What's mean't by "mining it" in Apollo14 mission transcript?

[Smersh]

From pages 120 -121 of the official Apollo 14 mission transcript:

... 03 12 23 08 CMP: It's got one of the biggest central peaks around. It's a very unusual crater. But there are some dark areas in it that Farouk has gone on record as saying they are dikes.

03 12 23 37 CMP High Sun. That's one right down there; Just shows how it dominates the whole photograph. Just an extremely bright crater. Sun angle Just isn't high enough for you to see it here .... Yes, they're mining it [?], I think.

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/mission ... S14_CM.PDF

Does anyone know who "Farouk" is, what is meant by "dikes" and who is mining what?

(EDIT) I think Farouk is this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farooq_Al-Baaz

(EDITED on 27th Oct to correct typo errors that affected the accuracy of the mission transcript as provided by NASA)

 

[ramparts]

Well, of course the "who" is aliens - they use the moon as a base of operations so it's easier to make the trips to Earth. The mining refers to their mining of moon cheese.

 

[aussiebloke]

G' Day Smersh

Found this;

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo ... _T__truth/

Make what you want of it, it is weird though.

Cheers for now Aussiebloke

 

[JonClarke]

From pages 120 -121 of the official Apollo 14 mission transcript:

... 03 12 23 08 CMP: It's got one of the biggest central peaks around. It's a very unusual crater. But there are some dark areas in it that Farouk has gone on record as saying they are dikes.

As you correctly edited, Farouk was Farouk el Baz, one of the leading planetary geologists involved in the training of the Apollo astronauts, especially in observations from orbit. The previous exchanges provide further context:

03 12 22 11 LMP I have got the crater King out here, Stu, if you were looking for it.

03 12 22 19 CMP Yes, that's one of our targets. That's one of Farouk's favorite craters.

03 12 22 25 LMP Pretty damn interesting one, too.

03 12 22 39 LMP Really an interesting one. Huh? That one ... looks like ... got a rugged one right out here -
with the central peaks.

03 12 23 02 CDR ...

03 12 23 05 IMP Sure does. Really got a very complex central structure. [/quote]

Why did Roosa say that crater King one of el Baz's favourites? Because el Baz's nickname among the astronauts was "king" (after king Farouk of Egypt).

What are dikes (or dykes)? They are discordant intrusive sheets. Wikipedia is your friend http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dike_(geology) .

03 12 23 37 CMP: High Sun. That's one right down there; Just shows how it dominates the whole photograph. Just an extremely bright crater. Sun angle Just isn't high enough for you to see it here .... Yes, THEY're mining it , I think ...

The actual transcript reads:

03 12 23 37 CMP High Sun. That's one right down there; Just shows how it dominates the whole photograph. Just an
extremely bright crater. Sun angle Just isn't high enough for you to see it here .... Yes, they're mining it [?], I think.

"They" is not in capitals in the original. You have added emphasis without explanation, indicating importance where none is intended.

You have also edited out the transcriptional comment "[?]" suggesting the transcription is unclear, thus introducing certainty in place on uncertainty. It is proceded by ".... " indicating a garbled transcription. The comments immediately following in the transcript are all to do with the as then unnamed crater between King and Langemak under discussion.

03 12 23 58 CDR What's the name of that one?

03 12 23 59 CMP It has no name. I've called it the Bright One. This is Langemak that we're Just going over right
down here.

03 12 24 39 CDR It's got to be fairly fresh, too.

03 12 2h 42 CMP Yes. It's a very bright crater.

Google Moon shows a very bright rayed crater between the two called Necho, which is probably the one they saw.

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/mission ... S14_CM.PDF

 

[Smersh]

G' Day Smersh

Found this;

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo ... _T__truth/

Make what you want of it, it is weird though.

Cheers for now Aussiebloke

Thanks Aussiebloke. I believe that's one of a whole series of videos and I have seen some before. The only problem with them is though that they are not officially confirmed transcripts sourced from a NASA website, so we don't know for certain if they have been altered in any way. However, they can be useful as pointers so that we can check them against the typed transcripts.

... The actual transcript reads:

03 12 23 37 CMP High Sun. That's one right down there; Just shows how it dominates the whole photograph. Just an
extremely bright crater. Sun angle Just isn't high enough for you to see it here .... Yes, they're mining it [?], I think.

"They" is not in capitals in the original. You have added emphasis without explanation, indicating importance where none is intended.

You have also edited out the transcriptional comment "[?]" suggesting the transcription is unclear, thus introducing certainty in place on uncertainty. It is proceded by ".... " indicating a garbled transcription. The comments immediately following in the transcript are all to do with the as then unnamed crater between King and Langemak under discussion ...

Sorry Jon you are quite correct I did add the emphasis, etc. I wouldn't normally have done that as it's not my way of doing things (hence my link to the the actual NASA transcript file) and it was an accident on my part because of a technical problem. I copied the quotes from another message board, in which the emphasis etc had been added, because I seem unable to copy / paste direct from a pdf file, which I would have done had I been able to. I didn't notice it was slightly different and if I had I would have typed it exactly as per the pdf document. My bad, and thanks for pointing it out.

So, for anyone reading this thread, please refer to the pdf file I linked in the op and Jon's correct version, thanks.

As for the point you raised about it being a garbled transmission, I would say we now need to listen to the voice transcripts, except I don't belive they have been officially released by NASA. As far as I know, all we have are alleged voice recordings, as included in videos such as the one posted by Aussiebloke.

 

[JonClarke]

No worries Smersh.

Remember these transcripts are drafts. I don't know if final transcipts are available. But keep an eye on Apollo Flight Journal http://history.nasa.gov/afj/ - although the Apollo 14 transcripts are not yet up there, they should be in the not too distant future as they are among the last three missions to go up. Not sure about actual audio availability.

Jon

 

[ramparts]

*sigh* and the moon cheese conspiracy is allowed to continue unquestioned. Sad.

 

[aussiebloke]

G' Day Folks.
G' Day Smersh.

Yes I was aware that the site was a bit, err, iffy and I am also aware that with believers in anything, there is a tendency to collect data in the positive and ignore the negatives.

Transcripts of anything are somewhat cold/lifeless (Frederick Valentich comes to mind) you see on the boards people who have never heard the audio tape discussing the transcript, reading all sorts of things into it, whereas, on hearing the audio tape you hear a young man under stress trying to comprehend what he is witnessing and remaining quite professional about it till the end.

Another thing is if you have ever listen to CB radio conversations or were to read a transcript of their conversations. "what the"

This is why I went looking for video, if any, on footage of actual conversation between the astronauts and ground discussing what they where seeing on the moon and how each one describes what they were seeing, that was all I could find at that time.

I have no problems that what the public got to hear/see was scripted we were to be entertained they were to be coherent/interesting and when not on show relaxed and use words they were comfortable with as we all do.

I have no problems with them using earthly terms to described to ground what they are looking at however as you mention things like "mining it" I think I'd like someone to ask those involve what they meant by it. that was all.

Better go cheers for now Aussiebloke

 

[aphh]

It's an indication of a place that should be on the list for further investigation for anomalies. As soon as citizens get their own powerful scopes on orbit around the Moon, we can have a look at that place. Just like Copernicus crater, just to name a few places of interest.

Before that happens, there is not much that can be done. We need our own reconnaissance orbiter up there. SpaceX could lift it soon.

 

[JonClarke]

I have no problems with them using earthly terms to described to ground what they are looking at however as you mention things like "mining it" I think I'd like someone to ask those involve what they meant by it. that was all.

The "..." before and "[?]" after "mining" means that ithere is a very high probability of erroneous transcription of a garbled transmission.

The comments before and after are all to do with physical features, and there is nothing to indicate anything out of the ordinary - except the far side of the Moon that is.

 

[aphh]

The "..." before and "[?]" after "mining" means that ithere is a very high probability of erroneous transcription of a garbled transmission.

There is also a high probablity those marks have been added to make it look as if it was erroneus or garbled. We don't know. You can not say for certain that those marks truly indicate potentially garbled transmission, unless you put them there and are being truthful in your remark.

They may be added to make a perfectly clear transmission seem like it was garbled. So far it's a 50/50 chance and the odds won't sway to either direction no matter how much insisting was made.

The "..." before and "[?]" after "mining" DO NOT mean that there is a very high probability of erroneous transcription of a garbled transmission. Probability for that is only 50%, the other possibility for the marks added is for some other, possibly totally different reason.

 

[JonClarke]

It's an indication of a place that should be on the list for further investigation for anomalies. As soon as citizens get their own powerful scopes on orbit around the Moon, we can have a look at that place. Just like Copernicus crater, just to name a few places of interest.

What "anomalies"?

"Citizens" already have access to lunar imagery. All imagery from US, European Indian, and Japanese missions is publically available. Go and do the work. LRO should have publically chosen targets in a few years. Put in a submission.

Before that happens, there is not much that can be done. We need our own reconnaissance orbiter up there. SpaceX could lift it soon.

Sure, if you have a spare billion or so.

Rather than fantasizing, how about you actually do the work and look at the publically available images of Necho?

 

[JonClarke]

The "..." before and "[?]" after "mining" means that ithere is a very high probability of erroneous transcription of a garbled transmission.

There is also a high probablity those marks have been added to make it look as if it was erroneus or garbled. We don't know. You can not say for certain that those marks truly indicate potentially garbled transmission, unless you put them there and are being truthful in your remark.

They may be added to make a perfectly clear transmission seem like it was garbled. So far it's a 50/50 chance and the odds won't sway to either direction no matter how much insisting was made.

And the evidence for this is precisely zero. You are just inventing stuff.

 

[aphh]

And the evidence for this is precisely zero. You are just inventing stuff.

Actually, you are inventing stuff and making claims you can not back. You don't know the reason why those marks have been added, yet you insist on claiming to know the real reason.

You have no proof or evidence to back your claim. Atleast admit that. You weren't there, you don't know.

Learn to add "may be added for" and leaving room for other explanations when making claims you can not back.

 

[Smersh]

No worries Smersh.

Remember these transcripts are drafts. I don't know if final transcipts are available. But keep an eye on Apollo Flight Journal http://history.nasa.gov/afj/ - although the Apollo 14 transcripts are not yet up there, they should be in the not too distant future as they are among the last three missions to go up. Not sure about actual audio availability.

Jon

Thanks for that link Jon and I've not seen that one before. It seems to be planning to cover all the Apollo missions and it will be interesting to see what appears there. It raises a couple of questions though.

How can the transcripts be corrected if there are no voice transmissions for NASA to refer to? According to the video posted by Aussiebloke and others in that series, NASA claim the original black box transmissions are lost. Of course, the claims in the video might be incorrect and the transmissions are NOT lost but if that's the case, then why don't NASA just post the transmissions as well as the corrected typed transcripts? (Or, more to the point - why haven't NASA posted them by now, some 40 years after the missions?)

(By the way, as you pointed out, I agree the term "dikes" as said to have been used by Farouk refers to the geological term, rather than barriers against water.) (Or lesbians or Australian urinals ... :lol: )

On another matter, the video posted by Aussiebloke also claims that the voice transmissions heard by the public were "scripted," with "the exact words written down on little cards stuck in the panel in front of us." This is said to have been mentioned by Buzz Aldrin in the book "First Man: The Life of Neil A. Armstrong." This can easily be checked out of course - does anyone here have a copy of this book who can confirm, please? Thanks.

 

[JonClarke]

No worries Smersh.

Remember these transcripts are drafts. I don't know if final transcipts are available. But keep an eye on Apollo Flight Journal http://history.nasa.gov/afj/ - although the Apollo 14 transcripts are not yet up there, they should be in the not too distant future as they are among the last three missions to go up. Not sure about actual audio availability.

Jon

Thanks for that link Jon and I've not seen that one before. It seems to be planning to cover all the Apollo missions and it will be interesting to see what appears there. It raises a couple of questions though.

How can the transcripts be corrected if there are no voice transmissions for NASA to refer to? According to the video posted by Aussiebloke and others in that series, NASA claim the original black box transmissions are lost. Of course, the claims in the video might be incorrect and the transmissions are NOT lost but if that's the case, then why don't NASA just post the transmissions as well as the corrected typed transcripts? (Or, more to the point - why haven't NASA posted them by now, some 40 years after the missions?)

If you read the front matter of your link you will see that these are no transmission but onboard recorder transcripts.

This whole conversation is moving away from a specific point to "Granbd Unified Conspiracy" (TM) claims. Before we get too far down that track let's rfemind ourselves of some basic facts

Unsubstantiated Web claims are of themselves not evidence, especially those on a web site that calls itself "disclose TV" and asserts "Apollo DSE Black Box Transcripts Reveal E.T. Truth".

So what actual evidence is there that DSE records are lost (as opposed to claims on a dodgy web site)?

Second, if the recordings are not available what evidence is there that this is sinister? Documentary material does get lost through the ravages of time. There is nothing sinister in this.

Why don't NASA post the transmissions or corrected transcripts? Just maybe they have more important things to do. It is quite a bit of work to do this. Serious researchers don't just look for stuff on ther web, they go to data repositories and archives. If you really want to check the non web material you should be prepared to do the same. Of course it will happen, the transcripts of many of the missions are already available.

On another matter, the video posted by Aussiebloke also claims that the voice transmissions heard by the public were "scripted," with "the exact words written down on little cards stuck in the panel in front of us." This is said to have been mentioned by Buzz Aldrin in the book "First Man: The Life of Neil A. Armstrong." This can easily be checked out of course - does anyone here have a copy of this book who can confirm, please? Thanks.

Yes, I have this book, I need a page number. It's 768 pages long. I need a page number, please.

 

[aphh]

Rather than fantasizing, how about you actually do the work and look at the publically available images of Necho?

I am not fantasizing about anything. I have had a close look at images from Copernicus crater from atleast two different missions and spacecrafts. Images show differences that suggest atleast one image is doctored and detail has been erased.

This thread is not about that subject, so I will not go into further detail at this point.

We need a citizens' Moon orbiter, as I don't have access to raw data from past or current orbiters even if I wanted to. Who knows what's been done to the data before it is presented to the general audience.

 

[Smersh]

... Unsubstantiated Web claims are of themselves not evidence, especially those on a web site that calls itself "disclose TV" and asserts "Apollo DSE Black Box Transcripts Reveal E.T. Truth" ...

Absolutely. You're "preaching to the converted" in pointing that out, hence my embarrassment in not showing the transcripts correctly in my op because I didn't notice they were different. I'm always very wary indeed when discussing unsubstantiated web claims and any questions I have I will always try to base on official documents or sources.

... So what actual evidence is there that DSE records are lost (as opposed to claims on a dodgy web site)? ...

None, just a claim made in somebody's video and as I pointed out might not be accurate. But that wasn't the point I was making.

... Second, if the recordings are not available what evidence is there that this is sinister? Documentary material does get lost through the ravages of time. There is nothing sinister in this.

Why don't NASA post the transmissions or corrected transcripts? Just maybe they have more important things to do. It is quite a bit of work to do this ...

This is my point though. NASA have considered it important enough and have taken the time to post the transcripts and transfer them into pdf files, so why not the voice recordings - afer 40 years as well? With the advent of the internet (that came along after the missions) it just leads to suspicion and accusations of not being open. Also, the more open with the public they are, I would have thought the better chance they would have of getting the government funding they need.

Also, as I said, if the recordings ARE lost (which as you said is a possibilty) then how can NASA provide "corrected" versions of the written transcripts?

... Yes, I have this book, I need a page number. It's 768 pages long. I need a page number, please.

It's a claim made in the video posted by Aussiebloke but doesn't say which page, unfortunately. I just did a quick search to see if it's given elsewhere but so far can't find it. Hopefully somebody else here who has the book and knows about it will post, but in the meantime I'll do a more thorough search to see if I can find out the page.

 

[CommonMan]

Are you the real Aphh? Can you prove it? Post us your drivers license…..no, that could have been faked, post your birth cert….no, that could have been faked too, Obama has one, and many of you don’t belive it’s real, show you hospital record of when you were born…no, they could have been faked. Have your mother verify who you are….no the hospital could have switched you at birth, and she would not have known. So are you real? And is anything on print anywhere in the world real?

 

[FlatEarth]

Smersh, you've done a nice job of posting this question so that it clearly merits consideration and further study. Although I tend to believe that we are being visited by aliens, I never believed there was anything on the moon that would provide evidence. I think it's more likely they would set up shop here on Earth, perhaps under water. However, this does make me more open to the possibility of non-human activity on the moon, and I'll be sure to stay tuned to see how this thread develops. If I come across anything relevant, I'll share it here.

ramparts, I liked the cheese joke. I was going to follow with a lesbian comment, but Smersh ruined it!

 

[CalliArcale]

Assuming the transcript is accurate, I couldn't speculate what they mean by "mining", but "dike" is actually a type of geological formation. So it doesn't necessarily refer to alien activity. On the Moon, I would presume dikes to be volcanic in origin, either ancient or associated with a very large meteorite impact. One famous example of a volcanic dike on Earth is Devil's Tower in Wyoming, but they come in lots of shapes. I'm sure the Apollo crews would've been on the lookout for such things, since one of the objectives was to seek evidence of ancient volcanic activity on the Moon. Such evidence is useful for understanding the Moon's composition, structure, formation, and potentially also evaluating it for future exploitation.

 

[aphh]

I never believed there was anything on the moon that would provide evidence.

Moon is a time machine. Any evidence is preserved there better than on earth. For example, there is no massive body of solvent like water to wash away evidence. Evidence of any activity on the Moon doesn't have to be for current and on-going activity, it could be evidence of activity that took place hundreds of thousands or even millions of years ago as civilizations come and go.

Any civilization capable of travelling in space would consider moon a very good base. They would know optics, so they knew how difficult it would be to resolve small detail from distances like the distance from the earth to the moon. Let's also consider the fact that almost half of the moon remains invisible from the earth forever, unless there was a flying device sent to the far side of the moon. A tricky task for amoebas, if that's what we were when the supposed activity took place on the Moon.

There is little concrete evidence that any activity ever took place on the surface of the Moon, though, so there is no reason to get carried away. For now. Just wanted to provide some food for thought.

 

[FlatEarth]

Moon is a time machine. Any evidence is preserved there better than on earth. For example, there is no massive body of solvent like water to wash away evidence. Evidence of any activity on the Moon doesn't have to be for current and on-going activity, it could be evidence of activity that took place hundreds of thousands or even millions of years ago as civilizations come and go.

This is very true, and a good reason for visitors not to use the moon if they anticipated we would eventually have the capability to go there (assuming they wished to remain hidden). I know what I would do if I wanted to remove all clues of a base. I'd crash an asteroid into it. I definitely would not leave any evidence behind.

Any civilization capable of travelling in space would consider moon a very good base. They would know optics, so they knew how difficult it would be to resolve small detail from distances like the distance from the earth to the moon. Let's also consider the fact that almost half of the moon remains invisible from the earth forever, unless there was a flying device sent to the far side of the moon. A tricky task for amoebas, if that's what we were when the supposed activity took place on the Moon.

There are valid points to be made for a moon base and against a moon base. It depends on the capabilities and mindset of our visitors, and on what time period they may have visited Earth. Would they be concerned about contaminating Earth, or being infected themselves? Would they be concerned about safety from Earthly predators? Or perhaps they have a mandate not to interfere with alien life forms, regardless of their spot on the evolutionary scale. I have always thought if they came here, they would want to experience the place. But that's just me trying to imagine what an alien would do.

 

[JonClarke]

This is my point though. NASA have considered it important enough and have taken the time to post the transcripts and transfer them into pdf files, so why not the voice recordings - afer 40 years as well? With the advent of the internet (that came along after the missions) it just leads to suspicion and accusations of not being open. Also, the more open with the public they are, I would have thought the better chance they would have of getting the government funding they need.

This is of course a "If I were emperor of the world" argument things would be this way. Of course we are not, instead the NASA management makes its own decisions based on its priorities. We are not talking about scientific or technical data data here, but archane archival material. Would it be nice to have the log of the USS Nautilus on its voyage under the Arctic ice available on line, but we don't. It would also be nice to have the line book of 800 squadron FAA from the campagign in Norway in 1940. One day it may, but it is not a priority. Putting this material on line is not a simple exercise. It takes time, money, labour, and consumes storage space. Unless it has actually been lost or misfiled such can be physically obtained from various arcives, it just takes effort or work. For example, I did some researech on the Battle of Calabria in 1940. I was able to obtain copies of the action and navigation logs of the HMAS Voyager but not those of HMAS Sydney (which apparently no longer exist).

As to the second part NASA is highly open and transparent, all data scientific from missions are already publically available, its decisions are public reviewed, its books are a matter of public record. But this does not stop people from making silly accusations. Look at the people who find bizarre thinsg in Mars rover images.

Also, as I said, if the recordings ARE lost (which as you said is a possibilty) then how can NASA provide "corrected" versions of the written transcripts?

Indeed. But are they lost? What is the evidence for this?

... Yes, I have this book, I need a page number. It's 768 pages long. I need a page number, please.

It's a claim made in the video posted by Aussiebloke but doesn't say which page, unfortunately. I just did a quick search to see if it's given elsewhere but so far can't find it. Hopefully somebody else here who has the book and knows about it will post, but in the meantime I'll do a more thorough search to see if I can find out the page.

I read the book last year and have no recollection of this. I skimmed and searched the index last night, but could nopt find anything obvious. I will read through the Apollo 11 chapters again and see what I can find. But given the soource of the claim I would not hold my breath that it actually exists.

 

[JonClarke]

Rather than fantasizing, how about you actually do the work and look at the publically available images of Necho?

I am not fantasizing about anything. I have had a close look at images from Copernicus crater from atleast two different missions and spacecrafts. Images show differences that suggest atleast one image is doctored and detail has been erased.

This thread is not about that subject, so I will not go into further detail at this point.

Then start a thread. On the strength of your other photo "analysis" I predict you have misunderstood something pefectly legitimate.

We need a citizens' Moon orbiter, as I don't have access to raw data from past or current orbiters even if I wanted to. Who knows what's been done to the data before it is presented to the general audience.

You already have access to the uneditted images to the lunar missions of the US, Europe, Japan. The only thing more raw than the data already available is the signal feed. Do you have the technology to process that?

Otherwise come up with a billion if you want LRO resolution images