Re: [escepticos] UFO Apollo

["Jaime Wilson" <jwilson@...>]

On 22 Feb 98 at 0:10, ApeironSoft Serv. & Tel. wrote:

> 
> >La mayoria del texto esta en japones, con lo que no solo no te traducire,
> >sino que no podre ni transcribir, pero incluyo algunos de los textos
> originales
> >de la revista UFO-News ( Japon) de Febrero del 1,974.
> 
> Con los aficionados al manga que hay en InterNet, en listas de
> correo de comics, seguro que el kanji de esos textos no es
> problema...
> 


> >Naturalmente, si la atacho a este mensaje pasaran dos cosas:
> >  - Me mandaran a hacer gargaras por reventar mas de un buzon
> >  - Solo podre enviar las fotos en "baja resolucion", y solo unas
> >    pocas.
> >
> 
> 
> >Idea ! Las tienes disponibles en http://interec/UFO
> 
> Bien pensado !!

Hace un tiempo aparecio un articulo de James Oberg sobre esos
*recuadros* tomados de una pelicula que Buzz Aldrin filmo el
dia antes del alunizaje. 

********************************************

How about the key sighting, the "snowman," and Aldrin's movie
film?  What could possibly explain that?

All that is needed to explain it is for anybody to view the
film. The scenes in question come from "Magazine F" ('Foxtrot'),
on the first twenty-five feet or so, and can (as can all other
Apollo 11 flight film) be purchased from the National
Audiovisual Company, 1411 South Fern Street, Arlington, Virginia
22202.

The actual film shows a window full of dazzling, dancing,
dizzying reflections and glares.  Viewing the film in motion,
there can be no question of the lights being solid objects
outside the spaceship.  There is no way I could imagine that a
viewer could honestly believe that UFOs were being shown.  The
"emissions" are just more fuzzy reflections.

Examination of a few stills from that filmstrip shows what
happened to the original appearance of the "UFOs."  The Japanese
UFO group touched up the photos, enhancing the contrast of the
lights, and cropping out the extraneous reflections.  Further,
the films were airbrushed to downplay any additional reflections
which might remain, aside from the two globes of light.  They
became the supposed UFOs which, needless to say, the crew didn't
see.  (The film, by the way, was taken from orbit the day before
the landing -- not from the surface.)

These UFO photos, in other words, are a fraud, plain and simple.
They are part of a space forgery hoax gone wild and run out of
control.  There never were any such "snowmen" UFOs as claimed.

But UFO expert Michael Hervey had written that the astronauts
had actually used the words "snowman" and "halation," and that
they were naturally excited and perhaps a little apprehensive.
UFO expert Matsumura in Japan gave numerous details of Aldrin's
actual movements during the encounter.  UFO expert Bob Barry
wrote that Aldrin observed the UFOs directly, and that the
astronauts speculated about the mystery emission.

None of these things seems to have happened.  The writers were
dramatizing the event based on the forged photographs.  Less
sympathetic critics would suggest that the authors were
fictionalizing the event, or even less charitably, were lying.

"That's a bunch of baloney," Barry retorted when he heard these
charges in 1978.  "They can deny all they want, we have the
proof"

But it will take more than Barry's bravado to stare down the
actual proof of Apollo 11 "Magazine Foxtrot."  The movies do not
lie; they show the dancing lights, the reflections, the glare.
They do not show any UFOs.

Nor will Science Digest soon live down its double-barreled UFO
flop.  First, Mullaney's claim about the Apollo 11 crew
reporting a mass of intelligent energy is clearly a further
elaboration of the original Matsumura-CBA forgery, without any
effort to check out the story with NASA.  Second, the photograph
published in Science Digest the following month was also
retouched: Editor Dan Button admitted that certain extraneous
pieces of space debris were airbrushed out to avoid detracting
from the true UFO, but all previously published and released
versions of that same photograph show absolutely empty space
where Science Digest points to an "unidentified object."  Either
somebody got a bad print with an extra spot on the negative, or
somebody at the Hearst Corporation monthly added the "UFO" into
the photo for dramatic effect.  Button accuses NASA of another
coverup; informed observers can now judge whose dishonesty
Button is trying to cover up.

Actually, one Apollo 11 photo does show a true unidentified (but
hardly unidentifiable) object.  Soon after pulling the LM out of
the rocket garage, near the earth, a flood of spinning particles
rushed past the Apollo's windows.  One of the astronauts was
taking a series of tourist snapshots of the receding earth, and
in one of the photos was a tiny odd-shaped blob.

*******************************************


Saludos, Jaime