NASA Gemina Black Box Transcripts. (new Luna Cognita video)

I love how the debunkers will accept any old explanation, horrible or not just as long as it's anything other than a UFO.

Kind of like "cylinder with a giant robotic arm on it" becomes a small round ball with antennas - are you serious?

If satellites are just flying up along side the capsule and then breaking contact to fly away and get lost in the sun then NASA did a pretty horrible job of plotting safe orbits and someone has some pretty advanced sats up there at that time.

The first KH sats were not in orbit yet, that's a pretty simple search to check on.

Lastly, an astronaut back peddling to get in line with the company makes a lot more sense to me than calling a known object a "bogey". If the bogey was a known object why was CC asking about the booster? Sounds like someone didn't know the "bogey" was a booster.
I'm sure NASA just decided to re-invent pilot terminology for no good reason.

incident with the Gemini 11 Astronauts.

On September 13, 1966 during their sixteenth revolution, the Gemini 11
astronauts, Charles "Pete" Conrad and Richard Gordon, Jr., sighted an object
which they could not identify

FROM THE TRANSCRIPT OF GEMINI-11, TAPE 133., PAGE 1 (SEPTEMBER 13, 1966):

"WE HAD A WINGMAN FLYING WING ON US GOING INTO SUNSET HERE OFF TO MY LEFT. A
LARGE OBJECT THAT WAS TUMBLING AT ABOUT 1 REV. PER SECOND, AND WE FLEW . . .
WE HAD HIM IN SIGHT, I SAY FAIRLY CLOSE TO US. I DON'T KNOW. IT COULD DEPEND
ON HOW BIG HE IS AND I GUESS HE COULD HAVE BEEN ANYTHING FROM OUR ELSS* TO
SOMETHING ELSE. WE TOOK PICTURES OF IT."

according to Mallan, Astronaut Gordon
stated that the object was first seen out their left window, it "flew out in
front of us and then we lost it when it sort of dropped down in front of
us." This direction of motion is roughly opposite to that of the Proton 3
according to the NORAD report quoted in Mallan's article (see Figure 6).

Thus we have inconsistency (e), the Proton was behind the Gemini spacecraft
and (f), the object(s) were not even travelling in the direction of the
Proton satellite and booster.

According to Mallan, NORAD claimed that they were not tracking anything in
front of the space capsule. Thus, for all of these reasons the object(s)
could not have been the Proton.

The photographic evidence presented in this paper appear to be totally
inconsistent with the hypothesis that the Gemini 11 astronauts photographed
the Proton 3 and/or its booster rocket. Verbal evidence presented by Mallan
supports this conclusion. This writer has found no evidence to support the
conclusion stated by Roach in the Condon Report. Note: This sighting is
carried as "unidentified" by NASA.

brumac.8k.com...

reply to post by JimOberg


Well, just possibly, he was making up a completely stupid story to make it obvious it was exactly that? A stupid story designed to get him off the hook, but he wanted it to be obvious that it was just hogwash?

That is...I don't want to discuss it other than to dismiss it, because that's what I've been told to do, so i will given an explanation that is ludicrous and let people make their own minds up without me having to answer any more questions.

Remember Shakespeare? "Friends Romans countrymen"... etc?

reply to post by Acidtastic


Wow great video and presentation this was the public space program that was keeping information from us all what does the secret space program know? Good Stuff. There is documentation that a secret space program was active in the late fifties and early sixties manned satellites were stationed over the USSR doing photpgraphic surveillance. Imagine what has transpired since. I wish I knew.

Too much is being put on transcripts or even oral reports. Astronauts are not your average Joe on the street, they're a "special" breed of people and because a small amount of people have gone through special training for an activity restricted to just a few, they've developed their own language which we, unwashed civilians, cannot join in.

So, to me, the transcripts are intriguing but not overwhelmingly convincing of UFO sightings by our near-orbit astronauts. This is all in the past.

Except for those traveling to and from the moon. Oral reports were about flashes on the moon's surface but, best of all, the films that were shot reveal solid evidence of unknowns which not even Jim Oberg can refute. The evidence is too good because the objects filmed have no prosaic explanation. Not ice particles, not space debris, not water dumps, not happening at night and coming into daylight. None of that.

You see objects in the same film with docking lunar landers, hauling away. You see objects hauling below the CSM and of interest to be continuously filmed and this particular object goes over a crater that seems to flash some kind of signals. And this is connected with the moon.

Then, of course, we have the many videos showing UFOs in space now videotaped by shuttle astronauts.

There should be a new set of initials: NASAD, the D for Denial.

However, what modren astronauts

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
Astronauts are not your average Joe on the street, they're a "special" breed of people

Agreed! And that's why they shouldn't be making fundamental errors... such as calling known objects bogies. Those are the types of mistakes you would expect from rank amatures.

It's these types of ambiguities that scream for attention by the CT'ers.

Just saying...

IRM

[edit on 2/10/09 by InfaRedMan]

Originally posted by InfaRedMan

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
Astronauts are not your average Joe on the street, they're a "special" breed of people

Agreed! And that's why they shouldn't be making fundamental errors... such as calling known objects bogies. Those are the types of mistakes you would expect from rank amatures.

It's these types of ambiguities that scream for attention by the CT'ers.

Just saying...

IRM

I appreciate what you are saying but you are doing so with a 2009 mentality. In the 1960s, when these guys were putting their lives on the line, they weren't thinking about the future, i.e., internet and critics found in due to the language they used. They understood each other and even though it does bother me that they would think ahead to ask that some of their material be censored they, again, were not thinking of people such as on a public forum where they would be criticised. Something like that.


[edit on 2/10/09 by InfaRedMan]

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
In the 1960s, when these guys were putting their lives on the line, they weren't thinking about the future, i.e., internet and critics found in due to the language they used.

Criticizing?

I don't think there is anyone where who isn't Admiring these men even more because of this stuff.

Speaking of language - they did use it creatively:

*[I had another excerpt here, but I couldn't leave it as has some exceedingly foul language in it. We must think of the children.]


(these excerpts are from the Apollo 12 transcripts)


[edit on 2-10-2009 by Exuberant1]