Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

NASA Astronaut Confirms Apollo UFO Incident 2


Homan34

Recommended Posts

This is an image of Apollo 12 on November 14, 1969, with several of the panels visible, and it just says that they followed the spacecraft for "quite some time". It landed on the moon on November 189th, so that would have meant that the panels followed it very close for five more days, although I'm not aware that they were reported.

apollo12maley.jpg

"In addition, we observed several Apollo missions on the way to the moon. In this view Apollo 12 Command Module is seen as a small dot illuminated by sunlight on November 14, 1969 at 02hUT from a slant range of 50,000 miles. It is at the apex of the arrow labeled A12. There are 3 other pieces also visible which are so-called SLA (Spacecraft Lunar Module Adapter) panels. They were 28 feet high with a diameter ranging from 12 ft. 10in to 21 ft 8in. Sunlight reflected quite well off these panesl which stayed in close proximity to the Command Module for some time. Two SLA panels are seen as dots directly below the second arrow and the third below and to the right of the right-most of those two objects. These are Polaroid images taken off a video monitor. The telescope used was a 16-inch telescope and an intensified video camera was employed. The 3 objects qualify as space debris since they were jettisoned as part of the mission scenario yet followed along in roughly parallel trajectories to the Apollo."

http://www.eclipsetours.com/sat/debris.html

Edited by TheMcGuffin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's an HB defensive answer lost. I expected better. Sorry to offend you, but I wanted to see if you actually knew anything about this.

As to your question above, I've already explained that, as have others, many times. Lateral velocity determined the distance between the panels and the spacecraft.

Let's go back and see if you can get the points of my questions.

Lateral velocity would be the big factor until the CSM-LM made the midcourse correction. After that there would still be lateral velocity but also the Panels would be falling behind and away from the CSM-LM as an ever increasing rate.

And you said 20.9 FPS.

You read off of tables well, but don't realize that the actual space fixed velocity decreased 15 FPS during that burn.

Let's say it's 20 FPS just to make it easy.

Relative to the Earth the CSM-LM and panels were constantly decelerating. Relative to eachother the total velocity change of 20.9 ft/p/sec would be the initial separation of the CSM-LM and panels from eachother resulting from the Burn. This has to be factored in along with the initial separation after the panels were jettisoned.

At any rate this part of the discussion is simply Academic at this point as no-one has ever suggested a trajectory that would place an SLA panel 13 - 14 miles away from CSM-LM at the time of the sighting where such a panel would fit the description given.

You failed to answer.

Because you can't. It's not self evident in the least, unless you assume...

No I'm not assuming whatever it was. Yes it should be self evident to you simply because the panels didn't undergo a 3 second Burn did they? No they didn't so the CSM-LM certainly changed it's velocity by 20.9 ft/p/sec relative to the panels and it's own previous trajectory. Due to the nature of the orbit the MCC Burn may have been a net loss to Fixed Space velocity but it was a 20.9 ft/p/sec gain over the velocity of the Panels.

Of course you're saying 20 FPS for the ~ 18 hours from the MCC until the sighting nets 245 miles behind the panels, as well as 350 or so miles abeam, netting straight line of sight of 700 miles (?) The assumption regarding velocities would be wrong, and the distance between them would've been 450 miles, not 700, if you were correct.

Only 18 hours? You cutting things quite a bit short there are you not?

The fact of the matter is the real influence in the distance between the panels and the spacecraft was the lateral separation velocity the panels received at jettison.

Nonsense! This initial seperation was up to but no more than 14 ft/p/sec which is clearly less than the 20.9 ft/p/sec resulting from the MCC.

The fact is that Apollo 11 was at 5010 FPS at the end of MCC1, and was decreasing in velocity anyway, so that at the time of the sighting, the spacecraft velocity was down to less that 3200 FPS. The panels were in different orbits, but were also affected by the Earth's gravity and were slowing down as well. There was nothing that was going to double the distance between them. Lateral velocity was the factor, and even if there was a 20 FPS difference, they wouldn't have been 700 miles away.

700 miles is the most I've seen other people including myself suggest. It was arbitrary. My point is that you can't place an SLA panel at 13 - 14 miles at the time of the sighting.

Edited by lost_shaman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Irrelevant, and dubious again...

It was seen, how far away it was is meaningless.

It's pointless to argue.

regarding the differences in exact distance, yes, i agree, it's meaningless; even your own 300-400 mile range...

The panels are about 20 feet in length, so from a distance of

320 miles, one of them would be about 2.5 arc seconds in angular

size. Through the command module's 28-power sextant telescope,

the panel would appear to be about 1.2 arc minutes in size.

Since the resolution of the human eye is about 0.7 arc minutes,

it seems highly unlikely that the astronauts would have been

able to discern any shape at all to the object. It would more

likely have appeared as a dot through the telescope.

http://ufoupdateslist.com/2007/feb/m24-015.shtml

What's the point...what was it if not what it was?

it was what it was... :P

Lateral velocity would be the big factor until the CSM-LM made the midcourse correction. After that there would still be lateral velocity but also the Panels would be falling behind and away from the CSM-LM as an ever increasing rate.

are you factoring in earth's gravitational influence? the panels were much lighter... idk whether that plays a role in orbital mechanics... or perhaps it has nothing to do with 'orbital mechanics'... :unsure::wacko:

Edited by mcrom901
Link to comment
Share on other sites

are you factoring in earth's gravitational influence? the panels were much lighter... idk whether that plays a role in orbital mechanics... or perhaps it has nothing to do with 'orbital mechanics'... :unsure::wacko:

rage-comics-i-told-the-mathematical-truth.jpg

>Hence any delta-V between the Apollo and the SLA panels of about

>2.5 meters/sec or 5.6 mph would be reduced by a factor of how

>much of the 5.6 mph velocity is in the radial direction with

>respect to the earth, where gravity would slow it over the

>course of the long 2-1/2 day flight path to the moon's gravity

>domain.

Your physics is wrong there. If two objects starting at the same

position are subjected to the same acceleration, A, but have

different initial velocities V1 and V2 in the direction of the

acceleration, their respective positions at time T are:

D1 = V1*T + 1/2A*T~2 and

D2 = V2*T + 1/2A*T^2

The difference in the objects' positions, D1 - D2 is (V1 -

V2)*T.

http://ufoupdateslist.com/2007/mar/m25-003.shtml

But regardless of whether the delta-v was retrograde or

prograde, taking gravitational differences into account makes

the distances between an SLA panel and the spacecraft larger

than they would be assuming they both have the same

acceleration. (I was wrong in the last message, the distance

would be 550 miles due to the midcourse correction, when the UFO

was sighted, not 900 because the time from the midcourse

correcction was 36 hours, not 48.) The distance is much larger

if you take the first maneuver by itself into account because

more time elapsed and the gravitaty gradient much greater close

to Earth.

http://ufoupdateslist.com/2007/mar/m29-005.shtml

:unsure2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

700 miles is the most I've seen other people including myself suggest. It was arbitrary. My point is that you can't place an SLA panel at 13 - 14 miles at the time of the sighting.

You're right, you can't.

:tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, approximately, how far awy from the spacecraft would the SLA panel be? :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, approximately, how far awy from the spacecraft would the SLA panel be? :unsure:

No one seems to have a good answer to that, but from the pictures I've seen I suspect that they would fall a considerable distance behind the spacecraft after having been jettisoned a few days before--four or five days before in some cases. It doesn't seem likely to me that they'd simply keep right up with it the entire time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one seems to have a good answer to that, but from the pictures I've seen I suspect that they would fall a considerable distance behind the spacecraft after having been jettisoned a few days before--four or five days before in some cases. It doesn't seem likely to me that they'd simply keep right up with it the entire time.

Still, a blinking object following them in the darkness of space would absolutely qualify as a UFO....right!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still, a blinking object following them in the darkness of space would absolutely qualify as a UFO....right!?

Not if you are saying it's an SLA panel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still, a blinking object following them in the darkness of space would absolutely qualify as a UFO....right!?

Let's just say that I'd like to see more of the telescope pictures of the Apollo missions, so we could see what was really a UFO and what wasn't.

Edited by TheMcGuffin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one seems to have a good answer to that, but from the pictures I've seen I suspect that they would fall a considerable distance behind the spacecraft after having been jettisoned a few days before--four or five days before in some cases. It doesn't seem likely to me that they'd simply keep right up with it the entire time.

Why don't you think so? What should slow the panels down compared to the LM?

Cheers,

Badeskov

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not if you are saying it's an SLA panel.

True. The moment we can identify a UFO (a panel or ET craft) it would no longer be a UFO now would it!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True. The moment we can identify a UFO (a panel or ET craft) it would no longer be a UFO now would it!?

or prior identification we can assume that it was an unidentified earth based flying object?

:unsure2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

or prior identification we can assume that it was an unidentified earth based flying object?

:unsure2:

I always assume that there is a mundane explanation to everything paranormal. The only reason we cannot explain all these sightings by conventional means is because we do not have all the evidence,... it is not because these sightings are due to alien visitations. If we had all the evidence, we would probably be able to explain the sightings by some conventional means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always assume that there is a mundane explanation to everything paranormal. The only reason we cannot explain all these sightings by conventional means is because we do not have all the evidence,... it is not because these sightings are due to alien visitations. If we had all the evidence, we would probably be able to explain the sightings by some conventional means.

still need the popular get out clause though!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

still need the popular get out clause though!

Of course there has to be a "probably" in there,... I have no way of being 100% sure that we are not being visited.

Edited by Hazzard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always assume that there is a mundane explanation to everything paranormal.

but why would et visitation be considered as paranormal?

The only reason we cannot explain all these sightings by conventional means is because we do not have all the evidence,... it is not because these sightings are due to alien visitations. If we had all the evidence, we would probably be able to explain the sightings by some conventional means.

but what if the missing data was directly related to et... how would that enable conventional conclusions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course there has to be a "probably" in there,... I have no way of being 100% sure that we are not being visited.

you did start off with definitive phrasing ...'the only' 'explain all'....

The only reason we cannot explain all these sightings by conventional means is because we do not have all the evidence,... it is not because these sightings are due to alien visitations. If we had all the evidence, we would probably be able to explain the sightings by some conventional means

but then move to not so definitive with the disclaimer......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you did start off with definitive phrasing ...'the only' 'explain all'....

but then move to not so definitive with the disclaimer......

:sleepy: You still get it though, right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:sleepy: You still get it though, right.

Sure do :alien:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't you think so? What should slow the panels down compared to the LM?

That would mean that they always followed the Apollo spacecraft all the way to the moon, although I don't know of any other reports similar to Apollo 11 when they did that. After a few days, they could have been a considerable distance behind the spacecraft, maybe hundreds or thousands of miles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would mean that they always followed the Apollo spacecraft all the way to the moon, although I don't know of any other reports similar to Apollo 11 when they did that. After a few days, they could have been a considerable distance behind the spacecraft, maybe hundreds or thousands of miles.

Again - Why would they be slowing down?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again - Why would they be slowing down?

in a fixed relation to the cm-lm? which panel?

a080.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is a form of laziness; it acts as a 'peg on which to hang ones coat'. Then a person can go back to watching the football. Otherwise it requires study, thought, vision, attention, time and more. Some people are not willing to make this commitment. This is not intended as a judgement. All are entitled to do as they wish and in the end must live with what they have become.

I asked HMS Dreadnought if he believes Astronaut Mitchell, can you answer? Buzz is pointing the finger at NASA, yet Edgar Mitchell clearly states that NASA is out of the loop. HMS Dreadnought either missed the question, or had no answer.

Which one does a person believe here? Who is lying, and who is the disinformation agent?

I'd like to see offer that thought and judgement here, you always complain that others do not think, yet all I have ever seen you do is post Youtube clips and go "Ohhh looky peeps, aliens!", which in itself is not an argument, debate, or proof at all. Such items are the purpose of a discussion forum, should you need reminding. Then you get upset when people rebut such claims. How dare the evil debunkers have an opinion huh!

But I take it it is easier to post a youtube clip, and let others have the discussion for one, so one can "hang that coat" and "get back to the football". Otherwise thought, study, attention, and constructive debate might be required.

Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.