Jump to content
Unexplained Mysteries uses cookies. By using the site you consent to our use of cookies as per our Cookie Policy.
Close X
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Fila

Why are UFO images always so bad?

484 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

stereologist
57 minutes ago, tmcom said:

Ok, as this realistic video animation shows, the last stage did keep pace with the CM/LM, but eventhough the panels were also there, the CM/LM outdistance itself from it.

And the 4 panels were much further back than the last stage.

And the 4 panels and last stage were 6k back when Buzz saw it.

I stand corrected, but not overall.

B)

The last stage was estimated to be 6000 nautical miles away. If you read the material they maneuvered away from the rocket that they had separated from before firing the rocket attached to the CM. That is the reason for the separation.

The panels were not "much further back than the last stage". Where did you get that idea?

Aldrin saw a light. A telescope showed a little detail. The light was keeping pace with the CM. That is what a distant parallel traveling object would do.

Here are things to think about in space.

  1. There is no atmosphere to attenuate the light
  2. The estimated 6000 nautical miles would be covered by the CM in well under 2 hours.
  3. The panels were 21 feet tall and painted white on the exterior surface.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_(spacecraft)#Spacecraft_Lunar_Module_Adapter_(SLA)

From link below we learn that the iridium satellites which produce very bright flashes in the night sky are only 14 feet in size. The satellites are roughly 356 nautical miles up or 1/17 the distance of 6000 nautical miles if we want to accept the estimate from ground control. The iridium flashes are very bright. The panels would have been easily visible from the Apollo. The panels were half again as large. The fact that they were moving with the Apollo made them stand out against the stationary stars.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEngineers/comments/182lj8/how_do_i_find_the_dimensions_of_the_iridium/

 

Edited by stereologist
removed the video
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
tmcom
7 hours ago, stereologist said:

The last stage was estimated to be 6000 nautical miles away. If you read the material they maneuvered away from the rocket that they had separated from before firing the rocket attached to the CM. That is the reason for the separation.

The panels were not "much further back than the last stage". Where did you get that idea?

Aldrin saw a light. A telescope showed a little detail. The light was keeping pace with the CM. That is what a distant parallel traveling object would do.

Here are things to think about in space.

  1. There is no atmosphere to attenuate the light
  2. The estimated 6000 nautical miles would be covered by the CM in well under 2 hours.
  3. The panels were 21 feet tall and painted white on the exterior surface.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_(spacecraft)#Spacecraft_Lunar_Module_Adapter_(SLA)

From link below we learn that the iridium satellites which produce very bright flashes in the night sky are only 14 feet in size. The satellites are roughly 356 nautical miles up or 1/17 the distance of 6000 nautical miles if we want to accept the estimate from ground control. The iridium flashes are very bright. The panels would have been easily visible from the Apollo. The panels were half again as large. The fact that they were moving with the Apollo made them stand out against the stationary stars.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEngineers/comments/182lj8/how_do_i_find_the_dimensions_of_the_iridium/

 

So more than 11,000 km away.

And the panels were blown off first, so they were further back, or at the very least in the same area as the last stage, (zero evidence of them being pushed ahead of the CM/LM, as well as them being an unnecessary safety risk).

Buzz saw a light, and as you said some details in ground based telescopes showed that it was a real object as well as astronauts video taping it in later missions.

 

A video camera back then would be pushing it to get details on an object at 10 km away, 1000 km or more, a dot at best, 10,000 a glint of light at best.

 

So Buzz and other astronauts, saw something moving alone side them that was not one of the panels, or the last stage, and close enough to be video taped and showing details.

 

So more clarity but my aforementioned statements haven't changed.

B)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
49 minutes ago, tmcom said:

So more than 11,000 km away.

And the panels were blown off first, so they were further back, or at the very least in the same area as the last stage, (zero evidence of them being pushed ahead of the CM/LM, as well as them being an unnecessary safety risk).

Buzz saw a light, and as you said some details in ground based telescopes showed that it was a real object as well as astronauts video taping it in later missions.

 

A video camera back then would be pushing it to get details on an object at 10 km away, 1000 km or more, a dot at best, 10,000 a glint of light at best.

 

So Buzz and other astronauts, saw something moving alone side them that was not one of the panels, or the last stage, and close enough to be video taped and showing details.

 

So more clarity but my aforementioned statements haven't changed.

B)

The estimated distance is 6000 nautical miles for the rocket stage and probably the panels.  And your point is what? I already pointed out panels 2/3 the size can reflect light so well that they can be seen even in daylight.

You are not reading anything are you? Where did I suggest that ground based observatories saw anything related to this incident?

The rest  of your post is just unsupported junk. It is meaningless blather. You have nothing at all to support your malarkey.

You finish off the poppycock with "So Buzz and other astronauts, saw something moving alone side them that was not one of the panels, or the last stage, and close enough to be video taped and showing details." That is known as a non sequitur. Nothing you posted lets you come up with that brain dead conclusion.

Aldrin and others saw a light which would have been trivial to see at that distance in space.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

Don't forget to fix this lie: " you said some details in ground based telescopes showed that it was a real object "

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom
7 hours ago, tmcom said:

Aldrin saw a light. A telescope showed a little detail. The light was keeping pace with the CM. That is what a distant parallel traveling object would do.

A little detail usually means a little detail, unless they mean a little detail on the light???

 

As for the rest, l find it ironic that individuals who don't believe in what this site is all about, (proving that UFO's are real, and ghosts, etc) either crack the s***ts or attack the messanger when one of proven.

This site isn't here for a small army of rapid deniers to scare, bully, intimidate, discredit and p***off anyone trying to show something is true, it is here for the opposite reason.

^_^

Edited by tmcom
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

As discerning reader's will note, Tmcom not only lied in the first instance, he also lied again when he falsely claimed that the ADDED video he put into the post was actually the one he was originally referring to (despite the reference being directly above the animated video).  Tmcom will clearly do anything to avoid apologising and admitting his first lie, even add more lies....  I might have accepted an excuse of incompetence if he had fessed up straight away, but he didn't, instead choosing to try to cover his deceit with more of the same...

Yeah, you do that reporting tmcom.  The mods will be able to see the sequence.  You lied.

As for the new claims.....  The panels were ejected BEFORE the SIVB was pushed back (by several heavy duty springs, not explosive bolts) when the LM was extracted.  As I explained earlier, the SIVB could also be remotely slowed by its remotely controlled maneuvering thrusters, and I believe it was, in order to ensure it would not follow the LM/CM, instead going into a heliocentric orbit, iirc... but I haven't wasted any further of my time to verify that, given its just one incompetent person who is arguing, and they are prepared to lie...  The important fact is that the panels were moving at the same/similar rate as the LM/CM, NOT the SIVB (which was physically pushed back at the very least).  So, as tmcom has not posted any facts to contradict that, it's just another lie that the SLAs were back near the SIVB.

 

 

BTW, I note with some hilarity (tinged with sadness for the education system that caused this..) that tmcom apparently now just has to call an animation 'realistic', for him (and everyone else, supposedly) to be satisfied that it gives an accurate picture of what happened (to discarded items..).  Such 'realistic' animations of course, completely overrule NASA system reports, orbital mechanics, knowledge of space sciences, geometry, and common sense and the ability to read....

 

 

 

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

Just a side note to any readers/moderators... I'd be delighted to see this thread closed down in order to stop further falsehoods being pushed.  Before removing any posts, I would also draw your attention to this post:

Where I posted a SCREENSHOT and showed the video to which tmcom referred (and I quoted him), including the time stamp at 22:00.  Tmcom, in his UNEDITED original post had stated that it was actual video footage.  He maintained that LIE in a subsequent post, but at the same time he removed the (now embarrassing) video from that original post.

100% proof of deliberate deceit, and it was the second set of lies, the first being that Aldrin was referring to images that Tmcom posted and claimed were from Apollo 11, when they were not.  I note he has still not been able to cite those images (from a UFO-pushing Youtube channel), and is STILL claiming they represent the shapes that Aldrin saw..  Aldrin himself has clarified his sightings many times, and at no point were those shapes or the 'black stripe' mentioned.

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
3 hours ago, tmcom said:

A little detail usually means a little detail, unless they mean a little detail on the light???

 

As for the rest, l find it ironic that individuals who don't believe in what this site is all about, (proving that UFO's are real, and ghosts, etc) either crack the s***ts or attack the messanger when one of proven.

This site isn't here for a small army of rapid deniers to scare, bully, intimidate, discredit and p***off anyone trying to show something is true, it is here for the opposite reason.

^_^

Weird. You quoted me and yes your name was in the quote.

I see you did not fix your lie that I stated ground based telescopes saw the objects in question. That lie come from you not reading the materiel posted and making up hallucinogenic stories unconnected to reality.

The simple fact of the matter is that the lights were in the position expected of the panels. A telescope showed that were a shape consistent with the panels.

As far as this site is concerned, it is not to prove in only the direction you choose. It is about the examination of phenomena. It is certainly not about making up lies about the situation. It is all about investigating the situation and learning. Some posters are adamant at denying how the universe works. Some posters purposely misrepresent what other posters state or the material they post.

The simple fact of the matter is that Aldrin spotted something. Aldrin and the others performed an investigation. They confirmed their observations with the ground. Since then UFO wackos have continued to misrepresent Aldrin. Some people know so little about physics that they even believe their incorrect assumptions. Errors include not knowing that objects separated from a smaller object still continue to move with the larger object, not knowing that a panel would easily be seen reflecting sunlight across thousands of miles of space, not knowing that moving into a heliocentric orbit means something other than falling back to Earth, and so forth.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saru

Whatever you happen to believe with regard to the UFO phenomenon, I think it's fair to say that this thread has run its course.

Closed.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.