1026 replies to this topic

[DONTEATUS]

Well its like Mid`s has spoken many a time in this wonderful place we call Forum of Speech!
I really have a hard time seeing how some people dont understand  a fact of our Great Space History. Mid is da Man when it comes to Knowing NASA. Nuff said !
Now Just Go Look it Up L/S he`s not pulling your leg.

[lost_shaman]

MID, on 01 March 2012 - 02:42 AM, said:

Lost...

relax, and knock off the crap.  Go find out for yourself and stop this ridiculous insistence on MY burden of proof...when you have one youself that you can't satisfy.


You keep sying things that aren't true, like I said something about reading a  part of a transcript that was relevant to this UFO sighting that somehow, although dead and insignificant for over 4 decades, still prompts thread activity and obnoxious behavior.

This was brought up by James Oberg 30 years ago and has been discussed ever since. So there is a relevence and an interest here to some people whether you include yourself in that group or not.

You did say you read the relevent portions as these are your own words, "thing out there blinking, etc...".

MID, on 01 March 2012 - 02:42 AM, said:

What I said was that transcripts exist of on board voice recorders.  I heard some, I read some.
No big deal.  That was a long time ago.

I'm sure it was. So you don't remember reading "thing out there blinking, etc..."?

MID, on 01 March 2012 - 02:42 AM, said:

I didn't listen to the tapes recorded, nor did I read all of the transcripts and...never once cared about the UFO incident and the attendant discussion that may have (and I'm certain did happen) aboard the spacecraft.

All I have said in response to Psyche was that there were recordings.  I produced a transcript.

Anyone can find the transcript. You said you read something no-one else has ever claimedto have seen.

MID, on 01 March 2012 - 02:42 AM, said:

But dear me...it's missing a few pages.  IOddly enough, the ones you absolutely need to see !
Ooops.

Do bother to look at your own link... It's (Mission) days that are missing not pages in the transcript.

[MID]

lost_shaman, on 01 March 2012 - 11:02 AM, said:

Anyone can find the transcript. You said you read something no-one else has ever claimedto have seen.

really?

Quote

Prove it.

Do bother to look at your own link... It's (Mission) days that are missing not pages in the transcript.

Is that right, Lost?

Gee whiz.  I thought I jknew that.
Perhaps there's some clandestine attachment to that, huh?


Wanna try one more time explaining the importance of this, and what Jim Oberg bringing up the idea 30 years ago has to do with it?
I'm sure he wasn't the only person aware of it....(I was.  Didn't care about it much in 1980, nor in 1969).

The import was what, again.?
Try really hard.  Most of us are waiting to figure this out.


the importance of a non-event can be explained at your liesure.




And while you're at it...by all means, once again, have the last word.

You're right after all.

Edited by MID, 04 March 2012 - 01:03 AM.

[lost_shaman]

MID, on 04 March 2012 - 01:02 AM, said:

really?



Is that right, Lost?

Gee whiz.  I thought I jknew that.
Perhaps there's some clandestine attachment to that, huh?

You tell us, that is basically what psyche asked you several days ago and which you've ignored.

MID, on 04 March 2012 - 01:02 AM, said:

Wanna try one more time explaining the importance of this, and what Jim Oberg bringing up the idea 30 years ago has to do with it?
I'm sure he wasn't the only person aware of it....(I was.  Didn't care about it much in 1980, nor in 1969).

The import was what, again.?
Try really hard.  Most of us are waiting to figure this out.


the importance of a non-event can be explained at your liesure.




And while you're at it...by all means, once again, have the last word.

You're right after all.

I just pointed out that this incident has been discussed for that length of time. The topic of this thread is this incident. If you are so disinterested then why do you keep showing up to harass myself and others who are interested in discussing this incident?

[MID]

[size="1"][/size]

lost_shaman, on 04 March 2012 - 01:19 AM, said:

You tell us, that is basically what psyche asked you several days ago and which you've ignored.




I just pointed out that this incident has been discussed for that length of time. The topic of this thread is this incident. If you are so disinterested then why do you keep showing up to harass myself and others who are interested in discussing this incident?

Then discuss the incident.

Stop attempting to undermine people...people with obvious qualifications, who challenge your bad math, your delusions of aviation and aeronautical grandeur, and tgry to can the attitude of grandeur and  even the attempt to go at staff members you don't seem to like (don't think I've noted it?  Not a great idea...).

Look.

If you think there's something fishy about this AS-11 UFO incident, I'm not even going to tell you you're all wet.
I'm going tio tell you you can "discuss it all you like".  However, I was there...


if you want to "argue" the situation based uipon bad math ,. conjecture, and your suspicions, it'll fall on deaf ears.


there's nothing now, and there was ever anything to it then.
You're never going to get Mr. Armstrong, Collins, and even Aldrin to change that statement.  Nor anyone who was in the MOCR or the backrooms on that Summer evening in 1969.



I think maybe it's incumbent to rember what actually took place less than two days later, after their 10 hour sleep period that night and entering orbit around the Moon (still, even in July, 1969, a major event in itself...as we'd done it only twice before).

I'm not really sure than any human involved was thinking about that flashing light in the distance, when around 0700 CDT happened on 20 July, 1969.

After the events of the next 22 hours, I'd bet you no one thought about it again!



Just trying to illustrate the relative importance.  
Maybe you'll simply discuss, and stop arguing with the qualified from a position of nothing more than imagination and bias.

I believe we can tell a persons quality and character through their content here, as I've said.  your's speaks to itself...



i think your pattern has developed.

You're a CT.

You've never actually answered what you're on about, but I think it's obvious.
Something wierd  i(n your mind) is going on here, and you're going to get to the bottom of it!


And one day..you'll state why any of this is important al all...

[lost_shaman]

MID, on 04 March 2012 - 09:41 PM, said:

Then discuss the incident.

Stop attempting to undermine people...people with obvious qualifications, who challenge your bad math, your delusions of aviation and aeronautical grandeur, and tgry to can the attitude of grandeur and  even the attempt to go at staff members you don't seem to like (don't think I've noted it?  Not a great idea...).

I have been discussing the incident. It wasn't "my" math that I agreed to on this thread by and large. Yet I can show it was sufficient to show what I have been saying. I've been a member since 2006 here on UM and I've not seen your "qualifications". Even if you did work on Apollo missions where you on shift at the time in question?

I don't go after "staff" I've made that clear. Just as I'm not going after you I'm simply replying to you and I've not broken any UM rules by doing so.

MID, on 04 March 2012 - 09:41 PM, said:

If you think there's something fishy about this AS-11 UFO incident, I'm not even going to tell you you're all wet.
I'm going tio tell you you can "discuss it all you like".  However, I was there...

No you may have been involved with Apollo missions but when you and I first dicussed this a few years ago you said you 'remembered' something mentioned via 'watercooler' conversation fourty years after the fact. Now what you are doing is the exact definition of moving the goal posts.

MID, on 04 March 2012 - 09:41 PM, said:

if you want to "argue" the situation based uipon bad math ,. conjecture, and your suspicions, it'll fall on deaf ears.

Before you 'plug' your ears with your fingers, show us all where I'm wrong.

MID, on 04 March 2012 - 09:41 PM, said:

there's nothing now, and there was ever anything to it then.
You're never going to get Mr. Armstrong, Collins, and even Aldrin to change that statement.  Nor anyone who was in the MOCR or the backrooms on that Summer evening in 1969.

None of that ever happened. The peoplle in the backroom were calculating fuel economy.

[DONTEATUS]

Man I bet theres a Good movie I could go see today ?

[lost_shaman]

MID, on 04 March 2012 - 09:41 PM, said:

Just trying to illustrate the relative importance.  
Maybe you'll simply discuss, and stop arguing with the qualified from a position of nothing more than imagination and bias.

I believe we can tell a persons quality and character through their content here, as I've said.  your's speaks to itself...

Yeah, it's really old that you continue to discuss my charactor. As if my interest in this incident is a charactor flaw. I've simply maintained the mathdoesn't add up for an SLA panel and you can not disqagree except to attack me personally. That is what speaks volumes.

MID, on 04 March 2012 - 09:41 PM, said:

hink your pattern has developed.

You're a CT.

You've never actually answered what you're on about, but I think it's obvious.
Something wierd  i(n your mind) is going on here, and you're going to get to the bottom of it!

To be honest you really are not wrong here, I don't believe an SLA panel can be the answer. But I also don't know why that makes me the 'enemy'.

Edited by lost_shaman, 05 March 2012 - 12:01 AM.

[Pericynthion]

lost_shaman, on 12 November 2011 - 12:05 AM, said:

When you add the Mid course corrections they were around the 700 mile or so range.

lost_shaman, on 01 December 2011 - 08:06 AM, said:

That's not even fair! I did say 700 miles but this was near the absolute largest number I'd seen calculated. Unbeknownst to you, I threw that number out to establish a range because the 200 miles MID suggested in another thread is the LOWEST number I've ever seen being seriously discussed. My argument is valid across a large swath of that range. In this thread other people such as Europa and MID have committed to calculations while I've refrained and simply used their numbers.

lost_shaman, on 08 December 2011 - 09:03 AM, said:

Let's not mince words. If you believe that the numbers are wrong post your own. I didn't even post these numbers for n-th time. I just agreed to use them. I can use other numbers too and lets see what the evidence says!

lost_shaman, on 04 March 2012 - 11:34 PM, said:

I have been discussing the incident. It wasn't "my" math that I agreed to on this thread by and large. Yet I can show it was sufficient to show what I have been saying.

For someone who claims to have proven conclusively that an SLA panel was too far away, you're awfully evasive and unwilling to commit to a minimum distance calculation.  By your own admission, you haven't even made any calculations of your own.  Some conflicting distance estimates have been presented in this thread, but you complain loudly if anyone actually tries to hold you to any of those numbers.  Is it 700 miles, 577 miles, 345 miles, 320 miles?  You've done absolutely NOTHING to prove that any of the numbers presented are truly a minimum.

So, what IS the absolute minimum distance to each of the four SLA panels at the time of the sighting?  How do you know it couldn't 200 miles or even 100 miles?  You've said over and over again that a bit of simple math is all that's required to rule out an SLA panel.  Well, let's see it.

[lost_shaman]

Pericynthion, on 05 March 2012 - 01:08 AM, said:

For someone who claims to have proven conclusively that an SLA panel was too far away, you're awfully evasive and unwilling to commit to a minimum distance calculation.

Not at all. Others on this thread said 453 miles as a minimum and I didn't object other than to point out that is a minimum distance.

Pericynthion, on 05 March 2012 - 01:08 AM, said:

  By your own admission, you haven't even made any calculations of your own.  Some conflicting distance estimates have been presented in this thread, but you complain loudly if anyone actually tries to hold you to any of those numbers.

No I've only pointed out these were a minimum distance and that true distances are assuradly quite a bit greater.

Pericynthion, on 05 March 2012 - 01:08 AM, said:

Is it 700 miles, 577 miles, 345 miles, 320 miles?  You've done absolutely NOTHING to prove that any of the numbers presented are truly a minimum.

You are right, on this thread I only agreed to the 453 mile number that other people worked out. I only talked of smaller numbers when I was speaking about the magnification of the optics.

Pericynthion, on 05 March 2012 - 01:08 AM, said:

So, what IS the absolute minimum distance to each of the four SLA panels at the time of the sighting?  How do you know it couldn't 200 miles or even 100 miles?  You've said over and over again that a bit of simple math is all that's required to rule out an SLA panel.  Well, let's see it.

Maybe you missed it but James Young TMO/JPL/NASA visually tracked all Apollo missions except 17 and he stated all the panels increase their distance from the CSM-LM as it itself increases it's distance from Earth. No evidence to the contrary exists but youv guy's believe it so. That is the bottom line. v

[Pericynthion]

lost_shaman, on 05 March 2012 - 03:17 AM, said:

Not at all. Others on this thread said 453 miles as a minimum and I didn't object other than to point out that is a minimum distance.

<SNIP>

You are right, on this thread I only agreed to the 453 mile number that other people worked out. I only talked of smaller numbers when I was speaking about the magnification of the optics.

Ok, so you believe the minimun distance is 453 miles.  I assume this is based on the numbers calculated by Europa733 earlier in the thread, correct?  Those calculations don't account for the rotation of the LVLH reference frame during the course of the mission.  Why do you believe the results are valid?  They also ignore gravity and make assumptions about the panel jettison direction and velocity.  Please show me why those particular assumptions result in a minimum distance.  

Why are you so certain that the minimum can't even be 450 miles?

lost_shaman, on 05 March 2012 - 03:17 AM, said:

No I've only pointed out these were a minimum distance and that true distances are assuradly quite a bit greater.

Why should I or anyone else accept your assurances that the distances would be greater?  "Trust me" doesn't qualify as an engineering analysis.

lost_shaman, on 19 December 2011 - 12:24 AM, said:

Maybe you missed it but James Young TMO/JPL/NASA visually tracked all Apollo missions except 17 and he stated all the panels increase their distance from the CSM-LM as it itself increases it's distance from Earth.

No, I've seen those posts.  Young's comments are just an anecdote.  By your standards, you don't accept anecdotes as valid evidence.  Oh wait, let me correct that:  You don't accept anecdotes as valid evidence UNLESS they happen to agree with the argument you're trying to make.  Then they're incontrovertible facts.

Seriously, though, Young didn't track the missions.  He observed them for short periods of time on days when weather conditions allowed.  You haven't presented any actual data from his observations in this thread.  Did Young even observe the outbound leg of Apollo 11?  According to Bill Keel's web page Telescopic Tracking of the Apollo Lunar Missions,  "There were few sightings from North America during the outbound journey due to clouds over many sites."

Right now, you have no hard data on WHAT Young saw or WHEN he saw it.  Just a general comment that the panels tended to move farther away from the spacecraft as the missions progressed.  That comment would be valid if the panels moved from a distance of zero to a max of 1 mile or a max of 1000 miles.  You simply don't know.  Show us some hard number and then we can talk.

lost_shaman, on 19 December 2011 - 12:24 AM, said:

No evidence to the contrary exists but youv guy's believe it so. That is the bottom line.

YOU'RE the one who claims to have absolutely proven that this couldn't be an SLA panel.  You need to provide evidence to support your claim.  Right now, I'm just pointing out the flaws in your arguments and am trying to get you to think through the technical details you've ignored.  I don't "believe" anything about this incident.

[lost_shaman]

Pericynthion, on 05 March 2012 - 05:47 AM, said:

Ok, so you believe the minimun distance is 453 miles.  I assume this is based on the numbers calculated by Europa733 earlier in the thread, correct?  Those calculations don't account for the rotation of the LVLH reference frame during the course of the mission.  Why do you believe the results are valid?  They also ignore gravity and make assumptions about the panel jettison direction and velocity.  Please show me why those particular assumptions result in a minimum distance.  

Why are you so certain that the minimum can't even be 450 miles?

I just agreed to the numbers, but I don't think 450 miles is anything but a minimum. Can you show otherwise?

Pericynthion, on 05 March 2012 - 05:47 AM, said:

Why should I or anyone else accept your assurances that the distances would be greater?  "Trust me" doesn't qualify as an engineering analysis.

We know the CSM-LM fired it's engines and altered it's orbit. The panel's did not. This what we've considered a minimum distance.  Thats my view cqb you show it to ve wrong?

Pericynthion, on 05 March 2012 - 05:47 AM, said:

No, I've seen those posts.  Young's comments are just an anecdote.  By your standards, you don't accept anecdotes as valid evidence.  Oh wait, let me correct that:  You don't accept anecdotes as valid evidence UNLESS they happen to agree with the argument you're trying to make.  Then they're incontrovertible facts.

That's not true. Where have I done what you are saying?

Pericynthion, on 05 March 2012 - 05:47 AM, said:

Seriously, though, Young didn't track the missions.  He observed them for short periods of time on days when weather conditions allowed.  You haven't presented any actual data from his observations in this thread.  Did Young even observe the outbound leg of Apollo 11?

Yes that is what he was talking about when he said this was the case with all the missions except 17 which they could not observe.

Pericynthion, on 05 March 2012 - 05:47 AM, said:

  According to Bill Keel's web page Telescopic Tracking of the Apollo Lunar Missions,  "There were few sightings from North America during the outbound journey due to clouds over many sites."

Well that didn't include TMO because weather only prevented TMO from observing apollo 17.

Pericynthion, on 05 March 2012 - 05:47 AM, said:

Right now, you have no hard data on WHAT Young saw or WHEN he saw it.  Just a general comment that the panels tended to move farther away from the spacecraft as the missions progressed.  That comment would be valid if the panels moved from a distance of zero to a max of 1 mile or a max of 1000 miles.  You simply don't know.  Show us some hard number and then we can talk.

And your default position is that it must be a panel because you don't know where the pqnels where. At least I agreed with what other said because I can show panel doesn't fit the evidence.

Pericynthion, on 05 March 2012 - 05:47 AM, said:

YOU'RE the one who claims to have absolutely proven that this couldn't be an SLA panel.  You need to provide evidence to support your claim.  Right now, I'm just pointing out the flaws in your arguments and am trying to get you to think through the technical details you've ignored.  I don't "believe" anything about this incident.

Err... I'm suggesting the evidence doesn't support an SLA panel. I've shown whyit doesn't you've shown nothing. Sorry.

[MID]

lost_shaman, on 04 March 2012 - 11:59 PM, said:

Yeah, it's really old that you continue to discuss my charactor. As if my interest in this incident is a charactor flaw. I've simply maintained the mathdoesn't add up for an SLA panel and you can not disqagree except to attack me personally. That is what speaks volumes.





To be honest you really are not wrong here, I don't believe an SLA panel can be the answer. But I also don't know why that makes me the 'enemy'.

I know what you do "believe".

And it's not a matter of character.

it's a matter of content.

case is closed.

Edited by MID, 06 March 2012 - 01:09 AM.

[lost_shaman]

MID, on 06 March 2012 - 01:07 AM, said:

I know what you do "believe".

I'm quite sure you do not.

MID, on 06 March 2012 - 01:07 AM, said:

And it's not a matter of character.

it's a matter of content.

case is closed.

If that's the case then why do you not address "content" as opposed to making negative comments about my character?

For instance why have you still not answered psyche's question or my own asking you where and when you claim to have heard/read the OBV recording/transcript of the incident as opposed to continuing to talk about me?

Also as it relates to those questions, I've begun the process of contacting NASA to see what they say about the 'missing' OBV recordings from part of mission day 1 and all of mission day 2. So you may want to answer those questions and or clarify or retract your claim as it could be potentially quite embarassing to you depending on what NASA actually has to say about these OBV recordings.

[Pericynthion]

lost_shaman, on 05 March 2012 - 07:51 AM, said:

I just agreed to the numbers, but I don't think 450 miles is anything but a minimum. Can you show otherwise?

The key word here being "think."  You don't KNOW, you BELIEVE.  You've once again ignored the technical questions I asked.

lost_shaman, on 05 March 2012 - 07:51 AM, said:

We know the CSM-LM fired it's engines and altered it's orbit. The panel's did not. This what we've considered a minimum distance.  Thats my view cqb you show it to ve wrong?

You're handwaving to avoid answering my question.  You said, "No I've only pointed out these were a minimum distance and that true distances are assuradly quite a bit greater."  The 453 mile distance calculation you're referring to was already an attempt to account for the two CSM/LM maneuvers.  I asked you why you're so sure the true distances are quite a bit greater than that.  Your reply above completely avoids my question.

lost_shaman, on 05 March 2012 - 07:51 AM, said:

That's not true. Where have I done what you are saying?

You've been very dismissive in this thread of any opposing evidence you consider to be anecdotal.  In response to an absolutely true statement by MID that the Apollo separation & recontact studies required large-scale computer calculation, you posted:

lost_shaman, on 13 December 2011 - 01:58 AM, said:

That's just an anecdote that MID said.

In response to this NASA report:

Analysis not included in this report and presently in progress where potential recontact areas may exist includes aborts occurring during the translunar injection (TLI) phase of Apollo missions E, F, and G, midcourse corrections or maneuvering effects upon panel relative motion during Apollo missions F and G, and the post lunar orbit insertion (LOI) maneuver effects upon panel relative motion for Apollo E mission. These studies will be published as completed in later reports.
MSC INTERNAL NOTE NO. 68-FM-160, SLA Panel Jettison Separation and Recontact Analysis, p. 2

You posted:

lost_shaman, on 13 December 2011 - 03:44 AM, said:

Other than Anecdote, there is no evidence that NASA did any math either as recommended in the July '68 recontact analysis or after the Crew's debriefing.

You're basically accusing the report authors of lying about the work they said was "in progress" simply because you couldn't find the later reports online.

And then, of course, we have the crew statements.  Here are two statements by Neil Armstrong followed by your posted comments:

Armstrong Statement 1
"We should say that it was right at the limit of the resolution of the eye. It was very difficult to tell just what shape it was. And there was no way to tell the size without knowing the range or the range without knowing the size."
Apollo 11 Technical Crew Debriefing, p. 6-35

lost_shaman, on 18 November 2011 - 03:31 AM, said:

I'm not sure about that exact terminology useage or frequency by the crew, but they would certainly know how to describe an objects size. As such Armstrong's clarification that it was near the limit is very precise in that it means the Angular size was about 60 arcseconds or slightly above that.

Armstrong Statement 2
"We did watch a slow blinking light some substantial distance away from us. Mission Control eventually concluded--and I agree--that it was one of the Saturn LM Adapter panels."
First Man, Hansen, 2005, p. 431

lost_shaman, on 01 December 2011 - 08:06 AM, said:

What I have said is that no-ones ever seen any evidence other than anecdote that Mission control concluded it was an SLA Panel.

Two statements by a crewmember directly involved in the sighting.  In the statement you agree with, Armstrong is a well-qualified observer whose statement is absolutely reliable and "very precise."  In the second statement, Armstrong is so unreliable that you can't even trust his account of a basic post-mission event (that Mission Control looked into the sighting).  In other posts, you even discount his statment about the slow, blinking light.

This entire sighting is nothing but anecdote.  There is no data, just the crew's comments.  You've been very selective about which of those comments you consider reliable.

lost_shaman, on 01 December 2011 - 08:06 AM, said:

Yes that is what he was talking about when he said this was the case with all the missions except 17 which they could not observe.

<SNIP>

Well that didn't include TMO because weather only prevented TMO from observing apollo 17.

Show me a source which states that TMO observed Apollo 11 on the outbound leg.  James Young's site (link) only states, "During the Apollo program, I observed all of the lunar missions with the exception of Apollo 17, the last one, because of clouds at the observatory."  That says nothing at all about whether he made the observations on the outbound trip, the inbound trip, or both.

The November 1969 issue of "Sky and Telescope" contains an article documenting the recorded ground observations of Apollo 11.  I happen to own a copy of this issue.  It says:

This time, successful observations of the spacecraft were very few, for the moonward trajectory of Apollo 11 soon after it left its parking orbit was unfavorable for North American viewers. Weather conditions were generally poor.

The only observation listed for Table Mountain Observatory is a sighting of the inbound CSM on July 24 at 5:12-5:24 UT.  So, unless you have another source showing an outbound observation by TMO, I think your above comments are incorrect.

lost_shaman, on 01 December 2011 - 08:06 AM, said:

And your default position is that it must be a panel because you don't know where the pqnels where. At least I agreed with what other said because I can show panel doesn't fit the evidence.

I think you need to go back and review my posts on this topic over the past five years or so.  That's not my "default position" at all.  I don't know what the crew saw and I don't believe anything can be proven one way or the other.  Even if we could find an old NASA trajectory run that put a panel 10 miles from the spacecraft, it wouldn't prove anything.  It's entirely possible the crew could have been looking at some other object.  My only intent here is to try to show you that YOU haven't proved anything, either.  This is an orbital mechanics problem -- the details matter.  You don't know in which direction the panels were ejected, you don't know their velocity, and you're ignoring gravity, yet you're completely unable to explain why you can do this and still get a valid answer.