Video of UFO filmed by astronauts around the moon.

[Aldrin]

From Apollo 16 mission

http://www.geocities.com/hyperdigm/apollo16.mpeg

If link dont work try:
http://www.geocities.com/hyperdigm/nasavideo.html

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Aldrin on 2003-01-20 23:39 ]</font>

[g99]

This page is not available. We're sorry, but this page is currently unavailable for viewing.

[aurorae]

That's a pretty crummy video.

Was it really taken by Apollo 16?

[irony]

Geeze, with great bull$#!% like this out there, I'm gonna have to update my website again!

[JimO]

I know it well -- it's genuine, from Apollo-16 just after TEI. Crew is photographing receding moon. Image appears to be window reflection of sunlit camera lens assembly. I asked all three crewmen about the image, none recalled noticing anything unusual -- and there's nothing on the Hasselblad desequence or any other camera, as there would have been if something s-t-r-a-n-g-e had been seen.

[tjm220]

On 2003-01-21 01:14, irony wrote:
Geeze, with great bull$#!% like this out there, I'm gonna have to update my website again!


I must have missed it earlier, may I have the URL?

[Rodina]

Check out his videos --- I especially like the "Orb flying in front of shuttle's camera video" since thats (a) MIR and (b) clearly the solid waste dump canisters, which they toss overboard from time to time.

[David Hall]

On 2003-01-21 01:14, irony wrote:
Geeze, with great bull$#!% like this out there, I'm gonna have to update my website again!


What makes you think there's any end to the bull**** out there? Trust me, you'll never run out of things to post. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

As for the links at the top, it looks like we (or someone at least), has slashdotted them both, because they are both offline.

[g99]

My favorite was the morphing spacecraft. It looks alot like the parchutes used for the capsules coming down from space.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: g99 on 2003-01-21 16:24 ]</font>

[Aldrin]

On 2003-01-21 01:30, JimO wrote:

I know it well -- it's genuine, from Apollo-16 just after TEI. Crew is photographing receding moon. Image appears to be window reflection of sunlit camera lens assembly. I asked all three crewmen about the image, none recalled noticing anything unusual -- and there's nothing on the Hasselblad desequence or any other camera, as there would have been if something s-t-r-a-n-g-e had been seen.


One should ask if the cameraman (astronaut) have see nothing why he made a rapid return to the left to focus the object at the end of the video.WE see the object continuing his travel before vanishing.At least you recongnise than the video was guinine from Apollo 16 mission

[JimO]

"One should ask if the cameraman (astronaut) have see nothing why he made a rapid return to the left to focus the object at the end of the video.WE see the object continuing his travel before vanishing.At least you recongnise than the video was guinine from Apollo 16 mission "

Why what? He never 'focussed' the camera, and he never centered the funny image. He was imaging the departing moon, and all other cameras in use in this period show the departing moon and nothing else. The 'funny image' looks like hundreds of other reflections and glares and typical light phenomena that fill the thousands of Apollo stills, cine, and video imagery. And I did ask John Young, Ken Mattingly, and Charlie Duke, two of whom were close professional friends and the third a professional acquaintance, and I believe they answered me fully and honestly.

The image -- not automatically 'an object' -- appears to change shape, which I interpret as moving away from the diagonal sunbeam illuminating it, so less of the arc of the lens assembly is sunlit. What's your theory?

[JayUtah]

Reflections in windows usually go unnoticed when directly observed because our attention (and the mechanisms of our ocular focus) are directed to more interesting subjects on the other side of the window. Our minds unconsciously filter them out because cues like subtle motion, retinal disparity, and convergence feedback help us understand that they are reflections. These cues are missing in photography and so it is much more common to notice reflections in photographs taken through windows than in the same scene directly observed.

This is a well known bias in photographic interpretation. Untrained people looking at photographs are much more likely to interpret features in photographs as objects in the scene rather than optical phenomena, even when those phenomena are ignored in direct observation. The human visual cortex uses many cues to "filter out" unwanted portions of the image and focus the brain's attention on the desired portion of the image. When those cues are missing or altered by photography, the brain is confused.

The camera simply projects a bundle of light rays and accumulates their effects over a brief period of time, rendering it all in the same two-dimensional image plane (i.e., the photograph). The brain must take extra care in interpreting these images, hence the training associated with photographic interpretation.

[Irishman]

At a party once where someone was taking snapshots with a digital camera. At one point, upon reviewing the pics taken to see how they turned out, and thinking of other ideas for pics, we discovered a weird phenomenon, a ghostly presence floating around some of the people in the images. It was a real puzzler for a minute or two, until we realized it was smoke from the cigarettes some were smoking. We had been in the room a while (the party lasted most of the night), so the smoke was not streamers from the cigarettes, but partially dissipated background. But nobody in the room noticed the smoke visually - we tuned it out.

[irony]

On 2003-01-21 12:10, tjm220 wrote:
I must have missed it earlier, may I have the URL?


It's here (http://www.ainself.net/irony/weird****). Updates coming soon, to include UFOs on the Moon, the amazing psychic vampire, and the oh-so-cuddly plush cthulhu doll. ^_^

[Aldrin]

That one filmed during Apollo 12 mission
I know another reflection of the sunlight on the camera lense.
http://www.geocities.com/kryst0ph/UFOFilmedDuringApollo12Mission.mpeg

[D J]

On 2003-01-22 15:16, Aldrin wrote:
That one filmed during Apollo 12 mission
I know another reflection of the sunlight on the camera lense.
http://www.geocities.com/kryst0ph/UFOFilmedDuringApollo12Mission.mpeg


What is that flying orb and the flash of light in the crater?This look like an optical trick.By the way the video as a very poor quality and dont seem to be a real footage from an Apollo mission.

[Aldrin]

On 2003-01-22 23:09, Orion38 wrote:

On 2003-01-22 15:16, Aldrin wrote:
That one filmed during Apollo 12 mission
I know another reflection of the sunlight on the camera lense.
http://www.geocities.com/kryst0ph/UFOFilmedDuringApollo12Mission.mpeg


What is that flying orb and the flash of light in the crater?This look like an optical trick.By the way the video as a very poor quality and dont seem to be a real footage from an Apollo mission.


Some source comfirm that the video is a real footage from Apollo 12 mission,and no one was able to find an explanation.

[JimO]

"Some source comfirm that the video is a real footage from Apollo 12 mission,and no one was able to find an explanation."

I haven't been able to open up that video to look at it, but I need to ask, when you say "No one was able to find an explanation", where did they ask? How about the NASA JSC audiovisual office, Mr. Mike Gentry? Or did they just ask some current PAO flack at some NASA center elsewhere?

Visual anomalies outside the windows were common on Apollo (they were called 'moon pigeons') and there was lots of interest in what they were telling about the status of the spacecraft, its insolation, propellant valves, pyro bolts, etc.

This is a report that NASA commissioned to examine such phenomena. I'll bet that the sources you seem to depend on didn't tell you about this study.


Moon Pigeons
http://members.aol.com/moonpigeons/

Other items:

Apollo-11 stories
http://www.debunker.com/texts/apollo11.html

NASA’s CL-862 video (1979)
http://www.beyondroswell.com/roswell/nasaufovideo.html

[JayUtah]

Try this URL
http://www.geocities.com/kryst0ph/nasavideo2.html
and click on the "Apollo Footage" link. I personally don't favor Geocities. Their free web service comes at the price of being able to view some content only in a browser and its plugins and not to save it to disk for analysis by other tools.

Some source comfirm that the video is a real footage from Apollo 12 mission ...

I see no reason to doubt that this is authentic footage from Apollo 12, however in the future confirmation cannot come from "some source". It's not confirmation unless we know the identity of the comfirmer.

... and no one was able to find an explanation.

My, this sounds ominous. What do you think it is, and why?

[JimO]

Thanks, I've seen this one before. Wasn't it mentioned in the 'Moon Pigeons' report?

Dots outside of windows usually turn out to be sunlit small dislodged items from the spacecraft. What else are they supposed to be?

Single pixel single frame white dots also occur randomly -- can be cosmic ray hits are processing or digitizing flaws. If you're looking at the ground, they will look like something between you and the ground. What else are they supposed to be?

[irony]

What is that flying orb and the flash of light in the crater?This look like an optical trick.By the way the video as a very poor quality and dont seem to be a real footage from an Apollo mission.


It looks to me as if the 'orb' and 'streak' are bits of reflective stuff floating around outside the window. The 'flash' was probably a thruster firing for an attitude correction, which would accelerate the vehicle, causing the 'orb' to appear to suddenly speed up and change direction. The streak that 'followed' it looks like another bit, passing by the window because of the acelleration.

[JayUtah]

I often hear the "no explanation" argument. So much is read into that admission by people who desperately want the object they see to be some specific thing like a ghost or an angel or an alien spacecraft. The inability to precisely identify a speck or streak in some grainy photo doesn't mean the skeptics are stymied, nor does it necessarily prove the speck is an angel or a streak is an interplanetary interceptor missile.

The fact is that any spacecraft will be surrounded by a cloud of crap. Literally in some cases; but bits of packaging, insulation, dislodged ice, bits of frangible fasteners, squib covers, and all that detritus floats around the spacecraft and is frequently kicked around by the spacecraft's manuevering jets.

When I'm shown a video of a single moving white pixel, I can't tell if it's a piece of an explosive bolt, or a crystal of ice, or some flake of paint or insulation. You just can't tell that from a single dot. So I'm not going to authoritatively say, "it's ice," or "it's a bit of insulation." I don't have any evidence for either of those.

But, I will surely say that it's likely to be one of the various things I've mentioned. So don't anyone dare take my announcement that I don't know for sure what it is, and try to convey the notion that I haven't the foggiest clue what it is.

Those who argue it's a ghost or an alien Cadillac have the burden of proof to show that it is that. They can't just assume that's what it is because of someone's inability to precisely determine what he thinks it is.

In this case it's very likely to be a piece of typical debris.

Another thing that strikes me over and over is what poor spatial reasoning skills most conspiracists and UFO buffs seem to have. A bolt head floating just outside a spacecraft is perceived to be a mammoth alien spacecraft miles away flying at impossible speeds. Just think of how much perceptual intuition you have to ignore in order to leap to that conclusion. It's very hard for people laboring under that delusion to see why their opinions are regarded with so much amusement.

But to the unfortunately undeluded, the rapid apparent motion and immense apparent size suggest relative proximity. And that makes a wholly consistent view which, unfortunately, isn't very exciting. But the UFO enthusiast sees something "necessarily" very far away and consequently "impossibly" huge and "unbelievably" fast -- a whole chain of unsupported and implausible supposition.

Therein, I believe, lies a key element of the conspiracist psychology. Instead of settling for the most parsimonious conclusion, they intentionally reach for the interpretation which maximizes the severity of the implications. The result is a world reinvented to be a whole lot more engaging (at least to some people) than seen traditionally.

And there are people like Bart Sibrel and David Percy who will gladly take these people's money.

Sibrel is absolutely right: people will see what they want to see, regardless of who they are. The question is how well that view can be supported by truth which isn't dependent on perception. We prefer a world in which what we observe can be described and predicted in rules. And we like it this way, because understanding the rules helps us manipulate the universe in useful ways.


_________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base (http://www.clavius.org/)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2003-01-23 15:18 ]</font>

[Aldrin]

I will return later for some comments about apollo 12 video.

Here is an audio apollo11.zip (.wav) (205K) of the Apollo 11 mission : The two astronauts, talking to the NASA base in Houston.

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/8636/images/astroufo/apollo11.zip

Text of the conversation:

Astronaut 1: Ha! What is it?

Astronaut 2: We have some explanation for that?

--BEEP--

Houston: We have (not), don't worry, continue your program!

--BEEP--

Astronaut 1: Oh boy it's a, it's, it, it is really something (similar to)

             fantastic here, you, you could never imagine this!

--BEEP--

Houston: Roger, we know about that, could you go the other way, go back

         the other way!

--BEEP--

Astronaut 1: Well it's kind of (rigged) ha, pretty spectacular ......

             god ... what is that there?

--BEEP--

Astronaut 1: It's (hollow), what the hell is that?

Houston: Go Tango, Tango!

--BEEP--

Astronaut 1: Ha! There's kind of light there now!

--BEEP--

Houston: Roger, we got it, we (watched it), lose communication,

         Bravo Tango, Bravo Tango, select Jezebel, Jezebel!

--BEEP--

Astronaut 1: ...... ya, ha! ...... but this is unbelievable!

Houston: (we call you up Bravo Tango, Bravo Tango)!

Sound like a real transmission,what are they talking about?-Hint- surely not about the new Chevrolet of the year!

[JayUtah]

Here is an audio apollo11.zip (.wav) (205K) of the Apollo 11 mission

Do you have any idea how many fake Apollo transmissions have been manufactured by UFO enthusiasts? Do you simply believe everything you see, read, or hear?

Those people don't sound anything like the Apollo 11 crew. The vocabulary isn't anything like the Apollo nomenclature. It's no different than some Hollywood actor pretending to be an airline pilot or an army sergeant.

Sound like a real transmission

Not to a trained ear. But it will certainly fool the masses and people who don't care enough to do the research.

Wanna know the big mistake? The Quindar beeps. Those are supposed to bracket only the CAPCOM's statements. And there are really two separate tones -- one to key in and the other to key out. They're only 25 Hz apart, but I can hear the difference. Any musician ought be able to. The higher tone keys in and the lower tone keys out. However, this recording uses the tones pretty much at random, as if the people making it had no idea what the beeps were for.

Sorry, it's a fake, and pretty easy to spot if you know your stuff.

[JayUtah]

BTW, the corrected URL is
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/8636/images/astroufo/astroufo.htm
The link to the audio file is a bit less than halfway down, right under the photos purporting to be from Apollo 11. (Hint: Apollo 11 didn't land in the mountains.)

[Aldrin]

On 2003-01-23 15:34, JayUtah wrote:
Do you simply believe everything you see, read, or hear?


I will give a moderated answer:

No,I always question everything.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Aldrin on 2003-01-24 13:32 ]</font>

[aporetic_r]

What else are they supposed to be?


Anything that can not be immediately identified as either a stage prop or a Masonic symbol is necessarily an alien spacecraft.

Aporetic

[JayUtah]

So what was your first reaction when you heard this recording and read the transcript?

[DaveOlden]

I actually expected the audio to sound authentic.
Then I pressed play.

I had to laugh... it even sounded like it wasn't matching the real actors' lip movements!

I might take it more seriously if I could hear it in the original italian.

[Aldrin]

On 2003-01-23 15:52, JayUtah wrote:
So what was your first reaction when you heard this recording and read the transcript?




I was very suspect about the Beeps and the source of the information for the transcript.This is why I submit this to evaluation. Is this a trivia question?Looks like if every answer i give will be following by another question from You.

[JayUtah]

Looks like if every answer i give will be following by another question from You.

Not necessarily.

I just wanted to know what you meant when you said, "Sounds like a real transmission." I wanted to know whether that was an expression of belief or a dispassionate assessment of its apparent quality. If I understand you correctly, you were skeptical of the recording when you heard it, so now I know what you mean.

My evaluation is that it's fake. I hope my explanation makes sense.

Not only does the recording appear fake, but the photographs supposedly from Apollo 11 are not very convincing either. The one that shows mountains cannot possibly be from Apollo 11. A couple are supposed to be pictures taken of Armstrong by Buzz Aldrin and this is immediately suspect since the author can't produce any official NASA photo IDs.

I have a hard time accepting information from sources that are obviously careless with it. These people are trying to prove the existence of alien spacecraft. That's a very sensational conclusion, and the proof will have to be very convincing. Proof can't be convincing if it is treated and presented in a slipshod way.

[Tomblvd]

Looks like if every answer i give will be following by another question from You.



Only when you show a complete lack of consistency.

In your post from 15:20 you say:

"Sound like a real transmission,what are they talking about?"

And then at 16:30 you say:

"I was very suspect about the Beeps and the source of the information for the transcript.This is why I submit this to evaluation."

In a little over an hour you go from believing the tape is genuine to "very suspect".

If it was so suspicious, why didn't you share those suspicions with us when you posted it?

(added "r")
(really added the "r" this time)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tomblvd on 2003-01-23 21:14 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tomblvd on 2003-01-23 21:16 ]</font>

[Aldrin]

On 2003-01-23 21:13, Tomblvd wrote:

Looks like if every answer i give will be following by another question from You.



Only when you show a complete lack of consistency.

In your post from 15:20 you say:

"Sound like a real transmission,what are they talking about?"

And then at 16:30 you say:

"I was very suspect about the Beeps and the source of the information for the transcript.This is why I submit this to evaluation."

In a little over an hour you go from believing the tape is genuine to "very suspect".

If it was so suspicious, why didn't you share those suspicions with us when you posted it?



Here is my proof I finishing my statement with an interrogation point ( ? )

"Sound like a real transmission,what are they talking about?"

So to be more clear my script should be read like this (see below)** because i was asking 2 questions with only one interrogation point ( ? )
Below is here:
**If the retransmission is real? -as it sounds to be- So what are they talking about?



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Aldrin on 2003-01-23 22:27 ]</font>

[JimO]

Re the geocities 'astronaut UFO' site:



I’ve made a study of this branch of folklore and fakery for almost thirty years. Here’s what I’ve concluded about these patently-preposterous stories: they are specifically aimed at the ignorant and the excitable. On purpose.

Glenn’s mission was Mercury 7, not 1. It was on Feb 20, not Feb 26.

The image is from Carpenter’s flight, not Glenn’s. He was photographing a tethered tracking balloon that failed to inflate. That’s what the entire sequence of photos – not just the one selected to show here – demonstrates.

Gordon Cooper – who does believe in UFOs and tells interesting stories about his earthside experiences – has always denounced the Mercury space incident as a fabrication. It was made up, probably by Frank Edwards, to make money off the weak-minded. Cooper agrees.

The “Ferrando” interview is also a fabrication. Saying it was “taped” doesn’t make it so.

McDivitt (White was asleep) and the “weird-looking metallic object” is a gross distortion of a beercan-shaped object McDivitt reported out his window. Not ‘metallic’ – that description is bogus. Not “weird” – he never used the word. All Gemini-4 photographs have been in the public domain for more than 30 years.

Borman and Lovell – the photograph is a forgery. It is a retouched and upside down view of reflections off roll thrusters on the Gemini nose. The ‘bogie’ report was Borman joking with the ground about his intentional re-rendezvous with the Titan second stage, but he has explained over the years that when he tells that to UFO documentary producers, they decide not to quote him.

The first UFO photo for Armstrong shows a spacecraft antenna across the field of view. It has been cropped and altered by a UFO hoaxer to make it unidentifiable. The bottom two are stills from a cine film out the LM window on orbit, and when seen in motion they bounce around as the bracket is tightened just as you’d expect window reflections to do. They have been contrast enhanced and edge-sharpened by hoaxers to look more solid.

Otto Binder was never a NASA employee. He was (at the time) and aging SF writer making retirement income selling UFO books.

Azhazha has admitted he fell for some Apollo-11 hoax UFO stories before he knew any better, but has concluded the stories are baseless.

Robert White’s story ("I have no idea what it could be. It was grayish in color and about thirty to forty feet away." Then according to a Time Magazine article, Major White exclaimed over the radio: "There ARE things out there! There absolutely is!" ) here is bogus based on deliberate omission of other details from the same article, that the objects were 30-40 feet from the X-15, when it was in space, and were about the size of his hand, he said. Leaving out such details is deliberately fraud.

Cernan’s quote ("...I've been asked (about UFOs) and I've said publicly I thought they (UFOs) were somebody else, some other civilization." ) has been repudiated by Cernan, who states he never believed that or said that.

Maurice Chatelain never held any position at NASA, in communications or anything, and had no connection at all with the space program at the time of Apollo-11. These ‘credentials’ are counterfeit. People who believe them are suckers.

Dr. Garry Henderson, who is a scientist with a belief in UFOs, has denounced the quotation attributed to him about astronaut UFO sightings as a fabrication. He states he never said it or believed it.

“Discovery Mission 20” has comments recorded by UFO enthusiast Donald Ratsch. After a thorough attempt to verify that the voice actually came from the shuttle, Ratsch has concluded the conversation is a prank transmitted by some local ‘ham’ on the same frequency used to repeat the space comm. Refusing to admit that the originator of the story has himself repudiated it, is fraud.

Conrad, Gemini-11: The claim these are “These photos never released and taken on the Gemini 11 Space Flight September 13, 1966” is a lie, all photographs have been released, including three from this mission showing an object passing the Gemini in a parallel ballistic orbit. NORAD has identified it as the decaying Proton-3, and the crew’s eyewitness descriptions – much sharper than the photographs – are consistent with this explanation, which is probably why this website designer omitted them.

[JayUtah]

Jim, thank you for the delightful and thorough debunking. I had read a report that Maurice Chatelain was once a backroom technician with a communications subcontractor, but that he was at Houston for less than a month and never served during a manned space mission. Is your information that he never set foot in Mission Control?

[Tomblvd]

Here is my proof I finishing my statement with an interrogation point ( ? )

"Sound like a real transmission,what are they talking about?"

So to be more clear my script should be read like this (see below)** because i was asking 2 questions with only one interrogation point ( ? )
Below is here:
**If the retransmission is real? -as it sounds to be- So what are they talking about?




You also said this:

Here is an audio apollo11.zip (.wav) (205K) of the Apollo 11 mission

You presented it as authenic, no question marks, just a statement of fact.

Like I said, consistency.

[Aldrin]

On 2003-01-23 12:40, JayUtah wrote:
Try this URL
http://www.geocities.com/kryst0ph/nasavideo2.html
and click on the "Apollo Footage" link. I personally don't favor Geocities. Their free web service comes at the price of being able to view some content only in a browser and its plugins and not to save it to disk for analysis by other tools.



Do you really means you are interested to seriously analyse the footage if you can save the file?
Apollo 12 Footage:

http://www.geocities.com/kryst0ph/UFOFilmedDuringApollo12Mission.mpeg

I have Opera 6.05 Browser allowing to save the video file.You can download it.Choose the Non-Java version only 3.4 MB fast to load easy to install.

http://www.opera.com/download/


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Aldrin on 2003-01-24 08:27 ]</font>

[JimO]

I have official documentation that Chatelain worked for North American Aviation (builders of the Command Module)in Downey, Ca, for a year or two in the mid-1960s, in the communications field. He was fired about 1967, according to co-workers I talked to in the early 1980's, for using company travel money to hire staff for a French restaurant he was trying to open. He later wrote 'Our Ancestors Came from Outer Space' and gave interviews about astronaut secrets that he had read about in tabloid newspapers. As far as I can tell, he himself never claimed to have been in any control rooms or been any sort of NASA official -- those trappings were deceitfully added later by UFO writers who were contemptuous of the intelligence and judgment of their target audience (and in hindsight, rightfully so).

"Aldrin", how does this jibe with what you have been led to believe?

[JayUtah]

The report about Chatelain's backroom activities came from a debunker on a mailing list years ago. It was given specifically in response to claims that Chatelain was "head of communications at NASA", giving you an indication of how wildly out of control the rumors of Chatelain's authority have become. The point about Chatelain's irrelevance would still have been valid according to the report I read, but it's always good to have accurate information.

[Aldrin]

On 2003-01-23 11:37, JimO wrote:
Visual anomalies outside the windows were common on Apollo (they were called 'moon pigeons') and there was lots of interest in what they were telling about the status of the spacecraft, its insolation, propellant valves, pyro bolts, etc.

This is a report that NASA commissioned to examine such phenomena. I'll bet that the sources you seem to depend on didn't tell you about this study.


Moon Pigeons
http://members.aol.com/moonpigeons/

Other items:

Apollo-11 stories
http://www.debunker.com/texts/apollo11.html

NASA’s CL-862 video (1979)
http://www.beyondroswell.com/roswell/nasaufovideo.html



None of your source talk about this Video footage during Apollo 12 mission .

http://www.geocities.com/kryst0ph/UFOFilmedDuringApollo12Mission.mpeg

The image show something like a flying sphere (orb)and 2 flashing light on a rim of a crater when the sphere flying over the crater.
Now if the explanation for the flying sphere
is a bolt or ice debris .How do you explain the flashing lights on the rim of the crater?

[JimO]

"Aldrin" --"None of your source talk about this Video footage during Apollo 12 mission ."

I don't think you have even read my sources, because in the Moon Pigeon report it states, "A search was made for similar occurrences on other space missions. Apollo 12 mission data were collected and enlargements of 16mm kinescope frames depicting the phenomena were obtained and analyzed The images were studied for size, shape, texture, color, brightness, apparent motion, etc. Mission data were correlated with the image extracted data in the interpretation phase of the study. The phenomena was alternately considered to be an external object, an internal object, or a spacecraft window reflection of' an internal/external object "

Now, please explain the disconnect between your allegation of the contents of my sources, and the actual contents of my sources.

My theory is that you never even read them, and just made up the opening quotation to support a point of view you wish to maintain regardless of evidence.

Your alternate explanation is -- what?

[Aldrin]

On 2003-01-24 13:59, JimO wrote:

Your alternate explanation is -- what?



The same hind of sphere is visible in that video UFO video from Space Shuttle Discovery STS-51a on November 14, 1984. A strange silver sphere passes by the Shuttles videocamera.

http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/videoclips/sts51a.avi

Fourth image from that page
http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/videoclips/




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Aldrin on 2003-01-24 14:15 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Aldrin on 2003-01-24 14:18 ]</font>

[calliarcale]

Good lord.... Some UFO believers are stupider than I thought. That's obviously a water droplet inside the space shuttle cabin, probably stuck to the plexiglass of the interior pane of the window. You can even see the Earth refracted within it.

If it were silver, it would be brighter on the bottom, reflecting the Earth and reflecting the shuttle. Instead, it is brighter on the top, because it is transparent and is refracting the light. Exactly as water droplets do here on Earth.

It's condensation on the window, and it's not moving; that's a hand-held camera taking that clip. You can see the position of the Earth shift within the frame at the same rate at which you can see the sphere "move" through the frame. The amount of light refracted through the sphere also changes, indicating that the camera is moving in relation to it.

I apologize for not reacting very politely, but I really was expecting something better out of that one.

[Aldrin]

On 2003-01-24 15:29, calliarcale wrote:
That's obviously a water droplet inside the space shuttle cabin, probably stuck to the plexiglass of the interior pane of the window.


LOL !

[Aldrin]

http://bjbooth.topcities.com/Video/astronautcosmonautsightings.ram

Conclusion:

http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/quote.html

End of transmission.

[calliarcale]

"LOL!" is all you have to say to support your case, Aldrin?

That speaks volumes about its merits -- or at least about your confidence in its merits in that you evidently don't think it can stand up to discussion.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: calliarcale on 2003-01-24 16:14 ]</font>

[JayUtah]

Good lord.... Some UFO believers are stupider than I thought.

As I wrote, they have extremely poor spatial perception. Photography removes most of the cues people use for judging depth, size, and apparent distance. Hence we have to rely on other cues. The interpretation of those cues is less developed in certain people.

[sts60]

Aldrin referred to the page:

http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/videoclips/

which has an image allegedly from the 13th day of STS-80, December 1st:There are well over a dozen or more "unknown" objects in this video, objects that don't appear to be city lights, stars, or satellites. There's also over a dozen objects that streak by the camera.There is one very predominant object in the video that is the "main object" of the video as others appear to come and go. Objects can be seen cruising below the clouds, rising up from the clouds, spheres of light changing shape and color, streaks or "rods" of light cruising very close by the camera, UFOs traveling thousands of MPH in orbit, objects entering the Earth's atmosphere from deep space. It is all most bizarre and NASA have kept pretty quiet about the whole thing.Well, there's lightning, debris, meteors... not very bizarre.

The "main object" is a little more interesting. It is moving along at a good clip, then blooms as the camera seems to stop down and there may or may not be a Shuttle attitude maneuver at that time. It looks like we crossed into sunlight at this point.

Well, flight day 13 was Nov 30-Dec 1, so they got that right. ORFEUS-SPAS would have been out then, but not that close (it was not retrieved by Columbia until 3 Dec). So I'm voting for the out-of-focus blob to be some near-field piece of debris. I can't really tell more by that snippet.

The point is that this site is representative of Aldrin's evidence: it misrepresents very ordinary stuff, and throws out the least likely explanation for a blob (UFO implying an actual alien spacecraft), and then adds the "NASA is being quiet about this". Perhaps this gentleman would like to offer an MET for the clip so we could analyze it, and maybe explain how exactly NASA is "being quiet" in particular about these few seconds, as opposed to any other?...

Nahhh.