NASA's Apollo DSE "Black Box" Transcripts - revealing the unscripted truth about the Moon & E.T.

page: 19
198
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by nightmare_david

Was that Oberg?




Nope.

That was some other guy.




posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by nightmare_david

Was that Oberg?




Nope.

That was some other guy.



OK thanks. Been wondering about that and can't find my copy of that show.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by nightmare_david


OK thanks. Been wondering about that and can't find my copy of that show.


It is on youtube now.

A bunch of copies of it were uploaded during the 40th anniversary of the moon walk.

I found one for you:



(this is the first of five parts which are available on the youtube)


Edit: There is your guy - Right on the video. Oberg is bigger and has a badass mustache.

[edit on 4-10-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 01:22 AM
link   
Thanks.

I have a copy on one of my computers, but I've been rearranging files lately and everything is scattered around. Having trouble finding some stuff.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by nightmare_david
Remember the show FOX aired about the Moon landings being hoaxed?

There was a part where there was two clips shown. One clip had two astronauts in one area doing something. Then another clip of two astronauts who are supposed to be in a completely different area, yet both clips are actually the same exact place. They asked a guy (I believe a NASA guy) what the reason was behind that and he says something along the lines of: "Oh that's just bad editing"

Was that Oberg?


They had a NASA spokesman on the show but he didn't say it, and they didn't state the name of anyone at NASA when they made that claim, the show narrator only said that "NASA said it was bad editing", kind of hard to verify with no name or other information as to the source within NASA, right? Was Bart Sibrel the source of that "NASA said it was bad editing" claim?


jra

posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 04:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by nightmare_david
There was a part where there was two clips shown. One clip had two astronauts in one area doing something. Then another clip of two astronauts who are supposed to be in a completely different area, yet both clips are actually the same exact place. They asked a guy (I believe a NASA guy) what the reason was behind that and he says something along the lines of: "Oh that's just bad editing"


It sure is bad editing. On the part of FOX and whatever production company made that "documentary". The two clips they label as "Day 1" and "Day 2" are actually from the same day and from the same geology station (Geology station 4 to be exact). The part they label as "Day 1" can be found here at 1:37 (.rm format) and the part they label as "Day 2" is here at the very end and continues at the beginning here. They're really 8 minutes apart in reality and not separate days. In fact, if you watch the clips I linked to. You'll notice that the audio from the astronauts that you could hear for a brief second on the FOX program, wasn't even the original audio at all.

[edit on 4-10-2009 by jra]



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 05:09 AM
link   
Two Apollo 15 astronauts in the LM Agree - it looks like there is snow down there in some parts...



More snow.
=



*Remember the "snow covered prairie" from a couple pages ago:


(Apollo 15)


"It looks like a snow covered prairie"


AND Both astronauts agree that a picture of this area would make a nice Christmas card...

"Wouldn't that make a great Christmas card?"

Reply: "Hey, wouldn't it though?"





[edit on 4-10-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
the Gemini transcripts are also enlightening....


Jim Oberg say's in this video the Astronauts were tossing out junk and junk tends to Zig Zag back and forth. (in the vacuum of space)


can junk "Zig Zag" in the vacuum of space ?



What's that old saw about "the laughter of a fool is self-directed"??

The crew had recently opened the hatch and thrown out some now-excess spacewalking gear, that included pressurized tanks. What would be so strange about it being visible out the window, moving in an unusual direction if the tank had leaked?

When an object in orbit departs from a point of origin in a direction more-or-less perpendiclar to the original object's direction, it moves away at first but then curves back and returns to the area of origin. Over a period of several orbits it passes back and forth -- it zig-zags -- across that area.

That's why departing objects of any kind need to be observed for their motion in case there's a chance of recontact. This has always been true on space missions and is still true to this day.

The flight path looks like a zig-zag.

It's not a laughing matter.

Except to an ignorant fool.

QED.















[edit on 4-10-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Edit: There is your guy - Right on the video. Oberg is bigger and has a badass mustache.


That's Brian Welch, who was very ineffective on the show because he just kept proclaiming that he knew best and everyone should believe him. the editing made that look worse, but that's how he really felt, in general.

He was a decent guy from the Houston center who got tapped for a job as Dan Goldin's personal press secretary at HQ. Goldin's imperial arrogance infected Brian's soul, too. Sadly, Brian died of a heart attack while on a much-needed vacation a few years later.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 



it moves away at first but then curves back and returns to the area of origin


nice !

intelligent junk that knows how to get back to where it originated from

yes i would be an ignorant fool to believe that

hows that old saying go ?

tell a lie and you will have to tell more to maintain it ?


[edit on 4-10-2009 by easynow]



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 08:31 AM
link   
Ok,I promised myself I wouldnt start posting everywhere,but this is to good to turn down.

I was abdducted repeatedly as a child,I was taken off planet to the moon and into structures on the moon,the moon is a training facility.

The structures there are large enough to shelter millions of people.The ships,some are massive, parked on the moon are able to transport those millions to those shelters,all they require are pilots.

The little saucers with small windows that Swann says he felt were there are exactly what they sound like,little flying saucers,I was in one.It is exactly the same feeling you get when you first fly in a small prop plane and at about two thousand feet you realise that the wall of the plane your seat is bolted to is as thick as a waffle or a pancake,you have a sudden epiphany,THE FEELIN YOU GET WHEN YOU LEAVE THE EARTH IN A SMALL SAUCER IS EXACTLY THE SAME.

The government will never allow anyone to reach or record these things,and you better believe they know about the moonbasees creators and who lives on the Moon.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 08:34 AM
link   
And I wouldnt want to forget to mention this,IT DOESNT TAKE VERY LONG TO GET TO THE MOON AND YOU DONT TRAVEL AT ROCKETLIKE SPEED EITHER,NO G-FORCE.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by one4all
 


i might regret asking this but...lol... why didn't you mention any of that Moon trip in your abduction thread ?

www.abovetopsecret.com...







[edit on 4-10-2009 by easynow]



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by JimOberg
 



it moves away at first but then curves back and returns to the area of origin


nice !

intelligent junk that knows how to get back to where it originated from

What Jim is referring to is the basics of orbital mechanics; two objects with intersecting orbits containing a small degree of relative inclination between their orbital planes will appear to zig-zag back and forth horizontally from each other's perspective. If the orbits have slightly different eccentricities, they'll do the same in an up and down and back and forth direction as well. The debris does not need to be intelligent to repeatedly intersect the orbital location of the spacecraft from opposite directions, that's what debris will appear to do naturally given slight differences in orbits.


yes i would be an ignorant fool to believe that

Or you would be educated in orbital mechanics.


hows that old saying go ?

tell a lie and you will have to tell more to maintain it ?


What Jim said was not a lie, it's actually quite simple to understand as the truth once you understand how orbits work.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 




what about the pressurized tanks Oberg is claiming ?

if true ...that kinda changes everything you said.

sorry but you can't have it both way's











here is an object that looks like it's trying to get back to where it came from ?




shag nabbit ...the embedding is disabled on that.....here is the direct link to the video...

www.youtube.com...









[edit on 4-10-2009 by easynow]



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 

That could be because of small shuttle adjustments, but as presented it's impossible to know.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


it could be a pressurized "junk" just like Oberg is claiming on the Gemini mission




posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by ngchunter
 

what about the pressurized tanks Oberg is claiming ?

if true ...that kinda changes everything you said.

sorry but you can't have it both way's


I'm just telling you the facts of how orbital mechanics work. I don't know much about the specifics of the case you're talking about (in fact I can't view youtube videos at the moment, I'm running linux off a flash drive with a bare minimum space for plugins), but I do know that "zig-zagging" motion throughout an orbit following an object on an intersecting orbit is to be expected regardless of that object's propulsive capability or lack thereof. So far what has been described to me is neither unusual nor unexplained by simple orbital mechanics. As armap mentioned, any motion of the craft doing the filming, especially in translation mode, will make it seem as if nearby debris is manoeuvring when in fact it is the viewer that is moving. That's because in translational firing mode, the spacecraft doing the filming doesn't rotate, thus no changes are observed in the position or motions of the stars or the earth below, so the only reference point is the debris itself. I've seen this countless times in space shuttle videos.

[edit on 4-10-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Two Apollo 15 astronauts in the LM Agree - it looks like there is snow down there in some parts...



More snow.
=



*Remember the "snow covered prairie" from a couple pages ago:




(Apollo 15)


"It looks like a snow covered prairie"


AND Both astronauts agree that a picture of this area would make a nice Christmas card...

"Wouldn't that make a great Christmas card?"

Reply: "Hey, wouldn't it though?"





[edit on 4-10-2009 by Exuberant1]





nice find Exuberant1 !

snow = water ?

i appreciate you posting these very interesting transcripts. some of these conversations are bizzare



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
snow = water ?
Yes, snow=water, but "looks like snow" is not the same as snow, right?

And yes, Exuberant1 is the only person that is still on topic, and doing a great job!





new topics

top topics



 
198
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join