STS-80 Astronaut Jones: "No Aliens Encountered on that Flight"

Mission Control also wanted to watch for anomalous apparitions because of the chance they were clues to vehicle damage or malfunction --
www.nbcnews.com...

Yeah Jimbo, like NASA astros are going to come out and tell us the truth about seeing UFO's. They know you would be at their door the next morning demanding the return of their paychecks.

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect
Yeah Jimbo, like NASA astros are going to come out and tell us the truth about seeing UFO's. They know you would be at their door the next morning demanding the return of their paychecks.

Both Gordon Cooper and Edgar Mitchell agree, there were no UFO secrets at NASA and no constraint on them or their associates in discussing the subject. Where's there any example of such intimidation ever happening?

This is "Get-Out-Of-Reality-Free" card # 6, usually played by desperate counterdebunkers to neutralize on-site expert testimony they refuse to believe. There's no evidence that astronauts are lying about any space experiences, or have been ordered to. It's an escape route deeper into fantasy for the factually intolerant.

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect
Yeah Jimbo, like NASA astros are going to come out and tell us the truth about seeing UFO's. They know you would be at their door the next morning demanding the return of their paychecks.

Both Gordon Cooper and Edgar Mitchell agree, there were no UFO secrets at NASA and no constraint on them or their associates in discussing the subject. Where's there any example of such intimidation ever happening?

This is "Get-Out-Of-Reality-Free" card # 6, usually played by desperate counterdebunkers to neutralize on-site expert testimony they refuse to believe. There's no evidence that astronauts are lying about any space experiences, or have been ordered to. It's an escape route deeper into fantasy for the factually intolerant.

Of course I can't challenge your comments without offering any verifiable comments of my own. But, to start, it is well accepted by conspiracists that in the press conference (?) on the 25th anniversary of Apollo 11's landing on the moon, Neil Armstrong made this cryptic comment: "Those who can remove one of truth's protective layers". See video, below.

1. What truth is hidden under protective layers that a lunar astronaut is hinting at?
2. Why do you think that he needed to allude to an unspoken mystery associated with his/their voyage?
3. To your knowledge, Jim, do you know of any sources that reveal what he was aiming at? Interviews, books?
4. Have his remarks ever been remarked upon by anyone in NASA?
5. While it is a given that "we" went to the moon, one can be amazed at the ton of questions that point to problems mainly with some of the NASA photos. I will not go into detail but there are many websites devoted to showing these photos and videos made from the emulsion films that still make you wonder after engaging logic and common sense. And I'm not aware of any NASA attempt to assign a spokesperson(s) to tackle them and lay 'em to rest. The questions about the photos are not necessarily restricted to UFOs, mainly that something does not seem to be right with what we've been told and shown and where the photos show different.
6. If one could have gotten the 3 astronauts together at a gathering and they got drunk and someone(s) in the gathering seized the opportunity and broached the subject of UFOs and/or UFOs on the moon, what do you think they would reveal? Would the "hidden truth" come out of hiding?

originally posted by: klassless

Of course I can't challenge your comments without offering any verifiable comments of my own. But, to start, it is well accepted by conspiracists that in the press conference (?) on the 25th anniversary of Apollo 11's landing on the moon, Neil Armstrong made this cryptic comment: "Those who can remove one of truth's protective layers". See video, below.

It's accepted by everyone that this is what he said, because he said it. This difference in interpretation comes from one group of people who see it as 'cryptic' and the remainder who describe it as 'a metaphor'.

1. What truth is hidden under protective layers that a lunar astronaut is hinting at?

Stuff we have yet to learn, not stuff that has been learnt and hidden. Look at who he is talking to.

2. Why do you think that he needed to allude to an unspoken mystery associated with his/their voyage?

He wasn't alluding to his voyage, but the voyage of discovery about to be undertaken by his target audience.

3. To your knowledge, Jim, do you know of any sources that reveal what he was aiming at? Interviews, books?
4. Have his remarks ever been remarked upon by anyone in NASA?

NASA have other things to do, and to most people his meaning is clear and needs no explaining.

5. While it is a given that "we" went to the moon, one can be amazed at the ton of questions that point to problems mainly with some of the NASA photos. I will not go into detail but there are many websites devoted to showing these photos and videos made from the emulsion films that still make you wonder after engaging logic and common sense. And I'm not aware of any NASA attempt to assign a spokesperson(s) to tackle them and lay 'em to rest. The questions about the photos are not necessarily restricted to UFOs, mainly that something does not seem to be right with what we've been told and shown and where the photos show different.

I for one am amazed at the questions asked about the photographs, live TV and 16mm video because the questions usually reveal a lack of understanding and a massive amount of confirmation bias. They are questions not actually interested in the answer. Again, NASA have better things to do and have never pandered to conspiracy theorists.

6. If one could have gotten the 3 astronauts together at a gathering and they got drunk and someone(s) in the gathering seized the opportunity and broached the subject of UFOs and/or UFOs on the moon, what do you think they would reveal? Would the "hidden truth" come out of hiding?

They would reveal nothing that they haven't already spoken about at length. There is nothing to reveal!

I don't see any constructive response to these loaded hypotheticals.

I've done some recent reports on the major UFO myths surrounding the mission here:

www.jamesoberg.com...
www.jamesoberg.com...

originally posted by: JimOberg
I don't see any constructive response to these loaded hypotheticals.

I've done some recent reports on the major UFO myths surrounding the mission here:

www.jamesoberg.com...
www.jamesoberg.com...

Good stuff Jim. Your commentary is a little too conservative on p67 of the UFO document here:

The connection with the failed military spysat was dubious since Apollo-11
was much farther out from Earth than any spysat
• The odds of them crossing paths within visual range were tiny
• If they had passed nearby it would have been at a very high speed instead
of floating outside the window for an hour

If this is the same UFO they saw at the time they asked Houston what the distance to the SIV-B was and Houston replied 6000 miles, then I'd say the connection with the failed military spysat was impossible rather than dubious. They knew the SIV-B was already 6000 or so miles away, and they felt it was not possible they were seeing something 6000 miles away, they felt it was much closer, so they ruled out it being the SIV-B.

When Barbree says "I took that to mean 20 to 50 thousand miles out – a few hours after TLI.", that means they would be even further than 6000 miles from any low earth orbiting spysats, so if the SIV-B was impossible to be the UFO source the spysat is much more impossible due to the greater distance, and not "following" the spacecraft like the SIVB and SLA panels would.

I suppose some people don't like to admit when they're wrong. In this case however I think it would have been less embarrassing if he would have just admitted the Apollo 11 UFO couldn't have been the spysat after you pointed out the reasons why it's more like impossible rather than merely "dubious".

Oh well, at least he's not trying to suggest it might have aliens like the so-called "documentary" seemed to suggest.

p83 has an extra "s" you might want to remove:

Twenty years safter the last Apollo mission...

Both those documents were enjoyable to review, thanks for posting them.