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.

 

Aldrin talks about a UFO in the moon to a Bolivian author

page: 3
24
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Camilo1
Mr. Oberg, with all due respect you sound convinced of something that you are not entirely sure of.

Have you spoken to this bolivian fellow?.
Have you read the book?.
Have you seen the tran.recordings of the interviews?.

Before you make such a strong statement you should at least consider to answer this questions.

But this is only my opinion....


The story seems clearly to be a derivative of the long-discredited tabloid trash headlines of the early 1970s, as fully sourced and quoted in the 1982 report of mine that I linked to. Please read it and come back with follow-up questions.



You might be right Mr. Oberg, but don`t let your experience blind you, there is no reason to really believe this is a copy from the stories you mention, it could be, you could be right and I could be wrong, I don´t know, but affirming requires proof, and until we get to see the book, or the transcripts from Aldrin or some words from Aldrin himself then you are just speculating.

Read your article, very interesting.






posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike
[Houston: “¿Que los están viendo?”]

(Houston: "You are seeing them?") TS: "You" is plural in this case meaning Aldrin & Armstrong.
From a Portuguese point of view, I do not agree with that part of the translation, I think it means:

"They are seeing you?"

But I can be completely wrong, my Spanish is worse than my English.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by The Shrike
[Houston: “¿Que los están viendo?”]

(Houston: "You are seeing them?") TS: "You" is plural in this case meaning Aldrin & Armstrong.
From a Portuguese point of view, I do not agree with that part of the translation, I think it means:

"They are seeing you?"

But I can be completely wrong, my Spanish is worse than my English.


Your spanish is not as bad as you think ArMaP, indeed what it means is that they are (whatever they were) seeing the astronauts.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Since my tracking down of the original original story leads to a weekly trash tabloid newspaper famous for concocting fictitious stories about vampires etc., this concern over the proper retranslation of the original English out of Portuguese is touching, pointless, and useless. When do you catch on -- it started as a hoax, and you're STILL falling for it!



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by The Shrike
[Houston: “¿Que los están viendo?”]

(Houston: "You are seeing them?") TS: "You" is plural in this case meaning Aldrin & Armstrong.
From a Portuguese point of view, I do not agree with that part of the translation, I think it means:

"They are seeing you?"

But I can be completely wrong, my Spanish is worse than my English.


ArMaP: the astronauts are being asked if they see them to confirm the sighting of the "UFO" because no one knows if the "aliens" are looking at the astronauts. I considered your meaning also but Houston, or whoever, cannot ask the astronauts if the aliens can see them. That would require extraordinary knowledge.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Camilo1

Thanks for your input, but I disagree, as you probably know Spanish in the Andes is very different from Spanish in the Caribbean, and the place where the most old,( or old-like - spanish with the most not used words by the rest of the continent, so much so that sometimes I think they just invent words..) is Bolivia. Their influence is the Quechua language, the influence in Puerto Rico is English.


Spanish anywhere is derived from Castilian (Castille. Spain). When it is taught to a race that speaks another language, that race will incorporate both languages into one. An example is Spanglish (not after the movie!) or Spanish and English. In Central and South America there were various languages: Incan, Mayan, Aztec, etc.

In Puerto Rico, the language may have been Taino but because there weren't that many Tainian (Indians), the conquerors replaced the Tainian language with Spanish because of the influx of Spaniards. It was originally Castilian but eventually with the United States themselves conquering Puerto Rico, English is now a second language plus the original Castilian has been bastardized. I don't think that in Central and South America they speak Castilian.


Furthermore the writer is making a translation from what he says Aldrin told him, if we wanted to validate this from a linguistics perspective then we should be analyzing the transcript of what Aldrin told to the Bolivian writer in English

Cheerio
Camilo


Well, the original translation and my translation are almost spot on. But I just wanted to add some words that were left out plus my take on what Aldrin is alleged to have said since my translation is closer to what Aldrin is alleged to have said, English being my second language!



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
Since my tracking down of the original original story leads to a weekly trash tabloid newspaper famous for concocting fictitious stories about vampires etc., this concern over the proper retranslation of the original English out of Portuguese is touching, pointless, and useless.
It may be touching, pointless and useless, but if the retroversion (translating something that was already translated back to the original language) is done then its done from Spanish back to English.

My reference to Portuguese is just because I am Portuguese and, as all Portuguese people, I understand Spanish, so it was a retroversion from a Portuguese point of view, not a retroversion from Portuguese (that would be impossible).

PS: see, at least you learnt what retroversion means.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 06:18 PM
link   
OK, back to basics -- how does your retroversion compare with the original English that I published in 1982?



The headline on the cover of National Bulletin magazine (distributed in Canada but printed in New York City) for September 29,1969 cries out that "Phony Transmission Failure Hides Apollo 11 Discovery. . . . Moon is a U.F.O. Base!" Author Sam Pepper gave this version of the "Top Secret Tape Transcript" from "a leak close to the top," as follows:

What was it, what the hell was it? That's all I want to know....
These. . . (garbled) . . .babies were huge, sir, they were enormous....
No, No, that's just field distortion....
Oh, God, you wouldn't believe it....
What...what...what the hell's going on? Whatsa matter with you guys . . . ?
They're here, under the surface....
What's there.. .malfunction. . .Mission Control calling Apollo 11....
Roger, we're here, all three of us, but we've found some visitors....
Yeah, they've been here for quite a while judging by the installations....
Mission control, repeat last message....
I'm telling you, there are other spacecraft out there. They're lined up in ranks on the far side of the crater edge....
Repeat, repeat....
Let's get that orbit scanned and head home....
In 625 to the fifth, auto-relays set...My hands are shaking so bad....
Film...yes, the damned cameras were clicking away from up here...
Did you fellows get anything?
Had no film left by the time. . . (garbled) . . . three shots of the saucers, or whatever they were. . .may have fogged the film.
Mission Control, this is Mission Control...are you under way, repeat, are you under way? What's this uproar about UFOs? Over.
They're set up down there...they're on the moon... watching us....
The mirrors, the mirrors . . . you set them up, didn't you?
Yes, the mirrors are all in place. But whatever built those spacecraft will probably come over and pull 'em all out by the roots tomorrow....
When this account was discussed by Fate editor Curtis Fuller in 1970, he confessed to "extreme skepticism about the whole alleged transcription" But the account has been printed elsewhere, (science fiction author and UFO buff Otto Binder helped spread it widely), and it reminds observers of the radio signals picked up in Europe in the early 1960s from doomed Russian cosmonauts on secret space shots which ended in their undisclosed deaths. Radio amateurs have become very proficient in smoking out 'official secrets' in the past few decades.
When the "Pepper Transcript" first became public, UFO buffs wrote to their congressmen demanding that NASA officially confess to the coverup. NASA replied that "the incidents. . . did not take place. Conversations between the Apollo 11 crew and Mission Control were released live during the entire Apollo 11 mission. There were between 1000 and 1500 representatives of the news media and TV present at the Houston News Center listening and observing, and not one has suggested that NASA withheld any news or conversations of this nature." (Letter from Assistant Administrator for Legislative Affairs to several congressmen, January 1970).
uller's skepticism about the "Pepper Transcript" appears have been justified. From internal evidence alone, it looks more and more like a crude hoax. This can be deduced from the vocabulary itself:
"Mission Control"...this was never a phrase used astronauts, who instead referred always to "Houston."
Technical-sounding gibberish such as "field distortion," "orbit scanned," "625 to the fifth," "auto-relays," etc. were never found in real transcripts.
"Repeat, repeat" is never used on the radio; instead, astronauts and Mission Control use the phrase "Say Again."
"Three of us"...actually, only two men were on the lunar surface.

The unavoidable conclusion is that Pepper either fabricated the fake "transcript" himself or used very poor judgment in allowing himself to be victimized by somebody else's fake. As is often the case with UFO reports, it is very hard to prove definitely that something did not happen. But in this case, fortunately, the hoax was so rickety that it collapses under its own weight.





posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Camilo1

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by The Shrike
[Houston: “¿Que los están viendo?”]

(Houston: "You are seeing them?") TS: "You" is plural in this case meaning Aldrin & Armstrong.
From a Portuguese point of view, I do not agree with that part of the translation, I think it means:

"They are seeing you?"

But I can be completely wrong, my Spanish is worse than my English.


Your spanish is not as bad as you think ArMaP, indeed what it means is that they are (whatever they were) seeing the astronauts.



I was born in Gibraltar and like everyone else from there I'm bilingual. The Spanish dialect we speak there is very close to that of Southern Spain (Andaluz). Looking at that statement “¿Que los están viendo?” I immediately took it to mean 'You are seeing them?'

The literal translation from Spanish would be 'That you are seeing them?' ... which obviously, when converted to the correct way of constructing an English phrase would be 'You are seeing them?'

However...
If you add a comma after the first word in the original Spanish phrase (“¿Que, los están viendo?” ... that would then translate to 'What, you're seeing them?'

Hope that's of some help to someone



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by thomas_

Originally posted by SaturnFX
and why isnt this in the mainstream american or other "western" media?

Odd. Wonder how credible this paper is.


I would guess it's not credible at all, both Evo Morales and Chavez have complete control over the media in their countries and the site origin is fishy to say the least.


That is just not true. The mass media are one of the worst and most fierce oposition forces in these countries. They (the corporate media) are the ones who say Gov't has complete control over them, over and over, while they display the perfect excercise of the Goebbelian Arts.
Things are quite different around here from how the "Western" or "American" media paints it.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Would you like me to translate that into Spanish?



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dagar

Originally posted by Camilo1

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by The Shrike
[Houston: “¿Que los están viendo?”]

(Houston: "You are seeing them?") TS: "You" is plural in this case meaning Aldrin & Armstrong.
From a Portuguese point of view, I do not agree with that part of the translation, I think it means:

"They are seeing you?"

But I can be completely wrong, my Spanish is worse than my English.


Your spanish is not as bad as you think ArMaP, indeed what it means is that they are (whatever they were) seeing the astronauts.



I was born in Gibraltar and like everyone else from there I'm bilingual. The Spanish dialect we speak there is very close to that of Southern Spain (Andaluz). Looking at that statement “¿Que los están viendo?” I immediately took it to mean 'You are seeing them?'

The literal translation from Spanish would be 'That you are seeing them?' ... which obviously, when converted to the correct way of constructing an English phrase would be 'You are seeing them?'

However...
If you add a comma after the first word in the original Spanish phrase (“¿Que, los están viendo?” ... that would then translate to 'What, you're seeing them?'

Hope that's of some help to someone


I am sorry to insist but you are wrong and ArMaP and yours truly are right.
here is a copy and paste of part of the supposed transmission:

Houston: “¿Ustedes han conseguido filmar?”

Houston: Have you been able to film?

Aldrin: “Ningún filme por el momento, las cámaras están fotografiando otros objetivos. Ellos están ahí abajo, están acercándose a la Luna junto a nosotros, viéndonos”.

Aldrin: No film yet, the cameras are set on other targets. They are down there, they are approaching the moon, next to us, watching us


Houston: “¿Que los están viendo?”

Houston: Are they watching you?

Aldrin: “Sí, no estamos solos”.

Aldrin: Yes we are not alone.


Hope this settles it.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike


Well, the original translation and my translation are almost spot on. But I just wanted to add some words that were left out plus my take on what Aldrin is alleged to have said since my translation is closer to what Aldrin is alleged to have said, English being my second language!


I am not demeaning your translation, it was in fact good, I was talking about your comment that the translation sounded archaic, because I agree it could sound archaic to someone that is not familiar with the way Bolivians talk, you are not and I am.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 

Now, "armed" with that version and a corrected retroversion (regardless of who may provide it), you may get some idea of the transformation that occurred to the original text and try to see if you can find any reason for the transformation, maybe what parts were left out and how they could change the interpretation.

Maybe this new version tries to imply something that the original text ignored, may it tries to ignore something that the original text implied.

This way we may get some understanding of the reasons behind this new "edition". :9



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Camilo1
 


My translation was based on the single phrase.. Seeing it within the context of what is said before and after I have to agree with you.


Apologies, didn't mean to put anyone's nose out of joint.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by JimOberg
 

Now, "armed" with that version and a corrected retroversion (regardless of who may provide it), you may get some idea of the transformation that occurred to the original text and try to see if you can find any reason for the transformation, maybe what parts were left out and how they could change the interpretation.

Maybe this new version tries to imply something that the original text ignored, may it tries to ignore something that the original text implied.

This way we may get some understanding of the reasons behind this new "edition". :9


I think I understand Jim's intent in saying that no matter the quality of the translation (or retroversion
) that the whole event is bogus. If I'm correct, I also agree with Jim. One thing that has always been constant is that astronauts' lives are saddled with reports of events, while going to and from the moon and EVAs, that are created by individuals who seem to enjoy getting a rise from believers. These reports are as true as is the reality of glass structures or anything out of the ordinary, on the Moon.


[edit on 4-1-2010 by The Shrike]



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 

I also understand it, I just wanted to point that the fact that the "events" were somewhat changed may mean something and may make the difference between someone that was the victim of a hoax and someone that is trying to create a new one (for example).



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 11:36 PM
link   
I wanted to tell you guys I sent a message to Buzz's facebook account about this novel. Hoping to get some kind of answer.

Now, for the spanish in the article, I don't see what's the problem. I'm mexican and I can tell you there's no much difference between Spain-Mexican-Bolivian spanish. But whatever...

The text would be translated more like this:

Aldrin: “I'm telling you that there's another space craft out here. They are in the other side of the crater"

Houston: “Have you managed to film?”

Aldrin: “No film from the moment. The cameras are capturing other objectives. They are down there, they are nearing the moon with us, watching us"

Houston: “what is watching you?”



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 02:51 AM
link   
No wonder why we never went back; they couldn't get the # smell out if the first guys suits.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   
My argument in the 1982 book chapter remains unshaken today -- the transcript is a fabrication based on its content and terminology alone, not just its grocery store tabloid source. And all claims that 'amateur radio listeners' heard the comments have also turned out to be bogus.



[edit on 8-1-2010 by JimOberg]



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join