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.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Only when you show a complete lack of consistency.

In your post from 15:20 you say:

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

And then at 16:30 you say:

1. "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>

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>

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.

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?

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

You also said this:

1. 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.

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/UF...12Mission.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>

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?

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.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

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

http://www.geocities.com/kryst0ph/UF...12Mission.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?

"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?

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>

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.

LOL !

http://bjbooth.topcities.com/Video/a...tsightings.ram

Conclusion:

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

End of transmission.

"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>

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.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

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: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.