JimOberg Posted October 30, 2012 #476 Share Posted October 30, 2012 thankyou for the reply... but was the STS-75 tether footage broadcast live to the public? you didn't really say I watched the mission feed on my home TV throughout the 1990s, and was especially interested in STS-75 because I'd helped develop crew procedures for tether operations and contingencies. So I recall seeing that one in particular, live and round the clock. that doesn't mean that the feed you are alluding to was available to the public... Sure it does. It just wasn't spoon fed to everybody. If you wanted to see the feed, you could watch it in the clear via a small backyard dish, if your local cable service didn't include it -- as many DID because it was free. there's was an encrypted feed as well..... Read my 99 FAQ item about this. I go into some detail, there was plenty of ways NASA could conduct teleconferences with orbiting astronauts without public oversight. Still are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimOberg Posted October 30, 2012 #477 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Did you read the website Jim? There is a short youtube clip at the bottom full of astronaut testimonies. Here is one: During James Lovell's flight on Gemini 7: Lovell: BOGEY AT 10 O'CLOCK HIGH. Capcom: This is Houston. Say again 7. Lovell: SAID WE HAVE A BOGEY AT 10 O'CLOCK HIGH. Capcom: Gemini 7, is that the booster or is that an actual sighting? Lovell: WE HAVE SEVERAL...ACTUAL SIGHTING. Capcom: ...Estimated distance or size? Lovell: WE ALSO HAVE THE BOOSTER IN SIGHT... What do you think he was referring to? \I think he and Borman were referring to exactly what they said when later asked -- their Titan-II second stage, in a joking and celebratory manner since they had just carried out the program's first orbital renderzvous with it, as a target. Borman told everybody that's what it was about, and several UFO programs decided to not use his testimony to that effect, since it went against the spin they needed for their gullible listening audience. Ask Borman. Why don't you believe him? My website has a long article about that pioneering rendezvous accomplishment. But you better not read it if you want to stay blissfully misinformed. Borman and Lovell both reviewed the article, and rendezvous was my professional specialization in Mission Control for 20+ years. The case, as reported by the UFO media, is phony, and deliberately so. Why are you so pitifully easy to deceive? Listen to the people laughing at you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted October 30, 2012 #478 Share Posted October 30, 2012 (edited) Take Maurice Chatelain. When did HE ever go into space? Your right, I don't believe he did: Quote: In 1979 Maurice Chatelain, former chief of NASA Communications Systems confirmed that Armstrong had indeed reported seeing two UFOs on the rim of a crater. http://www.syti.net/UFOSightings.html Edited October 30, 2012 by zoser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted October 30, 2012 #479 Share Posted October 30, 2012 (edited) \ I think he and Borman were referring to exactly what they said when later asked -- their Titan-II second stage, in a joking and celebratory manner since they had just carried out the program's first orbital renderzvous with it, as a target. Borman told everybody that's what it was about, and several UFO programs decided to not use his testimony to that effect, since it went against the spin they needed for their gullible listening audience. Ask Borman. Why don't you believe him? I cannot believe that you believe that Jim How come he did not chose to describe it properly? Why use the word bogie? And he repeated it. Edited October 30, 2012 by zoser 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimOberg Posted October 30, 2012 #480 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Your right, I don't believe he did: Quote: In 1979 Maurice Chatelain, former chief of NASA Communications Systems confirmed that Armstrong had indeed reported seeing two UFOs on the rim of a crater. http://www.syti.net/UFOSightings.html WHY do you 'believe' he had any clue to what was going on in Mission Control during Apollo-11? Because some UFO nut made UP the falsehood that he had some high position, and YOU eagerly fell for that fraud? Why are you so pitifully EASY to deceive? Do you LIKE it that way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimOberg Posted October 30, 2012 #481 Share Posted October 30, 2012 I cannot believe that you believe that Jim How come he did not chose to describe it properly? Why use the word bogie? And he repeated it. Why not ask him? Why not read what he said? Why do you suppose his published comments explaining this event and the way "UFO nuts" have falsified it, are COVERED UP on the pro-UFO internet sites? Why are you so pitifully EASY to be deceived? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted October 30, 2012 #482 Share Posted October 30, 2012 WHY do you 'believe' he had any clue to what was going on in Mission Control during Apollo-11? Because some UFO nut made UP the falsehood that he had some high position, and YOU eagerly fell for that fraud? Why are you so pitifully EASY to deceive? Do you LIKE it that way? Sure Jim. Goodnight old mate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimOberg Posted October 30, 2012 #483 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Sure Jim. Goodnight old mate You have ANY evidence Chatelain was ever in Mission Control, or even claimed to have been? Somebody made it up. They had YOU specifically in mind as a willing dupe. Listen to the people laughing at you. They are trying to tell you something. Evidence? Any evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweetpumper Posted October 30, 2012 #484 Share Posted October 30, 2012 (edited) "UFO nuts" I'm guessing you've had zero personal experiences with a UAP. Edited October 30, 2012 by Sweetpumper 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimOberg Posted October 30, 2012 #485 Share Posted October 30, 2012 (edited) I'm guessing you've had zero personal experiences with a UAP. Don't quit your day job. What does this have to do with the uforic misrepresentation and mythification of the Gemini-7 story? BTW -- remember the Gemini-7 UFO photo of 'twin UFOs with glowing undersides'. It ought to be googlible. It's also -- this may surprise you -- a retouched version of a photo that originally showed two nose steering jets. Edited October 30, 2012 by JimOberg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweetpumper Posted October 30, 2012 #486 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Wow. I'll take that as a 'no'. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMacGuffin Posted October 30, 2012 #487 Share Posted October 30, 2012 I'm guessing you've had zero personal experiences with a UAP. If he ever did, he would just report it as a weather balloon, swamp gas or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMacGuffin Posted October 30, 2012 #488 Share Posted October 30, 2012 And we evil debunkers are supposed to simply identify things on the spot? Only Zoser & MacG will offer that service.. No, I have never offered any such service. Not even the guy who showed us the picture of the crashed UFO and dead "occupants" could tell us where it was from or what they were doing here. Perhaps they didn't even know that themselves. It was a long time ago after all. I am not like you debunkers and never claimed to have all the answers, just more of them than you guys do. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimOberg Posted October 30, 2012 #489 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Wow. I'll take that as a 'no'. Wrong again. But let's focus on the theme of this thread and the claims presented here without any evidence, and usually AGAINST available evidence and testimony. The Afanasyev hoax -- phony English voice-over misrepresenting the cosmonaut's actual non-extraordinary experience. The Chatelain hoax -- phony 'credentials' to falsely enhance the stories of a French ancient astronaut author. The Gemini-7 hoax -- deliberately avoiding post-flight explanations by Borman The Apollo-11 hoax -- creatively editing comments by Aldrin about the blip out the window on the outband leg, and endorsement of a grocery store tabloid's 'gag moon UFO' transcript. 'Shuttle UFO' fairy tales -- dancing dots to be worshiped even though the views of witnesses, the activities aboard the spaceship, and the illumination conditions are to be ignored. THAT'S the kind of 'evidence' that's being offered here. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMacGuffin Posted October 30, 2012 #490 Share Posted October 30, 2012 This is the kind of comment that should be censured imho. Flame baiting at it's most blatant. If you persist in provoking people Chris then you get what you deserve. Carry on with this if you wish; but when it comes back your way please don't complain. I don't think he is impressing anyone around here except himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMacGuffin Posted October 30, 2012 #491 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Don't quit your day job. What does this have to do with the uforic misrepresentation and mythification of the Gemini-7 story? BTW -- remember the Gemini-7 UFO photo of 'twin UFOs with glowing undersides'. It ought to be googlible. It's also -- this may surprise you -- a retouched version of a photo that originally showed two nose steering jets. Didn't you also say this about it at one time? "December 4, 1965-Gemini 7: Frank Borman and Jim Lovell photographed twin oval-shaped UFOs with glowing undersides. This famous photograph is a blatent forgery, in which light reflections off the nose of the spacecraft are made to look like UFOs by airbrushing away the vehicle structure around them. Verdict: Fraud." In fact, I think there have been a number of different "explanations" offered for this one over the decades. LOL http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CD8QFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fanswers.google.com%2Fanswers%2Fthreadview%3Fid%3D290971&ei=vVKQUOvkNZGu8QTZvYHQBQ&usg=AFQjCNE8ebaAZU0oVO7TVS58NHai72L6og&sig2=R3-45I3uuaCrE97-4C9I4Q Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bee Posted October 30, 2012 #492 Share Posted October 30, 2012 . I can't speak for everyone....but I, personally, don't worship dancing dots....lol 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimOberg Posted October 30, 2012 #493 Share Posted October 30, 2012 In fact, I think there have been a number of different "explanations" offered for this one over the decades. LOL http://www.google.co...uuaCrE97-4C9I4Q Thanks for the link. Here's Borman's exact quotation: The "bogey," according to Gemini 7 Astronaut Frank Borman, in a 1998 interview: "Right after we got into orbit we were supposed to 'station keep' or fly formation with the booster,' Borman says. 'We were flying formation and taking photographs and infrared measurements and I started calling it a 'bogey,' which is an old fighter pilot term. Well, a lot of the UFO freaks on the ground picked this up and said we had seen a UFO because we had referred to our booster as a bogey. Just this past year I got a call from a producer at 'Unsolved Mysteries' and they said, 'We read your account about your seeing a UFO on Gemini 7 and would you come on the program?' I told them: 'I'd love to come on your program because I'd love to straighten that out.' I explained what it was I saw and I said, 'I don't think there were UFOs,' and the producer said, 'Well, I'm not sure we want you on the program." Air & Space Magazine: Flying the Gusmobile http://www.airspacemag.com:80/ASM/Mag/Index/1998/AS/ftgm.html Worth repeating: the producer said, 'Well, I'm not sure we want you on the program." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMacGuffin Posted October 30, 2012 #494 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Or was the Gemini 7 UFO "debris - debris from the stage separation", as Oberg also said at one time? Even the astronauts knew it wasn't the booster because they also had that in sight. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CD8QFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fanswers.google.com%2Fanswers%2Fthreadview%3Fid%3D290971&ei=vVKQUOvkNZGu8QTZvYHQBQ&usg=AFQjCNE8ebaAZU0oVO7TVS58NHai72L6og&sig2=R3-45I3uuaCrE97-4C9I4Q Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimOberg Posted October 30, 2012 #495 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Or was the Gemini 7 UFO "debris - debris from the stage separation", as Oberg also said at one time? Even the astronauts knew it wasn't the booster because they also had that in sight. Why won't you listen to the direct eyewitnesses? I decided to, that's why my theory changed. Ditto on the Gemini-11 bogie. Brad Sparks had a better idea, better even than the original NORAD assessment. You gotta follow the evidence. As you learn more, new insights appear. Only recently I've come to realize that little if ANY of the notorious youtube videos are 'space junk' in any traditional sense. They're 'dandruff' shed by the shuttles, or sometimes spacecraft directly involved in cooperative flying -- rendezvous or separation maneuvers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMacGuffin Posted October 30, 2012 #496 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Or did Oberg also say at one time that the UFO was the booster rocket itself? Wasn't that the original NASA "explanation", but one that obviously didn't pan out very well? The famous "We have a bogey" object has been explained as space debris by James Oberg, former flight controller at the Johnson Space Center. Gemini 7 Astronaut Frank Borman, who made the "We have a bogey" statement, now says that the word "bogey" referred to the booster rocket, which was drifting nearby after the capsule had separated from it. However, although transcripts of the conversation between the spacecraft and Mission Control do indicate that the astronauts thought the object looked like debris, the statements "we have several" and "we also have the booster in sight" seem to differentiate the "bogey" from the booster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMacGuffin Posted October 30, 2012 #497 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Why won't you listen to the direct eyewitnesses? I decided to, that's why my theory changed. Well, for Gemini 7 you have had everything from reflections to debris to fake pictures to booster rockets to "explain" the UFO, just about everything except pots and pans and the kitchen sink flying around up there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMacGuffin Posted October 30, 2012 #498 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Then we had the Gemini 4, UFO, that was "explained" as the second stage of their rocket or as a Soviet satellite, except of course it was neither of those things, was it? To make it even worse, the pictures that NASA released to the public were not even those that the astronauts took of the UFO. Here is what Major James McDivitt repeated many times: "I was flying with Ed White. He was sleeping at the time so I don't have anybody to verify my story. We were drifting in space with the control engines shut down and all the instrumentation off (when) suddenly (an object) appeared in the window. It had a very definite shape - a cylindrical object - it was white - it had a long arm that stuck out on the side. I don't know whether it was a very small object up close or a very large object a long ways away. There was nothing to judge by. I really don't know how big it was. We had two cameras that were just floating in the spacecraft at the time, so I grabbed one and took a picture of (the object) and grabbed the other and took a picture. Then I turned on the rocket control systems because I was afraid we might hit it. At the time we were drifting - without checking I have no idea which way we were going - but as we drifted up a little farther the sun shone on the window of the spacecraft. The windshield was dirty - just like in an automobile, you can't see through it. So I had the rocket control engines going again and moved the spacecraft so that the window was in darkness again - the object was gone. I called down later and told them what had happened and they went back and checked their records of other space debris that was flying around but we were never able to identify what it could have been. The film was sent back to NASA and reviewed by some NASA film technicians. One of them selected what he thought was what we talked about, at least before I had a chance to review it. It was not the picture - it was a picture of a sun reflection on the window." http://www.google.com/imgres?num=10&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1280&bih=685&tbm=isch&tbnid=Nr9fWbmyW_iKrM:&imgrefurl=http://spacetime.forumotion.com/t4-nasa-project-gemini-ufos&docid=PbcH6lVBrZLDjM&imgurl=http://i49.servimg.com/u/f49/16/99/98/32/gemini10.jpg&w=527&h=378&ei=XVmQUMKAI5Ck8QSh84Fo&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=974&vpy=352&dur=5372&hovh=190&hovw=265&tx=168&ty=106&sig=114704889851551226570&page=3&tbnh=142&tbnw=206&start=53&ndsp=27&ved=1t:429,i:267 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMacGuffin Posted October 30, 2012 #499 Share Posted October 30, 2012 (edited) Then we had Gemini 11's "wing man" in 1966, yet another "satellite" that was never there. "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." http://www.google.com/imgres?num=10&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1280&bih=685&tbm=isch&tbnid=Nr9fWbmyW_iKrM:&imgrefurl=http://spacetime.forumotion.com/t4-nasa-project-gemini-ufos&docid=PbcH6lVBrZLDjM&imgurl=http://i49.servimg.com/u/f49/16/99/98/32/gemini10.jpg&w=527&h=378&ei=XVmQUMKAI5Ck8QSh84Fo&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=974&vpy=352&dur=5372&hovh=190&hovw=265&tx=168&ty=106&sig=114704889851551226570&page=3&tbnh=142&tbnw=206&start=53&ndsp=27&ved=1t:429,i:267 Edited October 30, 2012 by TheMacGuffin 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimOberg Posted October 30, 2012 #500 Share Posted October 30, 2012 How about we answer specific challenges to specific cases instead of running away to new cases. I've provided a long list of challenges regarding evidence for claims already made. That's the standard demanded of me. More claims are not proof of previous claims. Only evidence is. Where's the evidence, say, re Chatelain? Or Afanasyev? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now