Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Astronauts gone wild !


  • Please log in to reply
167 replies to this topic

#136    captain pish

captain pish

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 708 posts
  • Joined:21 Sep 2005

Posted 29 April 2006 - 05:40 PM

Quote


Well, pish...

Just because I may be knowledgable regarding the manned space exploration programs that we undertook in the 60s and 70s doesn't mean that I know "everything about anything". I can prove it to you that I don't.  Just ask me about "anything"!

I'm not sure what a "professional book reader" is, my friend, but I will tell you that I do read some books.  And when I do, I read them about a hundred times.  I have no books in my collection that are not dog-eared and damaged from use.   Books, you see, are written as a sort of art form, and, like all art, there is much more in an image than just an initial impression.  Re-reading, annotating, and such things as that, reveal new information almost every time one reads it.   I personally think that books and reading them has become somewhat of a lost art in the modern age.

Actually, I am involved in manufacturing management these days.   Improving efficiencies, etc...stuff I learned from my experiences...many directly associated with the space program and fields like aviation and engineering.

For instance, there are several systems in place in manufacturing now that aim to increase productivity and efficiency, and are rather successful.  If you've ever heard of the concepts of Total Quality Management and Kaizen, you should know that these methods actually originated, and were implimented someplace where most people wouldn't think to look:   Mission Control during the 1960s and 70s.

In fact, many of the men who worked in that room are now business consultants and lecturers to business people.  Odd, eh?   Another off shoot of Apollo that has benefited many an organization.

But at any rate, I'm getting off-point here.

My so-called "superior knowledge" is merely the product of experience.   I use what I know in order to stimulate people to go and figure things out for themselves.  I am interested in how this whole Apollo hoax business came about, and why people adhere to such things.

By reading what people say, I come to an understanding of that.   You will note that I attempt not to talk down to people (Jezz, at least I hope I don't!), but to hopefully give them the factual information and stimulate them to learn the sciences and concepts behind these things for themselves...because, someone telling you something is only that, knowledge comes only from personal effort and understanding.

I am, however, of quite a different demeanor when I deal with people like Sibrel, and Kaysing, and other prominent hoax originators   devil.gif
Whatever the case may be, know that you can feel free to say anything you want on the forum (abiding by the rules of conduct, of course).   I encourage people to ask questions...not get nasty or make assertions which are based on some idea that is not understood by the poster...but stated as fact.

Then, I can give people a clue as to what's behind the concept they speak of, and hopefully guide them on their own path to discovery.  

In other words, discussion.

By all means, continue to contriubute.  I don't bite.


I said you know everything about anything because i have read your name a lot on these forums. Mostly people saying if you want to know, ask mid. You are indeed a wise fellow and i take all your comments on board. thumbsup.gif

I agree with the hoaxers bit though. They really annoy me too. angry.gif



#137    rapid7

rapid7

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,950 posts
  • Joined:21 Dec 2005
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 April 2006 - 11:04 PM


Quote


If you dont like it here why dont you stay over at Bad Astronomy !!! From what i've seen of them over there,it's a bunch of committed debunkers ,scoffing at others and patting each other on the back all the time.


Lol laugh.gif laugh.gif  That made me laugh, ain't that the truth. I saw some poor fellow banned from bad astronomy merely questioning the official 911 version. No it wasn't me!





Edited by rapid7, 29 April 2006 - 11:05 PM.

On the wall,
There's a red light.

#138    Lilly

Lilly

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,247 posts
  • Joined:16 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Female

  • "To thine own self be true" William Shakespeare

Posted 30 April 2006 - 12:31 AM

Quote


Lol laugh.gif laugh.gif  That made me laugh, ain't that the truth. I saw some poor fellow banned from bad astronomy merely questioning the official 911 version. No it wasn't me!


Ok, I have to speak up about this. You won't get banned over on Bad Astronomy for taking an against the mainstream stand on a subject. You will, however, risk banning if you refuse to support your position with scientific evidence, if you say you're right about something simply because you "say so", if your opinion has political or religious motivations (discussion of religion and politics is forbidden by the board rules over there), or if you are rude in any manner towards the other posters. The BAUT bulletin board is a scientific forum, and one is expected to support their arguments with science, not opinions. Enforcement of the rules is very strict, either obey the rules, or don't post there...quite simple.

"Ignorance is ignorance. It is a state of mind, not an opinion." ~MID~

Posted Image

#139    WaltFreakinWhitman

WaltFreakinWhitman

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 264 posts
  • Joined:12 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indianapolis

Posted 30 April 2006 - 12:46 AM

The best part of that video is Buzz chin checking the reporter.  thumbsup.gif


Posted Image

#140    rapid7

rapid7

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,950 posts
  • Joined:21 Dec 2005
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 April 2006 - 12:53 AM


Quote


Ok, I have to speak up about this. You won't get banned over on Bad Astronomy for taking an against the mainstream stand on a subject. You will, however, risk banning if you refuse to support your position with scientific evidence, if you say you're right about something simply because you "say so", if your opinion has political or religious motivations (discussion of religion and politics is forbidden by the board rules over there), or if you are rude in any manner towards the other posters. The BAUT bulletin board is a scientific forum, and one is expected to support their arguments with science, not opinions. Enforcement of the rules is very strict, either obey the rules, or don't post there...quite simple.


Ok fair enough. Although, the site does appear to have an air of scientific pompousness about it.
Which is not displayed by your good self or Mid for example. thumbsup.gif

Just saw some guy get a really hard time in 911 conspiracy section. Btw my position is undecided at present.



On the wall,
There's a red light.

#141    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 30 April 2006 - 08:46 PM

Quote


Ok fair enough. Although, the site does appear to have an air of scientific pompousness about it.
Which is not displayed by your good self or Mid for example. thumbsup.gif

Just saw some guy get a really hard time in 911 conspiracy section. Btw my position is undecided at present.



Many thanks.

I have been over to BAUT myself, having been guided there because of my discussions about Apollo.   It seems they have alot of lengthy threads on different aspects of the program and the hoax believer's positions.   There doesn't seem to be much point in getting too involed in that over there.  They have a few very knowledgable people who seem to be handling things quite well.

I have also noted a certain dogmatism in certain people there--in certain discussions that I've looked at, and some pompousity on occassion.  I think some of them get a little irritated at the same thing over and over again, thus a bit of frustration may surface.

They do have some rigid rules of conduct, which of course is their prerogative, like the religious or political motivation thing.  As a scientific discussion forum which is purely that, such a prohibition makes a bit of sense.

My approach is to elicit questions, not to demean.  
  



#142    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 30 April 2006 - 09:05 PM

Quote


I said you know everything about anything because i have read your name a lot on these forums. Mostly people saying if you want to know, ask mid. You are indeed a wise fellow and i take all your comments on board. thumbsup.gif

I agree with the hoaxers bit though. They really annoy me too. angry.gif


I should imagine that most references to me involve Apollo.  I've certainly added my two cents to a few other discussions, but Apollo and the U.S. manned space program of the era is my area of interest and specialty, if-you-will.  

I am utterly interested in the phenomena of the hoax fabrication...how it came about...why it exists, and what the positions of the believers are.   It provides an opportunity to teach, or to guide one into a direction which can yield the truth of the matter,  and thus, to learn in the process (teaching is a learning experience).

I only ever get truly annoyed with those who perpetrated this thing.  I think it is a travesty that young people should be led in that direction by people who should, and likely do know better, and who have a motivation based upon a desire to play upon a generation's lack of knowledge (how many high school students today are actually taught anything about manned space exploration?)...for a buck (e;g, Sibrel and Kaysing).  To those people, I sometimes call them a name that adequately describes them, or at least I will not be all so kind.  

But to those who are influenced, and accept these arguements, I welcome the opportunity to explain things, so as to stimulate them to do some real learning on their own.  I find that rewarding when it works!

Many thanks for the kind comments! grin2.gif




#143    Aristocrates

Aristocrates

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 464 posts
  • Joined:02 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male

  • A brother Seamus? Like an Irish monk?

Posted 30 April 2006 - 10:07 PM

Quote


Go to this thread Did we land on the Moon? and read all the posts


props to me for starting that thread! thumbsup.gif  laugh.gif  happy.gif

edit>>>>>I just finished watching it and it was so hilarious, lol

whats funny though is that if they were tired of all the nonsense, why wouldnt they want to put an end to it and save themselves many more years of torment? Makes you think, doesnt it.The ending to the movie was retarded =/ OMG i cant beleive how Buzz just nailed him in the face, lol

ps: I dont see how this qualifies under this topic (Extraterestrial and phenomena). Shouldn't it be under  alt. history? or better yet jokes and humou!lol

Edited by roflcopter, 30 April 2006 - 10:41 PM.

If you don't claim your humanity you will become a statistic.

#144    Cinders

Cinders

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,012 posts
  • Joined:09 Jan 2006
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Oregon

Posted 30 April 2006 - 10:48 PM

Hey MID

I am amazed and impressed at your thorough work and research on this "moon landing" subject. ** kudos to you**

But I meant to ask you long ago.. and it's a bit off topic on this thread.. but have YOU yourself seen any true unexplainable UFO's? (please be honest in your answer)  Judging from your excellent background, I am sure you know the difference from space debris, ice particles and whatnot out there in space.

There are some NASA vids that we've all seen (on rare occassion out there now on the internet) that defy being ice particles, space debris, lens flare etc. I am sure you've seen these.  (I do wish NASA would release more of these videos)

Anyway, have you seen any unexplainable UFO's within our earth's atmosphere, or close proximity, or out in space some where? Was this during your work or personal time, and is that partly why you visited this section of the forum?  

Before you answer, just to let you know I have seen a few "UFO's" throughout my lifetime here in Oregon.  On two rare occassions, (14 years apart),  I have been able to video tape these on VHS tape (which is very hard to tamper with) and they have been researched and are considered true "unknowns"

Looking forward to your reply..  wink2.gif

Edited by Cinders, 30 April 2006 - 10:49 PM.

"We are like butterflies who flutter for a day and think it's forever." ~Carl Sagan


#145    RabidCat

RabidCat

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,132 posts
  • Joined:22 Jul 2005
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 May 2006 - 05:09 PM

Quote


I should imagine that most references to me involve Apollo.  I've certainly added my two cents to a few other discussions, but Apollo and the U.S. manned space program of the era is my area of interest and specialty, if-you-will.  

I am utterly interested in the phenomena of the hoax fabrication...how it came about...why it exists, and what the positions of the believers are.   It provides an opportunity to teach, or to guide one into a direction which can yield the truth of the matter,  and thus, to learn in the process (teaching is a learning experience).

I only ever get truly annoyed with those who perpetrated this thing.  I think it is a travesty that young people should be led in that direction by people who should, and likely do know better, and who have a motivation based upon a desire to play upon a generation's lack of knowledge (how many high school students today are actually taught anything about manned space exploration?)...for a buck (e;g, Sibrel and Kaysing).  To those people, I sometimes call them a name that adequately describes them, or at least I will not be all so kind.  

But to those who are influenced, and accept these arguements, I welcome the opportunity to explain things, so as to stimulate them to do some real learning on their own.  I find that rewarding when it works!

Many thanks for the kind comments! grin2.gif

Well, Mid....
My suspicion about the beginning of this would be some nitwit saw the movie "Capricorn One" and decided it was more correct than incorrect.  Perpetuation of the idea comes more from the photos than from anything else: the fact (and it is a fact) that the photos do not come together at the edges, and such silly things as that, as if misaligned photos would prove anything.  Others I have seen come from such things as the flag seemingly showing waves when it shouldn't, there being no atmosphere.  That there are space shots there can be no doubt; but if one digs hard enough, indications can be found that a moon shot did not occur.  What is open to question is the validity of the indications.
I still maintain that there was technology used that was not available to the public at the time, and use of that technology might well explain what many see as anomalies.



#146    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 01 May 2006 - 09:58 PM

Quote


Hey MID

I am amazed and impressed at your thorough work and research on this "moon landing" subject. ** kudos to you**

But I meant to ask you long ago.. and it's a bit off topic on this thread.. but have YOU yourself seen any true unexplainable UFO's? (please be honest in your answer)  Judging from your excellent background, I am sure you know the difference from space debris, ice particles and whatnot out there in space.

There are some NASA vids that we've all seen (on rare occassion out there now on the internet) that defy being ice particles, space debris, lens flare etc. I am sure you've seen these.  (I do wish NASA would release more of these videos)

Anyway, have you seen any unexplainable UFO's within our earth's atmosphere, or close proximity, or out in space some where? Was this during your work or personal time, and is that partly why you visited this section of the forum?  

Before you answer, just to let you know I have seen a few "UFO's" throughout my lifetime here in Oregon.  On two rare occassions, (14 years apart),  I have been able to video tape these on VHS tape (which is very hard to tamper with) and they have been researched and are considered true "unknowns"

Looking forward to your reply..  wink2.gif



Many thanks, Cinders.
Have I seen any UFOs?  The honest answer is: absolutely.

I think most aviators who have enough experience have seen them.  I have seen them while flying aircraft, and while on the ground.  Probably about 4 or 5 instances all told of objects that I observed but which were never resolved, including a couple that I reported to Center, using a phrase such as, "XYZ Center, Cessna one one charlie tango, I have traffic at 2 o'clock, 5,000 feet, heading approximately 030, do you have contact?".   If the controller comes back with "Negative contact on your traffic..." and asks a bunch of other questions of me, then, I have, by definition, a UFO.

Many times, the UFO will be identified, either by center because they've researched it and identified it, or perhaps even by a pilot getting close enough and identifying it.    In controlled airspace, UFOs are very important to resolve for safety reasons.  

But I've seen them while not flying as well.   Just last summer, a very bright reflection aloft between some cumulus clouds had me getting out the binoculars and zooming in.  A most unusual two spheres at what appeared to be a very high altitude, virtually hovering.   I could not make out anything of any detail save the fact that it definitely appeared to be two spheres aloft.   I have no idea what they were...baloons, perhaps, but they didn't behave as balloons would.  They were virtually still.   Another look a few minutes later revealed no trace of them.  

There was another long-ago unusual lighting pattern observed within low clouds.   Made me stop the car and watch, trying to figure out what that might have been.  Never did.  A UFO.

So yes, I have seen UFOs.  

However, I will state that I have never equated these sighting, unresolved as some of them were with alien spacecraft.  I have merely equated them with things aloft that I could not identify, which is the actual definition of the term.  

This fact has no bearing on my feelings about alien life.  Quite franklly, I find it absolutely ridiculous, from a scientific standpoint, that people think there are no other intelligent life forms in the universe besides us.  I think the odds have to be overwhelming, astronomically so (excuse the pun), in favor of such.

Do I think they are visiting earth?   I see no reason to think so, nor have I ever seen any concrete evidence of such.  
Do I think they ever have?  Perhaps.   But I cannot say, since there doesn't seem to be any evidence to that effect either.

I will say this:

I would welcome a visit, should any alien life form advanced enough for interstellar travel, and skilled enough to find this little, almost invisible life-filled spec in the massive cosmos, land here.

But, if they've been intercepting our TV transmissions, and are intelligent enough to get a clue about what we're all about, I rather imagine that they would make a right at the moon and keep on going!

Regards.

    



#147    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 01 May 2006 - 10:28 PM

Quote


Well, Mid....
My suspicion about the beginning of this would be some nitwit saw the movie "Capricorn One" and decided it was more correct than incorrect.  Perpetuation of the idea comes more from the photos than from anything else: the fact (and it is a fact) that the photos do not come together at the edges, and such silly things as that, as if misaligned photos would prove anything.  Others I have seen come from such things as the flag seemingly showing waves when it shouldn't, there being no atmosphere.  That there are space shots there can be no doubt; but if one digs hard enough, indications can be found that a moon shot did not occur.  What is open to question is the validity of the indications.
I still maintain that there was technology used that was not available to the public at the time, and use of that technology might well explain what many see as anomalies.


Well, I respect your position.   And, It seems plausible enough that someone saw Capricorn One and thought it represented something factual. In fact, that really rather crappy film has been used by some Apollo hoax afficianadoes in support of their positions regarding a hoaxed moon landing.  It was a really poor "B" movie at best, which used Apollo hardware to simulate a faked Mars landing.   I rather think the Apollo hoax started as a combination of factors, combined with a society that long ago became jaded at the extraordinary, and a  generation or so "post-Apollo" who were at once not really taught anything about the program in school, and a generation that was forced to suffer through diminished requirements and standards in general education...thus, diminished critical reasonaing skills and diminished impetus to do personal research.

I think by "misaligned" photos you are referring to the rough assembled panoramae that were a staple of Apollo lunar surface photography.  Really, it was rather primative.  We assembled common edges of photos to create panoramae.   The photos were not all aligned  vertically; thus, one saw a bunch of seams sticking up all over the place.  With today's digital technology, the edges have been eliminated, and the seams rendered virtually invisible to create fantastic panoramae that look like wide-angle, stand-alone photos.  There are a couple sites on the Web today that have fantastic 360 degree panoramae assembled and digitally cleaned up.  They are awesome, and the only way you can tell they are assembled panoramae is to look for the center Resseau marks of each shot.



The flags showed the natural wrinkles in them that they had from being rolled up for transport to the lunar surface.   Of course, wrinkles in nylon tend to hold.   They waved about when they were manipulated into their stands because things react that way when an impulse is applied to them, whether or not there is an atmosphere.  Of course, the fact that these things stood absolutely still once erected, and never, ever moved one jot after they were set up would seem to indicate that they were exactly where we said they were.

I will agree that there was technology in use at the time that was not available to the general public.  Alot of it.  This technology was invented for use in the manned space program.  The program provided an impetus for extreme innovation, and such innovation occurred.  Of course, the vast majority of that technology filtered into the private sector in the years that followed.    But at the time, the computers that fed the MOCR, for instance, were the most sophisticated in the world.  Today, of course, that computer system would be considered a sluggish behemoth of a mainframe, easily exceeded in its porocessing capability by the PC we sit at and write these posts, but it was advanced, and unavailable to the general public in 1969.

I'd be interested to know what anomalies you might be referring to which could be explained by the use of the advanced technology of the day.




#148    RabidCat

RabidCat

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,132 posts
  • Joined:22 Jul 2005
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 May 2006 - 05:42 PM

Quite so, Mid, about Capricorn.  I enjoyed it, sort of, as escapism.  How it could even be considered as a "proof" is beyond me.
Diminished requirements?  Are you angling for argument?  Current concepts seem to indicate that we older folk are incapable of understanding or dealing with current technology and such (people seem to forget that that technology had to come from somewhere, and that honor rests with those same older folk that "can't understand it").  A bit ironic, isn't it?  That the notion that those who developed the technology don't understand it?  Frankly, I'm puzzled.
As to the photos, I suspect anyone with any common sense immediately dismisses the alignment question.  You are correct, no question.
Flags: yes, we know this.  However, keep in mind that your commentary on educational standards and lack of critical thinking makes this error self-explanatory, doesn't it?
As to the technology of the time, I was Navy then, and upon discharge in 1969 went into electronics private sector.  While going to school (and holding an associate engineer position) I worked on and developed electronics for the aerospace industry, along with other more advanced stuff.  Some has yet to be declassified and so cannot be discussed, some I wish I knew about, etc.  Among the items in question is the contention about radiation; since electronics in space must be radiation hardened due to material degradation and eventual destruction, I suspect that some form of deflection shields, magnetic or otherwise, were used, and likely still are being used.  Also, there was semiconductor technology available to us then that is not overtly being used now.  One type I recall allowed JKFF clock speeds in the microwave range, or 10.2GHz, reliably.  This indicates minicomputer speeds far in excess of current intel products.  More interesting was that the technology was low power (a form of FET) rather than the current coupled devices which yield high speeds.  We also had access to microprocessors in the very early '70s in which the architecture was quite advanced, comparatively.
So the amount of that technology that did filter into private hands remains in question, at least as far as I'm concerned.  To wit: one of my projects, at that time, was the development of a 1/2 cubic inch power supply, the requirements being 200 mA at -5V, with an input of 28VDC.  Temperature requirements were -50C to +150C, with a variant of <5mV over the range.  A difficult project, to be sure, and when it was done, space usage was 93%.  Another project required pulse code modulation of 1024 analog channels into one channel; the worst part of this was the G requirement, which was 20,000 G three axis, in a package 1.5"x1.5"x0.5".  This project was accomplished 1973.
The company I worked for had Top Secret clearance.  Many of those projects are still unkown in industry.
As an aside, I keep wondering why it is that some people believe that we must be using alien techology.  While I suppose it is possible, most of the items used for "proof" are easily traceable to human sources.  Such as laser, integrated circuits, etc.  Hmm.  Doesn't seem at all logical.



#149    magnetar

magnetar

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 726 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2005

Posted 02 May 2006 - 06:51 PM

Semiconductor density amounts to bulk shielding.
Then vs. now, regarding componentry.


#150    RabidCat

RabidCat

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,132 posts
  • Joined:22 Jul 2005
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 May 2006 - 07:13 PM

Quote


Semiconductor density amounts to bulk shielding.
Then vs. now, regarding componentry.

Say what???





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users