Buzz Aldrin says there are no Aliens!

reply to post by pieman


Everyone has their price if they have no self respect...

If I felt strongly about something I would never give in to pieces of paper or a pixel on a screen!

Buzz Aldrin is lying when he states "Alien's do not Exist and have not visited Earth." I would advise you to watch the 3 minuete interview between ali g and buzz aldrin on you tube. When ali G asks "So, when you went to the moon where the people friendly to you etc" Notice Buzz aldrins body language and left hand movement, he has to think about what he says on camera. Ali G later tells a joke to him later about the moon hotels being full and as soon as he mentions that Buzz aldrin breaths in and moves back and sits back with a smug smile.

This is because Ali G is to close to the truth and he is just making fun of it as if it is not real when really it is not. maybe Ali G knows about the theory and was testing him under the disgise of comedy. i think so.

Originally posted by hikix
reply to post by Tussilago

 

Yeah do a search on Buzz.. he's recently been saying alot of crazy things. Now, hes saying it's all just in good fun in the name of science fiction?? Alot of people were taking what he was saying literally because he was a former astronaut! Its really disappointing.

What he said back then should be taken seriously, what he is saying now is weird and it doesn't make sense. Either he got threatened or he is being mind controllored or something but this isn't normal.

Iv heard him say it on the radio (that he knew aliens existed anvisiting earth) and I heard from his voice that he was glad to be spilling the beans. This doesn't make sense at all.

Has it ever crossed anybody's mind that he might have been forced to say this? I mean, here one of the most famous astronauts said ET's exist. Sheeple don't know what to think because the gov't is saying one thing and a popular astronaut is saying another, so TPTB would have to step in. The MIB can't kill him because that would cause a stir, but they CAN threaten him with "cancer" or "suicide" to his wife and/or kids.

Just a thought...

Originally posted by colloredbrothers
Iv heard him say it on the radio (that he knew aliens existed anvisiting earth) and I heard from his voice that he was glad to be spilling the beans. This doesn't make sense at all.

And what happened next? All records of his comments vanished from archives, the internet, and the memories of all other witnesses except yours. Wow, that sure makes you important!

The serious point -- if what YOU say is true, those comments would be accessible somewhere on the internet and you could locate them and direct us to them. Please try to do that.

reply to post by JimOberg

The 'debunker' report is not opinion-based reporting, it is research-based reporting.

since debunker.com has reported false information to the ufo community for over 30 years, i'd say there wasn't any research involved at all.







reply to post by Antor


thanks bro, i appreciate that




reply to post by spacevisitor

It’s said in this interview by Edward Leverne Moragne, Ph.D.

thanks spacevisitor and yes that is a interesting interview and quote, thanks.

DO YOU KNOW IF ANY U. S. ASTRONAUTS SAW DISCS OR UFO CRAFT ON THE MOON?

I know astronauts have seen UFOs, but they don't want to talk about that because people will say they are kooks.

WHAT HAS BEEN DESCRIBED TO YOU?

Huge circular craft, but they aren't going to talk about it.

WHY IS THE UFO/E.T. TRUTH SO SUPPRESSED. WHY SHOULDN'T EVERYONE KNOW ABOUT IT?

All you do is get up a hot steam in Washington when you try to discuss it.

it's a secret and they don't want to talk about it in Washington D.C. because the military industrial complex has been studying these craft for decades. this may be part of the reason why Buzz Aldrin wants everyone to believe ET has never visited Earth. it's called counter intelligence (cointelpro)







here's what Apollo 14 Astronaut Edgar Mitchel has said many times...

"we have been visited on this planet ! "

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by JimOberg

 

The 'debunker' report is not opinion-based reporting, it is research-based reporting.

since debunker.com has reported false information to the ufo community for over 30 years, i'd say there wasn't any research involved at all.

cheers buddy

the following two reports also do not have any basis in reality....

The crew did indeed report to earth about another tiny object they watched through their monocular. To some of the astronauts, it looked cylindrical, just like their spent rocket stage which was known to be pacing them in a parallel orbit. Said Armstrong, "It was right at the limit of resolution of the eye; it was very difficult to tell just what shape it was." NASA's reasonable assumption was that it was indeed the rocket stage, since it was behaving just like a rocket stage should; other Apollo flights had reported much the same thing.

The Apollo-11 UFO Incidents
by James Oberg
Excerpt from UFOs and Outer Space Mysteries
www.debunker.com...

based on the info available in the public domain, the crew had never reported any sighting to mission control....

Mission Control: 'Apollo 11, Houston. The S-IVB is about 6,000 nautical miles from you now, over.'

Buzz: 'We really didn't think we were looking at something that far away.'

www.youtube.com...

July 16, 1969-Apollo 11: This was a mission on which a UFO reportedly chased the spacecraft. "Reportedly, " indeed, but not very accurate. Actually, several UFO stories have attached themselves barnacle-like to man's first moon landing. A photo of an insulation fragment taken soon after third-stage separation has been widely published as a "UFO." The astronauts watched their booster through a telescope on the way to the moon. A series of "UFO photos" allegedly taken by astronaut Aldrin in lunar orbit are actually forgeries by a Japanese UFO magazine. An alleged "astronaut radio conversation " describing a UFO ambush is a hoax.

Astronaut "UFO" Sightings
James Oberg
www.debunker.com...

reply to post by mcrom901

The crew did indeed report to earth about another tiny object they watched through their monocular. To some of the astronauts, it looked cylindrical, just like their spent rocket stage which was known to be pacing them in a parallel orbit. Said Armstrong, "It was right at the limit of resolution of the eye; it was very difficult to tell just what shape it was." NASA's reasonable assumption was that it was indeed the rocket stage

report to Earth ? what ? LOL

does anyone really think by using a small 10x (monocular) or 28x (sextant) scope like they had on board they could resolve ANY detail of an SIV-B stage from nearly 7000 miles range ?

the following two reports also do not have any basis in reality

indeed , they don't






Apollo 11 UFO ?
NASA's Lewis Space Center Archives frame # C-1989-4028

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8cf2d38b5ab1.jpg[/atsimg]

www.abovetopsecret.com...

maybe it's the SIV-B panel ?

[edit on 18-4-2010 by easynow]

reply to post by letthereaderunderstand


Have you seen this clip:

www.youtube.com...

Totally disregard the audio though. But the footage itself is interesting to say the least.

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by mcrom901

 

report to Earth ? what ? LOL

hmmmm....... electromagnetic effects?

059:50:16 Duke: Roger. Thank you, Mike. Could you give us some help? This PTC is strange: it's not like anything we've seen before and we were wondering if y'all have had any vents or any odd data that could help us out. Over.

059:50:35 Collins: I didn't understand that. Say again.

059:50:38 Duke: Roger. We're looking at a - sort of a funny looking PTC. We've already drifted out to 70 degrees in pitch and we're wondering if you all have had any vents or any such thing as that, that could have caused us to pick up these rates to drive us off. Over. [Long pause.]

059:51:09 Collins: Negative, Charlie. We don't know of anything.

059:51:11 Duke: Roger.

059:51:13 Collins: Unless it's got something to do with that entry from the position that we want to be in. I don't know.

059:51:21 Duke: Roger. When we started off, it looked real fine to us. Now it's drifting off with a funny pattern that we haven't seen previously on a flight. And we're just trying to figure out - I think we'll probably start it over again. We'll be with you momentarily. Over.

059:51:39 Collins: Okay.

060:45:38 Armstrong: Houston, Apollo 11.

060:45:41 Duke: Go ahead, 11. Over.

060:45:46 Armstrong: Do you have any idea where the S-IVB is with respect to us?

060:45:50 Duke: Stand by.

060:49:02 Duke: Apollo 11, Houston. The S-IVB's about 6,000 nautical miles from you now. Over. [Pause.]

060:49:14 Armstrong: Okay. Thank you.

060:50:07 Collins: Houston, Apollo 11. How's the PTC looking?

060:50:11 Duke: Stand by. [Long pause.]

060:50:32 Duke: 11, Houston. The PTC looks great to us. Over.

060:50:38 Collins: Okay, do you have any idea what happened the previous one?

060:50:42 Duke: We have absolutely no idea. Over.

060:50:49 Collins: Okay. Did, it look like it was all right, then just all of a sudden start diverging?

060:50:57 Duke: That's negative, Mike. If you look at the plot, which we'll save for you and let you see it postflight, it's got - it started off immediately on the first rev and just spiraled out to about, oh, 20 to - 20 degrees in pitch, and then it seemed to be setting up a spiral around an offset pitch point of about 20 degrees off from 90 degrees; but we didn't want to take a chance that it would become stable at that point. We thought it might diverge, and so we called you and started over again. Over.

060:51:39 Collins: Okay, no complaints. I was just curious as to what had happened.

history.nasa.gov...

FIFTY-SIX AIRCRAFT PILOT SIGHTlNGS INVOLVING
ELECTROMAGNETIC EFFECTS
Richard F. Haines, Ph.D.

"Reports of anomalous aerial objects (AAO) appearing in the atmosphere continue to be made by pilots of almost every airline and air force of the world in addition to private and experimental test pilots.
This paper presents a review of 56 reports of AAO in which electromagnetic effects (E-M) take place on-board the aircraft when the phenomenon is located nearby but not before it appeared or after it had departed.
Reported E-M effects included radio interference or total failure, radar contact with and without simultaneous visual contact, magnetic and/or gyro-compass deviations, automatic direction finder failure or interference, engine stopping or interruption, dimming cabin lights, transponder failure, and military aircraft weapon system failure.
We're not dealing with mental projections or hallucinations on the part of the witness but with a real physical phenomenon."

Dr. Richard Haines, Psychologist specializing in pilot and astronaut "human factors" research for the Ames NASA Research Center in California-Chief of the Space Human Factors Office.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Apollo 11 UFO ?
NASA's Lewis Space Center Archives frame # C-1989-4028

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8cf2d38b5ab1.jpg[/atsimg]

www.abovetopsecret.com...

maybe it's the SIV-B panel ?

ah them pigeons again....

Some are flat, some are round, some are long and curved. Some catch the light, flickering as they tumble, others don't. Some appear suddenly as they drift out of the spacecraft's shadow into the bright sun. It is a visual kaleidoscope of unearthly -- but to experienced spacefarers, entirely prosaic -- apparitions.

www.space.com...

Moon Pigeons

Unfortunately an original copy of the report could not be obtained and the photographs in this copy are unusable and were not included here.

www.jamesoberg.com...

[edit on 25/4/10 by mcrom901]

I heard him on a radio interview recently and he said that he believes life does exist out there and is behind us finding it.

Originally posted by JimOberg
And what happened next?

simple.... just ignore updating your bunk reports....

reply to post by hikix



Maybe it is all the side effects of the '___' the CIA administered to him during the fake moon landing he did?

reply to post by dragnet53


Hey man not cool.

Just because the only proof of the Apollo mission having occurred comes from NASA doesn't mean they didn't go man. Just wait, another country like the Soviet Union or India will take a picture of the landers and you'll see man... you'll see.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by dragnet53

 

Hey man not cool.

Just because the only proof of the Apollo mission having occurred comes from NASA doesn't mean they didn't go man. Just wait, another country like the Soviet Union or India will take a picture of the landers and you'll see man... you'll see.

Hi Exuberant1, I believe that the Apollo missions did land on the moon, but what I do not understand is the following.

How come that looking for instance to Google Earth, and seeing the possibilities of the momentarily available photographic or video technology the satellites already have [and what we see is no doubt not even close to their real capabilities] so that if necessary they are able to shoot a clear image of even a dozing cricket in your garden, how come that they are not be able to filming and/or shooting photographs of those Apollo lander platforms and rovers over there so clear that you even can count the belts in the back of their seats?

reply to post by spacevisitor


The telescopes in the satellites are just too far away.

Another nation or part other than NASa would have to put a camera probe in orbit around the moon to get a decent shot of the landers.

But if I was going to fakes the mission I would have left artifacts at the supposed landing sites knowing that someone else would eventually image the areas.

It would be a good opportunity to test secret robotics technology.

[edit on 31-8-2010 by Exuberant1]

People will not except that ET has never visited earth....the entire cosmos is probably filled with other life forms...but they are'nt gonna travel billions of light years ..just to look around..you peeps just won't listen...5 years at the speed of light to get to nearest star...ffs..wake up. NO ALIENS (yet)

reply to post by Exuberant1


Sure hope so,but I'd rather see NASA teach its new space partners on how to reach the moon properly if they did make it.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by spacevisitor

 

The telescopes in the satellites are just too far away.

Of course, I understand that, but I did mean with my saying that they could have used one of the satellites that are already in orbit around the moon if they really would have wanted that.
Don’t you think either that they have also the same kind of technological capabilities.
And they even have the advantage of don’t have to look through an atmosphere.

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Another nation or part other than NASa would have to put a camera probe in orbit around the moon to get a decent shot of the landers.

Would that not be a big shame or failure for the USA then [THE space nation on Earth] that they would be passed for that by one of those other nations?

As if they were themselves not capable for that.

Originally posted by Exuberant1

But if I was going to fakes the mission I would have left artifacts at the supposed landing sites knowing that someone else would eventually image the areas.

I do not believe the missions themselves are faked, only some of the footage and photographs, because I think that it has all to do with the fact that we are not allowed to see certain things over there?

Originally posted by spacevisitor
How come that looking for instance to Google Earth, and seeing the possibilities of the momentarily available photographic or video technology the satellites already have [and what we see is no doubt not even close to their real capabilities] so that if necessary they are able to shoot a clear image of even a dozing cricket in your garden, how come that they are not be able to filming and/or shooting photographs of those Apollo lander platforms and rovers over there so clear that you even can count the belts in the back of their seats?

Some of the Google earth images don't come from satellites, some of it has been taken from sources other than satellites.

In this case cameras mounted to kites was the source:

Kite Aerial Photos of Manihi Now in Google Earth

some of the photos are even better than what you normally see because we are flying a camera only a few hundred feet above the ground with a kite!

Google just recently published our photos of Manihi in the latest imagery update. You can see the results below in Google Maps, or in Google Earth [Google Earth Required. You must have GE installed.] Make sure you zoom in close to see all the amazing detail. It's way better than the surrounding satellite imagery for the rest of Manihi.

And of course there are other sources besides kites. The higher resolution imagery seems to be available near more heavily populated areas.

I don't think they can make out a cricket in your garden from orbit, even with a classified satellite, but since it's classified nobody can tell us what the specs are without getting in trouble.

Here's the unclassified satellite claiming the highest resolution, of just a little under half a meter:

World's Highest-Resolution Satellite Imagery

The GeoEye-1 Satellite was launched last September, and "transmitted its first, full color half-meter ground resolution images" a month later.

With a pixel (resolution) of 0.5 meters you couldn't tell if the pixel was a basketball, a briefcase, a human, or an alien,or something else, you'd need quite a number of pixels to make out the object. And if it was a cricket in your Garden, it wouldn't show up at all.

According to Wiki, it could do a hair better but there's a US Govt restriction on civilian imaging:

en.wikipedia.org...

The latest commercial satellite (GeoEye 1) has a GSD of 0.41 m (effectively 0.5 m due to US Govt restrictions on civilian imaging).

I think this is comparable to the resolution expected from the moon eventually from the LROC with half meter resolution

lroc.sese.asu.edu...

LROC will provide images of meter and smaller-scale features that pose a potential threat to landing and obstacles to trafficability. An accurate assessment of the surface characteristics requires 0.5 m/pixel resolution in order to unambiguously identify meter-size objects.

I'd like to know what the best classified resolution actually is, but I heard "if they tell you, then they have to kill you", and it doesn't seem like it's worth dying to find out! Not sure if you heard that joke before, it just means they won't tell us.