a vid of buzz aldren getting pissed at someone showing footage from a voyage, with him on it i think. and buzz threatens for a lawsuit after he leaves the interview....weird

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiVXd6lRUz0&NR=1

let me know what you think. its only like 2min

Mr. Sibrel is a fool. On September 9, 2002, filmmaker and journalist Bart Sibrel, a proponent that the six Apollo lunar missions were elaborate hoaxes, confronted Aldrin outside a Beverly Hills, California hotel, demanding that Aldrin either swear an oath on the Bible that he had walked on the Moon or admit that it was all a hoax.

After Aldrin and an unnamed female relative who was accompanying him tried to leave, Sibrel put the Bible in front of him and called Aldrin "a coward, a liar, and a thief". Imagine that, calling the second man on the moon a "coward, a liar, and a thief".

Aldrin punched Sibrel in the face and not hard enough if you ask me.

Beverly Hills police and the citys prosecutor declined to file charges.

who in the world can say he didnt walk on the moon? hes a HERO.

I agree with you 100% just wish I had a shot at him.

What it has come down to:

Some of the believers have "black listed" Buzz A. for one simple reason - He is NOT going to tell them what they want to hear. They are looking for a specific "truth" - if anyone does NOT support and help them find that "Truth" - they are "skeptics" - "debunkers" - "liars" - "Part of the Cover-Up" and any other ralationalization they can come up with.

Who has the problem w/the actual truth - some of the Believers - NOT the Skeptics.

This is seriously sad and really shows just how DESPERATE some believers have gotten because they simply cannot find the proof for "their truth". It's actually seriously SAD.

question.
how is swearing on a book going to prevent him form lying?
being the conspiracy buff i am, i'd say they could lie to the public about anything even under oath.
hell, O.J. Simpson did it.

besides, aren't all governmental officials Satanist anyways? [conspiracy theory 101]

I dont know if buzz ever saw anything strange in space, maybe he did. I dont really think it matters, as some astronauts have already come forward saying they have seen very strange objects in space. What some of these are, we just dont know.

I think Haz said it best...and of course Jj has a few choice comments.


This is a worn out, and deeply troubled profiteer named Bart Sibrel, whose legal difficulties precede him.
He is also a fool, who made crafty edited films to portray things that never happened.

His premise is to attempt to prove that Apollo was a hoax by posing as someone he is not, duping some astronauts into having interviews with him, getting them to become angry with him, editing the films of his interviews, editing the films that he has obtained of the missions, and creating something that does not exist: "evidence" of a hoax.

He does this dishonorable thing for a simple reason, profit. He plays upon the ignorance of a great deal of people, creates production pieces which dupe them, and of course they buy them, making him money.

That's all he is, a second rate movie producer, a liar, a charlatan, a harrasser, and a fool, who is making money on a joke.

After having the charges he made against Buzz Aldrin dismissed by a judge who viewed the tape of him harrassing an American icon, and after his arrest for illegal entry and harrassment when he accosted Neil Armstrong, and the legal troubles he's suffered since, he no longer makes these films, but still, he profits from the expenditures of the ignorant...

It's not going to prevent anyone from lying.
It was a ridiculous and immature ploy that Sibrel used.
Besides, several of the guys did swear on the bible, which was not something Sibrel banked on, thus, his stock reply was , "Well, I don't believe you anyway, you're a liar."

The only person lying in Sibrel's films is Sibrel.



I'm not sure...I'm sure some would agree with this. But in Buzz Aldrin, or any of the Apollo astronauts, we're not talking about Government officials. None of them are that.

I don't know that this thread has anything to do with Buzz seeing anything strange in space.

But just for your personal edification, he did. It was a UFO at the time (that means, unidentified flying object, not an alien craft). He confirmed it, as did the rest of the Apollo 11 crew when they saw it. What they saw was determined, right where trajectory showed it was supposed to be. They saw it because the sun's light reflected off of it at that place and time and cast a reflection toward them.

It was an SLA panel from their S4B stage, spining in space miles away from them. It was a non-event, and meant nothing.

what he said.



what he said.



what he said.



& what he said.



nuff said.

We all know about the panel, so its not a ufo ( and yes i do know what ufo means ) so when i say i dont know if buzz has seen anything strange in space, i mean just that., and not including the panel. I have never said that ufo's are ET, but i seem too be saying this all the time to some skeptics who seem to put me in that boat.

What i was saying( and i guess it was not for this thread) is people are crying out for buzz to tell the truth about ufos, while at the same time other astronauts have come forward to say that they have seen unexplained objects in space. Buzz is no more important than these other astronauts. Fake moon landing dont interest me, before i am 100% sure we went there.

Hey morrison1976,

I wouldn't go that far, we know that explanation has been offered but to my knowledge hasn't been confirmed publically. I look for that sort of thing often and it occurs to me that I've never seen a confirmation of this.

For instance why does no one quote the distance of the panel according to NASA?

If NASA actually said where the Panel was that is certainly the last thing anyones talking about! That is the 'evidence'! That should be readily accessible!

I can't just link to one of MID's posts where he states this as fact and consider the issue dead.

Good point
I thought it was official that it was the panel. Im gonna look more into the case now.

What kind of hat was Sibrel wearing? Obviously it wasn't a bowler because if he'd been wearing a bowler hat everyone would have been very civil and they would have learned a lot from each other.

I don't know of anyone who is "crying out" for Buzz to explain the truth about UFOs. He, more than anyone else has explained the UFO he saw.
The fact is, most every astronaut has seen one. It's a rather inconsequential matter.

He wasn't wearing one.
And, no matter if he was wearing a hat, even a bowler, it is highly unlikely that anyone would have learned more from him than they did from talking to him without the hat.

It has indeed been confirmed publically that one of the SLA panels was what they saw.

I think what you're looking for is a NASA mission report that declares this. It does not exist.



You would have to contact one of the guys in the trench in mission control from July 1969. These folks did the calculations of where these panels should be based upon a knowledge of their slight outward velocity relative to the flight path of the Apollo 11 spacecraft...sort of a fun exercise, nothing officially related to the mission plan.

The SLA panels were essentially the same distance along as the spacecraft was at the time...as I recall around 60 hours GET. Their lateral separation provided by jettison may have been as much as 5 FPS, which would've placed the panels as much as 200 miles laterally from the spacecraft at that time.



They projected where it should be, but it's not to be found anywhere I know of officially. The reason for this is that it was an inconsequential matter, and a curiousity more than anything else. The crew saw this thing on and off for about an hour that day, and the issue was dropped and the crew went to sleep. There is no offical data available on this because the SLA panels could not be tracked. They did not have transponders attached to them.

No one was concerned about it, it had nothing to do with mission plans or safety, it was quickly determined what it most likely was, and the crew went to sleep, because they had a hell of a couple days with alot of work ahead of them that had a little more importance than the sighting of a piece of vehicle off in the distance.


Now, you can paint any picture you want from this non-event, but the fact is it was a curiousity that was never thought about again...rather naturally, given the import of what this crew was about to do over the next couple days.

Logic, a little math, and rational thinking quickly pointed to what it was.
Otherwise, NASA didn't care about it one bit.

No evidence is necessary concerning a matter of no consequence.

Well, maybe you should look more into that.



But its still not official, and what i saw, and have read, he said it could have been.



How is it of no importance! I would sure as hell like to know what some of these astronauts have seen. Considering that some of these objects are still unexplained.

Right, MID that is exactly what I thought. Your statments of FACT on this matter are nothing but hearsay.

Not only that, but the seperation would have been much greater than simply 200 miles because of the Seperation Manuever and Midcourse corrections.

Hearsay implies unsubstantiated material.
This is not hearsay, it is the product of rational, logical thought. The panels were there. The sighting was in the area where they were projected to be based upon their lateral delta V at jettison, and the result is simply reasonable, provided by experts.

It is an educated guess. In the absence of anything else, that is the explanation.



Perhaps, but "much"?
Perhaps you know how many MCCs were actually executed during the trans-lunar phase of Apollo 11 and could provide me with the delta V's, the vectors relative to REFSSMAT, and the precise times of these burns...then supply the calculations which would show me the definition of "much"?


Hint...(The MCCs made a difference in the for-aft distance, one way or another, not the lateral separation, which I gave you based on a rough estimate of the possible lateral velocity of the SLA panels).




Morrison,
just because you would sure as hell like to know, does not mean anyone who actually participated in the mission considers this of any consequence. Believe me, they did not, and do not.

It is not a consequential matter to anyone who was involved with executing Apollo 11. It is consequential to those who wish beyond wishing that there's a coverup of alien life being perpetrated by someone.

Yes, i want to know, just like many people. If something is unexplained, to the point where even the astronauts dont have a clue what they saw, then, to me, it is important. You might want to discard these unexplained cases, but i don't. That does not mean its ET, but people still take some sort of interest, rather than waste there time dismissing the ET explanation.



Oh dear. I dont believe its ET, and i wont until i see the proof that it is ET. At the moment they are ufos, and there is more than enough evidence, in documents alone that some of these cases were covered up in the past. Because some people dont agree with some skeptics views, does not mean they believe that its a ET cover-up. Thats just putting words in peoples mouths.

Remember MID, your the one making the claim here. Why don't you just admit that You have no idea where the panels were in relation to the CSLM! Admit that NASA has never said where the Panels where.

As for being of no consequence to anyone, that wouldn't be true considering that Aldrin keeps talking about this specific event!

Curiousity is fine, of course. But in this case, there are no astronauts, or anyone else involved, who are questioning what they saw.



That may be true of you morrison, but let's face it, we're in the UFO / ET section here. Most people make the connection.
I understand where you're coming from. You're curious about it. That's fine. But there's really no other explanation available than the one given. It makes the most sense, and the hardware present, and knowledge of their approximate trajectories relative to the spacecraft supports it.

There may well be people "investigating it", but they're going to be disappointed at finding no other plausible resultant.

I am making no claim. I am telling you what the explanation was, and why. I have an idea where the panels should've been, and the folks who did the calculations knew a bit more closely. It fit the observation.

I also told you NASA made no mention of it, because it wasn't relevant to anything. Are you listening? I don't know how else to tell you that a non-event merits no mention.

I note that you avoided my queries.

Apollo 11 made 1 MCC at 26 hours GET, which added 21.2 FPS. This means, provided equal deceleration to the SLA panels, which were on different trajectories, that the panels may have been as far as 400+ miles behind the spacecraft, as well as some 200 miles abeam, given a 5 FPS lateral delta. This would place the panel some 420 miles away on a line. This is not a really complex thing to calculate. Still an insignificant thing, and of course the crew wouldn't know if it was behind them, or abeam, sicne they were oriented "nose up" relative to the flight path, and rolling 3 times per hour. It was just some object off to their side that they observed for about an hour one day.

It's really a matter of Newtonian mechanics. It's pretty simple.




I also have told you precisely who this matter is significant to.
You are one of them.

As to Buzz, it is no secret that I have said, more than once, that he tends at times to talk too much. I'm not sure why that is, but I have a theory. Nonetheless, what Buzz does talk about is the fact that they did see a UFO. He has also explained, rather ineffectively to some it seems, exactly what this UFO was and how it was determined that this thing was the object they saw.

At the time of Apollo 11, perhaps fortunately, there was no mention of it at all...because Neil Armstrong was in command of the spacecraft, and he did all the talking, discreetly, so as to not inflame the UFO people into a firestorm of alien craziness. The rest of the crew certainly agreed with this, but in subsequent years, Buzz has decided to talk about it....I think in an effort to explain it to people so they understand.

Neil and Mike haven't mentioned it at all, save Neil in his biography, which was short, to the point, and clear.

Once Buzz publicly talks about it, people keep asking. I don't think they believe him (duh!), and of course, I know who the type of person who doesn't is.

Every time I hear Buzz say something like, "Well, you could say we saw a UFO, and you'd be technically correct in doing so..." I cringe. He's correct of course, but it seems to play right into the hands of those who equate the term to aliens. They hear not another word he says and some of those people start threads like this one...people who won't listen to the story and realize what he's actually talking about.

Seriously, everyone, just put on your bowler hats and you'll all be magically considerate.

Right, MID your not making a claim because you live in a fantasy world where statments like this..."It has indeed been confirmed publically that one of the SLA panels was what they saw." is not a claim!

No, in fact by your own admission this is a logical Educated guess! You make no distinction between guess, fact, logic, claim, and assumption!



Great, so wouldn't it be nice if I could cite these calculations rather than cite MID asserting this as FACT on UM?




Fine so it was such a non-event that somwone spent time figuring it out and instead of going public they TOLD MID all about it and forgot to mention it to lost_shaman?

Why should anyone believe you if all you can do is say "It happened"?





MID, get a grip on reality!

I'm questioning your position, it's hilarious to think that your accusing me of avoiding your questions!





Hold up... What are you talking about "equal deceleration to the SLA panels"?

Explain to us how that works or are you just talking nonsense?








Well MID, that is amazing considering your last quote was that the panel was 200 miles away!!!

I mean which is it? I'm "listening" and hearing two completely different quotes from you!





Of course not! We don't know if we are talking 200 miles or 420 miles but it's certainly easily calculated by MID.




Sure, and I imagine you consider that to be consistent with an SLA Panel that was present the entire time?





Wow! Your right I am one of 'them' who have an interest in the UFO Phenomena.

If the UFO Phenomena bothers you so much maybe you should refrain from speaking about Scieintific Topics your not familiar with!



No, he tends to talk about UFO's! That is not 'talking to much' that is 'talking'!







I bet! You've most likely never considered that maybe people see UFO's(UAP)?






Of course you don't believe him because your world view ( that UFO's don't exist) does not allow it!

Ok, I will let MID speak to the rest - since I know I've read that he addressed all of your Q's in earlier threads. Sigh.....

But I will address this: I know for certain that I can speak for MID - Lilly and the other branded "skeptics"...

UFO's are NOT THE FRACKING QUESTION HERE!!! WE ALL HAVE TOLD AT LEAST A GOOD DOZEN TIME AND MORE - WE ACCEPT AND BELIEVE IN THE EXISTANCE OF UFO'S!! GEESH PEOPLE GET IT WILL YOU!!! HOW MANY MANY MANY TIMES DOES THIS NEED TO BE SAID???????????

UFO's we have zero problems with - ZERO.... so please, please, pretty please, pretty please w/sugar on top and a cherry: Never question our thoughts on UFO's.

Thank You ......




o o O O ( I know we will have to say this again MID, Lilly, et all... I know they see, but do not understand......)

Yes, most of us know that a ufo is just that, a ufo. And some of us know that ufo does not mean ET. I am intersted in ufo's, but that does not mean i believe they are ET. It does not mean i have to agree with some dumb explanations that some skeptics put forward. Many times on here i have had skeptics say that i believe in " little green men" just because i do not take there view on what some of these ufo's are. I get sick and tired having to say over and over again that i do not believe these ufos are Alien, but i believe it could be possible i some cases. There is a huge difference.

Some skeptics on this site are more interested in proving the UFO= ET is rubbish, so much that they are really missing the point. Only one or two skeptics on this site would actually admit that certain cases, movies or photos are unexplained, even after being annalyzed.

The sad thing is the ufo subject is suffering because some people are not looking at the subject as something strange, when clearly it is. Its not hard to gather information from the web, books, or decent documentries to see that some ufos are very strange indeed, and need futher investigation. But like i said, some people are to wrapped up trying to prove there is no evidence that ET is here, when ufo's are just as big, if not bigger when it comes to mystery thats def needs looking in too.

You might want to re-read these earlier threads then.







I'm not talking about 'skeptics' at all. I'm 'skeptical' as anyone else.




Simply saying UFO's exist, and acting like UFO's don't fit into your worldview are two different things Jj.

Lost - talk about people not reading. I know MID has stated UFO exist and they ARE THERE! I know Lilly has too! I also know for a FACT that I have also and even stated that I HAVE SEEN SOME!

The line is - where people start to IDENTIFY UFO's w/out proof. They use a 'fuzzy logic'.

As for NASA not talking about the Panel, 'because it wasn't worth it' - is valid. NASA does NOT have time to deal w/the Conspiracy Idiots out there. If they did, they wouldn't get any actualy work done! I mean, they didn't address the "no stars" in the "we didn't go to the Moon." Why, because it was/would have been a total waste of time and energy. There are a lot of things NASA does NOT address simply put - why waste time with idiots?????

They know what it was, Buzz and the crew of Apollo 11 knew what it was - there simply was NO question. It wasn't worth the time or energy to 'go into it'. Why? Because the idiots would NOT have believed it anyways - it's just that simple. It's stated that some skeptics debunk to simply debunk. Well the same can be said for believers of conspiracy theories. They will NOT believe the truth if it's in 'black and white' - so why bother, why waste the time and energy??

Idiots are simply NOT worth the waste of time - because that's what it would be, a total waste of time. Got better things to do w/their time and energy and money.

Who's not reading? Where in this thread have I said one thing about you or Lilly?

The only thing I was talking about was MID's assertion of FACT, when in actuallity NASA has never said a word about the location of the SLA Panel.






That's not valid, Jj, the subject of UAP is not a 'Conspiracy'!

Is Buzz Aldrin a conspiracy thoerists because he keeps talking about this 'UFO' he saw?




See now your making the same unsubstantiated claim MID keeps making.





Now is that a NASA FACT, can you post a link so I can look that up?

Or is that just your opinion?

Lilly I'm sorry for using your name - please forgive me and ignore this thread if you wish. I do humbly apologize. I will NOT do this again... Jj.

Lost!....

Buzz stated what it was in a number of interviews. It's on public record, audio, video and printed form. He told us what it was... Where is the problem there???
In fact I happen to know on some prior threads on UM, we have Buzz's words about the whole thing. What more do you need? (Him to take an oath on the Bible?)

I would present a "logic" here -
Since Buzz gave a first hand NASA Astronaut POV on this - I think NASA is happy w/it or they would have offered their own explination to it. How can I say that?
As a sub-con, I work for a few companies and organizations. Because of some of the stuff I do - I am authroized to 'speak for them' in the area of my expertise. So when I say, "such and such....", unless the company/organization disagrees w/me - they except my statements as speaking for them. They will not offer 'ditto' when 'ditto' is a waste of time.

Buzz knew what he was talking about, HE WAS THERE! NASA likely excepts that and as the companies I work for - were apparently fine w/his explination of the situation and saw/see no real reason to waste time on it.

In fact, in one of the company staff meetings I atttended, after I spoke on their behalf, the president of the company stated, "Jj - said it well to the group. I see no further reason to dwell on this, let's move on", and we did to the next topic on the table. This is NOT an uncommon practice in the business world - just ask anyone that has been or is there. People do not major in the minors and/or on things that have been 'taken care of'.

At this point - only idiots are carrying on this Apollo 11 UFO - it's not even close to be headline news or tabloid news at this point. WHY? Because it's a 'dead horse' that some feel the need to beat a little bit more... Why? I have no serious clue.

Ok I have kept quite on this one as long as I can first of all Buzz never said he saw an ufo he was taken out of context and it was made to sound like he thought it was a ufo.

I just talked to Buzz Aldrin on the phone, and he notes that the quotations were taken out of context and did not convey the intended meaning. After the Apollo 11 crew verified that the object they were seeing was not the SIVB upper stage, which was about 6000 miles away at that time, they concluded that they were probably seeing one of the panels from the separation of the spacecraft from the upper stage. These panels were not tracked from Earth and were likely much closer to the Apollo spacecraft. They chose not to discuss this on the open communications channel since they were concerned that their comments might be misinterpreted (as they are being now). Apparently all of this discussion about the panels was cut from the broadcast interview, thus giving the impression that they had seen a UFO.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/firstonthemoon.html

That's a rather precise summary of what I said...The issue has gone beyond all reasonability as a discussion point.
They did in fact see a UFO...until it was determined that it was no longer a UFO.

The definition of the term UFO seems to be erroneously associated with aliens these days (it was then, in 1969 as well...thus, the silence). The actual meaning of the term is really a mental block for some folks.


lost...

If you want official NASA confirtmation and all this technical detail proving this was an SLA panel, you have my best wishes. It was more or less scraps of paper tossed in the waste can. That's about how much value the situation had.


You seem to be forgetting what Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins, and Buzz Aldrin were preparing to do...and indeed where they were on July 18, 1969. The sighting was a curiousity, and nothing more. They went to sleep quickly after watching this thing for an hour...maybe, and they slept well by all accounts...which is amazing; not because they'd just seen a UFO, but because they were about to enter orbit around the Moon and attempt the first landing on its surface.


That may seem to be small potatoes relative to seeing a UFO, but I guarantee you, since just about every space traveler had (and has) seen one...IT WASN'T OF ANY CONCERN.

Because deep down inside somewhere...this SLA panel isn't a proven fact. There's no official NASA report on it...no data, no nothing.
That means it's still a mystery to some (not to any NASA folks)...and to many, so long as its not proven NOT to be an alien...it still has the possibility of being one!

And that's compelling stuff...despite the inherent lunacy which presents in the face of reason and logic.


p.s., by July 19, 1969...it was already a dead horse. Those guys, and everyone in Houston, were a wee pre-occupied then.

No problem at all. Hey, I've publically stated (more than once) that I've seen a UFO.

O.k. so where are you getting your information then?

To just say "oh it's common knowledge" doesn't cut the mustard.

Here let me ask you again, if NASA knew it was an SLA Panel since 1969, then why was it said to be the Upper Stage S-IVB for years?

James Oberg writes in 1982...

"The crew did indeed report to earth about another tiny object they watched through their monocular. To some of the astronauts, it looked cylindrical, just like their spent rocket stage which was known to be pacing them in a parallel orbit. Said Armstrong, "It was right at the limit of resolution of the eye; it was very difficult to tell just what shape it was." NASA's reasonable assumption was that it was indeed the rocket stage, since it was behaving just like a rocket stage should; other Apollo flights had reported much the same thing." - (emphasis mine)

http://www.debunker.com/texts/apollo11.html


Funny that NASA's opinion in 1982 accourding to Oberg is that the object seen was the spent S-IVB stage. Seems silly if NASA knew it was Panel since 1969. (Did Oberg simply fail to actually find out what NASA opinion was?)

Also Dr. David Baker had this to say on the Science Channel's Apollo 11 Documentary.

"There were a lot of people within the program who went off later and became convinced that UFOs existed and
that lead to some concern on NASA's part where they got the agreement of the crew never to publicly talk about these things
for fear of ridicule."

Again this seems like something nonsensical to say if 'everyone' at NASA knew this was simply an SLA Panel.

ARE YOU CRAZY?!?!?!?!?!? The Gloves worn by the killer did not fit OJ, if they don't fit, you must acquit...OJ WAS FOUND INNOCENT BY A JURY....

Well, it's certainly possible that Jim is wrong about the specific identity or is just being overly vague. The SLA panels were indeed a part of a spent rocket stage. The bottom line is that it really doesn't matter. He's saying basically the same thing MID has told you and the same thing that I'm telling you now: The crew of Apollo 11 almost certainly saw nothing more than some discarded piece of their own mission hardware.

Whether it was an SLA panel, the S-IVB, or a piece of insulation shed from the spacecraft isn't really the critical issue here. The object in question didn't appear or behave in any way that would indicate it was anything unusual. It DID appear and behave in a manner perfectly consistent with a discarded/shed piece of the Apollo 11 mission hardware:

1) It didn't appear to move relative to the spacecraft, indicating that it was on a trajectory very similar to that of the Apollo spacecraft.

2) It didn't maneuver or show any indication of being in powered flight or under any sort of control.

3) It was small enough or far enough away that it's shape and size couldn't be determined with any accuracy. The only observations from the crew indicated that it seemed to be a bit "L-shaped" or "open-book" shaped -- nothing exotic or terribly unusual.

4) It appeared to be tumbling.

5) In the Apollo Technical Crew Debriefing report, the crew gives no indication that they thought this thing was anything but something from their own mission.



There's absolutely no evidence here that this thing was anything unusual, so why do you suspect that this event is some sort of sighting that's being covered up? Consider that this event really didn't attract any attention from the UFO community until the publication of the crew debriefing. If this event really was some unusual sighting that NASA didn't want to publicize, why would they they publish any mention of it in the debriefing document? The crew interviews were private sessions, not a public press conference, so NASA had complete control over any information to be released.

Everything about this incident seems perfectly consistent with the crew seeing some bit of their own mission hardware which they couldn't immediately identify. An SLA panel seems to me to be a good candidate, and MID's comments indicate that the flight controllers felt the same. Why should I believe that this event was anything more exotic?

You see the thing is Pericynthion, I'm perfectly capable of researching this and other events myself. I don't need MID to 'tell me' what happened. That is actually where my objection stems from and that is why I led my last post off by asking MID where he got his information. My objection is toward the statment of FACT being made, where NASA has never said this was a FACT.











The critical question is was it any of those things. There are certainly things to be seen that are not part of the spacecrafts that we send up.





That's a problem the S-IVB and SLA Panels would have certainly been in motion relative to CSM-LM.

Also if we want to get technical UAP often pace aircraft, so technically that could also be considered consistent with a UAP. Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that what was seen was a UAP/AOP just making the technical point.





Don't forget it was also described as a "hollow cylinder".

Another problem, the S-IVB was to far away to be seen with the Human eye, I suspect the same is true for the SLA Panels that are even smaller than the S-IVB.




Just to be clear, I didn't say it was being cover up. My issue is the statment of FACT that it was an SLA Panel, something that NASA has never publically stated.



Like I said above I'm not saying it was covered up. Also no-one but the crew knew about until the debriefing.






Again I'd like to know where MID is getting his information. Is this some inside information? If so it's only equivalent to hearsay. You see I can't just link to one of MID's posts on this incident and use that as evidence when this case comes up again.

Oh, OK.
Where did I get my information? How do I know this stuff?

Lost_...I know a little something about this stuff. I was around back then. Yes, it's "inside". And of course, it's only equivalent to heresay in that you don't know about it because it wasn't made public in the official records...save for what the technical debrief described...which wasn't a heck of alot.

I recall the converation way back when being, "I hear they saw something?" "Yea, abeam." What was it?" "We think it was an SLA panel...trajectory did a little figuring, no one wanted to say much about it because of UFOs and all that."

(...there's a private channel for use when you don't want to have the whole world talking about the fact you're sick or something like that (UFOs, etc...))

Passing conversation kind of stuff.


You're right...you can't link to any of my posts, because, as I say, it was just minor stuff. You're not going to find a detailed technical report on it...complete with calculations and proof. That doesn't exist to my knowledge.

If you didn't need me to tell you what happened, why all this stuff?

You can find all the information that's necessary on this topic...which, as I said, is really a non-topic as pertains to Apollo 11.

It was, essentially, a non-event. That's how it was perceived, that's how NASA characterized it, and that's why I say Buzz talks too much about it..


(He likes being heard...but that UFO thing makes people crazy when he says it...he was always a very different guy from Neil, who never talks about it...because it was nothing to talk about).

Not if the SLA panels are advancing at relatively the same speed as the Apollo 11 spacecraft (which they were , sans a few FPS). The Sun's light reflects pretty well from a few hundred miles away in vacuum. The S4B was 6000 miles behind the Apollo 11 craft, because of retrograde fuel venting performed some time earlier. The panels had no such impulse imparted to them, and they were much closer.






They were....The SLA panels were outbound laterally at a small speed, but moving along with them relatively along them direction of their course, and the S4B was in a completely different solar orbit, well behind them. There was no way for the crew to perceive any relative motion between them. It was more-or-less, just there, and then, due to sun angles of incidence and reflection, gone....



Visual perception, though a low power monocular, can lead to many perceptions.

The S4B has nothing to do with this observation. It was out of range. The SLA panels were much, much closer.

That would have been true only up until 26:40 GET with the MCC-2 burn that according to the transcripts slowed the CSM-LM down from 5033 fps to 4984 fps, that is 49 fps differential between the SLA Panels and CSM-LM right there.

The anomalous observation happened at 60:47 GET, so thats 34:07 hours. At 49 fps at 122,820 seconds give a separation of 1,139.8 nautical miles.

I've also seen the deceleration of MCC-2 quoted as 20.9 fps (Mission report), with the same times as above, that gives a separation of 486.16 nautical miles.

So your idea here that the SLA Panels are moving along with the CSM-LM with only a "small speed" "outbound laterally" is not correct. The Midcourse correction imparted a fairly significant impusle to the CSM-LM that the Panels didn't have leading to an adittional seperation of hundreds of miles simply from that manuever alone. So the MCC-2 would have sent the Panels flying off into space relative to the CSM-LM. There is no way to get around that fact.

MID,

I appreciate that you were there and worked for NASA at the time. I appreciate everyone that has ever worked for NASA for that matter.

Just to be clear my only interest here is anomalous observations, you have yourself admitted these are common. I don't have a grudge with NASA or any NASA employee's. I'm a fan of NASA with an interest in anomalous observations.

I think you and I tend to clash because IMO it seems like you think that anomalous observations are the bane of NASA's existence, which I consider unfortunate. Having seen a UAP myself, I happen to know that some of the most interesting things that exist in our solar system have only been vaguely described scientifically.

Note that Ball lightning and UAP have very similar characteristics and that Ball Lightning certainly represents cutting edge physics! There is a Scientific interest in looking at anomalous observations even in NEO and beyond because of this. It's not something that is going to go away, in fact it's gaining lots of steam in Europe. It's interesting that across the pond people see something Scientifically interesting and they study it. Go figure.







It's not hearsay because I don't know about it, it's hearsay because as you said it was a "Passing conversation".

Have you ever been a part of the classic experiment where one person whispers to the next and so forth and at the end of the line the last person is saying something completely different that the phrase meant to be communicated? That is the same reason we can't use "Passing conversation" as evidence. I don't mean any offense but that only tells us about rumors about this event spreading through the NASA workforce.

Just think if we were not talking about the dreaded UFO/UAP/AOP, A.K.A. the BAIN of NASA's existence, but just a regular event/incident and you offered your "passing conversation". I'd thank you for your time and hand you my card and send you on your way.





As I pointed out above "minor stuff" in 1969 potentially represents something of interest to cutting edge physics today. Thus the interest.






That's your opinion but I think you have a phobia towards UFOs/UAP and that your basically making a character assassination of Aldrin for speaking about something you personally cant stand.

Again no offense but that's my opinion.

No, it is correct. Their lateral separation velocity was essentially constant, and small. I said that the MCC would provide a velocity away from the panels. I don't really understand why this is important.

p.s. MCC2 was actually a three axis maneuver, with three different velocity vectors. It lost speed in X, and gained velocity in Y and Z. All told, the positives added up to 20.8 FPS. But again...that's not really relevant. The panels were some hundreds of miles distant, and one of them was visible for a short time to the crew.





Lost...

I have no phobia about UFOs/UAP. I know what they are, I've seen them myself, almost every pilot has, including astronauts.
What I can't stand is the erroneous association of the terms with aliens. That is unfortunately something that's been going on for decades, and something which has taken the acronym(s) and rendered it useless, and inflamatory. I am also quite unimpressed with the idea that no matter how many times it's explained that "UFO" doesn't have, nor was ever intended to have anything to do with little green (or grey) men, and alien life--that some people will not let that stand, and must probe and annoy us with incessant banter about insignificant artifact observed from flying machines.

Good Lord, if you happened to see the waste water dumps, broadcast live from Atlantis this afternoon...you'd be seeing an armada of aliens floating about in space above the earth...a spectacular sight...but just water (and someone, someday, will find that video and put it on an alien UFO thread screaming for an explanation they won't believe).

In fact, the Mission Management Group will this very evening be discussing UFOs floating about near the ISS and captured on film this morning. But they will not be discussing it's potential alien origin. They'll be picking everyone's brain to perhaps come up with an explanation for it... a piece of ice, and piece of thermal covering, whatever... I hope that film isn't discovered by someone hell-bent on aliens...the discussion will be oriented toward a determination, if possible, of the potential safety considerations whatever-it-is might pose.


At any rate, this erroneous alien/UFO assoctation is what irks me. That's what I can't stand. And that has nothing to do with the fact that I thoroughly expect that alien life has to exist.


I have never assasinated Buzz's character in any way. I merely said he talks too much about the UFO. The fact is, his explanations of it have gone un-heard, because of the ridiculous association of the term UFO with aliens.

Buzz is all-too-willing to talk about things and use that term today. Someone asks him about it, and he says something like, "Well, technically,you could say we saw a UFO..."

...and that's where it ends. The interviewer doesn't hear the rest, which is something like this...


"...but we didn't use that term, and are reticent to use it today because it immediately conjures up the image of little-green-men. It was technically an unidentified flying object at the moment we saw it, but it didn't take long to determine that it had to be a piece of our vehicle."


What happens is that a furor starts over the Apollo 11 UFO, and all this other nonsense springs up about it.

Buzz is absolutely correct in what he says. I just think he ought to know better than to mention the term in this day and age. His explanations, as correct as they are, aren't heard.

I say he talks too much about it, and that's not a character assassination. That's a ludicrous idea. It's a statement of fact. Buzz is a very smart man, and a brilliant space scientist...but one should think carefully about what one says, no matter what one's status.

You won't find Neil Armstroing talking about UFOs...even the one he saw.
And of course, Neil isn't the subject of alot of alien/UFO scrutiny...precisely because he's quiet about an event that merits no discussion, and fully understands what can happen in this day-and-age when one talks about this stuff...no matter how well intentioned.


It was an SLA panel from the S4B LM cover. Everyone involved came to that conclusion 38 years ago. It was inconsequential, undocumented, and irrelevant to the mission at hand, which was about to become, at the time, the greatest achievement in human history.


Who cares what they saw out the window on July 18, 1969? They didn't. They went to sleep right after observing this thing. At 8:30 am EDT the next morning they woke up and were intently busy getting ready to make-or-break it by entering lunar orbit. That next night, at about midnight, they all went to sleep, the Moon 60 miles below out their windows-- for about 7 hours, and they awoke to what would, for Armstrong and Aldrin, be an approximately 21 hour day where they made history...

They never thought about the observation again until they were back on Earth. And all they ever said about it was noted in the Technical Debrief on 7-31-69....it occupies a couple paragraphs of the report which was 156 pages long.

How much import do you think this thing really has?


It occupies perhaps 3/10% of the debrief. It was a no-thing.

In this matter, I echo the sentiments put forth in the Kansas piece, Magnum Opus:

"This foolish game, oh it's still the same.
The notes go flying in the air.
And don't you believe it's true,
music is all for you...
It's really all we got to share.

"Cause rockin and a rollin',
it's only howlin' at the Moon.

It's only howling at the Moon."


It's only howlin' at the Moon....

Great that's the end of of it then. Tell us what UAP are.

Too infinity and beyond indeed...


I can't believe he got that angry about that and barely batted an eye lid at Ali G.

Stuff that you see in the air, for which you cannot provide an identification. Considered a new term for U.F.O., and generally favored by extra-teresstrial watchers...although I fail to see the relevance.
I think that is the end of it.

Do you believe that some of these ufo's are A phenomona we dont understand at the moment, and that they need further investigation?