It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Apollo 11 Armrstrong “These babies were huge, sir!”

page: 19
183
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by spinkyboo
 


That's so cool...




posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jools
reply to post by spinkyboo
 


That's so cool...


It was indeed. It changed my life.
It changed the way I looked at myself, our species, the planet and the universe.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by spinkyboo

Originally posted by Jools
reply to post by spinkyboo
 


That's so cool...


It was indeed. It changed my life.
It changed the way I looked at myself, our species, the planet and the universe.



Me too..I lived in UK before I moved to Canada..and saw something that I believe to be a UFO...Totally unexplainable....
Although I have had an interest for many years in such matters anyways...It was the icing on the cake for me...and even though I have said many a posting I sit on the fence...I feel I have been lucky because it opens the mind!
Thanks for sharing your experience



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
The title quotation for this thread -- I am arguing that it is bogus. RF argues that there MIGHT be a tape out there in some attic that confirms it, but he's never seen it. Evidently there is no evidence, at all, in hand.

Bogus?

Verdict?



It is logical that I would not see any such tape until such tape is found, but your trying to convince people to accept your belief that such a recording does not exsist simply because you do not have it in your posession.

Just because something has not been found yet, does not mean that it is impossible to find or does not exsit.

Earlier you were saying that you recognize that it does take some time for "old space stuff" to surface. What happend...change your mind or what?

You know from historical record, that Hams tuned into NASA transmissions.

You know that Ham operators in the those years recorded receptions of signals they received...this is proven with the recordings made from Sputnik and Vanguard 1 satellites and other recordings made by Hams.

EXAMPLE

With these facts in hand, do you dismiss the probability that there very well may be some recordings out there of the Apollo missions sitting in some Ham's collection? Do you, as one other member thinks, that these Ham operators recorded the Apollo missions for the sake of proving some debate in a conspiracy forum some 30+ years later?

Is it logical to think that these Ham operators recorded Apollo transmissions from the prospective that they will catch some "goodie" conversation regarding a UFO or Moon anomaly?

Hardly. As a Ham radio operator myself, and being one during those years, if I were to record those missions, it would be from the prospective of historical significance, as well as for later enjoyment of simply listening to them again. In those years, I was not thinking of hidden agenda or cover up out of NASA becasue back then, NASA was more upfront and did not give people reason to be suspicious, which is considerably different today.

As I said to that other member, it might be like looking for a needle in a huge haystack, but because finding that needle requires searching for it, does not conclude that the needle is impossible to find.

Something will turn up someday. Perhaps by chance some Ham operator might find this thread, read it and remember a fellow Ham operator who has such recordings. You never know.


Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
It is logical that I would not see any such tape until such tape is found, but you're trying to convince people to accept your belief that such a recording does not exist simply because you do not have it in your posession. Just because something has not been found yet, does not mean that it is impossible to find or does not exsit.


It's not that I don't HAVE it in MY possession -- it's that NOBODY has shown they have it in anybody's possession, despite the enormous financial value of such a genuine recording.

The argument against the tape's existence as described is that the language used -- including, for example, the claim that all three astronauts were on the lunar surface -- is so at variance with standard comm protocol and indisputable features of the Apollo system, that it looks 'made up'. I could argue that I'm sure the confession of the fabricator will come out some day (as in the 'Loch Ness monster' photo), so that proves it's a hoax.

My 'as-yet unrevealed hoax confession' trumps your 'as-yet unrevealed astronaut UFO discussion tape'. QED.

The standard that your putative tape could exist because every amateur radio buff's attic has not been searched is a pretty loose definition of evidence, and it allows any other imaginary variation of outer space events to be equally plausible, or more so.



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
The title quotation for this thread -- I am arguing that it is bogus. RF argues that there MIGHT be a tape out there in some attic that confirms it, but he's never seen it. Evidently there is no evidence, at all, in hand. Bogus? Verdict?


My vote...........Bogus.

But why end the lively discussion? Misleading headlines and un-substantiated folklore seems to abound here. (Plus the OP racks up "bonus points" and it encourages others to propagate hyperbole and it perpetuates the cycle.)

RF Burns presented a plausible "what if" regarding the "remote possibility" that some HAM operator has 40+ year old recordings of the alleged conversation. But failed to deliver said proof.

It was a nice stroll down memory-lane with rose-colored glasses.

I assume the "out of print" book referenced in OP resided in the fiction section.

Regards........KK



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


It is a lively and thoughtful discussion

1 that you seem not able to resist, you frequent this thread a lot

perhaps you are a "closet" believer that is worried what his friends

might think

dont worried about it KK ,

you mention the points on this thread a lot , yet you donate ...



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Yes, it's been a discussion eh? Points were not my motivation for this thread. I've already discussed how the thread came to be and most certainly didn't anticipate this kind of attention as other threads of mine Witness to the Dying Process, Calling Em Out; Bilderbergs, Trilats, CFRs in Obamas Administration and Nano Tech in Our Food have slipped into the ATS ether. And really, once you get your avatar and other ATS store items, points are rather useless agreed?

The validity of the OP rests on the reputations and integrity of Binder and Maurice Chatelain. This has yet to be proven to my satisfaction or dissatisfaction. But, what about the other quotes said to be intercepted by ham operators?

Like other posters have stated, you are either going to believe or disbelieve that these quotes were intercepted, that NASA has and is involved covering up information.

One other observation - if someone was to put time and money (advertise for recordings of ham intercepts?) into actually bringing to ATS an actual recording - I don't think anything would change. Those who believe would claim success and those who disbelieve would predictably say "You can't prove that was recorded on the date stated - it's a hoax!"

I saw someone else mention my ATS "buddies." I've heard mentions of cliques on ATS - I'm not a member of any of these. I have one person I would deem as a friend on ATS and they haven't posted on this thread. I find Phage to be a voice of reason and no, not a disinfo agent. An intelligent person trying like the rest of us to always get to the truth. Just by that statement I may have upset some believers but you have to admit, he's intelligent, a great debater, and often raises some good points.

Most of the topics on ATS are highly subjective, ones that the reader have to come to conclusions on their own.

And finally, to the same poster asking about 'how that offended me,' - I've had some personal ATS growth as a result of this thread. Learned some good lessons. It is silly to get upset over an internet forum and I think the motivation behind some posts are done intentionally to try and illict an emotional response; this distracts from the subject matter and can derail a thread.



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinda kurious

RF Burns presented a plausible "what if" regarding the "remote possibility" that some HAM operator has 40+ year old recordings of the alleged conversation. But failed to deliver said proof.


I love it how the banannas twist and turn everything around for their ego.

It is not my burden to prove anything. I simply suggested one possible avenue of resource since obviously, your not going to get it from NASA.

Now if you can, since our NASA friend cannot, then by all means, PROVE me wrong.

Should I say it now or save it for a few posts later?

Ill say it now...since you cannot get those originals from NASA or even bother to try to begin the search process to find those possible recordings from a Ham...YOU FAILED.

But by all means friend....take the step in the right direction and go find them instead of spinning your feet and going nowhere.

Same with our friend Jim...with his influence, he should be able to get those original NASA recordings....he too has FAILED.

So many failing here yet they want to point the finger at someone else.

PFFT!!


Maybe you guys dont want to do the obvious becasue you might find what your looking for and it will shatter your whole world apart.

That makes more sense of it being the case.

Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


Mercy sakes RF, I was complimenting you.

But just to prove I'm a good sport, I will heed your suggestion:

EARTH TO ANY FORMER HAM RADIO OPERATORS.

"Does anybody happen to have recordings of the alleged conversations described in the OP which purportedly took place (cough) on the moon over 40 years ago?"

Now just to prove my earnest diligence, I will go search on e-bay.

Regards...KK



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 08:17 PM
link   
So where do you stand Jim ,Phage et al?

were the lunar landings as reported?.....a simple hop skip & jump to a dead moon that orbits this beautiful planet.....that we made 40 years ago, and amazingly we did without a single hitch?....and that we haven't gone back because we can't afford it?......but we can afford to bail out banks to the tune of Billions!


Are you guys saying that you buy this story?



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Whisper67
 


Hi Whisper,

As a somewhat vocal critic of this particular thread, I thought I'd respond.

There is no need for a "Mea Culpa." Once you start a thread, they tend to take on a life of their own. I firmly believe that you are a bright and rising contributor, albeit a relative newcomer. I have enjoyed some of your other threads. (Although the one about "The Graying of Obama" wasn't a favorite.) Hey they can't all be Beauty Queens and I've posted some real skunks myself. But anyway, you lose "ownership" of a thread the second you hit "submit". Then nut-jobs and cantankerous wackos like me, RF Burns and others engage in useless and inconsequential banter.

My main complaint with this thread is the Misleading headline and the "Matter-of-Fact"
manner in which the "revelations" of an "alleged" conversation between two astronauts
were portrayed. As if by gospel.

There are some serious brainiacs on this site and even more village idiots like me who share an utter appreciation of the absurd.

I look forward to your future threads and posts and hope ones like this don't leave you gun-shy. It is obvious that you (like myself) enjoy ATS warts and all. I was labeled as a "Skeptic" on this thread by an esteemed member for the very first time so it will always hold fond memories to me.

I would be interested in the fruits of any further research you might offer to substantiate the "lunar chat" in your OP.

In the meantime.........keep up the good work. You are a diligent and valuable member of this community. I honestly think you have pure and sincere intentions.

Please don't be dissuaded. I realize this can be a tough crowd.

Without Wax...........KK

[edit on 22-3-2009 by kinda kurious]



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seany
reply to post by kinda kurious
 

dont worried about it KK , you mention the points on this thread a lot , yet you donate


Hi Seany,

Apparently you have confused me or this thread with another one. Could you kindly direct me to another one of my posts on THIS thread where I mentioned points?

Also, one small favor since you have provoked me. Could you please work on your typing / spelling skills. Poor spelling makes me (sic.)

Toodles........KK


[edit on 22-3-2009 by kinda kurious]


jra

posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Argyll
were the lunar landings as reported?.....a simple hop skip & jump to a dead moon that orbits this beautiful planet.....that we made 40 years ago, and amazingly we did without a single hitch?....and that we haven't gone back because we can't afford it?......but we can afford to bail out banks to the tune of Billions!


With out a hitch? Have you read in detail about all the things that happened? There were some close calls and various problems for just about every mission. Apollo 13 had it the worst obviously. It wasn't a "simple hop skip & jump" like you make it sound. It took a lot of bright minds and skilled people to make it happen.

And it's not that the US Government can't afford it. NASA itself can't, due to there budget (although it's getting better now). But there seems to be a decent number of people who feel that going to the Moon is a waste of money. And Politicians tend to care more about what gets them the most votes.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Whisper67
The validity of the OP rests on the reputations and integrity of Binder and Maurice Chatelain. This has yet to be proven to my satisfaction or dissatisfaction. But, what about the other quotes said to be intercepted by ham operators? Like other posters have stated, you are either going to believe or disbelieve that these quotes were intercepted, that NASA has and is involved covering up information.


Is there the slightest evidence that Chatelain (or Binder) was ever in the position claimed for him, to allow special access to such alleged events? That you feel you can choose what to believe about what should be a matter of fact and record, based on no evidence at all, makes any kind of investigation pointless, doesn't it? Doesn't that reduce 'ufology' to a personal religious belief system, then -- and pulls the rug out from any desire to make it ogical, or scientific? And opens you up to any sort of claim that can emotionally appeal to you? OK -- but don't pretend it's reality-based.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 04:09 AM
link   
Man i don`t trust NASA anymore not with all the cover-ups!They don`t tell us the truth!They always cover up something!They don`t want us to know what lies beyond!And that they dont tell us what is REALLY happening!



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   
"These babies were huge, sir!.... Enormous!... Oh God! You wouldn’t believe it!....I’m telling you there are other space-craft out there…lined up on the far side of the crater edge!...They’re on the Moon watching us!"

that quote , attributed to Neil Armstrong at the start of this thread is actually from the the film/book Alternative 3 - which is an april fools hoax.

en.wikipedia.org...

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...


mars landing 1962 , alternative 3
www.youtube.com...



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns

Originally posted by kinda kurious

RF Burns presented a plausible "what if" regarding the "remote possibility" that some HAM operator has 40+ year old recordings of the alleged conversation. But failed to deliver said proof.


I love it how the banannas twist and turn everything around for their ego.

It is not my burden to prove anything. I simply suggested one possible avenue of resource since obviously, your not going to get it from NASA.

***snip***


Come on now Burns. Get of your high horse and stop playing the devils advocate.

You are a self professed HAM operator. "Have been since 1967" was it?

What ever stops you from calling out with a "CQ CQ CQ please find old tapes with Apollo conversation."

Have you got a rig then do it! Don't fart around with "yes there are probably tapes, but it is for the non_believers and doubter to write and ask every GODDAMN HAM operator if they have a recording and then tick them off from huge lists when they answer no.

But perhaps your HAM credibility will suffer if you make that call.

I know we will scrutinize the recording intensily and probably call it a hoax, but who knows. Maybe you find a source that is truly credible?

73
51
(I never got beyond CB)



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by HolgerTheDane

Originally posted by RFBurns

Originally posted by kinda kurious

RF Burns presented a plausible "what if" regarding the "remote possibility" that some HAM operator has 40+ year old recordings of the alleged conversation. But failed to deliver said proof.


I love it how the banannas twist and turn everything around for their ego.

It is not my burden to prove anything. I simply suggested one possible avenue of resource since obviously, your not going to get it from NASA.

***snip***


Come on now Burns. Get of your high horse and stop playing the devils advocate.

You are a self professed HAM operator. "Have been since 1967" was it?

What ever stops you from calling out with a "CQ CQ CQ please find old tapes with Apollo conversation."


And I will tell it to you as I have told Oberg..what makes you THINK I have not?


Originally posted by HolgerTheDane
Have you got a rig then do it! Don't fart around with "yes there are probably tapes, but it is for the non_believers and doubter to write and ask every GODDAMN HAM operator if they have a recording and then tick them off from huge lists when they answer no.


Again, unless your some psycic who can see into everone's minds and see their activities, I would suggest you change your attitude and get off YOUR high horse.

I have put in inqueries thank you. And if you bother to have been monitoring the Ham bands lately, you might have picked up on the conversations that have taken place over the last 3 days.

Oh...no rig to listen with? Hmm...guess you dont have much to prove with to validate your outlandish statement up there.


Originally posted by HolgerTheDane
But perhaps your HAM credibility will suffer if you make that call.


Heh, Ham radio isnt about credibility, its about a hobby, and has been so since its inception. Ham's dont record their activities just for you and the other skeptics hanging around ATS asking for proof. But if you believe otherwise, well put your money where your mouth..or in this case, fingers are and maybe you can find what your looking for.


Originally posted by HolgerTheDane
I know we will scrutinize the recording intensily and probably call it a hoax, but who knows. Maybe you find a source that is truly credible?

73
51
(I never got beyond CB)


Ya...of course it will be scrutinized and disected by all you armchair experts out there who think they are authority on everything discussed in a conspiracy forum. And if you believe there is a source more credible...well by golly ask them for it!! It would be nice to have the original, un-altered audio from the almighty, trusty NASA to compare the Ham recordings with.

I doubt you will get very far. But it might be amusing to see you try.

73's
68's
(too bad you never got byond Crummy Band)


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 23-3-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   
page 201 of the apollo 10 transcript (linked earlier in the thread)

06 25 25 CDR Oh, look out there. Oh, if I only had a camera!
Get itl Camera

06 25 30 LMP Oh, shoot

04 06 25 35 CDR f:ll; f:ll. You got f:4 of those - those
Yes, now you've got f:ll, yes. Beautiful.



new topics

top topics



 
183
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join