|
Chatroom |
|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Mark Forums Read |
 |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
19-March-2004, 06:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Apollo UFO transmissions
I was finally inducted into the "Debunker lying trash" group over on GLP =D>
Someone posted a reference to this: http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicphotos.html I made the remark on GLP that "those conversations never happened or are taken out of context." now I'm being called a liar. I remember that I had read a while back that a lot of these conversations never happened and were fake. I can't find where i read this anymore. Does anyone know where i can find something?
__________________
What happens if a big asteroid hits the Earth? Judging from realistic simulations involving a sledge hammer and a common laboratory (insert least favorite test animal, person), we can assume it will be pretty bad. {changed as per Frogesque's request :D} 
|
|
19-March-2004, 06:50 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I'm sure you recognize the work of "Cosmic" Dave Cosnette on the web site to which you are being referred.
Anyone can make up a dialogue and put the astronauts' names on it. And that's primarily what has been done here. Most of Cosmic Dave's conversations are lifted, as he says, from Don Wilson's (now out-of-print) book Our Mysterious Spaceship Moon. Wilson purports to have reproduced the astronaut conversations right out of the Apollo downlink transcripts. Unfortunately Wilson (and therefore Cosmic Dave) omits the GET references that would have allowed us to locate these coversations in the literally hundreds of pages of transcript for each mission. So in nearly all cases we have to spend dozens of hours searching for the allegedly authoritative source for these quotes. Many of them can be found in the ALSJ, but many can be found only in the paper transcripts. When we do find them, we discover that Wilson has savagely shredded the original material. That's likely why he doesn't want anyone checking up on his work; he doesn't want to see how badly he has cut and pasted the conversations together to make it sound like something mysterious is going on. The "Dover, dover" garbage simply isn't in the transcripts; Wilson just made it up. And that's Wilson's thesis: he believes the astronauts were reporting, in some kind of code, the miraculous discoveries they were making. And so he heavily doctors, annotates, or interprets the conversations. As I'm sure you're well aware, a conspiracist who doesn't understand what's going on can often make a convincing case that no one else knows what's going on either. And when Wilson doctors the quotes, he can make that opinion seem objective. The "Condorcet" conversation is Wilson's complete ignorance of the international phonetic alphabet used by pilots to convey the names of letters and numbers over possibly garbled channels. "Hotel", for example, is how you say the letter H over the radio. "Alpha" for A, "Bravo" for B, "Kilo" for K, and so forth. Wilson interprets these references as some kind of unknown code, rather than some kind of well-known and frequently used code. Wilson also doesn't understand common terms used to describe geological features. The astronauts were using terms they had been taught in their geology training. To Wilson they sound like references to artificial structures. And they are names commonly applied to artificial structure -- "benches" and "terraces". But they're used to describe natural formations that superficially resemble those structures. I live on the East Bench of the Salt Lake Valley, for example. The "Barbara" conversation is a misinterpretation of a garble. Young never said the word "Barbara". This is one of those cases where the speakers stepped on each other's transmission because of the time delay. Wilson attempts to lend credence to his interpretation by interviewing Dr. El-Baz, who flatly says he doesn't know what it means. That's because El-Baz was just told Young had said "Barbara". He wasn't disposed to question Wilson's interpretation. This is a classic conspiracy theorist trick. He gets an expert to speculate, based on a poor interpretation, about things outside his expertise. "Tracks," of course, are boulder tracks. As you can see, this is simply a very ignorant man trying to stir up controversy by claiming that if he doesn't understand something, then in must be objectively mysterious. It's only when you realize just how dishonestly Wilson has quoted his source material that you see his error is not the consequence of accidental misunderstand; he is deliberately misrepresenting the evidence. Wilson also claims that the radio transmissions should have been in plain English rather than technical language, for the benefit of the taxpayers who paid for the mission. Finally the alleged Apollo 11 conversation. This even exists in an audio format, complete with phony Quindar beeps and voices that don't sound anything like the Apollo 11 crew. In other words, it's completely fabricated. Anyone familiar with the Apollo voice comm protocols can immediately see the irregularities. This dialogue was obviously written by someone who had very little experience listening to Apollo transmissions. "Cosmic" Dave claims that hundreds of amateur radio operators heard this conversation, but he can't name a single one of them. Further, I've contacted half a dozen amateur radio operators who tuned into Apollo voice channels, and none of them can recall any such conversation. Note the anonymous "professor" who managed to get damning testimony from Armstrong. Dave relies on Maurice Chatelain, who has been completely discredited. He did not serve as head of communications at NASA. He was a low-level technician who was fired from Apollo long before any of the missions actually flew. You do not have the burden of proof to show that those conversations were taken out of context. No reference for them has been provided except for Wilson's book. If those who argue that those conversations are real cannot provide you with GET references, then they have no way of knowing themselves whether or not they were real. Wilson is a very unreliable resource for Apollo transcript information.
|
|
19-March-2004, 06:50 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Some of the conversations look legit to me; it's just that the woo-woos either don't understand what the astronauts are talking about or make their own interpretations. The stuff about Armstrong seeing spaceships on the Moon is nonsense.
Complete transcripts of everything that was said on the lunar surface are available at the wonderful Apollo Lunar Surface Journal.
__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.
|
|
19-March-2004, 07:00 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Here's an example of some of the doctored quotes
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...ht=dover#50761
|
|
19-March-2004, 07:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
First off, Thanks jay. Very much appreciated 8)
After reading your post I wouldn't be surprised if it was your writting I remember reading a while back on this. A lot of it sounded familiar. I'm not really trying to prove anything to the AC at GLP that slung me into the "Lying debunker trash" pile, I am just trying to keep some other gullible person from reading their claptrap over there and believing it. I remember seeing the Fox lunar hoax special and honestly it did make me curious so I started researching it and found that while on the surface the arguments sounded reasonable when explained thouroghly they just didn't stand up. I am just trying to do my small part in keeping the Woo Woo ranks a little lower. Besides, it's kinda fun and I do learn some things by researching their claims to find out if they are right or not. ToSeek, I agree, a lot of what the Woo Woo's point to as proof is them just not knowing what they are looking at, just seeing what the want to or just outright lying. Case in point is Nancy pointing to the graphic depicting Sedna's location and insisting that they represented it as a large red orb on purpose to get us ready for PX's appearance. She purposly did not include a link to the NASA page with the graphic nor did she include the caption that said that Sedna is NOT visible to the naked eye or even most amateur telescopes. I think I'll post your link to the Apollo transcripts and see what happens. And again, thanks a lot.
__________________
What happens if a big asteroid hits the Earth? Judging from realistic simulations involving a sledge hammer and a common laboratory (insert least favorite test animal, person), we can assume it will be pretty bad. {changed as per Frogesque's request :D}
|
|
20-March-2004, 02:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think what you have to bear in mind when reading the woo-woo claptrap is that some of us actually watched the lunar landings live on TV at the time. Pictures were beamed worldwide and if anyone could have found fault in the broadcasts it would have been the Russians. The time scale was in the later stages of the cold war; Russia would have been monitoring the links between the Earth and Moon. Amateurs were also monitoring the signals. To do that means you need to know the direction from which they are coming in order to align aerials on a moving target as the Moon orbits the Earth. There were time delays because of the distances involved. Look at the footage of the 'feather and rock' experiment, from that calculate the local g. Everything tied up and the Russians would have been the first to cry, "Fake!" if they could because they had most to gain by the propaganda it would have given them.
They couldn't because there was no faking it, it was real. Note: As an aside, here is an excellent website containing a lot of info about the Apollo misions, politcal background and subsequent co-operation between America and Russia. http://www.io.com/~o_m/ssh_forgotten_astp.html
__________________
By asking questions we sometimes get the wrong answers, from wrong answers we learn to ask the right questions.
|
|
21-March-2004, 03:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I was one that watched them on TV. I was 4 1/2 at the time but I do vaguely remember watching it. My Dad made a real big deal about it and I think that was what got me interested in space travel and astronomy. 8)
Also, I think they gave up on GLP, haven't gotten many replies and most one liners 
__________________
What happens if a big asteroid hits the Earth? Judging from realistic simulations involving a sledge hammer and a common laboratory (insert least favorite test animal, person), we can assume it will be pretty bad. {changed as per Frogesque's request :D}
|
|
23-March-2004, 07:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
JayUtah provided a link to some earlier dissection of odd quotes. Here's something I did a bit more recently on one of our other more...er...interesting threads:
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...hlight=#213178
|
|
23-March-2004, 02:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The thread on GLP died a quick death when I posted some of what you guyshave said and the link to the ALSJ
__________________
What happens if a big asteroid hits the Earth? Judging from realistic simulations involving a sledge hammer and a common laboratory (insert least favorite test animal, person), we can assume it will be pretty bad. {changed as per Frogesque's request :D}
|
|
23-March-2004, 02:38 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.
|
|
23-March-2004, 03:13 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
This comes up often enough that a Clavius page is probably in order. I have resolved to complete the "Moon landings were fake" arguments before attempting to tackle any of the "They found alien artifacts on the Moon" claims. But I'm getting tired if having to deal with Don Wilson's garbage.
|
|
26-March-2004, 05:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
GodLike productions
Careful going there though. reading posts there has been shown to kill brain cells. Or at least cause headaches. 8-[ If there is a conspiracy theory out there it is discussed at GLP. Especially good threads are ones by Nancy Lieder. They are good for seeing exactly how long someone can cling to their misguided beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  And the moon hoaxers are good for a quick laugh, but they are few and die quickly. The chemtrailes are in abundance and apparently can do chemical analysis just by looking up.
__________________
What happens if a big asteroid hits the Earth? Judging from realistic simulations involving a sledge hammer and a common laboratory (insert least favorite test animal, person), we can assume it will be pretty bad. {changed as per Frogesque's request :D}
|
|
26-March-2004, 08:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Noteworthy quote...
Letter to Paula Zahn (Dec 29, 1999) Quote:
|
|
12-May-2004, 01:06 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Apollo UFO transmissions
Quote:
After reading the above information, I must ask you this... If NASA was formed as a 'civilian space agency', why were so many NASA programs funded by the US Defence Department? 8) Because they had the money, the technology (rocketry), and the security (see next). Why were all astronauts subjected to US military security regulations? 8) Because the space race was on, and we didn't want to spend billions of dollars only to have the Russians lift our technology and beat us to it in the process. Why were all video and photographic evidence screened by the National Security Agency? 8) Because some of the cameras on board were classified, and they didn't want to reveal the details behind how precise their imaging technology really was, or really wasn't. Why were all the radio communications screened by the National Security Agency? 8) Misleading statement - it wasn't. It was broadcast in the clear, unencrypted, as alluded to numerous times in the previous part of the post. After spending millions of taxpayers' dollars planning a 'Moon City', why has the Moon not been visited by NASA since 1973? 8) Because that's where they're hiding the Roswell aliens... Just kidding. It's because going there costs a LOT of money, 1973 was nearing the end of a very expensive war (Vietnam), the election was around the corner, public interest in the space program had waned a great deal (live coverage for many segments of Apollo 13 was even cancelled by the networks), and Apollo 13's mission brought home a good point - we'd achieved our goal (landing a man on the moon), space flight was still very dangerous, and not worth the negative publicity (lost votes) in case of a bad accident. Why are some of NASA's top photographic technicians employed to 'airbrush out' anomalies caught on film? 8) Because when you're shooting film through sun-lit windows pitted by micrometeorites the resulting image is full of ghostly, out-of-focus glares, much like many of the "UFO's" on the stupid link. Why are astronauts and other NASA employees threatened with long jail sentences if they 'speak out' about what was really discovered out there in space? 8) And what, exactly, was "really discovered?" As for non-disclosure agreements backed up by the threat of jail - that's standard for anyone who possesses a security clearance. Being mostly members of the military, astronauts, by default, would possess such a clearance. Do you realise that no information, either photographic or otherwise, reaches the public domain until it has been thoroughly scrutinised and sanitized by the US intelligence community, and has been in effect since the space program began?. 8) This is an outright lie. Many space broadcasts were live. As for the photographs, please see comment above concerning imaging resolutions. Did you know that the main debates before the 'official' moon landings were regarding mining and mineral rights? 8) The main debates about which you speak were highly speculative and largely uninformed - it's just too expensive to haul tonnage from the Moon to Earth, O'Neil and Heppenheimer notwithstanding. And then, it hit us - plastics (and other artificial compounds used in a wide array of technologies) supplanted much of the requirement. Bearing in mind that the rich resources of titanium, aluminium, uranium, helium 3, and god knows what else, were found on the Moon. Do you really think that the US would have then told the rest of the world to come on up and take a share? 8) Actually, I believe their current position is "go right ahead - if you can afford it. Otherwise, just mine it yourselves or import the materials from another country - it's much cheaper." Buzz Aldrin has said in his book, 'Men From Earth' 'Another exciting energy resource on the moon is... an ample supply of the isotope Helium-3 (HE-3), which is very rare on Earth but has been deposited on the lunar surface over billions of years by the solar wind. It is estimated that at least a million tons of He-3 are readily recoverable from the regolith formations where lunar solar power stations would be practical. This He-3 offers a key to safe, practical nuclear fusion energy on Earth. It is estimated that a single ton of He-3 delivered to Earth would be worth at least $1 Billion.' 8) And a ton of He-3 would provide an unbelievable amount of energy if used in an efficient fusion reactor! My hip-pocket WAG would be that one ton could provide 100% of the energy requirements (electricity) for the U.S. for a period of time between a day and a year or two, depending upon the efficiency of the reactor. 8) The PROBLEM is that there is no such reactor - yet. Keep hoping, though, as we'll need it sooner than you might think. Another issue is that one astronaut is seen to land 'heavily' after leaving the lunar module? 8) Gravity is 1/6th the Earth's. Mass remains the same. Get enough velocity (2 feet per second), and an astronaut wearing a 300-lb backpack will very much indeed land heavily! How come when the Moon gravity is one sixth of the Earth's own gravitational pull? Even bearing in mind their heavy spacesuits which NASA claim weigh 185-190lbs, plus the astronauts weight, the total weight relative to Earth should have been 62 pounds or about four and a half stone. 8) Yes, he weighed 62 pounds. But he massed about 350 pounds. And "landing" is a function of mass, not weight (which is mass times gravimetric acceleration). Again Buzz Aldrin says in his book that he weighed only 60 pounds, if this is the case they should have been able to jump at least six feet, but as official film footage shows, the astronauts struggle to jump over eighteen inches! According to the laws of physics, this simply doesn't add up. 8) Take a Physics 101 class. It'll add up then. You might want to take Physics 102 and 103, as well. Then you'll learn about electromagnetism and nuclear physics, too, instead of just the same "old" stuff Isaac Newton knew more than 300 years ago!
|
|
12-May-2004, 01:16 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
So much for integrity...
|
|
12-May-2004, 01:18 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Can't tell from your post whether you believe the stuff in the links or not. Please clarify. Thanks.
|
|
12-May-2004, 01:42 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I don't mean to speak for JimO, but if he believes in Astronaut UFO encounters, I'm Cleopatra, Queen of the Nile!
__________________
Sic Transit Gloria Mundi
|
|
12-May-2004, 02:28 PM
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
[/quote]
|
|
12-May-2004, 02:39 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Harald
__________________
"Flying in space is risky business, but just staying on this planet is risky business too." - John Young, astronaut
|
|
12-May-2004, 03:58 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
JimO,
I read your article about Gordon Cooper on space.com. Have you ever thought about asking Dick Underwood about Donna Hare (or one of her many names). I thought that might make a nice section to your book. Her rantings about NASA and its security, is nothing like anything I've ever read or personally experienced. I suspect she may have never worked for NASA or a JSC contractor. Also, I've got a few old phone books and can't find her in those either.
|
|
12-May-2004, 04:42 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Did you verify that she actually worked there or just that she worked for a NASA contractor. All of her awards, seem like the kind of awards that they give by thousands.
|
|
12-May-2004, 05:09 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I did. I figured that it was a bad typo. I don't think that she's actually said that because that is how the UFO magazines and websites list her or introduce her. What it really should say is Skylab and Apollo-Soyuz. If she did do the things she claims, like making maps, she would have been involved in those projects. Like I've said before I've never found any reference to her in any NASA related thing, like in a book, manual or on a NASA website. That's why I always question her story. Or maybe NASA sort of airbrushed her out of the files.
|
|
12-May-2004, 08:25 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
12-May-2004, 08:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I did a google on "Skylab-Suez Medallion" and pulled up 4 sites, all of them copies of the transcript from the same radio program.
They list her name as Donna Tietze Hare. This sounds like a case where the radio program introductory blurb mangled the information, which has been subsequently duplicated and spread. Of course, the source could be responsible for the mangling as well. That would fit with the quality of the rest of her information.
|
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
