Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Homan34

NASA Astronaut Confirms Apollo UFO Incident 2

1,027 posts in this topic

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?

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.

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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'.

:rolleyes:

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:rolleyes:

I know what you do "believe".

I'm quite sure you do not.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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:

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:

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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.

I've addressed your question in part when psyche and I discussed Kepler's Laws on this thread.

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:

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:

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.

That's not true Peri. I didn't say they were lying at all! I believe those reports were never concluded because there was no recontact problem except for one TLI abort scenario IIRC.

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

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

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.

Yes that's true because there is zero evidence for what he is saying, just as there is zero evidence that MID's statment that the Mainframe computer was used to calculate the position of SLA panels is true. The Mainframes were needed to calculate when to fire engines to achieve the greatest fuel effeciency.

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.

Yeah I have. What is wrong with that? Anecdotes are not inherently wrong, but nor are they equal. Logic plays a role. For example, when was a comment made, who made it, can it be verified, can the comment be falsified(?).

On the otherhand is it not true that most true statements began as anecdote until independently verified?

Did an apple really fall? Or did Issac Newton make that up? Logic can not tell us what really is the case, but many anecdotes don't fall into this 'unknown' category.

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.

I don't agree. He is saying that TMO observed all the Apollo missions except Apollo 17 due to cloud cover. I've looked at some weather maps and didn't see anything that suggests TMO didn't observe Apollo 11.

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.

I don't agree and here is why... James Young says that the panels always increased there distance from the CSM-LM on every mission as it itself increased its distance from Earth except Apollo 17 which they did not observe which was not observed because of clouds.

Can you prove that James Young is lying?

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.

I haven't ignored those things. We've discussed these things here in the thread to an extent. And I've never been claiming some mathematical proof, I've said the minimum distances that everyone agreed to can be shown to be to far for the optics to have resolved as per the crews comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Dear God...the same stuff contuinues.

:rolleyes:

Edited by MID

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear God...the same stuff contuinues.

:rolleyes:

Shhh ! let-em at it Mid ! theres got to be a world record in the making ! :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFE0tyx4QRY

115:03:24 Mitchell: Well, let's see...We've had visitors again.

115:03:28 Shepard: Yeah. Hardly worth mentioning.

115:03:33 Mitchell: Agree. (Pause)

:ph34r:

Idk if somebody already noticed it and pointed it out or if this video is legit, but at 1:26 there's something that moves from the astronauts to the left:-/ I can't really tell what it is.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Idk if somebody already noticed it and pointed it out or if this video is legit, but at 1:26 there's something that moves from the astronauts to the left:-/ I can't really tell what it is.....

Hi Cotton,

Yep, that video is legitimate. It shows Al Shepard and Ed Mitchell setting up their MET (Modular Equipment Transporter), which is just a fancy name for what was basically a two-wheeled tool cart that the crew could pull around with them. I'm pretty sure the thing you see flying off screen to the left is an insulation blanket that was covering the cart while it was stored in the lunar module. The crew had to unwrap the MET as they put it together and one of the guys just pitched the blanket off to the side to get rid of it.

P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree. He is saying that TMO observed all the Apollo missions except Apollo 17 due to cloud cover. I've looked at some weather maps and didn't see anything that suggests TMO didn't observe Apollo 11.

Hi LS,

Yes, Mr. Young says he observed all of the flights except for 17. He DOESN'T say anything about how many times or on which specific days he saw them. According to the Sky and Telescope article I referenced in my last post, TMO did indeed observe Apollo 11 -- on July 24 at 5:12-5:24 UT as the CSM was returning to earth. Just for reference, here's the introduction to that article:

A systematic campaign to secure visual and photographic observations of the Apollo 11 spacecraft during its July journey to the moon was organized by J.O. Cappellari, Jr., and W.I. McLaughlin of Bellcomm, Inc., Washington, D.C. Before the launching on July 16th, they distributed detailed predictions to a network of about 200 amateur and professional astronomers, including many members of the American Association of Variable Star Observers.

<snip>

Here are the positive Apollo 11 observations, extracted from a summary by Drs. Cappellari and McLaughlin.

Sky and Telescope, November 1969, p. 358

As I said above, the only positive observation listed for James Young at TMO is a single sighting near the end of the mission. Do you have a source listing any other observations by TMO?

I don't agree and here is why... James Young says that the panels always increased there distance from the CSM-LM on every mission as it itself increased its distance from Earth except Apollo 17 which they did not observe which was not observed because of clouds.

Can you prove that James Young is lying?

No, I don't think James Young is lying at all. I think you're interpreting his statements incorrectly and I think you're drawing conclusions that aren't supported by currently available evidence. You're trying to use these statements to prove that the SLA panels were too far away, but Mr. Young doesn't even mention an actual distance. So how far did the distance increase? Was it 1 mile, 10 miles, 1000 miles? It could be any of these. You need more quantitative information before you can use these observations in any sort of meaningful way.

That's not true Peri. I didn't say they were lying at all! I believe those reports were never concluded because there was no recontact problem except for one TLI abort scenario IIRC.

I don't think you were intentionally accusing the authors of lying, but that's the only way your statement could be true. The authors wrote that the additional work was already being done, but you said they never did it. If they didn't actually do it, then they must've been lying about it in their report. I'm not sure where you're getting the bit about not having a potential recontact problem. This report is very clear that additional analysis was required. Here's the same quote I referenced my last post. I've reformatted the text a bit to add numbers to the list of scenarios requiring additional work:

Analysis not included in this report and presently in progress where potential recontact areas may exist includes

1) aborts occurring during the translunar injection (TLI) phase of Apollo missions E, F, and G,

2) midcourse corrections or maneuvering effects upon panel relative motion during Apollo missions F and G,

3) 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 (altered formatting)

The "F" and "G" missions would become Apollo 10 and 11, respectively. The "E" mission was never flown. It would've been a high Earth orbit test of the lunar module.

Yes that's true because there is zero evidence for what he is saying, just as there is zero evidence that MID's statment that the Mainframe computer was used to calculate the position of SLA panels is true. The Mainframes were needed to calculate when to fire engines to achieve the greatest fuel effeciency.

Wow. That's just completely incorrect. Please take a look at this:

The use of separable spacecraft modules or components for the Apollo Program required the development of procedures and maneuvers to ensure a safe and proper separation. The analysis included nonnominal situations to reduce the possibility of accidental recontact or collision should a contingency occur. The recontact could have occurred during the actual separation or ejection process or subsequently during the resulting relative motion of the separated components. The analysis required the use of three- and six-degree-of-freedom computer programs so that all Apollo separation sequencing could be fully and accurately simulated. To better understand the complexity of the problem and the system modeling required to perform the analysis, the following separation events are given in the order of occurrence during a typical lunar landing mission:

1. The launch escape tower (LET) from the command and service module (CSM)

2. The CSM from the SLA panels and the Saturn IVB (S-IVB)

3. The SLA panels from the S-IVB

4. The LM from the S-IVB

5. The service module (SM) scientific instrument module (SIM) bay door from the CSM

6. The CSM from the LM

7. The LM ascent stage from the LM descent stage

8. The LM from the CSM

9. The subsatellite from the CSM

10. The experiment instrument booms from the CSM

11. The docking ring and probe adapter from the CSM

12. The CM from the SM

One of the primary problems that had to be solved was the inadequacy of the available three- and six-degree-of-freedom computer programs to provide the simulation capability required to analyze the many Apollo separation events. Therefore, the evolution of the required simulation capabilities was important to the overall experience gained from the Apollo Program in the separation study effort.

Originally, the computer simulation capability was a multivehicle, three degree-of-freedom program that had been modified to perform simple separation studies. To increase the efficiency in running general parametric studies, separation computer programs to be run on an analog computer system were developed in mid-1966. Late in 1966, the analog capability evolved into a hybrid computer concept in which the advantages of a digital and analog system were combined into one computer. In mid-1967, a detailed review of the Apollo separation and recontact simulation capability resulted in a decision to continue the support contractor's hybrid programing effort then in progress and to transfer this capability to the MSC hybrid system when the effort was completed. During the same period, MSC personnel had expanded and modified the original two-vehicle, three-degree-of-freedom digital program to accommodate simultaneously as many as eight vehicles; this expansion, combined with the aforementioned planned transfer of the support contractor's hybrid program effort to MSC, was expected to provide all the simulation capability necessary to analyze the separation sequences for future Apollo missions.

Source: NASA TN D-7920, "Apollo Experience Report: Spacecraft Relative Motion and Recontact Analyses," April 1975, pp. 3-4

Is that enough evidence for you?

... more to come. It's getting late and I've got to call it a night ...

P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Junk in the trunk ? Throwing away a baggie ? I wounder what was in that baggie ? Its too great that we have these films to see again.

We really need to get our Butts back into the Space bussiness !

great job peri !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi LS,

Yes, Mr. Young says he observed all of the flights except for 17. He DOESN'T say anything about how many times or on which specific days he saw them. According to the Sky and Telescope article I referenced in my last post, TMO did indeed observe Apollo 11 -- on July 24 at 5:12-5:24 UT as the CSM was returning to earth. Just for reference, here's the introduction to that article:

A systematic campaign to secure visual and photographic observations of the Apollo 11 spacecraft during its July journey to the moon was organized by J.O. Cappellari, Jr., and W.I. McLaughlin of Bellcomm, Inc., Washington, D.C. Before the launching on July 16th, they distributed detailed predictions to a network of about 200 amateur and professional astronomers, including many members of the American Association of Variable Star Observers.

<snip>

Here are the positive Apollo 11 observations, extracted from a summary by Drs. Cappellari and McLaughlin.

Sky and Telescope, November 1969, p. 358

As I said above, the only positive observation listed for James Young at TMO is a single sighting near the end of the mission. Do you have a source listing any other observations by TMO?

By "positive observation" I assume that to mean they took a time exposure photograph which was infact a 12 minute exposure. This doesn't mean that they couldn't see Apollo 11 on its out bound journey at all, but they probably had too many clouds to get a decent time exposure photo. The Weather maps only show a completely overcast sky for the L.A. station on the 17th, and TMO may have consistently had even less clouds than the L.A. station.

At any rate here are James Young's own words,... " As the distance increased from the earth, each Apollo CSLM appeared much further from these flashing SLA panels, so that many people, unfortunately, never saw the spacecraft itself." Take note of the word "each" in that sentence.

No, I don't think James Young is lying at all. I think you're interpreting his statements incorrectly and I think you're drawing conclusions that aren't supported by currently available evidence. You're trying to use these statements to prove that the SLA panels were too far away, but Mr. Young doesn't even mention an actual distance. So how far did the distance increase? Was it 1 mile, 10 miles, 1000 miles? It could be any of these. You need more quantitative information before you can use these observations in any sort of meaningful way.

Not at all, on this thread it was suggested that somehow obital mechanics might allow one of the panels to fly close by the spacecraft later in the mission. This suggestion was meant to disqualify the minimum distance that we've discussed here and I posted James Young's statement to show that simply was not the case.

I don't think you were intentionally accusing the authors of lying, but that's the only way your statement could be true. The authors wrote that the additional work was already being done, but you said they never did it. If they didn't actually do it, then they must've been lying about it in their report. I'm not sure where you're getting the bit about not having a potential recontact problem. This report is very clear that additional analysis was required. Here's the same quote I referenced my last post. I've reformatted the text a bit to add numbers to the list of scenarios requiring additional work:

Analysis not included in this report and presently in progress where potential recontact areas may exist includes

1) aborts occurring during the translunar injection (TLI) phase of Apollo missions E, F, and G,

2) midcourse corrections or maneuvering effects upon panel relative motion during Apollo missions F and G,

3) 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 (altered formatting)

The "F" and "G" missions would become Apollo 10 and 11, respectively. The "E" mission was never flown. It would've been a high Earth orbit test of the lunar module.

Right, I've read it all before and I believe they quickly realized there was not recontact issue. As far as I can tell no such 'analyses' were ever published. No one ever claimed to have seen them. As I've said several time here on this thread that if these exist I want to see them.

But this is basically besides the point because MID's claim was that they used the mainframe during the Flight to calculate where the panels were and again I've simply pointed out that there is absoluetly ZERO evidence for that.

Wow. That's just completely incorrect. Please take a look at this:

The use of separable spacecraft modules or components for the Apollo Program required the development of procedures and maneuvers to ensure a safe and proper separation. The analysis included nonnominal situations to reduce the possibility of accidental recontact or collision should a contingency occur. The recontact could have occurred during the actual separation or ejection process or subsequently during the resulting relative motion of the separated components. The analysis required the use of three- and six-degree-of-freedom computer programs so that all Apollo separation sequencing could be fully and accurately simulated. To better understand the complexity of the problem and the system modeling required to perform the analysis, the following separation events are given in the order of occurrence during a typical lunar landing mission:

1. The launch escape tower (LET) from the command and service module (CSM)

2. The CSM from the SLA panels and the Saturn IVB (S-IVB)

3. The SLA panels from the S-IVB

4. The LM from the S-IVB

5. The service module (SM) scientific instrument module (SIM) bay door from the CSM

6. The CSM from the LM

7. The LM ascent stage from the LM descent stage

8. The LM from the CSM

9. The subsatellite from the CSM

10. The experiment instrument booms from the CSM

11. The docking ring and probe adapter from the CSM

12. The CM from the SM

One of the primary problems that had to be solved was the inadequacy of the available three- and six-degree-of-freedom computer programs to provide the simulation capability required to analyze the many Apollo separation events. Therefore, the evolution of the required simulation capabilities was important to the overall experience gained from the Apollo Program in the separation study effort.

Originally, the computer simulation capability was a multivehicle, three degree-of-freedom program that had been modified to perform simple separation studies. To increase the efficiency in running general parametric studies, separation computer programs to be run on an analog computer system were developed in mid-1966. Late in 1966, the analog capability evolved into a hybrid computer concept in which the advantages of a digital and analog system were combined into one computer. In mid-1967, a detailed review of the Apollo separation and recontact simulation capability resulted in a decision to continue the support contractor's hybrid programing effort then in progress and to transfer this capability to the MSC hybrid system when the effort was completed. During the same period, MSC personnel had expanded and modified the original two-vehicle, three-degree-of-freedom digital program to accommodate simultaneously as many as eight vehicles; this expansion, combined with the aforementioned planned transfer of the support contractor's hybrid program effort to MSC, was expected to provide all the simulation capability necessary to analyze the separation sequences for future Apollo missions.

Source: NASA TN D-7920, "Apollo Experience Report: Spacecraft Relative Motion and Recontact Analyses," April 1975, pp. 3-4

Is that enough evidence for you?

No, because you've misunderstood MID's claim and my arguement against it. I know that NASA used it's computers beforehand for Sep. and recontact analysis, I've simply maintained that if they ever wrote a report about the seperation during this particular phase of the mission none of us has ever seen it. MID's claim was that they used the mainframe during the flight to calculate where the panels were and I've simply said there is ZERO evidence of that, they were being used to calculate when to fire the engine for the best fuel effeciency during the flight. Also there is no evidence that NASA even knew they crew was looking at something because they just simply asked where the SIVB was, and it was being tracked so again there were no mainframe calculations involved there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also Peri, had you read a bit further into the 1975 report you would have seen on page 10 where NASA say's that once they changed the deployment speed of the SLA panels that it was determined that no recontact issues would arise except in the "retrograde mode III abort region". Just as I previously suggested to be the case.

"The new separation attitudes and jettison velocities were free of recontact problems for all mission phases except for the retrograde mode III abort region, which was previously identified."

They didn't have to calculate where the SLA panels would be at 60h 45m into the nominal mission when they had already realised there were no recontact issues after SLA jettison other than the one abort scenario that they already knew about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.Any discussion the AS-11 crew was having aboard regarding this matter in 1969 was most assuredly preserved on OVR tapes and has been transcribed. I've seen some of it. Nothing earth shttering was included in the transcripts I saw. Same old stuff...thing out there blinking, etc...Whatever the case, this voice recording is not fed publically. It's internal. No one hears it save the crew as they speak it.

Also there is no evidence that NASA even knew they crew was looking at something because they just simply asked where the SIVB was, and it was being tracked so again there were no mainframe calculations involved there.

Hi MID, I think the comment you made as 'quoted' above has created a little bit of confusion.

May I ask a straightforward question.

At the time of sighting did NASA know that the crew were observing said object?

The public transcripts indicate they simply asked where the SIVB was as stated by LS above....however this was accpeted until you said the bolded part above which indicates that you have seen transcripts of the private channel that prove NASA were aware of teh observation at the time.....

Many thanks for any clarification you add here.

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By "positive observation" I assume that to mean they took a time exposure photograph which was infact a 12 minute exposure. This doesn't mean that they couldn't see Apollo 11 on its out bound journey at all, but they probably had too many clouds to get a decent time exposure photo. The Weather maps only show a completely overcast sky for the L.A. station on the 17th, and TMO may have consistently had even less clouds than the L.A. station.

Oh good Lord. Now you're just making stuff up. Your assumption about the definition of "positive observation" isn't correct. It simply means that the observer looked for and definitely saw one or more of the expected objects (parts of the Apollo 11 hardware). A "negative observation" would be one for which an observer searched but didn't see the expected object. The Sky and Telescope article only listed the observations for which the Apollo 11 hardware was sighted. There was no point in listing a bunch of observations that went something like this: "Dr. Jones of the XYZ Observatory searched on July 17 from 5:00-5:30 UT, but did not detect the spacecraft."

At any rate here are James Young's own words,... " As the distance increased from the earth, each Apollo CSLM appeared much further from these flashing SLA panels, so that many people, unfortunately, never saw the spacecraft itself." Take note of the word "each" in that sentence.

"Each," as in "each CSM for which he had at least two observations of both the spacecraft and all four SLA panels." You're reading far too much into his statement. You need more data before you can make the claims you've been making.

Not at all, on this thread it was suggested that somehow obital mechanics might allow one of the panels to fly close by the spacecraft later in the mission. This suggestion was meant to disqualify the minimum distance that we've discussed here and I posted James Young's statement to show that simply was not the case.

No, you can't draw that conclusion from those statements alone. Young would've been able to observe the mission for a short time roughly once every 24 hours. You don't know from his simple statement anything about the relative positions of the panels in between the observation times. A panel might be seen on one night in a given position at, say, 100 miles apparent distance. On the next night, it might be in a different position at 200 miles distance. The distance has increased, but without more data, you can't rule out the possibility that in between the sightings, the panel might have passed much closer to the CSM/LM on it's path from position A to position B.

Right, I've read it all before and I believe they quickly realized there was not recontact issue. As far as I can tell no such 'analyses' were ever published. No one ever claimed to have seen them. As I've said several time here on this thread that if these exist I want to see them.

So how did they magically realize there was no recontact issue if they never ran the analysis? Crystal ball?

Are the authors of the report lying? In the SLA separation analysis report, they identified areas requiring additional study and said that this more detailed analysis was already in progress. You claim they never did the work just because you can't find their results, which would've been published in a relatively low-level engineering report written more than 40 years ago. It's entirely possible (and probably pretty likely) that these follow-on reports have been lost to time. At this level of the program, we don't have a complete record any more (and the online archives only contain a fraction of those surviving records). I'm actually amazed at just how much low-level stuff HAS survived. It's a pretty unique technical record, but it's not complete. Out of curiosity, how much searching have you actually done?

But this is basically besides the point because MID's claim was that they used the mainframe during the Flight to calculate where the panels were and again I've simply pointed out that there is absoluetly ZERO evidence for that.

MID's post never said anything about running the calculations during the missions. He was talking to Psyche about the complexity of the calculations required to estimate the relative positions of the SLA panels. Here are the relevant parts of the two posts:

May I ask if you feel that Lost Shamans calculations are incorrect, and do you feel the James Young observations are helpful to determining the locations of the Apollo mission expended parts? If not, may I ask why?

I feel that the calculations he presented anyone with a 10th grade education could produce (if he or she paid attention in class). Even supporters oversimplified an extremely complex problem which involves a variety of vectors on each panel, and alot of unknowns (since we had no telemetry and no knowledge of their real direction relative to the spacecraft's real directional vector, nor their actual velocity at SEP (although some of the engineers had studied their behavior previously and were fairly confident).

Each panel was moving away from the spacecraft at a certain velocity and direction, and each was affected by the gravity of the bodies that were influential (the Moon and the Earth). Now, anyone who thinks that this was a simple and precise SEP maneuver is fooling themselves. You had movement in three axes relative to the panels, and three others relative to the spacecraft, the Earth and the Moon. Continual change along six vectors is a complex solution, and since no one knew the precise movements, it was impossible to precisely place them, only to estimate a possible position, and that was done with a large mainframe computer.

Now, no one here has any such thing, nor any really decent data. They've oversimplified a complex problem. That's always dangerous, especially when attempting to prove (positively or negatively) something, as is being done here (i.e., it couldn't have been an SLA panel).

Nowhere in that post does MID say ANYTHING about running a simulation during the flight. He's talking about the overall complexity of the analysis problem, which required a computer to solve.

I know that NASA used it's computers beforehand for Sep. and recontact analysis,

Ok, great! That was the reason I mentioned all of these analysis reports in the first place -- to show you that these were complex problems requiring detailed computer simulation. If, as you claim, just a few simple hand calculations were all that was required to calculate the minimum distances between two objects in orbit, why did NASA spend all that time and money running complex computer simulations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also Peri, had you read a bit further into the 1975 report you would have seen on page 10 where NASA say's that once they changed the deployment speed of the SLA panels that it was determined that no recontact issues would arise except in the "retrograde mode III abort region". Just as I previously suggested to be the case.

"The new separation attitudes and jettison velocities were free of recontact problems for all mission phases except for the retrograde mode III abort region, which was previously identified."

They didn't have to calculate where the SLA panels would be at 60h 45m into the nominal mission when they had already realised there were no recontact issues after SLA jettison other than the one abort scenario that they already knew about.

Ok, let me see if I've got this straight:

You're using a 1975 report summarizing the extensive time and computer resources used for Apollo separation studies as a source for a reference to a February 1969 SLA separation analysis to prove that no further work was required after the July 1968 SLA separation analysis which supports your position that only a bit of simple, manual math was required to rule out any possibility of an SLA panel being visible to the crew of Apollo 11.

Does that about sum it up?

Seriously, what exactly are you trying to say here? You've gotten so wrapped up in trying to argue about cherry-picked quotes from technical reports that you're not even making sense anymore.

If you're trying to show me that no additional SLA panel separation analysis was required after the July 1968 report we've been discussing, why are you quoting from a follow-on separation analysis report that was done almost eight months later?

If you're trying to prove that there were no panel separation issues on a lunar trajectory, why are you quoting from a report that was specifically analyzing the Apollo 9 mission, which never left low Earth orbit?

If you're trying to claim that the SLA panels were too far away on Apollo 11, why do you think a quote saying that there were no recontact problems proves anything useful? "Recontact" is NASA engineering-speak for "collision." For the purposes of the simulation analysis, recontact was defined as a panel coming within 100 feet of the CSM. An SLA panel passing even just a few miles from the spacecraft wouldn't be considered a recontact problem, but would certainly be visible to the crew.

If your "Just as I previously suggested to be the case" line indicates that you think a retrograde mode III abort is the same as the "TLI abort scenario" you mentioned earlier, then you're seriously misinformed. Mode III was a launch abort scenario which could require the CSM to separate, flip around, and make an SPS engine burn to slow down enough to drop the command module into the Atlantic Ocean.

I think you need to step back a bit and look at the big picture. Give me a bit of time and I'll post an example that I hope will help better explain what I've been trying to show you ...

P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh good Lord. Now you're just making stuff up. Your assumption about the definition of "positive observation" isn't correct. It simply means that the observer looked for and definitely saw one or more of the expected objects (parts of the Apollo 11 hardware). A "negative observation" would be one for which an observer searched but didn't see the expected object. The Sky and Telescope article only listed the observations for which the Apollo 11 hardware was sighted. There was no point in listing a bunch of observations that went something like this: "Dr. Jones of the XYZ Observatory searched on July 17 from 5:00-5:30 UT, but did not detect the spacecraft."

I don't don't think you are being intellectually honest with yourself here Peri. You don't really expect the "Sky and Telescope" article you mentioned to list every sighting made through the TMO telescope or every instance from other observatories for that matter? It lists one sighting in which they made a 12 minute time exposure photo. Clouds make such photos useless, but wouldn't stop them from observing the spacecraft between the clouds with the telescope and TMO as a JPL observatory knew where to aim the telescope.

"Each," as in "each CSM for which he had at least two observations of both the spacecraft and all four SLA panels." You're reading far too much into his statement. You need more data before you can make the claims you've been making.

Not at all. That is what he claimed was the case on all the missions. The mission profiles were all the same basically. Why would Apollo 11 have been different? It wouldn't have and James Young is in a position to know.

No, you can't draw that conclusion from those statements alone. Young would've been able to observe the mission for a short time roughly once every 24 hours. You don't know from his simple statement anything about the relative positions of the panels in between the observation times. A panel might be seen on one night in a given position at, say, 100 miles apparent distance. On the next night, it might be in a different position at 200 miles distance. The distance has increased, but without more data, you can't rule out the possibility that in between the sightings, the panel might have passed much closer to the CSM/LM on it's path from position A to position B.

No not this late in the mission this wouldn't be the case. The panels were not crisscrossing around in the path of the CSM-LM! If you believe they were then you prove it happened as opposed to suggesting it to say I'm wrong, and James Young is wrong. Just look at the Apollo 9 SLA Panel Sep. and Recontact report see the graphs for the 'nominal' mission Fig. 14 and 15, all four Panels quickly end up outpacing the CSM-LM and the CSM-LM never would catch back up during the Apollo 11 mission as the mid-course correction is retrograde! Being that much closer to the Earth the CSM-LM will decelerate faster than the panels! None of that adds up to crisscrossing but rather the SLA panels flying off into space at an ever increasing rate just as James Young said was the case on "each" mission.

So how did they magically realize there was no recontact issue if they never ran the analysis? Crystal ball?

Read the reports, they ran the analysis out to zero chance of recontact. In the reports this is about an hour or so for the 'nominal' mission, much less for the abort scenarios.

Are the authors of the report lying? In the SLA separation analysis report, they identified areas requiring additional study and said that this more detailed analysis was already in progress. You claim they never did the work just because you can't find their results, which would've been published in a relatively low-level engineering report written more than 40 years ago. It's entirely possible (and probably pretty likely) that these follow-on reports have been lost to time. At this level of the program, we don't have a complete record any more (and the online archives only contain a fraction of those surviving records). I'm actually amazed at just how much low-level stuff HAS survived. It's a pretty unique technical record, but it's not complete. Out of curiosity, how much searching have you actually done?

I never said the Authors were lying!!! I'm simply aware that there was another report dated just five weeks later titled, "Areas of the Separation and Recontact Analysis Which Require No Further Study." TRW I C 5524.8-39, April 1, 1969. This is referenced in the Apollo 10 Sep. and recontact report which itself references the Apollo 9 report for SLA panels and nothing further is stated about them except TLC and TLI 'aborts' until the 1975 report which I quoted page 10 in a previous post saying that the new SLA panel ejection speeds were deemed to be free of recontact issues in the 'nominal' mission profile.

MID's post never said anything about running the calculations during the missions. He was talking to Psyche about the complexity of the calculations required to estimate the relative positions of the SLA panels. Here are the relevant parts of the two posts:

Nowhere in that post does MID say ANYTHING about running a simulation during the flight. He's talking about the overall complexity of the analysis problem, which required a computer to solve.

Brilliant. You've completely ignored everything I said and the Fact the MID never corrected Lilly and and all of that is why I happen to believe that is what he meant.

I never said anything about NASA not using Mainframes beforehand, but I said that in a recent previous post and you've ignored that too.

Ok, great! That was the reason I mentioned all of these analysis reports in the first place -- to show you that these were complex problems requiring detailed computer simulation. If, as you claim, just a few simple hand calculations were all that was required to calculate the minimum distances between two objects in orbit, why did NASA spend all that time and money running complex computer simulations?

Of course I've referenced these reports myself over the years as well so if you had done due diligence you would know that. Here on this thread I've always maintained that the minimum distances calculated are extremely small compared to what the actual distances likely were, but this is simply a handicap in my opponents favor that doesn't matter at all because 453 miles is still too great a distance regardless for the observations to have been an SLA panel! As per my many discussions on this thread, get it?

On the otherhand, I note you and others NEVER objected when MID said "They traveled with an outward velocity estimated to be between 10-15 FPS. They had been doing so for ~ 53 hours +/-.

That means somewhere in the 300-400 mile range."

So why did you and others not object to that statement by MID? But when I can show the 453 miles everyone agreed to as a minimum distance is too great for the SLA panel explanation then suddenly "I'm" the "bad guy" and the "math" is all "mine" even though I didn't do anything but agree with it as a minimum! Oh well...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, let me see if I've got this straight:

You're using a 1975 report summarizing the extensive time and computer resources used for Apollo separation studies as a source for a reference to a February 1969 SLA separation analysis to prove that no further work was required after the July 1968 SLA separation analysis which supports your position that only a bit of simple, manual math was required to rule out any possibility of an SLA panel being visible to the crew of Apollo 11.

I haven't said anything about a July '68 report supporting my position, or math (that I didn't do on this thread)? Does it? :wacko:

The simple math I've talked about on this thread is Angular size of an SLA panel by the naked eye, 10X monocular, and 28X Sextant at different distances. I've talked about the 453 miles as a minimum distance that others calculated and originally seemed content with as being too great despite it being a very low estimate for distance,

Does that about sum it up?

Seriously, what exactly are you trying to say here? You've gotten so wrapped up in trying to argue about cherry-picked quotes from technical reports that you're not even making sense anymore.

Really? I thought it was you who cherry-picked the statement from one of the reports to make your argument, "These studies will be published as completed in later reports." Didn't you make an issue out of that statement? You argue that somehow this is proof of something, right? Yet just five weeks later a report about what doesn't need further study is published and this is listed as a reference in the Apollo 10 Sep. and recontact report.

I'm not saying that report proves me right, because I haven't read it, but it does prove that not everything was calculated to the fullest extent.

If you're trying to show me that no additional SLA panel separation analysis was required after the July 1968 report we've been discussing, why are you quoting from a follow-on separation analysis report that was done almost eight months later?

See above.

If you're trying to prove that there were no panel separation issues on a lunar trajectory, why are you quoting from a report that was specifically analyzing the Apollo 9 mission, which never left low Earth orbit?

That's simple. The Apollo 10 sep. and recontact report refers to the Apollo 9 SLA panel sep. and recontact report. :innocent:

If you're trying to claim that the SLA panels were too far away on Apollo 11, why do you think a quote saying that there were no recontact problems proves anything useful? "Recontact" is NASA engineering-speak for "collision." For the purposes of the simulation analysis, recontact was defined as a panel coming within 100 feet of the CSM. An SLA panel passing even just a few miles from the spacecraft wouldn't be considered a recontact problem, but would certainly be visible to the crew.

I've talked about these reports before, but here you've brought this up! So I'm talking about it because your making an issue out of it that I must address.

Can I remind you that there is no evidence that anyone used a NASA Mainframe computer to determine where an SLA panel was @ 60h 45m GET on the Apollo 11 mission?

That might be relevant to the discussion, yeah?

If your "Just as I previously suggested to be the case" line indicates that you think a retrograde mode III abort is the same as the "TLI abort scenario" you mentioned earlier, then you're seriously misinformed. Mode III was a launch abort scenario which could require the CSM to separate, flip around, and make an SPS engine burn to slow down enough to drop the command module into the Atlantic Ocean.

I never said that.

I think you need to step back a bit and look at the big picture. Give me a bit of time and I'll post an example that I hope will help better explain what I've been trying to show you ...

P.

I'm sorry Peri, that your are not seeing the lack of evidence for your own arguments staring you in the face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But this is basically besides the point because MID's claim was that they used the mainframe during the Flight to calculate where the panels were and again I've simply pointed out that there is absoluetly ZERO evidence for that.

No, it wasn't MID's claim.

I stated what I'd heard.

Neil Armstrong stated that mission control and the back room folks had done so. They did some analysis, and it wasn't all that big a deal.

I don't know when, save that it could've been any time after jettison...whenever anyone may have had some time.

No, because you've misunderstood MID's claim and my arguement against it. I know that NASA used it's computers beforehand for Sep. and recontact analysis, I've simply maintained that if they ever wrote a report about the seperation during this particular phase of the mission none of us has ever seen it. MID's claim was that they used the mainframe during the flight to calculate where the panels were and I've simply said there is ZERO evidence of that, they were being used to calculate when to fire the engine for the best fuel effeciency during the flight. Also there is no evidence that NASA even knew they crew was looking at something because they just simply asked where the SIVB was, and it was being tracked so again there were no mainframe calculations involved there.

Again, you repeat yourself...and state inaccuracies.

People do wonder why.

But, as is your pattern, I am certain we will never know:

1. Why it matters...to anyone...since you avoid answering that, and...

2. What you are going on about so voluminously, incessantly, argumentatively, and obstinately. ] You're "discussing" an absolute non-thing. It would be nice to even have a hint about what's so important about an SLA panel, floating off many miles and miles away.

Just curious.

I'm not too interested in your argument. It doesn't matter. You weren't around then. I was. It was a really fun time in retrospect, and not once have I taken hardly any time to think about a UFO sighting on July 18, 1969.

It would just be a curiosity to know what your agenda is...what you're on about.

:wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it wasn't MID's claim.

I stated what I'd heard.

Neil Armstrong stated that mission control and the back room folks had done so. They did some analysis, and it wasn't all that big a deal.

I don't know when, save that it could've been any time after jettison...whenever anyone may have had some time.

Right, so when I said it was your anecdote what I should have said was "second-hand anecdote".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, so when I said it was your anecdote what I should have said was "second-hand anecdote".

What you should've said was very likely nothing.

You might also have answered my questions regarding what the relevance of any of this is to anything, save whatever your agenda is.

Was just kind of curious about those things.

Your attitude, your math, and your obstinate theorizing about a non-incident, as well as your failure to admit you're wrong are boring anymore.

Thanks for the input... :cry:

Edited by MID

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you should've said was very likely nothing.

You might also have answered my questions regarding what the relevance of any of this is to anything, save whatever your agenda is.

Was just kind of curious about those things.

Your attitude, your math, and your obstinate theorizing about a non-incident, as well as your failure to admit you're wrong are boring anymore.

Thanks for the input... :cry:

Another personal attack... Didn't see that coming. :rolleyes:

Asking me the same questions you keep posting for 50 pages now no-matter the numerous times I've addressed them... Shocker!

Of course now both psyche and Quillius have recently asked you direct questions; you continue to ignore them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do_something_violent.gif

Cease fire!!! Cease fire!!!

Edited by bmk1245

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another personal attack... Didn't see that coming. :rolleyes:

Asking me the same questions you keep posting for 50 pages now no-matter the numerous times I've addressed them... Shocker!

:rolleyes:

Personal attack????

Your idea...your behaviour?

Sure, I've assaulted them, and tried to direct you...oh I don't know if it's 50 times, but it's been alot, toward telling all of us what it matters. Your statement that you have is inaccurate.

People are still asking what you're on about!

But it's not you I've ever attacked.

Your sensitivity to being pressed and your inappropriate reaction to it is, however, very telling.

Again, thanks for the input.

I apologize if it bores me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.