J'ai trouvé ça sur google:
From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 19:01:25 -0300
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 07:12:04 -0400
Subject: Re: Moon UFO On Lunar TV Transmission - Ledger
>From: James Smith <zeus001002.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 10:12:25 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
>Subject: Moon UFO On Lunar TV Transmission
Hi James,
I assume you wanted me to answer these. See in text.
>Since it was brought up again on SDI, last night, and Mr.
>Ledger is doing some research on it, may I ask a few questions
>of the gentleman?
>1) From the witness statement, "...That same evening, I sat at
>the typewriter and wrote out everything, time, date, place, and
>mission, plus all the names I could remember of who were there
>with all the facts concerning the incident, and asked Jim Baker
>to read it and sign it. He read it and signed it on condition
>that I would give him a copy of the report. I went to the
>copier, and made six complete copies of the report and gave Jim
>one of them. .... I asked him (Jim Baker) if he still had his
>report hidden away and he told me he had actually burned his
>copy, but had given a copy to another friend from West Virginia
who wanted it."
>Okay, here we have a statement that indicates the signed copy
>still exists. Why can't he make it public?
I'm pretty sure he would if he knew where that copy was. As
mentioned, Baker gave it to someone in West Virginia.
My impression is that he's kept this to himself for a long time
and just wants to get the event out in the open.
>If he isn't interested in that, then why doesn't he at least
>check to see what the times are so a detailed scouring of the
>NASA imagery/audio data can occur?
I don't think he has any way of doing that. Again it would have
been handy if he'd had that letter which had the times and
dates.
>2) From his statement:
>".....The object started a slow move from screen left to screen
>right. The camera on the left front of the Rover followed the
>object as it moved screen right. Soon it was apparent that it
>actually wasn't moving screen right, but was circling the Rover.
>The Rover has two mounted cameras on it. One camera was mounted
>on the left front and one on the right rear. As the object came
>into view of the right rear, that camera picked up the object
>and continued tracking it as it circled, very slowly around the
>Rover. It finally came to the point where the right rear camera
>could no longer follow it, so the left front camera picked up
>the image again and followed it to where it was once more above
>where the Astronauts were in Hadley's Rille."
>If he has such a statement as mentioned in #1 to refresh his
>memory, can he explain why he thought there were TWO video
>cameras on the Moon for that mission instead of only 1. (there
>is no place to put another video camera on the rover!). No
>second video camera exists in any mission on the surface!
There were two cameras on the rover, one video in the left front
and the other a 16 mm movie camera which was mounted on a
shorter post in the mid right rear of the Lunar rover. The
latter could not have shot video pictures
>3) Have you or anyone on the List gotten the DVD of the Apollo
>15 mission and viewed _all_ the footage when they were at
>Hadley's Rille to see what the witness _might_ be talking about?
I wasn't aware that the was a DVD. It would have to have been
the raw deed from the rover and not the stuff CBS was getting
which could be cut at will in Houston.
>4) From his statement:
>"Astronauts were in Hadley's Rille. They couldn't be seen
>because they were over the edge, down in the Rille itself. The
>Lunar Rover was about thirty, maybe forty or more yards from the
>edge, and had the left front camera on the spot where the
>Astronauts had disappeared. "
>Although the rover is 30-40 yards from the edge, I wonder how
>he knows they were "in Hadley's Rille" and "over the edge".
I don't think they [the astronauts] were in Hadley Rill. This
might have occurred during EVA 2 excursion at Station 6. To most
people regardless where the astronauts were on this mission the
were "in" Hadley Rill. These fire specialists probably thought
the same thing.
>See:
>http://www.lpi.usra.edu/expmoon/Apollo15/A15_Lsite.Traverse.gif
>I cannot see or find where they tried to go "over the edge".
>The video I can find does not show this happening. They
>"disappear" by moving behind the camera field of view. I do find
>where one astronaut falls at 165:32:01 but not down the Rille.
Again, that was in the small crater at Station 6.
>5) Regarding the "crypto" room, I would like to know if Oberg
>heard of such a room.
Don't know. Had you Jim?
>Although I would hope data sent and received by NASA to
>spacecraft was/is encoded to prevent Soviets and others from
>damaging spacecraft, I would think this would be sent to MCC and
>likely the encoders in some locked/protected black box nearby,
>not in a conference room. There is a chance of images being sent
>over a crypto-"fax" (in that room) to NASA by other agencies to
>help identify craft. I can't see why they would "put them up on
>the wall", unless they were clearly not anything important.
>Common sense shows you have to lock things up after you look at
>them. What kind of security system leaves them on the wall????
>Another possible thing the room was used for was high level
>strategic planning. To assure bugs weren't planted, they need a
>"secured" room. The same room could be used for contract
>decision making, possible military interaction (using NASA
>equipment for military apps). Why wouldn't the UFOs on the wall
>just be advanced concepts/artist renderings/model photos? Given
>the state of relations with the Soviets, security made sense.
Yeah, but why have UFO pictures on the wall in the first place.
Why at NASA. If true, there's a story in there somewhere. If the
area was supposed to be secure, I see no reason why they
wouldn't be on the wall as you had a problem with above, if
there was some reason why NASA,or more likely some department of
the air force was taking them seriously.
>Also, it is implied by Mr. Ledger that the ability for the Mars
>rovers to outlast their design life was possibly due to alien
>intervention.
No I didn't. I was suggesting that the rover's camera be panned
around to see if there was a roll of paper towel and a bottle of
Windex in sight. It was funny - or supposed to be.
>I think it is too extreme to presume this since dust devils
occur on Mars (we KNOW there are dust storms, so the the
atmosphere CAN be turbulent) and are the most reasonable
explanation for the cleaning of the solar arrays.
Or possible due to the extremely dry atmosphere where a static
charge might build up enough potential to spontaneously
discharge off the solar arrays repelling the dust. Just a
theory, but certainly the obvious culprit is the Martian winds.
>It was also implied during the program that it was "mysterious"
>why we did not go back to the Moon or why we stopped. It is in
>no way mysterious. Going to the Moon was/is expensive. You need
>a well defined business case. This does not exist. Thus it ends
>up being performed at the whim of politicians for political
>reasons. Once we had got there and once interest had waned (as
>Ledger states in the program) there was _no_ reason to continue.
I've no doubt of the political interference and the timidity of
the average politician when faced with the albatross of inner
city welfare problems and the "war' on poverty, etc. Also the
Vietnam war was going on through the whole of the Apollo program
that was eating up much of the American budget-never mind the
ongoing "Cold War" The Apollo missions and the manned space
program to the Moon ended two years before that war. War is
apparently more important than space exploration.
Someone made damn sure though that they didn't go back to the
Moon in the near future. Like the Avro Arrow, the Saturn 5
rocket was scrapped and construction was discontinued.
If I learn more, I'll pass it along.
Don Ledger
Tout ce qui est authentique porte le sceau du Silence.
Tout est révélé dans le Silence de ton Coeur-Corps.
0
