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

What I find so disappointing is that we need so little to dismiss and so much to believe. In fact, even in the face of evidence we continue to look for things to explain away or discharge a notion of truth. Even to the extent of saying someone we do not, or, have never known is lieing. How cruel is our fear.

We are jaded to cynicism and do not believe in ourselves, let alone the evidence of the miraculous.

According to the best scientific thought, nothing can be disproved or proved, measured or described with any accuracy. We have hidden this within our industrialized and corpratized sciences since the 1920's when we found out what is really going on. That did not sell the things of profit however and was hidden deeply in our media education for such.

There is no evidence we can prove anything. So wonder on the wonder of it all. Soon our picture of reality will expand beyond our boundaries of understanding and aliens and moon base evidence will be only a small part of the discovery of how open-ended the world truly is.

Parsing the written words of a few brave and good guys is mostly fruitless and will have limited success in proving anything to anyone. Yet those of us who have seen and heard enough know that likely it is well beyond what we can even believe is true.

The universe is not a dead machine. Extrapolate from that.

ZG

reply to post by ZeroGhost


cherio...... and on that note.....

reply to post by Phage


Thank you for your answer. First of all. No offence but ...come on, if astronaut says he is seeing a boogey, word that pilots use for enemy aircrafts. Now how easily would you report something like that in that situation? I'm pretty sure you wouldn't do so until you would be very sure that what you see is for real.

Also, I can't just imagine anything that they would mix up with the boogie very easily, even so it was the first times they were up there and not experienced with it at all.

Maybe this could be explained but I have not seen any explanation given for it. Please feel free to show me one if there is such thing?

And about the rest of the sightings. I think there was at least one case where it was mentioned that the objects were fast, changed places and did those "impossible" manouvers. I'm going to go trough those all and will let you know if I find any.

And even they didn't do those manouvers, I think that does not mean they still wouldn't be the real case. If you see an alien spaceship going on orbit on steady course, it's still alien spaceship even it doesn't do any impossible manouver right?

reply to post by Luppakorva

A "bogey" is an unidentified aircraft.
An enemy aircraft is called a "bandit".
www.globalsecurity.org...

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Luppakorva

 

A "bogey" is an unidentified aircraft.
An enemy aircraft is called a "bandit".
www.globalsecurity.org...

Ok, sorry about that. English is not my native language and these mistakes happen, but hey I'm trying at least and I'm sure you got the idea anyways, even though I used word enemy instead of word unidentified word over there. That was not the point I was trying to say. Even if it's not enemy aircraft, but unidentified. I think that really doesn't matter anyways now does it?

reply to post by Luppakorva

Well, it does matter.

"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,' which is an old fighter pilot term. Well, a lot of the UFO freaks on the ground picked this up and said we had seen a UFO because we had referred to our booster as a bogey.

www.airspacemag.com...

Okay I'll chime in here one more time just for the sake of clarity and to salvage what's left of my ever dwindling sanity.

Please, let's not throw the liar (or any other pejorative term) word around at each other. We can have differences of opinion. We can be mistaken. We can sometimes post in haste and regret it.

Just because there's a difference of opinion or disagreement in interpretation isn't indicative of someone deliberately spreading falsehoods. We're all on the same side, just a merry band of truth seekers. Let's help each other. (Linking arms and singing Kumbaya)

No one needs to respond to this request in this thread. Just please let's be civil.

Or I'll get intrepid in here.

reply to post by Phage


That's something what he said afterwards many years after the actual sighting. What I find to be strange though, here they state that the bogey is not the booster what they are talking about. So there is bogey and booster, two separate things that they are looking at. Now why do change that statement years later if it actually was nothing at all? It's easy to say nowadays that yeah it was a booster I was talking about but that doesn't mean it's the truth.

Spacecraft: Gemini-7 here. Houston, how do you read?
Capcom: Loud and clear, Seven, go ahead.
Spacecraft: Bogey at 10 o'clock high.
Capcom: This is Houston. Say again, seven.
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.
Capcom: Roger, understand they are about 3 or 4 miles away. Spacecraft: They are passed now -- they were in polar orbit.
Capcom: Roger, understand they are about 3 or 4 miles away. Spacecraft: That's what it appeared like. That's roger.
Capcom: Were these particles in addition to the booster and the bogey at 10 o'clock?
Spacecraft: Roger
Spacecraft (Lovell): I have the booster on MY side, it's a brilliant body in the sun, against a black background with trillions of particles on it. Capcom: Roger. What direction is it from you?
Spacecraft (Lovell): It's about at my 2 o'clock position.
Capcom: Does that mean it's ahead of you? Spacecraft:. It's ahead of us at 2 o'clock, slowly tumbling.

reply to post by Luppakorva

Yes, the transcript says they had debris and the booster in sight. If the "bogey" was not the booster it was one of the "several" pieces of debris. There is no indication that it was a UFO. Borman's statement about the incident makes that clear.




[edit on 10/7/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


Agreed, since looking really into this with your help it's high possibility it is the debris he's referring as bogey. Impossible to say without further information about it so I really can't claim it to be actual alien spacecraft sighting with this information, that would need to ignore the facts and that's something I'm not going to do.

But what he said booster was the bogey when he was asked about that comment, which clearly is not the case. That was my point.

[edit on 7-10-2009 by Luppakorva]

another anomaly close to Chaplygin crater

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ff0e70c2a0a7.png[/atsimg]

www.lpi.usra.edu...



[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1f96daa48637.jpg[/atsimg]

files.abovetopsecret.com...





[edit on 7-10-2009 by easynow]

reply to post by easynow


I have been sitting quite and enjoying your thread thoroughly.

well done and WOW the contributions are second to none.

About that anomaly on the page I would air brush it or change your avatar altogether ....

Ocker



[edit on 7/10/2009 by ocker]

reply to post by ocker


thanks , yes great contributions

ok i changed the pic even though i almost fell out of my chair from laughing so hard




[edit on 7-10-2009 by easynow]

Russian documentary shows some great shots of the Moon. there's a couple strange looking anomalys shown in the video.

reply to post by Phage


so it matters even if the storyline keeps changing? on the basis of which credibility..... ah..... the agenda?









www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by easynow


Hi found this interesting hope it hasn't been posted yet

reply to post by easynow


It is a good one. Thanks. About those moon towers which are seen in this video as well, I have heard they have been debunked but have they been debunked for real?

reply to post by ocker

If you look at the high resolution scan of that image you'll see that it is a photographic artifact. There are many more similar to it.
astrogeology.usgs.gov...



[edit on 10/8/2009 by Phage]

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ocker

 

If you look at the high resolution scan of that image you'll see that it is a photographic artifact. There are many more similar to it.
astrogeology.usgs.gov...



[edit on 10/8/2009 by Phage]

Hi
Had a good look at the hi res thanks for link

An anomaly of some kind appears to be there on inspection. Photographic artifacts are anomalous images in photos caused by poor camera work, faulty camera design or improper developing,also
if there is a effect of overexposure, also artifacts form from too much JPEG compression and this does not seem the case.

Thanks

reply to post by ocker

So you think all the similar looking thingies to the left of the one in the video are objects on the surface as well? They look a lot like flaws in the image to me.

How familiar are you with the way the Lunar Orbiter photographs were obtained?