Apollo Astronaut Confirms Existence of ET

[matt]

Or has someone spiked Ed Mitchell's drink?:lol:

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24069892-5013016,00.html

[mick pinner]

maybe someone should slip his medication into that drink.

[Kevnool]

this poor fella has space dimentia .

[TrevorW]

:anaut::ship2::ship1::abduct::drink ::drink:

[gmbfilter]

More medication, that's the answer

[AlexN]

Can anyone say L S D ?

On a more serious note however, theres no reason to believe his claims to be false or true really.. its his word against that of the exact agencies that he claims are/have been covering it up...

I personally believe there HAS to be something else out there, of equal or greater intelligence to ourselves. The universe is a ridiculously large place, and to think its all just for us is perhaps a bit narrow minded...

Something tells me however that the little grey men flying faster than light to travel such extensive distances have better things to do that crash land in new mexico...

[matt]

That's all fair and reasonable, Alex.

[TrevorW]

[quote=AlexN;348195]Can anyone say L S D ?

I personally believe there HAS to be something else out there, of equal or greater intelligence to ourselves. The universe is a ridiculously large place, and to think its all just for us is perhaps a bit narrow minded...

More like arrogance to me, if relativity hold true and the spped of light is a maxim then whoever they are are in the same boat as us.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

[Matty P]

You couldn't put it any better Alex. :thumbsup: :)

It is really hard to believe that we are alone in the universe.

[cookie8]

:screwy:According to a 2005 poll by Reader's Digest, 80% of the Australian general public believe aliens exist & 67% believe they have visited Earth. I am always interested to know how many of us within this forum(4000 plus people) believe in them. Can someone starts a poll here? We are the ones who spend most time looking up afterall.:)

[ngcles]

Hi All,

Dear oh dear oh dear ...

I heard the interview with Dr Ed Mitchell this afternoon:

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24069817-5001021,00.html

and (as usual) it offers no actual proof at all for the LGM.

NASA deny they are covering it up. Their denials are of course taken as convincing proof that they are in fact covering it up. If the governments of the world had convincing proof of the LGM they'd offer it up -- I'm certain, why wouldn't they? Can anyone come up with one really good reason why it would be hushed up? Given the lack of ability of governments of all persuasions to keep anything secret (even their most important military secrets), how was this, the biggest of all secrets, kept secret -- assuming it really is a secret.

NASA has an awful lot to gain in terms of budget and justification for their space and astronomy programmes if the LGM had been here and they could prove it. Why don't they offer the proof and claim the (massive) budget increase I wonder?

Because the proof, and I mean proof does not exist. It is all opinion, conjecture and the "eye-witness accounts" of these lonely, isolated individuals who claim to have been abducted, experimented on and been to Zeta Reticulii for a quick weekend away or video of saucers lurching drunkenly across the sky.

How did these guys cross 100s of light-years to come here if they can't make their "flying saucers" hover in one spot? Helicopters and military jets can do it, why can't such an advanced race make a space ship that will hover and keep still? Are their pilots all on the turps? These accounts do not constitute proof I'm sorry -- not in my books.

That is not to say there is no chance that intelligent life does not exist somewhere else in the Cosmos. I'd have to concede there is a chance of that -- but a slim one I think but its possible.

Nobody put it better than that great Italian Physicist Enrico Fermi who responded to the UFO/LGM/prolific intelligent life question (in essence -- this is not a direct quote) "Well where are they? Show me them! Sorry, like Enrico Fermi, until I have convincing scientifically based, verifiable proof, I will remain a 100% sceptic that we have been "visited" -- or indeed that there are a host of other civilisations out there in the Universe.

Perhaps Ed should start writing for this mob of silly sausages:

http://www.ufologistmagazine.com/

Best,

Les D

[Screwdriverone]

Hmmm, longest ever moon walk at 9 hours 17 minutes hey?

Can anyone spell "radiation poisoning"?

Nut Job. Gotta love the quote " Reading the papers recently, it's been happening quite a bit." :lol: :lol: :lol:

The National Enquirer said it was true so there! :lol:

Cheers


Chris

[astroron]

He said nothing new! UFO nuts have been saying the same stuff for the last 60 years.
Just because he went to the Moon does not give him anymore credibility than any other UFO reporter.
Ron

[AlexN]

Les. Whilst opinions are free and everyone has one, for someone who spends alot of time looking at other galaxies, and knowing how many planets are within our own galaxy... don't you think there is more than a 'slim' chance, that quite a few of the thousands of other galaxies out there have planets, and that a fair few of them would be able to sustain life, and of that few, at least a couple WOULD sustain life... It seems incredibly likely to me...

On the topic of "why would they cover it up"

A few reasons..
1 - world wide mass hysteria. The majority of humans are somewhat naturally fearful of the unknown, if you were to tell them that 'the unknown' were technologically superior to us, could travel across the expanse of the universe and had something of an interest in our planet for whatever reason...

2 - Religious denunciation. At least a few people probably wouldn't take nicely to relative proof of other life, hence denouncing the belief structure of more than a few religions...

They both seem perhaps a bit far fetched, but its late, i've been at work too long today, i really need to get home, and have a coffee... I'm somewhat sure that if a secret was ever going to be kept, NASA and their corresponding political backers would be up to the task...



I am however with you on the fact that the videos and stories of abductions are a load of crap, most of the videos can be explained/have been doctored...

Crop circles - eh... take them with a grain of salt.. That most recent one was fairly impressive how it depicted Pi in a circular pictograph. but IMHO - elaborate fake.

The idea of other life to me seems only natural. The idea that they come here and poke and prod at humans. thats a load of crap...



EDIT : Good to see you Ron! :D

[Screwdriverone]

Oh and one more thing!

If we have been to the moon, and can send and land probes on Mars and Venus and flyby Mercury etc, WHY OH WHY OH WHY when even JAPAN can send a probe around the moon with HD cameras etc to map it in the greatest detail EVER......

CANT WE FIND ANY VISIBLE PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE OF THE MOON LANDING EQUIPMENT OR TRACKS LEFT BY MOON BUGGIES THAT DROVE ALL OVER THE PLACE?

It seems a little too convenient that even when NASA, ESA and Japan can spend HALF A BILLION in technology to send the bits and pieces all over the Solar System and to Lunar Orbit and do all this cool stuff, they just so happen to only have fitted a BOX BROWNIE camera that can only resolve to items BIGGER than 10 metres .......... so sorry, because all the moon landing stuff is smaller than that, no chance of a pic, sorry. - ooops, must have had the work experience kid fitting the camera that day.......

If we want to talk cover ups and conspiracies....doesnt this sound just a little too convenient?????????

Ponder that for a bit.

Chris

[Screwdriverone]

Oh MY GOD Les,

Ving has captured photographic evidence of LGM's in his front YARD (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=34069)!!!!!

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH run for the hills!!!!!!!!!!

Cheers ;)

Chris

[Sgtfretsurfer]

this is an exert from a rant i had a while back now on this same topic.

http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=16004&page=2

"Start with the obvious basics, think about how big the universe is, how many planets there must be, how insignificant we are as a little dot inside a little galaxy swinging in a spiral of millions of other galaxies. Visualize yourself looking down upon millions of galaxies, picture in your head what it would look like. Then ask yourself – if all life exists on a single, insignificantly small rock orbiting inside a galaxy which can barely be differentiated from the millions of other galaxies around… then what is the rest of it for?? Wait maybe that’s too deep for now…


I think that maybe people get too hung up on the idea of aliens visiting earth. Especially when it comes to how! With out current collective body of scientific facts, we have absolutely no idea how it would be possible for aliens to travel great distances through space. Maybe we are (as always) limited by the parameters of our science! Maybe one day as our science grows we will understand. I’m certainly not ruling it out as impossible in the mean time. Maybe; there’s too many maybes hey. Maybe they have, maybe they haven’t. You certainly cant prove it either way, even if u saw it and video taped it. Does it really mater if they have come to earth or not? Even if they never had, I would still reason their existence."

Time to think beyond

[madtuna]

I may have miss read you...are you saying we didn't land on the moon???

Please don't tell me the chunk of heat shield from the Apollo 11 re-entry module sitting on my desk I risked arrest and deportation to steal isn't a fake.

[AlexN]

Pics! Now! :D

[Screwdriverone]

Hi Steve,

No, I didnt say that we didnt land on the moon, but Apollo 11 heatshield chunk does not a Moon landing make.....

Doesnt it seem a little strange that noone in history has ever taken any pictures of the moon landing sites and the hardware etc from orbit or from earth?

I might be wrong, but my point is that if Kaguya cant see the Apollo landing sites, couldnt Hubble? or something else? Why cant any shots be taken of this gear, we know where it is dont we? and a moon buggy tracking all over the moon surface for miles would surely leave tracks that while they may not be 10 metres in width, would certainly be more than 10 metres in length and therefore visible to a camera that can record details such as that.
And even if the resolution is no bigger than 10 metres, you may not get very many details of what is there, but you should get an idea that something IS there. Especially when the sun's light at low altitude could cast a shadow MUCH longer than 10 metres. That would be able to be recorded....

Therefore.....why no photos from Kaguya of the Apollo Landing sites? It certainly would shut up a lot of people if they could prove it. Including me. I believe that we went there and landed there but it smells funny when I hear things like "gosh darn it, that billion dollar camera we sent up there just cant see things that small, golly, sorry about that"

That's my point.

Chris

[madtuna]

the small chunk below the meteor sample in the first pic :)
I could just contort my arm through a crack in the perspex security cover and hook a tiny chunk with my fingernail. :lol:

The second pic is my first day of cover moon landing :D

[Chrissyo]

No. Why should it be strange?


No. There is no telescope on (or above) Earth that has the resolution required to image the Apollo LM descent stage, the largest ‘object’ left on the Moon. An Earth based telescope would have to be on the order of 100m (or so, I don’t have the link to the calculations on hand – it’s a ball-park estimate). The Hubble can image something about the size of a football stadium on the Moon.

EDIT: Here is a good website that discusses telescope size in relation to imaging the Apollo equipment. (http://calgary.rasc.ca/moonscope.htm)


Indeed we do, but like I said, it’s just too small.


Like you said, they are rather long, but reallllly thin. They won’t be picked up.


Images proving that ‘something’ is there have already been taken. It has been done three times actually. Once by the Clementine orbiter of the Apollo 15 landing site and then twice with Kaguya – one of the Apollo 11 site and one of the Apollo 15 site again. They don’t resolve any of the equipment, just the general disturbance of the landing site.

Links:

Apollo 15 by Clementine. (http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missions/apollo15_touchdown_photos_010427.ht ml)

Apollo 15 by Kaguya. (http://www.universetoday.com/2008/07/16/japanese-selene-kaguya-lunar-mission-spots-apollo-15-landing-site-images/)

I can't find a good image of the Apollo 11 image from Kaguya at the very minute (just really low resolution ones). But you get the idea.

EDIT: Here is the Apollo 11 site as imaged by Kaguya. (http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?showtopic=4271&st=240&p=111513&#entry111513)


The shadow might be able to be recorded. But it would still be like only a pixel in size. We already have such images as taken from the Apollo CSM from some missions. I guess they don't count though.


For the reasons stated above.

[AstralTraveller]

Regarding aliens. Yep. I reckon there is life elsewhere but we are extremely unlikely to bump into it, or it bump into us. Not only do we have to be in the same place, and others have already mentioned the probability of that, we have to be at the same time. Consider a 13.5 billion year old universe, or even a 4.5 billion year old planet. There have only been hominids for several million years, homo sapiens for perhaps 100,000 years, the technology to look into space for 500 years, radio astronomy for ca. 70 years and space flight for 50 years. That is a vanishingly small window of opportunity.

Regarding the moon landing. Suggesting that was faked is to suggest a cover up that would make the supposed alien cover ups look trivial. Apart from all the obvious stuff like the rocket launches, pictures etc let's look at the material returned from the moon. That has been the subject of 1000s of papers by 10,000s of scientists and the analyses show that the materials is different to terrestrial material. I produce scientific data for a living and I know many other instrument technicians. One common trait is that we pride ourselves on producing correct numbers. I really bridle at the suggestion that there is a large number of scientists out there who would be willing to fudge results as part of a scam. In fact there are cases in the medical field where unscrupulous scientists were dobbed in by their own technicians.

And if that isn't enough, how did the corner reflectors that the laser range finders regularly hit get there?

David

[DistroMan]

Leaving all that aside, there is one thing that convinces me they were there. If they had not have been ON the moon, do you really think the Russians would not have noticed? They'd have been jumping all over the place in the media with the news. Remember it was the 'space race', so there was a competitor and they were watching. Very closely.

Not being able to see the 'leftover's today is a very different thing to seeing the landing and takeoff back then. It would have been noticeable to them.

[ngcles]

Hi AlexN & All,

Alex wrote:

"Whilst opinions are free and everyone has one, for someone who spends a lot of time looking at other galaxies, and knowing how many planets are within our own galaxy... don't you think there is more than a 'slim' chance, that quite a few of the thousands of other galaxies out there have planets, and that a fair few of them would be able to sustain life, and of that few, at least a couple WOULD sustain life... It seems incredibly likely to me..."

Well, I can't share your opinion but hey, it's just an opinion -- like yours. I might well be wrong and if ET lands I'll be more than happy to meet them and I'm sure we'd (The Earthlings) benefit from the relationship. But I just don't think it is going to happen. This is the way I look at it.

It is true that there are a hell of a lot of stars in the Milky Way. The latest estimates place it somewhere between 200 and 300 billion with the higher end figure somewhat more likely. But among those stars, I think there is a (comparatively) very, very small number that are suitable candidates that could develop life, let alone intelligent life, let alone intelligent life that is more (much more) advanced than our own and capable of traversing inter-stellar space in reasonable time-frames and happens to coincide with the time when there happens to be intelligent life emerging on this planet.

The variety of stars in the Universe is simply extraordinary. But you need a star that has a mass small enough that it won't burn-out quickly, but needs to be big enough to make a habitable zone far enough from the star that any Earth-like planet doesn't end up with tidally locked rotation. Probably 99.9% + stars have no hope of fitting the bill. Too big, too small or are in the wrong environment. Realistically you need a G0 to G3 star. Even at F8, you've slashed the main-sequence life of the star to about 4 billion years -- not long enough you'd think. In the Milky Way, there are maybe 5,000,000 that fit that bill reasonably well. Then it has to have the correct metal content so that all the elements for life and the elements that make up terrestrial planets are present -- slash a zero off. It has to be in the right part of the galaxy -- to close to the centre and too much going on to be habitable. Too far out -- not enough metal -- take off 80% and were down to 100,000.

You can basically discount a very large majority if not virtually all the binaries. We're down to 40,000.

You can then take out nearly all the systems that have giant planets orbiting close to the host star -- these form way out and migrate in wreaking destruction in their path. From the systems we've found so far, these seem very, very common. Knock out maybe 80% (I think this is a conservative estimate) of that 40,000 leaving 8,000. Then of that 8,000 how many will have an terrestrial sized planets, lets say 1/2 -- were down to 4,000. Of those with terrestrial planets how many will fall neatly into the habitable zone at the right time? Lets say 20% and were down to 800.

So at least on my reckoning 800 Earth-like planets out there in the Milky Way. How many will actually have life -- and personally I don't think like is easy to just start spontaneously. Lets say 1/2 (again I think this is very conservative) -- we're down to 400.

How many develop advanced multi-cellular life -- lets say 5% (again conservative I think) and were at 20 stars. Of that 20 how many manage to avoid the manifold pit-falls like comet-strikes, close supernovae, Gamma-ry bursts etc etc go on to harbour intelligent, self-aware life that are capable of using tools and solving complex problems -- lets say 25% and were left with 5 Earths. Of that 5 with intelligent life how many will go on to solve the riddles of physics and master interstellar travel? One or two at most I'd think and were likely to be one of those two within a few hundred years -- leaving exactly 1 other and they have to find us.

Not a big figure now, and in all likelihood they have to be reasonably close-by (say 10,000 ly) to us to visit -- even with extremely advanced tech. But hey, its just my opinion. I might be wrong. I'd love to meet "ET", I just don't think its going to happen. And tie it in with the topic of the thread I don't think it has happened. Again, maybe I'm wrong -- I'd welcome solid evidence of, or proof to the contrary.

Standing in the way of that of course, as we understand the laws of physics at present light-speed travel is a big no-no. Maybe we'll find a way around that, maybe not -- at present I personally don't think we will find a way around it.

As for proof that we went to the Moon -- there is abundant proof. Just look at the rocks for a start ... The Russians never blew the cover (and they would of had they had even the slightest suspicions) , the retro-reflectors on the surface and the 1000+ people who would have to have been in on the conspiracy and all kept their trap's shut for almost 40 years. It is much easier to imagine we did indeed go to the Moon. The evidence is overwhelming. A super-dooper high-res photo would only show a dot -- no more. Pretty easy to doctor up so why bother. The proof we went is convincing.

Best,

Les D

[Screwdriverone]

Thanks Trevor, David and Chris,

Very well explained, I must admit,it was a bit of a rant I was doing, but Chris' dissection of the arguments is one of the best explanations of my rant I have seen.

Thanks for the clarifications.

Cheers ;)

Chris

[GrampianStars]

:) In a statement, a spokesman said: "NASA does not track UFOs. NASA is not involved in any sort of cover up about alien life on this planet or anywhere in the universe.
'Dr Mitchell is a great American, but we do not share his opinions on this issue.'
Good on Ya Dr :thumbsup: stick it up for censorship

[overlord]

LOL, why does he need medication?

He says he received inside information based on government information.

Are you saying he didn't?

He's not saying aliens stole his grand-momma's cookies, or raped his dog.

I think any experienced astronomer who hasn't seen a UFO needs to get out more, or is just ridiculously unlucky. I've seen stuff that wasn't a plane/space junk, or satelite, or Venus lol.

Thanks.

[DistroMan]

Distro backs off slowly so as not to cause any alarm. He gets to a safe distance and runs screaming into the night... :eyepop:

[Chrissyo]

No problem, glad I could help. :)


… what censorship? Mitchell is making unfounded claims without evidence. NASA replies simply with “we do not share his opinions on this issue” and that constitutes censorship?

Something to think about – if this IS a big secret government cover-up and Mitchell isn’t just talking complete and utter rubbish … why is he being allowed to speak at all (and remember, he’s been making these claims for years – it isn’t a one off thing)? ;)

Things just don't add up.


I’m saying that he’s not providing any evidence to back up what he’s saying. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. “He says” is not evidence. Enough said.


I’ve never seen anything that I can’t explain yet. Though, I assume that I’m far from what you would define as ‘experienced’. Let me ask you something though – when you say “I've seen stuff that wasn't a plane/space junk, or satelite, or Venus lol” are you actually trying to say “I’ve seen an alien spacecraft”? If so, how do you know?

[kinetic]

I believe we went to the moon.

Others have explained most of the fundamentals brought up in this thread
very well.

When it all boils down to it we are all just human. We are all fallible.
Some of the most gruelling physical and mental examinations to select
astronauts still fall down.
Remember the astronaut that drove across USA in a nappy due to some
love tryst with a fellow astronaut.

I remember reading once that out of most of the astronauts who did the
moon shot, a large percentage found it so overwhelming an experience
that they 'got religion' or it made them completely re-assess their
philosophies in life.
Rational thinking, highly intelligent fighter pilots came back thinking that
maybe they had it all wrong.

Charlie Duke I think became a minister.
Many became alcoholics.

Can you blame them...just imagine going through that experience?

Yeah I reckon we went to the moon.
And it annoys me, and it must break those guys hearts every time they
see a high ratings TV show about moon landing conspiracy theories.
And figures like 80% of the world's population think they didn't even
do it!

Steve

[ngcles]

Hi All,

Overlord wrote:

"I think any experienced astronomer who hasn't seen a UFO needs to get out more, or is just ridiculously unlucky. I've seen stuff that wasn't a plane/space junk, or satelite, or Venus lol."

Ridiculously unlucky? Well, I observe regularly with four other amateurs who could be described variously as somewhere between quite to extremely experienced. Between us we have well over 100 years of skywatching experience and it seems all five of us are in this ridiculously unlucky category. Either that or we are all looking the wrong way or as you say "we need to get out more ..."


Best,


Les D

[bloodhound31]

Why do you think John Glenn got pissed off enough to belt that bloke?

If you had risked your life to do what he did, and some idiot came up to you and said you were a LIAR, wouldn't you belt them too?

If you hadn't flown and landed on the moon, do you think you would get as riled up and risk the law suit etc for this type of loser? I don't think so.

Good on ya John!

[Chrissyo]

That was actually Buzz Aldrin walloping Bart Sibrel, not John Glenn.

Here it is on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOo6aHSY8hU

Way to go Buzz! :D

[Glenn Dawes]

Hi Chris,

I don't understand the radiation poison comment. I'm sorry you say on one hand you believed we walked on the Moon and then act like the conspiracy, Moon Hoax, guys. The reality is if the Moon walk was faked we have been fooled by the greatest coverup in history. I think the only mistake NASA has made is they haven't treated these idiots seriously. I've seen some of these Moon hoax documentaries and I can poke holes in their arguments - NASA's reaction has been, we know we went so there, and have no interest in getting down in the gutter with these hoax people. Well they should have! To the majority of the world's population it is history and they have no first hand experience. If it's on TV it has to be true!?

Re the lack of recent photographic evidence of landing sites. If the landing were faked - faking some fuzzy, so called, landing sites would be a breeze!

I think the bottom line is if the landings were faked, I'll believe anything is a coverup - UFOs, Roswell, Arthur C Clarke was an alien and writing about his real life experiences, Men in Black is based on a real story, Contact is really Sagan's autobiography from a previous life, the universe is a drop of water in some alien's toilet on a higher plane of reality - hey you name - I'll believe!

As for Ed Mitchell - getting old is a terrible thing - missing your medication is worse!

I'm out of here

Glenn (Scotty beam me up!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

[kinetic]

Balls the size of watermelons.
Another anecdote stuck in my head from the 80s....

John Young, veteran of several space missions, first ever Space shuttle pilot. On his right Robert Crippen, rookie, first ever mission to space.
During the last few seconds before liftoff John Young's heart rate was in the
70s or 80 beats per minute...Crippens double that.
Balls......nothing but the highest respect for these guys...and girls!

Steve

[bloodhound31]

Oops....LOL...I guess I goofed.. :stupid: ..the message is the same though...

Astranorts...they all look the same to me...:P

Baz.:D

[AstralTraveller]

I'll add another 35 years experience, including a lot of time camping, and I've yet to see a UFO. I agree I need to get out more but not for that reason! Hopefully tonight. :)

Dave

[AstralTraveller]

Les,

Interesting calculations but the answer seems just a bit too convenient. Sorry but it looks contrived. I'm certainly not suggesting space is teeming with life (far less that we have been visited) but only 1-2 in our galaxy strikes me as too low. Of course even only 1 intelligent life form per galaxy means there are plenty in the universe.

We should also consider the possibilities for other life forms. I'm pretty confident they won't look like us at all. Why two-fold symmetry? Even on Earth there are cases of five-fold and eight-fold symmetry. Why bones? Why a central brain? Indeed, why protein? Asimov once speculated on the possible chemical basis for life at different temperatures and in different chemical environments (eg with ammonia rather than water as the common solvent). I forget the details but he did point out that the base unit needs to be basically stable at the ambient temperature but not inert. If the base unit is not stable then the organism can't exist but if it is too unreactive then life processes stop. For example, at lower temperatures he suggested lipid-based life forms may exist (yep, blobs of intelligent fat) I forget the suggestions for higher temperatures. This of course would widen the habitable zone in your calculations and so increase to possible number of life forms.

cheers,
David

[Jen]

:thumbsup: Yep what Alex said. ;)
i couldnt have said that better myself :D
:2thumbs::2thumbs::2thumbs::2thumbs :
:ship1:

[Jen]

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Jen]

:lol::lol::lol::lol: well that green little critter looks harmless ;) until he opens his mouth and out come hundreds of sharp teeth LMAO

[Dog Star]

Seems to me that while the odds of intelligent life existing in the Universe may well be small, those odds do exist.
The odds that intelligent life is visiting us now and in the past must be an AWFUL lot smaller.
The odds that intelligent life is in cahoots with governments all around the world must be an AWFUL LOT SMALLER again.
I've seen a couple of things in the sky over the years that I couldn't identify but I'm fairly certain that they weren't alien space craft.
Which is all a damn shame, as I would really LIKE to believe. Just can't do so on the available evidence. It would be great to be proved wrong though.
Do I believe that we went to the Moon? I most certainly do! The evidence is irrefutable and when and if the ufology mob come up with that sort of evidence I'll gladly and humbly join their side. 'Till then.....:(

[AlexN]

I 100% believe the moon landing happened exactly how and when it did, however I think the 'live footage' was a bit iffy...

it may well have been near on identical to what was actually happening on the moon at the time... but i personally dont believe they had the technology at the time to stream A/V from the moon to every television in america, and indeed the world...

[Chrissyo]

Why do you think this?
On what are you basing this?
Are you familiar with the technology/techniques used to transmit the data from the Moon to the Earth?
If so, what was inadequate for this to occur and what do you think would have been required?

If the footage was faked, how did they distribute it?
How would they keep everyone involved quiet?

Finally, if the footage is fake as you suggest, how would they have gone about faking all aspects of lunar EVA flawlessly - 1/6th gravity, zero atmosphere, miles upon miles of 'lunar surface' evenly illuminated with only one light source, etc?

[Dog Star]

Another link here;
http://dsc.discovery.com/space/qa/alien-ufo-edgar-mitchell-02.html
Um, I've stuffed that somehow- shouldn't the link have printed in blue characters? I'm not real flash on computers sometimes. I'll accept any strongly worded reprimands.
(No I won't! Just sorted it)

[AlexN]

its based on nothing more than opinion...

As I said, I believe they were there and thats what really matters.

[kinetic]

I know I have said before in this thread that I 100% believe
that we went to the moon, BUT......:D

there is a very interesting read on the internet about the
'Lost Apollo 11 full res tapes', it makes fascinating reading.

To summarise: At the time of the moon landing it was a huge
logistical excercise to not only get a very reliable video feed
from the moon for the moment of the first step on the moon,
but to also send it to all parts of the world and 'down-convert'
it to all of the different video formats the world had: PAL , NTSC etc.

To do this job, one tracking station in Australia had the job of
receiving the feed, converting it and sending it to the rest of the
world. Remember the fillum, the Dish? :)

Most of the conversion processes had a detrimental effect on the
quality of the feed coming out the other end, but this catch-22
situation was deemed necessary so that the world still got to
see this momentous occassion live.

NASA, of course, still recorded on magnetic tape the full resolution
feed for history and this job was also done by the Aussie receiving
station engineers.

These full res tapes are all stored in the USA in a national archive
and exist for all of the moon landings.
But the most important one...Apollo 11 is missing.
And all the world has EVER seen of this moment is the crappy low
res version....Have you ever seen the full resolution version...no
one has.

Now, if I was telling this whole story you would probably just write me
off as a conspiracy nut....a typical UFO quack type.
But imagine if this whole story was written by the very team of engineers
that received that feed in Australia in 1969...

It's a good read.
http://www.honeysucklecreek.net/Apollo_11/tapes/

Steve

[AlexN]

Steve... sure is interesting... adds reason to my otherwise unfounded skepticism on the video feed...

[leinad]

How boring. I thought he was going to come forward about the crystal towers, and crashed space craft on the moon that 'he' saw; not rant for 2 pennies about 'there's reason to believe its real from what he's been told'. He sounds more like a crackpot with credentials.
Give the free media some ammo Ed. Who told you; where; is their any irrefutable evidence?

Are they angels? Demons? Our future selves ?

The only UFO information I want explained is the bizarre filmed objects in the STS-75 and other STS missions.

"There are two types of UFOs, ours and theirs" Ben Rich, former Head of Lockheed Skunkworks

My 2 cents. :P

[leinad]

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/apollo_tapes.html

"About 18 months ago, NASA Goddard began an informal search for the tapes after some inquiries from retirees from the space agency and others from the Apollo program. NASA engineers are hopeful that when the tapes are found, they can use today's digital technology to provide a version of the moonwalk that is much better quality than what we have today."


Or was it digital technology they were afraid might expose what could really be seen? Interesting nonetheless. :scared:

[ngcles]

Hi Astraltraveller & All,

David wrote:

"Interesting calculations but the answer seems just a bit too convenient. Sorry but it looks contrived. I'm certainly not suggesting space is teeming with life (far less that we have been visited) but only 1-2 in our galaxy strikes me as too low."

Yep, that's a reasonable criticism, but the real purpose of the exercise isn't to arrive at a specific probability figure, but to highlight the fact that there is a lot more to making a suitable environment for an intelligent species to come into existence than most people give thought to. In my original set of calculations 5,000,000 total G0 to G3 stars is certainly too low a figure to start with -- probably more like 5,000,000,000 actually out of a total population of 300,000,000,000 stars in the Milky Way. On the calculation I did above, that would therefore produce 5,000 civilisations instead of 5 in the Milky Way. But thinking further, there are probably a few of other negative factors still to be worked in.

The first one is a strong magnetic field around the planet. Without the pretty strong magnetic field the Earth has, we'd all be bathed in sterilising radiation from the Sun. Mars, Venus and Mercury all have negligible fields compared to Earth. The Earth's field is produced by our liquid outer core acting like a dynamo. It plays a significant role in protecting our atmosphere from being blown away (evaporating) by the Solar wind too. Venus, a similar-sized terrestrial planet has no appreciable field -- so it's not just a size thing. The lack of a strong magnetic field will make life much, much harder. Based on the sample (in our system at least) of 4 terrestrial planets, we have a 1 in 4 with an appreciable magnetic field. Bringing it down from 1 in 5,000 to 1 in 1,250 ...

A large Moon. The Moon also plays a role in stabilising a lot of things like the length of the day and the Earth's Obliquity (Axial tilt). Without the Moon we would likely be subject to larger (over time) variations in tilt and climate change variations that would make any climatologist dribble at the mouth. Planet-wide snowball effects for 100s of millions or even billions of years at a time would be a huge set-back for intelligent life to emerge too. Our current situation sees our obliquity vary by only a couple of degrees over extremely long time-scales. Mars however sees a very large variation which would make it very unsuitable -- beside other factors. Are big Moons common for terrestrial planets? Only 1/4 in this system and I'd think it is actually much, much smaller than that in the wider population in the galaxy. Possibly as high as 1/20 but likely much worse. Using 1/20, this brings the figure down to 63 civilisations.

Time-frame. It took about 4.6 billion years for intelligent life to emerge on this planet and it seems reasonable therefore that it would take about that long elsewhere. Earth won't be habitable forever and a whole range of issues means that life has probably only got a 1 billion-year window left here (if that). This means that for a Sun-like star, the habitable zone has a limited time-span. The run-up to us appearing has been 4.6 billion and we can only be here for about a billion at most. Therefore only about 1/5th of the time-frame in a star's life is really available -- reducing the count by 80%. Therefore that G0 to G3 star is going to be at least say 4 billion and no more than 5 or 6 billion years old and likely to have intelligent life. 80% reduction on 63 equals 14 civilisations at a given time.

Another is having a couple of giant planets (Jupiter + Saturn) well out, in stable orbits that can eject (or eat up) the rubbish (Comets and asteroids) that are not in stable orbits. A high comet count in the inner solar-system is going to make life a precarious venture on any terrestrial planet. Big outer planets is probably pretty common, lets say 50/50 producing a total number of civilisations at perhaps 7 within the Milky Way. Out of that 7, how many will solve the riddles of Physics that apparently make interstellar travel impossible? Maybe 2 or 3 -- dunno.

These figures are really no more than educated guesstimates as I've said, but it demonstrates the diversity of factors at play to produce a biosphere stable enough and long-lived enough to eventually (possibly) produce intelligent life. Some are rare, some probably very rare and others more common. There could be other factors I haven't thought of as well. Even just another couple of 50/50s (I haven't thought of yet) could cut the potential number of civilisations down by another 75% -- to 2 or even 1.


Taking into account all the above I believe that intelligent life isn't very common, is probably rare, very rare, or possibly even singular in our galaxy. We know the minimum figure is 1 with certainty (assuming we consider ourselves intelligent). I'm content with the notion that it could be an order of magnitude higher (in the tens) but I really don't think the Galaxy is teeming with intelligent life, advanced life (multi-cellular creatures) or indeed life simpliciter for that matter. I'd be very, very surprised if it is two orders of magnitude higher (over 100 civilisations) and a figure less than ten seems pretty likely to me, but it is only an opinion and a really interesting thing to think about.

Best,

Les D

[DistroMan]

Ah, let's take the lowest figure of 1 and go from there. Remembering that 'out there' must include the rest of the known universe. So 1 multiplied by known galaxies..... :eyepop:

[Outbackmanyep]

I'd like to add to Chrissyo's words here......

What about the guys at Honeysuckle Creek,who actually recorded the data and dialogue of the received transmissions of the Apollo 11 landing, and Parkes Radio telescope which also received transmissions from the moon. Ask anyone who was there at PKS or HSC (if they're still alive) where exactly the dishes were pointing when the information came through.......Are you going to call these guys spokes in the Hoaxing wheel too?? :shrug:
I'm sorry, but there was too much going on involving thousands of people and researchers to conclude that the landings could have been faked.
Ask how many "non-believers" how many men walked on the moon and i bet that a common response would be 2. How many "non-believers" would have seen footage from the other landings?? Explain the parabolic arcs of dust coming from the astronauts boots while walking on the moon.....how would they be reproduced in an Earth-like environment???

:lol:

The "Face on Mars" has been dealt with in High-Res fashion, and when the Apollo landers are being photographed, so will all the Surveyor probes and the Lunik probes and all the Saturn Rocket stages that ended up there too!
Hopefully that will settle the argument, but while ever there is doubt there will be controversy.

I'm a believer. :thumbsup:

PS...I thought they found the Apollo 11 tapes in Australia??

[DistroMan]

They did, but someone used them to pirate an AC/DC concert. :lol:

[badchap]

Some discussion about the tv broadcast at the excellent clavius website -

http://www.clavius.org/tvqual.html

[ving]

LSD... now what? :P

aliens (for want of a better word) most likely exist, but why they'd bother coming here to give annal probes and turn cows inside-out i have no idea.

[AstralTraveller]

"Keith Basterfield, co-director of the Australian UFO research network, believes Dr Mitchell may have damaged the work of serious scientific researchers into UFOs due to the former astronaut's broad claims and his inability to source what he's presenting as fact."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/01/2321687.htm

[Amy]

I ordered a DVD from amazon.com just this past week that I'm anxiously awaiting. It's called "Fire in the sky". It's a movie about Travis Walton, who claimed alien abduction and relates eyewitness testimony.

Here's a link to his website: http://www.travis-walton.com/

Now, as to whether this particular instance is fact as opposed to fiction, I can't say......but like many others here....I can't look at ALL the many stars, solar systems, galaxies, etc....and think that WE'RE the ONLY ones
populating a planet. What a literal waste of space otherwise.

I also think all the governments of the world are aware....but to acknowledge it without having a plan of protection (for an unknown entity or several....each of different species along with strengths and weaknesses we're unable to understand) would be futile. We would be the same way with our own children.....why stir up a ruckus when you have no plan to deal with it? So your only choice at that point is to lay low til you're forced to do something about it. If whatever alien life MADE it to our world....they're already obviously way above our abilities.

[Jen]

:clap::clap::clap:

[TrevorW]

Lets ponder a thought your on another planet somewhere within this galaxy or universe debating the same question. Lets end this debate by saying alien life must exist if we exist!!!

[Jen]

:clap::clap::clap: