Buzz Aldrin comments on UFO following Apollo

[JimOberg]

- post removed -

Example, please?

[JimOberg]

....In this case, I have caught him in yet another flagrant and blatant falsehood, since Dr. David Baker worked on the Gemini, Apollo and Space Shuttle programs from 1965 to 1984. Oberg must know that, but as I pointed out before, I knew exactly what he would try to do with anyone at NASA who mentioned UFOs and ETs. http://www.wired.com...ht_david_baker/

Good link, thanks!

But you seem to have a fundamental problem with reading for comprehension. You claim he worked on the gemini program, when what he said was

"Wired.com: You joined NASA back in the Apollo days, right?

Baker: In the mid-1960s, during the Gemini program. It was a very different time to that which exists today. NASA was a very different institution. "

Now, everybody who joined NASA in the mid-1960s during the gemini program didn't work on the gemini program -- only some of them. and Baker never said he worked on the Gemini program, but you claim he said he did, so ihink we see again that you read into things far more meaning than the writers of those things ever intended.

So we have a better estimate of his age: He joined NASA in about 1966, as a young man, say out of college, aged 21-22, and that makes him 25 years old at the time of the Apollo landing.

I'll buy that.

How does that make him a 'senior scientist'?

And by the way, the quotes you supplied also never said that he said that any astronaut on any spaceflight had ever seen any UFO. Can you read the English accurately?

[DONTEATUS]

Yup, no one saw what you saw, nothing is absolute in this existence. To adhere to one point of view without an open mind is truly limiting in ones personal growth.

There's also a bullying quality to behavior like this. It's the punk kid in the playground picking on the smart kid for understanding something he didn't take the time to learn in the first place. But, out of fear, some of the other kids will join in the harassment.

Saying you believe in something in this forum takes some amount of courage because if it's something out of the norm you will get ripped to shreds.

Being a skeptic is a good thing, questions should be asked, points should definitely be debated but with an open mind.

Well its good to Keep the mind open,as long as too much dosnt flow out that drains the grey matter to a lower level than one starts ! THere is a bit of bullying in here,but in general this is the BEst Forum on the Planet ,as we know it .

And its people like you that make it a wonderful place to read & post !

[+ouija ouija]

But you seem to have a fundamental problem with reading for comprehension. You claim he worked on the gemini program, when what he said was

"Wired.com: You joined NASA back in the Apollo days, right?

Baker: In the mid-1960s, during the Gemini program. It was a very different time to that which exists today. NASA was a very different institution. "

Now, everybody who joined NASA in the mid-1960s during the gemini program didn't work on the gemini program -- only some of them. and Baker never said he worked on the Gemini program, but you claim he said he did, so ihink we see again that you read into things far more meaning than the writers of those things ever intended.

So we have a better estimate of his age: He joined NASA in about 1966, as a young man, say out of college, aged 21-22, and that makes him 25 years old at the time of the Apollo landing.

I'll buy that.

How does that make him a 'senior scientist'?

And by the way, the quotes you supplied also never said that he said that any astronaut on any spaceflight had ever seen any UFO. Can you read the English accurately?

It also doesn't state that he didn't work on the Gemini Program. You are claiming the opposite to TheMacGuffin with the same quote that doesn't tell us either way!

I guess whether you are considered 'senior' or not depends on your level of knowledge and understanding of your subject ..... age doesn't really come into it.

Edited January 12, 2013 by ouija ouija

[JimOberg]

It also doesn't state that he didn't work on the Gemini Program. You are claiming the opposite to TheMacGuffin with the same quote that doesn't tell us either way!

I guess whether you are considered 'senior' or not depends on your level of knowledge and understanding of your subject ..... age doesn't really come into it.

This is pretty convoluted verbal pretzeling. MacG says the article says Baker worked on Gemini. I suggest he misread or misunderstood, or just elaborated on the article. with no justification in the actual content. You're saying that even if the article did NOT say Baker worked on Gemini [which you implicitly imply], he might have secretly, snd MacG was just a good guesser.

The issue is worth bringing up because many examples of this misreporting of sources have been documented for MacG over recent months. He honestly seems to believe the articles say what he guesses thery say because he often does provide URLs, but very often the cited arfticles really don't say what MacG claims they said. It's just good to have a pattern to assess the believability of stuff he alleges he read elsewhere but can't provide a link for verification.

Calling somebody a 'liar' when it's your own self that is veracity-challenged is generally a school-yard counter accusation, generally from people who know they are the ones lying. Especially when anhy examples of the accused 'lyimng' are as nebulous and misinterpreted as other factual allegations.

You're also conjuring up 'special pleading' to excuse the dubious claim the kid was a 'senior scientist', and note how you are assuming facts not in evidence about his competency, to explain a clearly awkward expertise assertion. It's like the folks who insist that Ken Johnston, a 25-year-old High School graduate with electronics repair experience, would be picked by NASA as the head of their Apollo surface imagery archives. Or Maurice Chatelain, a contract engineer in California in the mid-1960s [terminated about 1966], was 'Chief of NASA Communications" during the moon landings. You'll see a pattern here of people stepping forward with delicious space UFO stories, whose 'insider credentials' turn out to be as bogus as the stories. And the reality can be independently verified -- that's another stark difference between my reports and those from McG.

Live with it.

[JimOberg]

Change of venue of the debate:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/ufos-at-international-space-station_n_2450625.html

[*Frank*]

There are sooooo many reasons not to believe Ole Buzz.

1) He was very, very jealous of Armstrong. Armstrong was the first man on the Moon. Armstrong also won like 7 Tours de France. Buzz feels insignificant when compared to Armstrong. Nobody cares about the 2nd guy on the Moon. He just wanted to feel important by claiming to see UFOs. We all know how respected UFOs believers are.

Just wanted to check... You are joking aren't you?

[Theater of Dreams]

THey are Great People from Earth! Space Travelers each and every one ! WHat Did you Do with your life ?

I always found that argument to be arrogant and invalid. What a person does with their life shouldn't make their criticisms any less valuable or accurate. If that logic was adopted by everyone, critics would be out of jobs and opinions couldn't be voiced, should they pertain to something the criticizers could not accomplish.

And quite frankly, I don't believe that all astronauts are "Great People." All of them are hardworking, sure. But to generalize them by morals? Ehh...

[Lava_Lady]

Well its good to Keep the mind open,as long as too much dosnt flow out that drains the grey matter to a lower level than one starts ! THere is a bit of bullying in here,but in general this is the BEst Forum on the Planet ,as we know it .

And its people like you that make it a wonderful place to read & post !

Thanks! I must admit, there is always something interesting and I do enjoy this site!

[Sabbath]

My theory is that the radiation gave him a blast of premature Alzheimer.

[Just Dave]

I think you would have to be pretty dumb not to think this more life in this universe than us.

Ignorance is a bliss right? Not that we are made out of elements found on every super-earth out there, but hey we are unique as people say how we are unique i have no definiton how do they mean that... oh wait that probably means we are unique in our way of thinking.. yep that would work. There are 17 billion earthlike planets out there with same living conditions only variable would be a small difference in sun-planet distance, but everything else is the same so.. saying there is no life out there is kind of uneducated statement.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Since this is a site for people who believe in UFO's to post their opinions

No, this is a site where believers,non-believers AND UFO "agnostics" can post their opinions.

Whatever you believe please remember not to make it personal.Whilst it is acceptable to attack the point of view it is NOT acceptable to attack the person holding it.

Thank you.

[Just Dave]

Anybody find the video where Aldrin explains how the editor of THIS video cut and pasted and clipped his comments to delude his target audience? Try and look for it. You don't need me to take your hand.

What were they? Candidates include SLA panels, maybe the S4B, maybe other spacecraft-shed debris.

'Moon pigeons' was what Flight Controllers called them. NASA even carried out a special study of what they might indicate.

Why don't the UFO promotional sites discuss that study? Coverup?

I agree with you here, they were panels we had that answer right here on UM just under a diffrent topic. i think.

[TheMacGuffin]

No, this is a site where believers,non-believers AND UFO "agnostics" can post their opinions.

Whatever you believe please remember not to make it personal.Whilst it is acceptable to attack the point of view it is NOT acceptable to attack the person holding it.

Thank you.

That's fine. I'll just drop off of this thread.

Edited January 13, 2013 by TheMacGuffin

[+ouija ouija]

This is pretty convoluted verbal pretzeling. MacG says the article says Baker worked on Gemini. I suggest he misread or misunderstood, or just elaborated on the article. with no justification in the actual content. You're saying that even if the article did NOT say Baker worked on Gemini [which you implicitly imply], he might have secretly, snd MacG was just a good guesser.

The issue is worth bringing up because many examples of this misreporting of sources have been documented for MacG over recent months. He honestly seems to believe the articles say what he guesses thery say because he often does provide URLs, but very often the cited arfticles really don't say what MacG claims they said. It's just good to have a pattern to assess the believability of stuff he alleges he read elsewhere but can't provide a link for verification.

Calling somebody a 'liar' when it's your own self that is veracity-challenged is generally a school-yard counter accusation, generally from people who know they are the ones lying. Especially when anhy examples of the accused 'lyimng' are as nebulous and misinterpreted as other factual allegations.

You're also conjuring up 'special pleading' to excuse the dubious claim the kid was a 'senior scientist', and note how you are assuming facts not in evidence about his competency, to explain a clearly awkward expertise assertion. It's like the folks who insist that Ken Johnston, a 25-year-old High School graduate with electronics repair experience, would be picked by NASA as the head of their Apollo surface imagery archives. Or Maurice Chatelain, a contract engineer in California in the mid-1960s [terminated about 1966], was 'Chief of NASA Communications" during the moon landings. You'll see a pattern here of people stepping forward with delicious space UFO stories, whose 'insider credentials' turn out to be as bogus as the stories. And the reality can be independently verified -- that's another stark difference between my reports and those from McG.

Live with it.

once again, all you've done here is exactly what you accuse TheMacGuffin of doing ........... plus, twisting what I said right around, PLUS, and this is the worst sin: putting words into my mouth. Kinda pathetic for someone of your age .

[DBunker]

That's fine. I'll just drop off of this thread.

Later dude.

Edited January 13, 2013 by DBunker

[SwampgasBalloonBoy]

Just wanted to check... You are joking aren't you?

Oh well, that's the problem with jokes, sometimes its work, other times its doesn't

[*Frank*]

Oh well, that's the problem with jokes, sometimes its work, other times its doesn't

No, no, it was funny. I just had to check... this is the internet after all

[psyche101]

Whilst this interview with Buzz Aldrin is a few years old now, I was wondering what all our ledgendary debunkers would say about it.

Come on folks, what did Buzz (one of Americas most respected astronaughts) and the other crew members see?. Swamp gas?, street lights?,

There is a thread here on the Apollo incident. I contacted Dr David Morrison at NASA who spoke to Buzz directly about the incident. The thread got quite heated unfortunately. But not about UFO's. This is no alien, and Buzz will say so, in fact, he has. The argument is what debris is this, I personally feel Astronaut Collins was most likely correct, and it is a piece of Mylar that came loose when the CSM-LM separated. (Noted in the Apollo transcripts)

Best ask Buzz, who was most upset with the science channel for twisting his words to make him sound like he is perplexed over the incident, when that is clearly not the case. Even Wiki has something on it:

UFO claims

In 2005, while being interviewed for a documentary titled First on the Moon: The Untold Story, Aldrin told an interviewer that they saw an unidentified flying object. Aldrin told David Morrison, a NASA Astrobiology Institute Senior Scientist, that the documentary cut the crew's conclusion that they were probably seeing one of four detached spacecraft adapter panels. Their S-IVB upper stage was 6,000 miles (9,700 km) away, but the four panels were jettisoned before the S-IVB made its separation maneuver so they would closely follow the Apollo 11 spacecraft until its first midcourse correction.^[41] When Aldrin appeared on The Howard Stern Show on August 15, 2007, Stern asked him about the supposed UFO sighting. Aldrin confirmed that there was no such sighting of anything deemed extraterrestrial, and said they were and are "99.9 percent" sure that the object was the detached panel.^[42][43][44]

Interviewed by the Science Channel, Aldrin mentioned seeing unidentified objects, and according to Aldrin his words were taken out of context; he asked the Science Channel to clarify to viewers he did not see alien spacecraft, but they refused.^[45]

LINK - http://en.wikipedia....drin#UFO_claims

To get the story straight, I called Buzz Aldrin, who was happy to explain what happened. He said that his remarks were taken out of context to reverse his meaning. It is true that the Apollo 11 crew spotted an unidentified object moving with the spacecraft as they approached the Moon. After they verified that this mystery object was not Apollo 11’s large rocket upper stage, which was about 6,000 miles away by then, they concluded that they were seeing one of the small panels that had linked the spacecraft to the upper stage (any part of the spacecraft’s rocket upper stage will continue to move alongside the spacecraft, as both are floating in free-fall). These panels were too small to track from Earth and were relatively close to the Apollo spacecraft. Aldrin told me that they chose not to discuss this on the open communications channel since they were concerned that their comments might be misinterpreted. His entire explanation about identifying the panels was cut from the broadcast interview, giving the impression that the Apollo 11 crew had seen a UFO. Aldrin told me that he was angry about the deceptive editing and asked the Science Channel to correct the intentional twisting of his remarks, but they refused. Later, Aldrin explained what happened on CNN’s Larry King Live (left, bottom) but was nearly cut off by the host before he could finish.

LINK - http://www.csicop.or...liens_in_space/

Just ask Buzz. That would be my recommendation. That clears up this ET/UFO nonsense. It was debris. To the best of my knowledge, to this day, Buzz is of the opinion that the "UFO" was the SLA panels.

Edited January 14, 2013 by psyche101

[S2F]

Just ask Buzz. That would be my recommendation. That clears up this ET/UFO nonsense. It was debris. To the best of my knowledge, to this day, Buzz is of the opinion that the "UFO" was the SLA panels.

Nothing like the horses mouth huh?

Of course the conspiracy minded won't buy it however that's hardly indicative of an actual conspiracy.

[SwampgasBalloonBoy]

Nothing like the horses mouth huh?

Of course the conspiracy minded won't buy it however that's hardly indicative of an actual conspiracy.

If he said he hasn't seen it, then we'll have to take his words for it. But it doesn't change the facts that others have. It's not like "Since Buzz hasn't seen UFOs, Its must not exist!"

[S2F]

If he said he hasn't seen it, then we'll have to take his words for it. But it doesn't change the facts that others have. It's not like "Since Buzz hasn't seen UFOs, Its must not exist!"

Nor is it like "since astronauts have seen UFO's then they must exist", from an ETH perspective at least. Don't get me wrong, UFO's are a very real phenomena. However I try to reserve judgement on what they actually are until solid evidence is forthcoming. I have no problem with leaving something 'unknown', unlike some who feel the need to label a UFO as alien without due evidence.

[lost_shaman]

Im positive that they did not see an SLA panel. I've defended that position over several threads and several year here. I'm not sure what is was but I'm sure it wasn't ET either.

[JimOberg]

If he said he hasn't seen it, then we'll have to take his words for it. But it doesn't change the facts that others have. It's not like "Since Buzz hasn't seen UFOs, Its must not exist!"

Of course many other people have.

But weren't we talking about astronauts on space flights?

Isn't that a much shorter list -- maybe even, an empty one?

[JimOberg]

Im positive that they did not see an SLA panel. I've defended that position over several threads and several year here. I'm not sure what is was but I'm sure it wasn't ET either.

Since SLA panels were also reported on other flights, and were photographed through telescopes from Earth accompanying the CSMs, why wouldn't the crews sometimes have seen them on the outbound leg [never on the return leg, of course, for obvious reasons]?