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.

 

Interview with Stan Friedman on the movie Apollo18.

page: 3
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
Now, the fog does clear, and people can see the pads there -- not just from satellites but also from aircraft flying just outside the keep-out zones. There's no Saturn-V capable pad there, never was. And there's no way to get a Saturn-V there from the fabrication facilities secretly because it's a trip by barge -- and would be mighty noticeable transiting the Panama Canal. Lastly, the Saturn-V's translunar trajectory required a due east launch for maximum boost from Earth's rotation, which would have dropped the first stage on northern Los Angeles -- also mighty hard to conceal.

Naw, it's a silly idea.


Maybe it was launched from a secret base on Ellesmere Island. The Apollo 18 and 19 hardware was sold to Canada for its secret space program and launch facilities it runs at a top-secret base on Ellesmere Island.

Canada used these missions to build secret bases on the far side of the moon, which it jointly operates with the Galactic Federation Lunar One Space Colony.


Of course, they could have got there a lot faster using Canada's fleet of giant anti-gravity flying triangles which are equipped with warp drive, but they were temporarily deployed to inter-galactic wars in the Romulan sector.




posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Zcustosmorum
 


Stanton is the man.....he is rational and admits when he isn't sure about something. Anything he says goes.....he is the guy to see.

btw.....13 billion US tax-payers dollars spent on a satelite that got 'pulled' ....? Woooow....and nobody lifts a finger....that is worse.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   
The problem I have with this is that launching something as big as the apollo rockets would be noticed.. you really can't launch a rocket that massive in secret..



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by zatara
reply to post by Zcustosmorum
 


Stanton is the man.....he is rational and admits when he isn't sure about something. Anything he says goes.....he is the guy to see.

btw.....13 billion US tax-payers dollars spent on a satelite that got 'pulled' ....? Woooow....and nobody lifts a finger....that is worse.


Well when trillions go missing then 13 billion really ain't so much, is it?

As for Friedman, anyone that puts the best part of 50 years searching for evidence then you kinda have to listen and I don't think he's just in it to push his latest book or whatever. Additionally, all those blanked out documents he managed to get from the government just add more fuel to the fire in regards to a massive cover up



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by redoubt

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
....Whilst a Saturn V launch may be hard to conceal it wouldn't be impossible, hell it may even have been a UFO report


Actually, secret Soviet satellite launches have been reported as UFOs since the early 1960s, their UFO data bases are hopelessly polluted with dozens of such cases. And videos of recent satellite launches from Baykonur keep showing up on Youtube as UFOs.

But that's a problem in the minds of UFO proponents.


How do we do this? I mean, we've long since denounced racism and bigotry... which is, by definition, a form of negative stereotyping. We're now moving along and learning how not to apply the same horrible reasoning based on sexual preferences.

But here we have this...



But that's a problem in the minds of UFO proponents.


So, ALL UFO proponents, are this, or that. Forget the individual because if you are lumped into this grouping, you are whatever Mr. Oberg says you are.

It's really no different than saying that all women are bad drivers, all African-Americans like watermelon or all Muslims are radical militants.

It's horrible and embarrassing to see this kind of thing.

What a really bad, bad way to express one's self on a website that declares its sole purpose for being, is to deny ignorance.


I'm open to any suggested list of UFO proponents who did NOT fall for the 'UFO' myth about Soviet space and missile events. Hynek did. Ray Fowler did. Jacques Vallee did. Of course Paul Stonehill did. It's all over their books.

If my categorization is incorrect, it will be quite easy to prove it -- by counterexample. Please try.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArcAngel
reply to post by JimOberg
 


You make bold statements on the Corona program that it was widely covered by the media of the day, yet you post no links. Based on your previous posts, there needs to be some credibility, so:

NO LINKY, YOU STINKY!!!!


I accept the responsibility, but point out, you accept far weirder stories without checking, if they concur with your existing beliefs.

After all, it is proponents of extraordinariness on whom the burden of proof rests -- the presumption of innocence is with the existing [non-UFO] paradigms.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum

Originally posted by bluestreak53

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by redoubt
Now, the alternative is if the thing was launched from Vandenberg. This is where the supposed Apollo 20 mission was launched from. Keeping in mind that this is a very secure military base with security-ranked personnel on hand, such a launch could have happened either day or night and never made it to public attention. Line of sight, curvature of the planet, people paying attention to traffic and not the distant sky... and with missile launches from that base as common as the cape in Florida, who would have really took note?


I'm not going to like the implications of this, but Redoubt is correct re launches from Vandenberg being secretable. There's also dense coastal fog that often prevents local viewing of the kind of rockets launched.

In 1986 there was even a military satellite launch -- in such a fog -- that was never announced and which was never registered with the United Nations, as required by treaty. Apparently somebody was trying to see how much they could get away with.

Now, the fog does clear, and people can see the pads there -- not just from satellites but also from aircraft flying just outside the keep-out zones. There's no Saturn-V capable pad there, never was. And there's no way to get a Saturn-V there from the fabrication facilities secretly because it's a trip by barge -- and would be mighty noticeable transiting the Panama Canal. Lastly, the Saturn-V's translunar trajectory required a due east launch for maximum boost from Earth's rotation, which would have dropped the first stage on northern Los Angeles -- also mighty hard to conceal.

Naw, it's a silly idea.

But the fact of secret launches of smaller rockets from Vandenberg -- I gotta admit to that.




The fact you're saying there has been secret launches tells a lot. Whilst a Saturn V launch may be hard to conceal it wouldn't be impossible, hell it may even have been a UFO report


So how do you get the Saturn V to a launch pad at Vandenburg? Using the Fluegvond TR-3X giant stealth anti-gravity carrier to take it from the assembly plant in Florida on a dark foggy night?



Not saying that I do, but if the alien sceptics in favour of military aircraft types had a say then they would tell you that the U.S. military have giant black triangles bigger than football pitches roaming the skies


Maybe they do these days -- but nobody ever said they had them in 1974.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Maybe I ought to do an interview with my old friend Dick Gordon, who WOULD have been assigned command if Apollo-18 had ever been approved. What questions can we all suggest I should ask him?



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum

Originally posted by bluestreak53

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by redoubt
Now, the alternative is if the thing was launched from Vandenberg. This is where the supposed Apollo 20 mission was launched from. Keeping in mind that this is a very secure military base with security-ranked personnel on hand, such a launch could have happened either day or night and never made it to public attention. Line of sight, curvature of the planet, people paying attention to traffic and not the distant sky... and with missile launches from that base as common as the cape in Florida, who would have really took note?


I'm not going to like the implications of this, but Redoubt is correct re launches from Vandenberg being secretable. There's also dense coastal fog that often prevents local viewing of the kind of rockets launched.

In 1986 there was even a military satellite launch -- in such a fog -- that was never announced and which was never registered with the United Nations, as required by treaty. Apparently somebody was trying to see how much they could get away with.

Now, the fog does clear, and people can see the pads there -- not just from satellites but also from aircraft flying just outside the keep-out zones. There's no Saturn-V capable pad there, never was. And there's no way to get a Saturn-V there from the fabrication facilities secretly because it's a trip by barge -- and would be mighty noticeable transiting the Panama Canal. Lastly, the Saturn-V's translunar trajectory required a due east launch for maximum boost from Earth's rotation, which would have dropped the first stage on northern Los Angeles -- also mighty hard to conceal.

Naw, it's a silly idea.

But the fact of secret launches of smaller rockets from Vandenberg -- I gotta admit to that.




The fact you're saying there has been secret launches tells a lot. Whilst a Saturn V launch may be hard to conceal it wouldn't be impossible, hell it may even have been a UFO report


So how do you get the Saturn V to a launch pad at Vandenburg? Using the Fluegvond TR-3X giant stealth anti-gravity carrier to take it from the assembly plant in Florida on a dark foggy night?



Not saying that I do, but if the alien sceptics in favour of military aircraft types had a say then they would tell you that the U.S. military have giant black triangles bigger than football pitches roaming the skies


Maybe they do these days -- but nobody ever said they had them in 1974.



That's the magic of this whole UFO/ET debate, I don't know, you don't know, no-one knows, it's just opinions.


Originally posted by JimOberg
Maybe I ought to do an interview with my old friend Dick Gordon, who WOULD have been assigned command if Apollo-18 had ever been approved. What questions can we all suggest I should ask him?



You're presuming that to be case, I'm sure NASA have quite a few well trained individuals for each specific role.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


JimOberg,

Perhaps you missed it...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thank you.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by SonoftheSun
reply to post by JimOberg
 


JimOberg,

Perhaps you missed it...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thank you.



If I understood correctly, Mr Friedman states that Apollo 18 and 19 were already paid for...Obviously, I can't ask him links for such a claim but, if he's correct, it does raise questions.

If you've seen the movie Contact (1997 with Jodie Foster), S.R. Hadden supplies another site for the launch. And it gets me thinking...

Would it be possible, and you wouldn't be in the know obviously but would it be possible, that NASA has launched from another country, in affiliation with another agency. Would it be a possibility or just too much work to cover up something like this?


Thanks for the reminder. In the avalanche of responses-counter-responses a lot of reasonable follow-up questions get forgotten.

Why can't you ask for links for an assertion of fact of any kind?

I also recall that the hardware for Apollo-18 and 19 had been paid for, but not the operational costs -- manpower, for example, was a major cost. So I don't dispute that it was partially true that some money had been invested -- but hundreds of millions more would have been needed to complete the flights.

'Contact', as I recall, is a SF movie, not a fact-based documentary. They can conjure up a secret Japanese backup site for the probe in the 1990s, with no reality constraints. We can't pretend to do so for a Saturn-V in 1974.

Sure it's true there were a number of astronauts capable of commanding an Apollo mission -- including those who had already done so (Armstrong, Conrad, Lovell [not completed], Shepard, Scott, Young, Cernan], and those who had trained as backups to them [Haise and Gordon], of whom Dick Gordon was next in line to fly. The time and effort it took to do the training precluded anyone else stepping in and learning how to do it on weekends when nobody was looking.

Delicious fact: Gordon Cooper had also trained as a backup Apollo commander, with Ed Mitchell as his Lunar module Pilot, in 1968-9, but was passed over for an actual mission assignment because of inadequate levels of performance and so quit the program in a huff. Might explain some of his attention-getting stories in later years..



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 





Delicious fact: Gordon Cooper had also trained as a backup Apollo commander, with Ed Mitchell as his Lunar module Pilot, in 1968-9, but was passed over for an actual mission assignment because of inadequate levels of performance and so quit the program in a huff. Might explain some of his attention-getting stories in later years..


I fail to see how Cooper getting canned for a mission explains his stories in later years.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum

Originally posted by zatara
reply to post by Zcustosmorum
 


Stanton is the man.....he is rational and admits when he isn't sure about something. Anything he says goes.....he is the guy to see.

btw.....13 billion US tax-payers dollars spent on a satelite that got 'pulled' ....? Woooow....and nobody lifts a finger....that is worse.


Well when trillions go missing then 13 billion really ain't so much, is it?

As for Friedman, anyone that puts the best part of 50 years searching for evidence then you kinda have to listen and I don't think he's just in it to push his latest book or whatever. Additionally, all those blanked out documents he managed to get from the government just add more fuel to the fire in regards to a massive cover up


I know it is a bit off topic but just can't resist....shouldn't there be an american revolution been started over these trillions...Is there maybe sometyhing in the water that make all americans incapable to step forward...the lone exception not counted..... and probably not taken seriously.

( I know Katy Perry has a lyrick about something in the water...
)


edit on 22/8/2011 by zatara because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   
looks nice!!
edit on 22-8-2011 by hateeternal because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
reply to post by JimOberg
 





Delicious fact: Gordon Cooper had also trained as a backup Apollo commander, with Ed Mitchell as his Lunar module Pilot, in 1968-9, but was passed over for an actual mission assignment because of inadequate levels of performance and so quit the program in a huff. Might explain some of his attention-getting stories in later years..


I fail to see how Cooper getting canned for a mission explains his stories in later years.



Let's speculate. Along with the opprobrium piled on him when he subsequently used his fairly-earned reputation to endorse several con artists who defrauded space workers and communities out of about two million dollars in phony investments [he lost all his own money on those schemes too - he was the innocent dupe, not a co-conspirator], he was left 'persona non grata' in the space community and rarely participated in official or professional events. Naturally, NASA declined to officially mention these embarrassing events -- gotta preserve the public 'hero' image for funding support.

The only conferences he got invited to were UFOlogy activities. That's when his original mediocre story of the pre-NASA Edwards AFB 'saucer landing' really began evolving big time -- from a story he 'had heard but wasn't involved in' all the way to him personally commanding the photographers [who had never heard of him] and personally looking at their film which 'disappeared' [it's easily retrieved from the Blue Book archives]. His Germany encounter [1951] evolved from a chase after 'probably weather balloons' [the version he told NICAP in 1976] to high-flying bogies to weird-looking disks -- even though more than a dozen of his flying buddies who were interviewed vouched they had no clue what he might possibly have been talking about, except possibly some wild goose chases after Soviet Migs [which in 1951 could outfly and outclimb US jets].

The only other way he got on TV in those years was by acting as the butt of mockery on David Letterman.

When you've been on the cover of 'Life' magazine, it's addictive. He could generously have just wanted to tell his last remaining audiences what they wanted to hear. If they weren't going to invite him, nobody else would have.

These facts may all be a surprise to you, and that's understandable. They have been withheld and suppressed by the UFO community for their own propagandistic exploitation motives, perhaps.

But to dispel ignorance, even when imposed by one's own side, you gotta go for the hard truth -- and worry about interpretations and consequences later.


edit on 22-8-2011 by JimOberg because: typos



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
reply to post by JimOberg
 





Delicious fact: Gordon Cooper had also trained as a backup Apollo commander, with Ed Mitchell as his Lunar module Pilot, in 1968-9, but was passed over for an actual mission assignment because of inadequate levels of performance and so quit the program in a huff. Might explain some of his attention-getting stories in later years..


I fail to see how Cooper getting canned for a mission explains his stories in later years.



Let's speculate. Along with the opprobrium piled on him when he subsequently used his fairly-earned reputation to endorse several con artists who defrauded space workers and communities out of about two million dollars in phony investments [he lost all his own money on those schemes too - he was the innocent dupe, not a co-conspirator], he was left 'persona non grata' in the space community and rarely participated in official or professional events. Naturally, NASA declined to officially mention these embarrassing events -- gotta preserve the public 'hero' image for funding support.

The only conferences he got invited to were UFOlogy activities. That's when his original mediocre story of the pre-NASA Edwards AFB 'saucer landing' really began evolving big time -- from a story he 'had heard but wasn't involved in' all the way to him personally commanding the photographers [who had never heard of him] and personally looking at their film which 'disappeared' [it's easily retrieved from the Blue Book archives]. His Germany encounter [1951] evolved from a chase after 'probably weather balloons' [the version he told NICAP in 1976] to high-flying bogies to weird-looking disks -- even though more than a dozen of his flying buddies who were interviewed vouched they had no clue what he might possibly have been talking about, except possibly some wild goose chases after Soviet Migs [which in 1951 could outfly and outclimb US jets].

The only other way he got on TV in those years was by acting as the butt of mockery on David Letterman.

When you've been on the cover of 'Life' magazine, it's addictive. He could generously have just wanted to tell his last remaining audiences what they wanted to hear. If they weren't going to invite him, nobody else would have.

These facts may all be a surprise to you, and that's understandable. They have been withheld and suppressed by the UFO community for their own propagandistic exploitation motives, perhaps.

But to dispel ignorance, even when imposed by one's own side, you gotta go for the hard truth -- and worry about interpretations and consequences later.


edit on 22-8-2011 by JimOberg because: typos


You're presuming again, and my original question still stands. Furthermore, you don't stand in front of the U.N. Council stating a belief in ET/UFOs unless you have good reason to do so.

I do appreciate your scepticism however you really have a low opinion of people.
edit on 22-8-2011 by Zcustosmorum because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   
I'm not sure what the big mystery is... Stuff gets cancelled and wasted all the time. They just canceled the Constellation program with most of the first versions of everything built already. So 20 years from now, people will probably come back and say that it was actually secretly used to go to Mars and hang out with aliens there? How do you secretly launch a giant rocket that can be seen for hundreds of miles? It's a movie. have fun watching it, but that's all it is.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
You're presuming again, and my original question still stands. Furthermore, you don't stand in front of the U.N. Council stating a belief in ET/UFOs unless you have good reason to do so.

I do appreciate your scepticism however you really have a low opinion of people.
edit on 22-8-2011 by Zcustosmorum because: (no reason given)


Jim for some reason just can't pass up any opportunity to drag Astronaut Gordon Cooper into any discussion.

I tend to think that history will show Cooper was right (about UFOs) and Jim Oberg wrong. Hopefully, Jim will still be alive when this proof happens so he gets to hear all the "I told you so's" that will justifiably be cast in his direction.

But in the meantime, at least Gordon Cooper went up in space, so will probably still be in the history books long after Oberg (and most of the rest of us writing here), are gone and long forgotten.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
You're presuming again, and my original question still stands. Furthermore, you don't stand in front of the U.N. Council stating a belief in ET/UFOs unless you have good reason to do so.

I do appreciate your scepticism however you really have a low opinion of people.
edit on 22-8-2011 by Zcustosmorum because: (no reason given)


Isn't your first statement what might be called a 'self-eating watermelon'? That is, an assertion which is proof of itself? What does it have to do with the accuracy of the statements made to the UN?

You did not question any of the assertions of fact which I provided, at your request for a basis for an interpretation that we can debate.

Were those facts news to you? If so, why do you suppose nobody had ever told you about them before? Maybe -- you're hanging out in the wrong company?



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by bluestreak53

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
You're presuming again, and my original question still stands. Furthermore, you don't stand in front of the U.N. Council stating a belief in ET/UFOs unless you have good reason to do so.

I do appreciate your scepticism however you really have a low opinion of people.
edit on 22-8-2011 by Zcustosmorum because: (no reason given)


Jim for some reason just can't pass up any opportunity to drag Astronaut Gordon Cooper into any discussion.

I tend to think that history will show Cooper was right (about UFOs) and Jim Oberg wrong. Hopefully, Jim will still be alive when this proof happens so he gets to hear all the "I told you so's" that will justifiably be cast in his direction.

But in the meantime, at least Gordon Cooper went up in space, so will probably still be in the history books long after Oberg (and most of the rest of us writing here), are gone and long forgotten.


The subject was, who could have commanded a hypothetical 'Apollo-18' mission. I responded that the small pool of candidates were men who had previously trained for that command, and I listed them. Cooper was one of those men. Should I have omitted him? Then I responded to a follow-up question - -should I have ignored it?

Our conclusions and deductions are subject to debate and personal preferences. They could indeed be wrong.

But shouldn't our facts be held in common? And I think I've dug up more documented, verifiable facts about many of these stories, than anybody else who's been involved with 'researching' them.

Do you reject any claimed facts because they make your preferred conclusions -- your 'feelings' -- harder?




edit on 23-8-2011 by JimOberg because: edit



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join