I am watching the show The Planets and they are talking about the Moon. There is a part where the USA Astronauts are going around the Moon for the first time, and , while on the dark side of the Moon, communication is lost. When communication is resumed, the Astronauts say "Please be informed there is a Santa Claus". NASA's reply is something like "Thanks, thats what we wanted to know".

I have never heard this before and have always wondered if there was an Alien civilization on the dark side of the Moon. IMO the comment made by the Astronauts was peculiar. Why say "there is a Santa Claus"??? To me, it just seemed like a code.

Well, of course it was a code! But meaning what? Unless you are one of the inside employees closest to the various missions you won't know what the astronauts mean by that phrase. There is no (to my knowledge) NASA dictionary to help interpret similar coding. There are a ton of websites that carry that tale implying that the astronauts saw UFOs on the surface, over them, around them and there is even one photograph taken by an astronaut from the surface allegedly showing a UFO in the sky. Possibly, out of the thousands of photos that NASA doesn't allow the public to see there might be something to the claims. But until we are shown the hidden photos all one can do is speculate along with everyone else.

I'll tell you this, though, as an amateur selenologist. In the '80s while living in L.A. I went to a UFO convention in Culver City. Aside from the various interesting presentation by such luminaries as William Moore, Stanton Friedman, et al, there was a guy in the lobby that had a long table and on it were poster-size photos of various NASA photos taken by Lunar Orbiters. I swear, although my 69-year-old memory fails me now as to details, that on some of those photos some very interesting things were seen. Many people claim to see alien artifacts on NASA photos but none of those photos really show any detail to make one come to a conclusion but those poster-size photos did have the resolution so that one could see that whatever they were they were not natural formations. But then again...

^ santa claus is used when they see a ufo. so they dont say 'hey, theres a ufo up here' on national television.

I think this expression is also used when someone receives a gift, or gets an unexpected bit of good luck.

The moon slingshot was risky and a step into the unknown. Perhaps they where just expressing their relief that it had gone sucessfully.

Meow Purr

^ not for nasa though, and not in this case. its just a code word for ufo.

Any proof of that other than supposition?

It was a joke, nothing more.

You're basing that on absolutely nothing.

Jim Lovell said this on December 25th 1968. Christmas day. The entire broadcast was as follows:





Wrong!

Pilots and astronauts commonly use jargon. Not to mention, it would be stupid of them to use "Santa Claus" as jargon for "UFO", when it clearly stands out so much.

What would the Santa Claus mean though, it stands out in whatever context it was used.

Out of interest, seeing as to how I am a complete ignoramous in these matters, what does the "burn" bit relate to?

no, im preeeetty sure im right here. go read books and youll see how many of them claim the exact same thing.
and it is a form of jargon they use, youre right. just like bogey - world war 2 aviator slang for 'unidentified aircraft, presumably hostile' or foo fighter - any unidentified flying object described as a ball of fire or light (also ww2). like on mecury 8, when walter schirra said it. or when james lovell said 'please be informed, there is a santa claus' on apollo 8 (i think). it helped them instead of saying 'yeah, we see some aliens up here' while its broadcasted. i think gordon cooper might have mentioned something about 'santa claus' being used as well.

According to Clark C. McClelland, the phrase "Santa Claus" was the mission code used if sighting a strange object such as a UFO.


Clark C. McClelland - former ScO, Space Shuttle Fleet Kennedy Space Center, Florida (1958-1992) ...is an avid UFO researcher and for good reason.

http://www.stargate-chronicles.com/home.html

I knew I had just heard this recently somewhere. This was in the other topic about McClelland, wasn't it.

It did come up here: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...howtopic=104266

I was trying to figure out where I just read this myself.

That's my point. Why would they use a phrase which stands out so much to try to cover something up? See how that doesn't make sense? It stands out, then solely because it stands out, you have people like this thinking it means UFO.

I'd presume that "burn" refers to burning the engine.



All of them, also, basing it on absolutely nothing. "Logical fallacy: Appeal to popularity".



It could mean any number of things. Besides, given the context the term is used, it doesn't make sense to presume it's a UFO.



Let's see. It's Christmas day, they're flying over the Earth, they say "Santa Claus" the reply is "You're the best ones we know". It sounds to me like they're joking, calling themselves Santa Claus, flying over the Earth in a "sleigh".

Give me one good reason why we should believe it refers to a UFO, other than the fact that it stands out...

I'm sure there will be many comments trying to explain the significance of this statement made by Jim Lovell on December 24, 1968. And I'm sure they'll mostly be imagination at work.

First of all, the mission was Apollo 8, man's first flight to the Moon. A very dangerous unknown in all respects. Apollo 8 had entered orbit around the Moon, and during those 10 lunar orbits, transmitted views of the surface and of the Earth back to Earth. Late that night, the next unknown was attempted; the firing of the Service Propulsion System engine (SPS) in order to set Apollo 8 back on course for the Earth. This was the first time this was attempted, and of course it was attempted on the far side of the Moon.

Everyone held their breath, waiting for the spacecraft to come around at the specific moment that it should in order to indicate that the engine had indeed fired and the crew was safely enroute back home.

Precisely on time, the spacecrfaft appeared, and Jim Lovell (who, if he had ever anticipated that his words would be taken to mean such a ridiculous thing, would never have said them), opened his mouth in response to Houston calling and it went like this:

LOVELL: Houston, Apollo 8, over.

HOUSTON: Hello, Apollo 8, loud and clear.

LOVELL: Roger. Please be informed there is a Santa Claus!

HOUSTON: That's affirmative. You're the best ones to know!


Please allow me to translate this for you:


Lovell was saying, in very apropos fashion, being it was Christmas Eve and all...

HOUSTON, APOLLO 8 IS ON IT'S WAY HOME! THAT ENGINE FIRED BEAUTIFULLY AND OUR PINK BUTTS ARE COMING HOME. WE'RE NOT STRANDED IN LUNAR ORBIT FOREVER, WE'RE NOT GONNA DIE HERE, WE'RE HAPPY AS HELL AND WE FEEL THAT SINCE IT'S CHRISTMAS EVE, SANTA CLAUS JUST GAVE US THE BEST CHRISTMAS PRESENT EVER...OUR LIVES!


And Houston, merely concurred with that sentiment (which was rather confirmed by the cheers that were going up all over Mission Control at that moment).

Personally, I thought Jim's statement was perfectly clear as he said it.


It has absolutely nothing to do with any code words for alien bases. This is perhaps one of the most ludicrous imaginative constructs that's been concocted by the un-knowledgable about a transmission from space that I have ever heard.

"Santa Claus" simply meant Santa Claus: jolly old St. Nick. That's it, no code, it was actually very plain, and exceedingly apropos given the fact that it was Christmas eve, 1968, and three men had just been given their lives by a single engine that just had to fire to get them home safely.

Precisely, ship's cat.
That is exactly what it was about.

That is correct Raptor. "Burn" refers to the engine firing.The next thing Lovell says after the Santa Claus bit is this:"And burn status report: it burned on time, burn time two mites, twenty three seconds, 7/10 plus Vgx, attitude nominal. Residuals: minus 5/10 Vgx, plus 4/10 Vgy, minus zero Vgz, delta minus Vc; minus 26.4."He was describing of course, in code, the dimensions of the alien base ("Santa Claus"), and how they were fired on by the aliens for 2 minutes and 23 seconds!!! (actually, it was a description of the engine burn, the time of the burn, the attitude, and the residuals in velocity along the axes of the flight path, and the variation from nominal velocity at cutoff....).Perhaps now, you understand what it was actually all about?

If he was announcing the discovery of proof of extraterrestrial civilisations, you'd think they'd be mildly more excited about it than just go into discussing fuel burn, wouldn't you?



It's a bit like saying "Hey!! We've found evidence of life on other planets!! Oh, yes, and there's a bit of a rattle when we go round a left hand bend. Coudl you ask someone to take a look at it?"

Also mission control keeps saying 'Roger', and yet, as far as we know, no member of the crew was called roger?
Suspicious...

That is very suspicious!
I think you have something there.


There was no one named Roger on the crew, nor in Mission Control that I recall. I wonder why they kept saying "roger" all the time???

I bet "roger" was a code word for alien. Got to be!

umm, i already understood what it was about. and i knew it was on christmas day when they said it, so sure, that one could be a joke. but theyve already used it, before that. so it doesnt really make sense.
and 'santa claus' isnt just used for the engine burns. it was on one of the links from a few posts ago. sooo many people have claimed thats what santa claus is, compared to what you said. BUT, none of us our atronauts, so we wont exactly know unless we ask them and they Honestly answer us. its just been said for a while that it means a ufo. so they dont have to say it on the broadcast back for everyone to hear, and 'freak out', as they thought they might. also alot of people think they say this too because of the so called activity going on on the moon. possibly why the apollo 8 mission said this.

*edit* but w/e, it says 'interpretation' of the comment. and thats mine as well as alot of others. and unfortunately we dont know yet.

shut up!

You crack me up sometimes rofl!

Where has the term Santa Claus been used in any manned spaceflight...other than the one mentioned above?

Perhaps it could be explained to me why such an unusual term like Santa Claus, a seasonal and very specific term, would be used as a code word for a UFO. While I'll grant you that the term "UFO" wasn't generally used because the UFO nuts would be jumping off bridges and things like that if they did, Santa Claus makes no sense.

If it was around Christmas, fine. No one would think another thing of it. Don't you think that if a mission was flying in August and an astronaut reported Santa Claus that people would think something smelled funny?

Lord, you could use the name of a non navigational star, or some other obscure word designed to blend in with the acronym laced lingo of the space to ground communications...anything. Why Santa Claus?

It's ridiculous.

Hmmmmmmm I dont know.
Maybe coz Santa isnt really real. So on that note what the astronaut ment was , what he was seeing or experiancing was pretty "Unbelievable", "unreal" or "totally awsome".
Could be a code. Does the show 'The Planets' air in Australia at all do ya know?

Okay i flicked back through this post and came up with the fact that Saint Nic lives in the north pole, could It be a cordinant or a direction in regards to the True North axis on any planet?

wow, its 'rediculous' because you dont believe it. havent heard that one before.
adn why not santa? its a guy that flys around in the sky.

Hi All

Been avoiding this particular forum area since a member desecrated the memory of my deceased father to prove a nonsensical point, then called me names when they lost the argument. Blind believers are bad losers.

I remember almost all of the UM members very fondly, all but three LOL, in fact I thought many might quite like this quote I stumbled on today. That's why I briefly dropped in.



We have a planetary protection officer?????????? I hope we don't pay him.

From Here The main article deals with a return to the mooon, but this little snippet half way down caught my eye. Quite a comment for discussion I thought.

PS. Thought a quote thread would be better than a whole new one.

It's ridiculous because there's no basis for it. Also, you didn't answer his question. Where else has the term "Santa Claus" been used before?

Can you give one valid reason to support the belief that it should refer to a UFO?

Heya Mulder

Your a good guy, you do know Mid was on mission control, actually part of the Apollo program.....he is pretty darn clued up on this subject and it's terminology. I'd give him the benefit here buddy.

Cheers.

well tell gramps im sorry. didnt know hes been there since 1968.

Hehe, No prob, glad I could clear up a little bit. You are both good guys, I reckon you will get along well

Ah, reminds me of Airplane... "Roger, Roger"... "Over, Oveur" ... "What's the vector, Victor?"

lol

It's amazing what a big risk these guys took, they could have ended up drifting around in space until they fossilised!

Do you think that some of these Astronauts were a bit fool hardy? I totally understand that the risk and opportunity to learn more is worth it but it still seems as risky as hell, if something go's wrong your proppa screwed, that’s why I stand by the Apollo 13 mission as my favourite.

However, I can imagine an Astronaut being ideally situated to observe any possible UFO’s or oddness.

I do not think NASA wishes to be seen as actively looking into the UFO Phenomena, maybe this is because they already know more than we could ever understand and digest and it would ultimately be a waste of time explaining what constitutes a UFO and what is “debris”, or perhaps NASA are a bit scared of looking foolish and lose there hard earned Stella reputation, but what is NASA without a certain amount of calculated risk?

Has NASA ever publicly confirmed it has had a close encounter? The reason I ask is because the UFO reports and sightings really do come from every other sector and niche in society, some stuff is confirmed visually and also by radar and on a couple of occasion even simultaneously being recorded on Infra Red video camera, there seems to be references to them in historical records but some of this could be seen as speculative evidence.

The space agencies really do have the opportunity to once and for all investigate this on behalf of humanity.

I understand NASA and the other space agencies are affiliated with some Projects like SETI but these agencies have a more scientifically fundamental agenda and they are understandably investigating more urgent paradox’s than UFO's, the thing I personally wish was different would be for a little more “transparency” as society is not made out of scientists and some of the more important discoveries and projects conducted by the space missions and the subsequent information generated should be made more relevant for the lay-person to understand, the trick would be to have the critical information still contained and show its piece in the jig saw of scientific discovery.

Well, zimbob, the risk is what we called "managed". Quite frankly, I think much of the media interpretations of the Apollo years was a bit overblown concerning the "risk" they took (not to say there wasn't any...there was). Alot of presentations make it sound like the Apollo astronauts were facing mortal dangers that were unknown at every turn, sort of like a daredevil who wants to try and jump the grand canyon in his car...without any testing or calculations ever being done...just put the gas pedal to the floor and give it a shot! They were facing certain possibilities, but they were nothing like the daredevils dangers.


I don't think any test pilot is ever foolhardy. These men were by and large research pilots, a highly meaured and disciplined group of folks who didn't take chances, insofar as untoward risk was concerned. They all felt confident, based on performance and prior testing, that they had a fair chance of executing their missions successfully.

Let's take the APS engine of the LM, that was the sole item that had to get them off the surface of the Moon and back into lunar orbit again.

Yes, if it failed, they'd be stranded on the Moon...condemned, as-it-were. They knew this, but the APS had performed perfectly in every test done, and had performed in flight on Apollo 9 and 10, exactly as designed. They were confident in the system's perfomance, and felt that they had a decent chance, based on the data, to execute their mission, once (and if) they landed on the Moon.

The data said they had a very good good chance of being sucessful. Yet still, they knew that something untoward could crap out. That is called bravery (which is not foolhardyness). It's just like Shuttle crews today. A highly reliable system has a tendency to present unknown anomalies, as we've seen from time to time. Yet , these people still go...because the odds are in their favor based upon testing and performance-to-date.


That, in a way, is managed risk.


Fool hardy is what a daredevil is. But I guarantee you that no test pilot is a daredevil.








You would be correct.




There you have it. "Calculated risk" is what I'm talking about. If the knowledge to be gained outweighs the managed risk, we go. If the risk outweighs the benefits to be gained....we don't. We don't take chances, We don't go fool hardy. We assess everything to the best of our ability, and if we see that there's noting to indicate we're going to have a problem, or could have a problem, off we go. If we see something that indicates we could possibly have a problem, we stop and assess the situation further.




With aliens, no. Seeing a UFO, yes (almost every pilot has had a UFO sighting)...although that terminology is not used to describe it, because of the potential public backlash from using the term.




If there was anything that has ever been sighted that presented a reason for investigation, the space agencies would indeed investigate it...thoroughly. As of this time, there has been nothing to my knowledge that is compelling enough to warrant such an investigation. A UFO has no relation to an alien spacecraft. It refers to Unidentified Objects, and there have been plenty of them seen and described.




I think NASA does a pretty good job of that today. A careful perusal of NASA's web site today will provide lots of information on what they're doing, information that is geared toward the public, and not the scientist.

Admittedly, NASA was faulty in such communicative and public affairs matters in the past. Today, I think it's alot different!

I know for a fact that the astronauts saw a miniature sleigh and eight tiny reindeer. Hence, the remark "There is a Santa Claus".

Not on 13.
I am well aware that Santa had been sighted in Earth orbit ( I think Gemini 7 sighted him "airing out" his reindeer crew on a dry run prior to Christmas 1965), and the Skylab 4 mission tracked the old fellow on Christmas eve of 1973, and the ISS has reams of data on Santa Claus (they've been tracking him for years...why do you think the ISS is on an orbital inclination of 51 degrees???).