




www.lpi.usra.edu...

history.nasa.gov...
















[edit on 5-10-2009 by easynow]

reply to post by depthoffield


Thank you from this, nice to see someone puts effort into it to show the facts.

reply to post by easynow


Interesting find, thank you for showing this .

That thing has to be flying though. If you check it closely you can see through near the edges of that object. So, could be flying, something in the lense, glare or so ..but I don't think it's on the ground since you can really see the ground behind from the edges.

Ok, since we are going into the pictures as well.. I wanted to take another view looking into this and think outside of the box as I so often have to do in this life. ..So..

Here's the LRO pic from the Apollo 12 landing site (which by the way explains the word Bench used in those DUMP tapes):

www.universetoday.com...

Sorry from the link to universetoday, Googled it and I know it's on NASA's page as well and I think no one will deny this one's authenticity that it's not from NASA.

So, here we have a "proof" which NASA wants to show that they have been there, walked around, left some instruments, descent stage and so on. But what makes me wonder are these paths what they say they left.

I have understood they were jumping, taking quite a big leaps compared to the ones we are taking here on earth when we are walking and here we are with quite a big path which can be seen from space? Now am I the only one who's wondering how's that possible or did they really do bunny jumping back and forth just for fun to make some visible paths to be seen?

Also, If you take a look at this landing site from NASA pictures when the astronauts have been there. I took a fast look and Surveyor 3 seems to be in position where you can't see LM, yet from the pictures you can easily see it. Here's the link for one of those:

www.daviddarling.info...

Now maybe I'm completely wrong with that but still, it seems that lunar module couldn't be seen from this position. Please let me know your opinions, much appreciated .


PS Sorry about my mistakes after a few pints, English is far from my native language