Apollo 12's Covert EVA , Are E.T.'s the reason for the Secrecy ?

Originally posted by JamesBondLovesLucy
The Apollo moon landings were faked in the western deserts, likely Arizona.

Welcome to ATS.

ATS is a conspiracy site so you've definitely come to the right site to discuss the faked moon landing theories, but not quite the right thread, as the premise of this thread is that the moon landing did happen but there was a secret mission, a different topic than the hoax topic.

So you have a couple of options, do a search for "moon landing hoax" and contribute to an existing thread on the subject (there are lots to choose from), or if you have something extremely unique to share you could start a new thread with your unique information on the moon landing hoax, but it seems off-topic in this thread to say the landing was hoaxed completely, though that would be on-topic in another thread. Thanks.

reply to post by LunaCognita


wow is right !

thanks LunaCognita for that brilliant post and for all the information you have brought into the light with your investigation of this secret that NASA has been hiding all this time. the evidence is in plain sight but at the same time it's not because all this information is scattered in different places and as we both know , that is the way they want it. because the data is not in one place , it makes it much harder to put the pieces of the puzzle together so your absolutely correct, that's how the game is played.


i'm surprised nobody has commented on the Yankee Clipper "live" audio recording that has been without a doubt..... edited.

This Apollo 12 Mp3 audio clip is “supposed” to be a recording of a continuous live transmission, starting at MET 110:58:04, and is 45 minutes and 51 seconds in duration. If you fast-forward to 12 minutes you will hear Public Affairs Officer (PAO) say "the crew of intrepid are rather quiet at this time"

Same Apollo 12 Audio clip on ATS Media Player


And at 13:18, the PAO mentions that it is “some 29 minutes until Yankee Clipper comes over the hill again” (Yankee Clipper is the Apollo 12 CSM that is in orbit above the Moon while Astronauts Conrad and Bean were down on the surface in the LM Intrepid). The PAO then ends by saying how “Apollo Control are standing by on LIVE air-ground”, confirming that the audio is a live transmission.

Here is where it gets interesting. There is more dead air until three minutes later, when at 16 minutes 15 seconds on the MP3, you hear a weird audio tone - or set of tones actually- that sound briefly then fade off, followed by the PAO announcer coming back on the air and repeating his exact same statement that he supposedly said live three minutes earlier. The PAO is not repeating it live, but rather it is the EXACT same Public Affairs Officer statement recorded and spliced back in! This spliced tape PAO dialogue even mentions that there is “some 29 minutes until Yankee Clipper comes over the hill”, and that “Apollo Control are standing by on LIVE air-ground” again!

easynowsmoonblog.blogspot.com...



[edit on 6-11-2009 by easynow]

Does that "time slip" also happens in the Technical Air-to-ground Voice Transcription?

In other occasions that was the most complete transcription.

reply to post by ArMaP


you don't remember this post ?



the Secret EVA is not in the transcripts and as far as the discussion about repress , i think because they asked for a consumable update not long after the EVA, they did repress. i could be wrong of course

[edit on 8-11-2009 by easynow]

Originally posted by easynow
you don't remember this post ?

No, that would be asking too much of my memory.

From what I have seen of that transcription, they aren't "time slips" bigger than 6 or 7 minutes, but I didn't read it with enough attention (I am doing three things at the same time, as usual )).

Hi ArMaP

If you check the Apollo 12 TEC transcript - www.jsc.nasa.gov...
if you go to pages 363 and 364 (of the PDF) you will see the “dead air” period where there is no conversation with Intrepid for nearly 19 minutes - between 04:15:39:57 and 04:15:58:47 - so it is clearly demonstrated there as well. All the transcript documents show the dead air blackout, and more importantly, the actual mission audio files for this period also record the full dead-air period I am referencing here.

Here is that audio clip in question - www.hq.nasa.gov...
This is a 45 minute and 10 second audio clip (MP3) from Apollo 12, and it starts right at MET 111:39:21. You hear about 38 seconds of conversation between CapCom Jerry Carr and astronaut Pete Conrad, followed by NEARLY 19 MINUTES OF ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL from Intrepid! This is when they were covertly conducting their Standup-EVA over the encrypted radio link. Note also that when communications returns after nearly 19 minutes, Mission Control immediately mentions how happy the geologists are in the back room, and then the astronauts finally begin properly describing their landing location to Houston and the world for the first time over the public channel, having just seen an elevated 360-degree view of the surrounding lurain during the covert S-EVA they had just conducted.

Cheers,
LunaCognita

Originally posted by LunaCognita
If you check the Apollo 12 TEC transcript - www.jsc.nasa.gov...
if you go to pages 363 and 364 (of the PDF) you will see the “dead air” period where there is no conversation with Intrepid for nearly 19 minutes - between 04:15:39:57 and 04:15:58:47 - so it is clearly demonstrated there as well.

Thanks for the information, but the transcription I have is not like that, it stops at 04:15:39:57 but it starts again at 04:15:44:01, then it continues more or less normal and stops at 04:15:50:09 and restarts at 04:15:58:43.

reply to post by ArMaP


Hi ArMaP,
That conversation you show in the transcript that is occurring during that timeframe is between Houston CapCom and "Yankee Clipper" - which is the Apollo CSM on-orbit above the Moon. There is NO conversation between Mission Control and "Intrepid" though during that period (with "Intrepid" being the Apollo 12 LM down on the surface at Statio Cognitium where Conrad and Bean are).

So again, there is NO conversation between the LM and Houston during the nearly 19-minute period I outlined.

Cheers,
LunaCognita

reply to post by LunaCognita


OK, that makes sense, thanks for the explanation!

great stuff guys..... thanks so much........

looking forward to the video...

Uh, this may be a stupid question, but has anybody actually ASKED the author of this original report where she got the source materials, or alternately, what she was smoking the day she (and her editor) created those sections?

@Oberg

haha yea she must have been high on something ....that explains it


nice try but the document is clearly worded and the dust issue for Apollo 12 was a real problem.

Originally posted by easynow
@Oberg

haha yea she must have been high on something ....that explains it

nice try but the document is clearly worded and the dust issue for Apollo 12 was a real problem.

Always a quick excuse to close off threatening avenues of original investigation. Keep them eyes closed and imaginations open -- that's the sure way to figure out the world. Look how well it's served you so far.



[edit on 9-11-2009 by JimOberg]

reply to post by JimOberg


my eyes are wide open and i see NASA is a big bag of lies and deception


for starters here's a good example...

Originally posted by JimOberg
Uh, this may be a stupid question, but has anybody actually ASKED the author of this original report where she got the source materials, or alternately, what she was smoking the day she (and her editor) created those sections?

I didn't ask her what she was smoking, but I just e-mailed her to ask what the source document was. I'm curious to see what she'll say if I get a response at all.

I've noticed that people that distrust NASA seem to pick and choose what parts of NASA's story to believe.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

I didn't ask her what she was smoking, but I just e-mailed her to ask what the source document was. I'm curious to see what she'll say if I get a response at all.

hey thanks for emailing her and if you get a response it will be interesting to see how they back peddle and deny it

I've noticed that people that distrust NASA seem to pick and choose what parts of NASA's story to believe.

is there any other way to do it ?

reply to post by easynow
I'm not expecting her to admit that the source document she used had a security classification 38 levels Above Top Secret and 20 levels above the president's security clearance because it involved communicating with the aliens on the moon.

But if she replies at all, or tells me what the source document is, I'll say something about it here.

No response after 1 day but I'm not sure how the NASA spam filters are setup, maybe I shouldn't have used my yahoo e-mail account to e-mail her. Actually I didn't even bother to verify if she's still at NASA, but 2006 isn't that long ago so I figured there's a good chance she is. I may have to try again from another e-mail account if I get no reply after a few more days.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by JimOberg
Uh, this may be a stupid question, but has anybody actually ASKED the author of this original report where she got the source materials, or alternately, what she was smoking the day she (and her editor) created those sections?

I didn't ask her what she was smoking, but I just e-mailed her to ask what the source document was. I'm curious to see what she'll say if I get a response at all.

I've noticed that people that distrust NASA seem to pick and choose what parts of NASA's story to believe.

n how come its not presumed the rest of the times when they are publicizing whatever.... they are not stoned n such.... only when a crucial leakage has been pointed out.... now that's 'scientifically' tactical....

nasa is in such a mess..... i bet ol' billy is more credulous....

reply to post by mcrom901

If I say "She let the cat out of the bag" that's an expression which is not meant to infer anything about a cat nor a bag, it just means she said something she shouldn't have. Likewise my usage (as well as many of my peers) of the expression "what was he smoking" doesn't refer to a cat, bag, or smoking material, but it's rather an expression that an error in fact or judgment was made of a type that admittedly could be made while smoking something, but when I say that I rarely ever really mean I thought the person was really smoking anything.

People at NASA aren't superhumans, they are different people like you and me, and like you and me they can make mistakes sometimes. So the question is, if it was a mistake, (implied by the smoking question) what kind of mistake was it? Was it accidentally using a classified document source material in an unclassified document, or what it some confusion between Apollo 12 and Apollo 15 which did have a standup EVA, or was it something else?
---------------------------------------

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by JimOberg

 

my eyes are wide open and i see NASA is a big bag of lies and deception

for starters here's a good example...

NASA has admitted to "manipulating" scanned photographs in settings such as brightness, contrast (probably color adjustments too) like many people and organizations tweak photo settings before publishing them.

If they've admitted they adjusted some of the brightness, contrast or color settings, and they actually have, I don't see how this proves lies and deception.

Moreover, while Escamilla's contention that atmospheric dispersion can affect images as shown in his hazy scene of a valley, he also seems to be comparing video camera images with photographs, which is not an apples to apples comparison, as the technologies for those two different photographic methods were quite different at the time of the Apollo missions (the technologies have both converged now to CCD). So it shouldn't be too surprising if an image made with a video camera doesn't have the same color balance, sharpness and clarity as an image made with a Hasselblad still camera.

The famous UFO Photo AS12-49-7319
easynowsmoonblog.blogspot.com...

[edit on 5-11-2009 by easynow]

First of all, great post. But if I look at these pictures, I can see the crosshairs at the moon surface in the photos, even on the astronaut, but not in the sky behind.. Not in the supposed light behind and above the astronaut. Could this therefore be a false horizon? Or am I wrong in this.
Just a thought that came to my mind.

[edit on 10-11-2009 by sossa77]