49th anniversary of silly "Santa Claus was astronaut's code word for UFO" myth

I keep running into people who still take this seriously.

Discussion over at 'space exploration'.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Is there any new evidence that supports the original claim?

a reply to: JimOberg
That's funny, I keep running into people who still don't take this seriously.

a reply to: JimOberg

Oh! come on Jim.

I bet next you'll be telling us there isn't even a Santa Claus.🎅

Happy Boxing Day to you anyway.

It was a legitimate Santa Claus sighting.

a reply to: JimOberg

Any astronaut could theoretically apply fictional terminology to anything to convey a message. The key here is that every incident is unique and so therefore context is important in terms of discerning what was actually meant by what is said.

They could use the phrase "Jolly Green Giant" to refer to anything from a UFO to a can of green beans to a comet or a helicopter, it's not determinate until after applying critical thinking to the context of how that phrase is used and under what specific circumstances.

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: JimOberg

Any astronaut could theoretically apply fictional terminology to anything to convey a message. The key here is that every incident is unique and so therefore context is important in terms of discerning what was actually meant by what is said.

They could use the phrase "Jolly Green Giant" to refer to anything from a UFO to a can of green beans to a comet or a helicopter, it's not determinate until after applying critical thinking to the context of how that phrase is used and under what specific circumstances.

Well said.

When I apply that same sort of critical thinking, it makes me take that statement very seriously.

Looked at very objectively,

Given the fact that we have a moon which is tidally-locked such that the same side is always facing Earth, there would be questions since the beginning of time; "What's on the other side?"

Given that we have had repeated UFO sightings and, indeed given that NASA funded a study to catalogue all "lunar anomolies" throughout recorded history, undoubtedly attempting to get some indication as to whether there might be extra terrestrial life on the moon, it seems a seminal question with respect to the Apollo missions would be "Is the moon inhabited by anything?"

Given that these astronauts were to be among some of the first human beings (though not THE first) to look down upon the surface of the moon never seen from Earth and then report what they saw to Earth as they rounded the far side.

And, given that when we as children start to mature and open our eyes to the real world, apply reason to our daily lives, it occurs to us that we really should ask if Santa Claus is "real" or just a belief .... similarly, when we ask ourselves, "given all these sightings, are ufos/aliens real, or is it all just a "belief" ...

It makes perfect sense to me that when man first viewed the back side of the moon, and needed to convey a message to Houston, without alarming citizens (but perhaps winking at them), the perfect words to use to verify indices of alien bases and/or activity would be " Please be informed, there IS a Santa Claus" - to which the reply is then; "You would be the best ones to know."

Why would they be the best to know of whether there IS a Santa Claus?

After all, if the astronauts saw stuff they could describe, wouldn't they have been too busy describing exactly what they saw (ex. "There are no 'seas' of lava ...," - they used to believe the dark areas were lava seas, "The surface is completely dark, unable to see anything at all..." Any other actual description would've been expected, appreciated, had they seen stuff that could have been openly described. But, they didn't say anything like that, they had something more important to convey, and required a canned cliche. Objective reasoning tells me it was because the truth couldn't be said aloud.

Scrubdog is a good assessment, but objective reasoning tells me there are no Alien/Nazi structures on the dark side of the moon.

So I would therefore say it's tongue in cheek, no idea why/who thinks Santa is based on the moon, therefore it's a daft statement, the kind of thing an astronaut might say if there had been some banter about what might be there.

a reply to: Scrubdog

The surface is completely dark, unable to see anything at all..."

Which it wasn't. On December 25, 1968 the Moon was in its First Quarter, 61% of the far side was sun lit. But part of it was indeed dark.

Boy, it's blacker than pitch out here.

While the command module could not communicate with Earth while on the far side, there are recordings of what was said on board, that bit above is one part of it, but there was a lot of tech chatter. The far side begins on page 234. here: www.jsc.nasa.gov...

a reply to: Phage

Thanks for the link, cool stuff!

a reply to: Forensick

You might well be right.

Please don't hear me to ever claim to "know" anything on the UFO topic. I read with interest, I believe there exists something yet to be explained, some other intelligence is around, but I don't know the parameters or claim inside knowledge of any type whatsoever.

I thought you stated an important principle, and tried to break it down logically based solely upon the circumstances and what was said.

But, again, I don't claim to know. If I had to guess, I'd say it was actually a pre-arranged signal, an indication that they had seen something that they thought they might see, and I'd say that it would be most likely something artificial.

Just a guess. Fun exercise, and a good way to check your thinking. I do realize you might well be right.

originally posted by: Scrubdog
a reply to: Forensick

You might well be right.

Please don't hear me to ever claim to "know" anything on the UFO topic. I read with interest, I believe there exists something yet to be explained, some other intelligence is around, but I don't know the parameters or claim inside knowledge of any type whatsoever.

I thought you stated an important principle, and tried to break it down logically based solely upon the circumstances and what was said.

But, again, I don't claim to know. If I had to guess, I'd say it was actually a pre-arranged signal, an indication that they had seen something that they thought they might see, and I'd say that it would be most likely something artificial.

Just a guess. Fun exercise, and a good way to check your thinking. I do realize you might well be right.

What do any of us know? People have seen things that are unexplainable, some people satisfy themselves with balance of probabilities, but we would be naive to think we are alone, the reason that most people visit these forums is probably hopeful we will discover something, see something, be 'visited'' not just to tell everyone they are wrong all the time.

It's a fascinating subject because space exploration is breaking new frontiers.

At least it's not full of flat earth loons trying to disprove something that is fact?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Scrubdog

The surface is completely dark, unable to see anything at all..."

Which it wasn't. On December 25, 1968 the Moon was in its First Quarter, 61% of the far side was sun lit. But part of it was indeed dark.

Boy, it's blacker than pitch out here.

While the command module could not communicate with Earth while on the far side, there are recordings of what was said on board, that bit above is one part of it, but there was a lot of tech chatter. The far side begins on page 234. here: www.jsc.nasa.gov...

Their he is folks !! Glad to see you back to your old self my dear colleague. Thoes one liners on the political fourms just wasn't your cup of tea.

Welcome back sir! Always a pleasure reading your work.

So... will this be the official anthem of Disclosure?