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

Can someone tell me is there anyway to get off this planet? Really!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is one of the best threads on ATS. More solid evidence here than anywhere else, and it is all printed officially from source, for all to see. Absolutely awesome.

cherio.... read here all about the newly discovered moon 'hole' which points to the possibility of lunar subterranean tunnels n what not....

A deep hole on the moon that could open into a vast underground tunnel has been found for the first time. The discovery strengthens evidence for subsurface, lava-carved channels that could shield future human colonists from space radiation and other hazards.

The moon seems to possess long, winding tunnels called lava tubes that are similar to structures seen on Earth. They are created when the top of a stream of molten rock solidifies and the lava inside drains away, leaving a hollow tube of rock.

Their existence on the moon is hinted at based on observations of sinuous rilles – long, winding depressions carved into the lunar surface by the flow of lava. Some sections of the rilles have collapsed, suggesting that hollow lava tubes hide beneath at least some of the rilles.

But until now, no one has found an opening into what appears to be an intact tube. "There's sort of a chicken-and-egg problem," says Carolyn van der Bogert of the University of Münster in Germany. "If it's intact, you can't see it."

Finding a hole in a rille could suggest that an intact tube lies beneath. So a group led by Junichi Haruyama of the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency searched for these "skylights" in images taken by Japan's Kaguya spacecraft, which orbited the moon for almost two years before ending its mission in June.
Deep cave

The team found the first candidate skylight in a volcanic area on the moon's near side called Marius Hills. "This is the first time that anybody's actually identified a skylight in a possible lava tube" on the moon, van der Bogert, who helped analyse the feature, told New Scientist.

The hole measures 65 metres across, and based on images taken at a variety of sun angles, the the hole is thought to extend down at least 80 metres. It sits in the middle of a rille, suggesting the hole leads into a lava tube as wide as 370 metres across.

It is not clear exactly how the hole formed. A meteorite impact, moonquakes, or pressure created by gravitational tugs from the Earth could be to blame. Alternatively, part of the lava tube's ceiling could have been pulled off as lava in the tube drained away billions of years ago.
Radiation shield

Finding such an opening could be a boon for possible human exploration of the moon (see What NASA's return to the moon may look like).

Since the tubes may be hundreds of metres wide, they could provide plenty of space for an underground lunar outpost. The tubes' ceilings could protect astronauts from space radiation, meteoroid impacts and wild temperature fluctuations (see Can high-tech cavemen live on the moon?).

"I think it's really exciting," says Penny Boston of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology in Socorro. "Basalt is an extremely good material for radiation protection. It's free real estate ready to be exploited and modified for human use."
Blocked passage?

But even if astronauts were to rappel into the hole, they might not be able to travel far into the tube it appears to lead into. "I would bet a lot of money that there's a tube there, but I would not bet nearly so much that we could gain access to the tube," says Ray Hawke of the University of Hawaii at Manoa, who has also hunted for lunar lava tubes.

Rubble or solidified lava might block up the tube. "It could be closed up and inaccessible," Hawke told New Scientist.

NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), which should be able to snap images of the area that are at least 10 times as sharp, could help reveal more about the hole. And more lava tube openings may be found.

The Kaguya team is still combing over images of other areas in search of additional skylights. And Hawke says a proposal is in the works to use LRO's main camera to snap oblique shots of the lunar surface. This could help reveal cave entrances that are not visible in a bird's-eye view.

www.newscientist.com...

Originally posted by charlyv
This is one of the best threads on ATS. More solid evidence here than anywhere else, and it is all printed officially from source, for all to see. Absolutely awesome.

Thanks Charlyv!

That means alot to me.

I cannot speak for Easynow's extensive efforts, but I can tell you that I have spent several dozen hours researching and presenting this material - so your compliments are very much appreciated. I am sure Easynow and lunacognita will be glad to read them too.

Thanks again!

Hey fellas,

How about some anomalous lunar images to go with all these strange transcripts... Let's start with Lunar orbiter 5 - specifically lo5-125-h2a.

Enjoy!


Let's start with this one:

And another strange looking place:

Check this next place out. I have added a red arrow pointing to a strange structure projecting over the lurain (lunar terrain):

Another strange looking place:

Could this area be a hangar?

I have pointed to a couple of the stranger anomalies using red arrows. One even looks like a classic saucer:

This area is abundant in rectilinear features.

Edit: Since it is from the same image, I suppose it makes sense that I should throw in Mikeingh's tower, so all the new guys have a chance to see this amazing example of possible artificial construction on the lunar surface:

(Red arrow to help people see what we are talking about.)

[edit on 5-11-2009 by Exuberant1]

Originally posted by JamesBondLovesLucy
The Apollo moon landings were all faked by NASA in the western deserts, NASA is only for public relations. Do you all not think that the govt and military would have their own secret space agency?

The Joint Chiefs, likely CIA director, and def. all American presidents since Truman have been aware of the grays.

That's been done to death a gazillion times. If you have proof of your claims
of faked moon landings other than dodgy already debunked youtube videos then please post for us all to see and if not then please desist from taking the this thread off topic.

reply to post by pmexplorer


Don't ask people to prove such negatives.

Please provide us with what you think is the best evidence that man landed on the moon.

reply to post by charlyv

thanks charlyv

good to hear you enjoy this thread and i'm sure anyone that has contributed this thread also appreciates your reply as much as i do








reply to post by Exuberant1


thanks , great pics

here's a link to that Apollo 12 secret EVA thread. it was decided that because the subject is so complex , it would be difficult to properly present everything in video form. as far as i know, it's still under consideration.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by easynow


I'll check it out now Easy,

Hey as far as the video is concerned, have you ever considered making it in a how-to format?

I find that is one way of simplifying complex processes.

Imagine that...:


"How to conduct a secret EVA - a simple video guide"

By Lunacognita and Easynow

(Intro music. Mission Impossible theme)


Edit:


=

[edit on 8-11-2009 by Exuberant1]

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by pmexplorer

 

Don't ask people to prove such negatives.

Please provide us with what you think is the best evidence that man landed on the moon.

Don't ask? Why not? Because he/she might get embarassed.

The burden of 'proof' is not on me as the Moon landings are considered fact for good reason and there are a multitude of sources and material available which illustrate exactly how it was achieved in great detail.

Originally posted by pmexplorer

Originally posted by JamesBondLovesLucy
The Apollo moon landings were all faked by NASA in the western deserts, NASA is only for public relations. Do you all not think that the govt and military would have their own secret space agency?

The Joint Chiefs, likely CIA director, and def. all American presidents since Truman have been aware of the grays.

That's been done to death a gazillion times. If you have proof of your claims
of faked moon landings other than dodgy already debunked youtube videos then please post for us all to see and if not then please desist from taking the this thread off topic.

I was new to the forum and at first had not found more appropriate threads. There are sites and books with proof that the Apollo landings were faked. Trust me.

The best proof is that the grays (demons) are on the moon, but I am unable to prove that as of now. Not for long I don't think.

Originally posted by JamesBondLovesLucy

Originally posted by pmexplorer

Originally posted by JamesBondLovesLucy
The Apollo moon landings were all faked by NASA in the western deserts, NASA is only for public relations. Do you all not think that the govt and military would have their own secret space agency?

The Joint Chiefs, likely CIA director, and def. all American presidents since Truman have been aware of the grays.

That's been done to death a gazillion times. If you have proof of your claims
of faked moon landings other than dodgy already debunked youtube videos then please post for us all to see and if not then please desist from taking the this thread off topic.

I was new to the forum and at first had not found more appropriate threads. There are sites and books with proof that the Apollo landings were faked. Trust me.

The best proof is that the grays (demons) are on the moon, but I am unable to prove that as of now. Not for long I don't think.

there is a picture where you can see a daemons BTW .

Anyone watch the TV show Defying Gravity? In it, when they landed on Venus, they had backup footage filmed in a studio at the ready to show the masses back on Earth in case something should go wrong (which it did). It was just interesting to see this is all I'm saying. Most days I still find it hard to believe that we had the technology back in the 60s to show live footage from the moon. I remember thinking it then as a kid and I still think it now. Just something that gnaws at me.

Originally posted by mcrom901
www.youtube.com...

hmmmmm...... some very interesting reports from the man himself... "jim"..... kudos......

pegasus b.....

The facts are plain. On June 3, 1965, Gemini-4 was launched into orbit 150 miles above the Earth's surface. Rookie astronauts McDivitt and White were headed for the USA's first long-duration flight, the first to attempt extensive visual observations and photography. On the second day, over Hawaii, the 35-year-old McDivitt reported seeing an object -- "like a beer can with an arm sticking out" -- which NASA officials later announced had been identified by Air Force space radars as the thousand-mile-distant Pegasus-2 (but that range was too great, it turned out, for McDivitt's object to have been the winged Pegasus satellite). Together with a mysterious "tadpole" photo, the McDivitt report has achieved UFO superstardom and has been firmly enshrined in UFO literature and lore.

norad......

But since 1969, when the Condon Report was published, some new resources have become available concerning McDivitt's UFO. Furthermore, Dr. Roach himself put his finger on the key to his forced endorsement of the McDivitt case, with the words "if the NORAD listing . . . is complete." An inquiry to the NORAD Directorate of Public Affairs did not produce a definitive solution. "Your comments on the NORAD role related to [Gemini 4] appear to be logical," replied NORAD Public Information Officer Del W. Kindschi, "but our space people tell me they no longer have copies of the messages that were sent to NASA Houston on the sightings," he added. How did McDivitt describe the UFO? His first report came in at Mission Elapsed Time (MET) 29 hours, 52 minuses, 17 seconds. Five minutes later he described it better. "It had big arms sticking out of it, it looked like. I only had it for a minute...."

usaf & nasa....

The Air Force wasn't interested, either: McDivitt never even filed a UFO report with Project Blue Book or anyone else. NASA did not bother with the story, it seems, because nobody was particularly puzzled by the object. when queried by Congressman Robert Michel (himself queried by a constituent), NASA Assistant Administrator for Legislative Affairs, Richard L. Callaghan, replied that "We believe it to be a rocket tank or spent second stage of a rocket."

the debunker.....

During a 1975 interview between Philip Klass (Aviation Week and Space Technology) and Col. Bernard Szczutkowski (USAF-ret.) ot NORAD, Klass mentioned his interest in investigating and exposing UFO cases. Szczutkowski reached into his desk, pulled out a photo, and asked Klass: "Do you want to see a photo of McDivitt's UFO?" Klass quickly assented. The NORAD officer handed Klass the PAO print of the Titan-II second stage. This, he told Klass, was what McDivitt had seen but was unable to identify. It was the Titan booster. Klass obtained a copy of the photo from NORAD and sent it to McDivitt, asking if it did not closely correspond to his verbal description of the UFO he had seen. McDivitt replied: "Thank you for sending me the slide of the Gemini-IV photograph. I very quickly identified the object in the photograph as the second stage of the Titan rocket which launched us . . . I am sure that this is not a photograph of the object which I described many times and which many people refer to as the Gemini IV UFO...." The reasons which McDivitt gave for this certainty, however, were very revealing. It was not because the objects were shaped differently at all. Instead, McDivitt explained, "At the time I saw whatever that object was, the background was nothing but the black of deep space. There was not a horizon anywhere within my view." (Author's note: Roach described the field of view from a Gemini as follows: "The astronauts are able to see only . . . about three percent of the celestial sphere." McDivitt's reply to my preliminary 1976 identification of his UFO with the Titan-II second stage was equally explicit: "The reason I did not assume that the object I saw was the upper stage of the Titan II was simple. During the first orbit of our mission my job was to fly formation with the upper stage of the rocket. This I attempted to do, and I spent approximately one-and-a-half to two hours looking at this upper stage from various angles and distances, and was quite familiar with its appearance. The object I saw later was indeed not the upper stage of the Titan II used in Gemini IV. It may have been a lot of other things, but it definitely was not that upper stage."

and finally the mysterious 'tadpole' pic.....

The "McDivitt UFO photo" -- the "tadpole" -- had a life entirely apart from the actual McDivitt UFO report. When pressed by newsmen for the photo which McDivitt had reportedly taken of the object, officials at the Public Affairs Office at NASA headquarters went through the flight film and selected a series of shots which they thought might have been the object. This was before McDivitt had a chance to review the film himself. The original NASA caption on the photo (PAO 65-H-1013) was as follows: "This photograph . . . shows the satellite McDivitt observed on the 20th revolution i of his four-day space flight . . . he said the Gemini-4 spacecraft was turning and the sun was coming across the window when he filmed the object." Later, after consultation with the astronaut, NASA press officials changed the caption to read: "Astronaut James McDivitt photographed this sun flare through the spacecraft window.... McDivitt explained later after the flight that the sun was coming across the window as the spacecraft rolled, the sun rays struck a metal bolt, causing the flares in the camera lens." This is hardly a useful photo to print. It is the kind that amateur photographers prefer to throw out. But under pressure from reporters who wanted to see "McDivitt's UFO," it was the best that NASA could come up with.

www.jamesoberg.com...

reply to post by mcrom901


do you feel like arguing with Oberg ? LOL just wondering


the Gemini 4 UFO case is a strange one. according to McDivitt , the photo of the Sun glare on the window was not the photo of the ufo.

It was not the picture -- it was a picture of a sun reflection on the window."

he also said the photo of the second stage they showed him was not the picture in question...

"Thank you for sending me the slide of the Gemini-IV photograph. I very quickly identified the object in the photograph as the second stage of the Titan rocket which launched us . . . I am sure that this is not a photograph of the object which I described many times and which many people refer to as the Gemini IV UFO
www.ufologie.net...

The object I saw later was indeed not the upper stage of the Titan II used in Gemini IV. It may have been a lot of other things, but it definitely was not that upper stage."
www.jamesoberg.com...

"There are three visual sightings made by the astronauts while in orbit which, in the judgment of the writer, have not been adequately explained. These are: 1. Gemini 4, astronaut McDivitt. Observation of a cylindrical object with a protuberance. 2. Gemini 4, astronaut McDivitt. Observation of a moving bright light at a higher level than the Gemini spacecraft. 3. Gemini 7, astronaut Borman saw what he described as a ‘bogey’ flying in formation with the spacecraft."
www.ufoevidence.org...

the two known photos that are not the correct one...









according to ufologie.net and other sites, the real photo in question was never released..

NASA captioned the wrong picture as such: "(PAO 65-H-1013) was as follows: This photograph . . . shows the satellite McDivitt observed on the 20th revolution of his four-day space flight."

In conclusion, there is no certainty. The publicized picture is not the correct one, and the correct one will probably never be seen. There are many pros and cons and do not have an opinion one way or another
www.ufologie.net...

looks like another Unsolved Mystery ?

Apollo 11 Technical Debrief Statements about the UFO that was seen during the transit to the Moon. notice the conflicting statements about the descriptions of the unidentified object...

Aldrin: The first unusual thing that we saw I guess was 1 day out, or something, pretty close to the moon. It had a sizeable dimension to it, so we put the monocular on it.

Collins: How'd we see this thing? Did we just look out the window and there it was?

Aldrin: Yes, and we weren't sure but that it might be the S-IVB [Saturn Rocket Third Stage]. We called the ground and were told the S-IVB was 6000 miles away. We had a problem with the High Gain about this time, didn't we?

Collins: There was something. We felt a bump or maybe I just imagined it.

Armstrong: He was wondering whether the MESA [Modular Equipment Stowage Assembly] had come off.

Collins: I don't guess we felt anything.

Aldrin: Of course, we were seeing all sorts of little objects going by at the various dumps and then we happened to see this one brighter object going by. We couldn't think of anything else it could be other than the S-IVB. We looked at it through the monocular and it seemed to have a bit of an L-shape to it.

Armstrong: Like an open suitcase.

Aldrin: We were in PTC [Passive Thermal Control] at the time so each one of us had a chance to take a look at this and it certainly seemed to be within our vicinity and of a very sizeable dimension.

Armstrong: We should say that it was right at the limit of the resolution of the eye. It was very difficult to tell just what shape it was. And there was no way to tell the size without knowing the range or the range without knowing the size.

Aldrin: So then I got down in the LEB [Lower Equipment Bay] and started looking for it in the optics. We were grossly misled because with the sextant off-focus what we saw appeared to be cylinder.

Armstrong: Or really two rings.

Aldrin: Yes.

Armstrong: Two rings. Two connected rings.

Collins: No, it looked like a hollow cylinder to me. It didn't look like two connected rings. You could see this thing tumbling and, when it came around end-on, you could look right down in its guts. It was a hollow cylinder. But then you could change the focus on the sextant and it would be replaced by this open-book shape. It was really weird.

Aldrin: I guess there's not too much more to say about it other than it wasn't cylinder.

Collins: It was during the period when we thought it was a cylinder that we inquired about the S-IVB and we'd almost convinced ourselves that's what it had to be. But we don't have any more conclusions than that really. The fact that we didn't see it much past this one time period - we really don't have a conclusion as to what it might have been, how big it was, or how far away it was. It was something that wasn't part of the urine dump, we're pretty sure of that. Skipping ahead a bit, when we jettisoned the LM, you know we fired an explosive charge and got rid of the docking rings and the LM went boom. Pieces came off the LM. It could have been some Mylar or something that had somehow come loose from the LM.

Aldrin: We thought it could have been a panel, but it didn't appear to have that shape at all.

Collins: That's right, and for some reason, we thought it might have been a part of the High Gain Antenna. It might have been about the time we had high gain antenna problems. In the back of my mind, I have some reason to suspect that its origin was from the spacecraft.
history.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by easynow

Aldrin: The first unusual thing that we saw I guess was 1 day out, or something, pretty close to the moon. It had a sizeable dimension to it, so we put the monocular on it.

some more bs from buzz...... sorry couldn't resist

Originally posted by mcrom901
in this video buzz talks about the sighting......

in his own words...........

"there was something out there that was close enough to be observed"

"mike decided he thought he could see it in the telescope & he was able to do that and when it was in one position it had series of ellipses, but when you made it real sharp it sort of L shaped"

"obviously the three of us were not gonna blurb out, hey houston we have something moving along the side of us we dont know what it is"

now watch this next clip......

"how about those four panels"

"i got to be honest about it and either say well its detail but we saw nothing other than something that we were 99.99% was a man made object it was part of the spacecraft; but we did happen to see it and according to the technical definition of unidentified flying object, it has to fit in that category, cause there was no way for us to tell it was panel one two three or four, without bringing in the rest of the world and disturbing what the heck we were about going to the moon"

"i think it was one of the panels to very nearly the absolute certainty"

now, check this one out.........

"i looked out & saw a star out there, but it wasn't a star, it was venus; but it kept following me all along"

Originally posted by mcrom901

"we just about could have said, look, we see a UFO out the window going along with us... you know what would have happened? the public would have gone crazy!"

"yeah, we were smart enough to say; where is the upper stage rocket? we think we might be looking at that out the window"

If nasa/governments are hiding something about ET, the, to me, its a crime against all of us. I mean, looking at the whole ufo evidence, it is obvious that something is going on here, and i refuse to believe that the governments don't care about it, or know nothing about whats going on.

The thing that people have to realise is we are a very primitive race. We still deal in tribal warfare, so, if we do know more about ET, or we have technology from ET, then the main thing our governments will use it for s weapons, thats the kind of race we are.

There is too much evidence that something is going on. From militery/governemt officials coming forward to documents sowly being released.

I was looking at the bad astromony website, and i cant belive how many people on there hide behind the "science" word, saying everything is rubbish and people did not see what they thought they saw. I just could not believe there belief system, it basically rendered them useless.

I remember watching larry king. He had bill nye on there, who eveyone should kow on here. Larry saod to him "would you liked to be proved wrong" and bill said "kinda" I mean, what the hell does that tell you about people! It tells me that the are arragont and ignorant, and care more about being proved wrong, rather than being proved right with smething like ET disclosure. Its a sad world we live in

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by mcrom901

 

do you feel like arguing with Oberg ? LOL just wondering

This is way off topic on this thread but if you'd like to discuss it, start a new one.