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 -
Cinders

Paris Hilton Reveals NASA UFO Secret

38 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Primeval

Paris Hilton can go diaf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
MID
If so why was it claimed for years by Jim Oberg and others, when talking of this event, that the object was the SIVB itself and not a Panel?

That would be, because Jim Oberg, and "others" (who?) were wrong...if indeed "they" actually say this (which I doubt, since it was known where the S4B actually was).

The very night they saw their UFO (God, how I hate using that term), Neil asked for the position of the S4B, thinking that what they were seeing might be it.

They were told within minutes that the S4B was 6000 miles behind them (that was trackable). Thus, on 7-18-69, it was known that what they were seeing was not the S4B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID
No.. you're not insane.. lol And far be it from me to even post an article about poor dear dame in distress - Paris.. but I did.

I do find it rather insane though-- how the MEDIA go all over with the Paris BS as if that is the most important matter on this God forsaken planet, when other important things were going on. And to top it off that THEY (Fox) EVEN broached the question to Aldrin about Paris. Ticks me off!

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Cinders!

Yea, it is something that'll p*** one off, no?

I don't know what Armstrong, Aldrin, and Cooper really saw that historical year of 1969, when all of America (and the world) watched with every chance they could (my family included ). Another that I'd like to hear MORE from is Edgar Mitchell...

That's Collins, Cinders (Cooper was a mercury astronaut who wasn't flying in 1969) :) .

I bet you would get along grandly with Dr. Mitchell! He's quite a guy.

You can get a picture of some of his work here:

http://www.edmitchellapollo14.com

As for Atlantis and the ISS this week- .. I've been watching it all quite closely.. I sure hope things turn out well. Dang they've busted butt up there big time this past week.. I really hope all goes safe, well and successfully for all.

You...are...right!

A phenomenal job by everyone. Looks pretty good so far. It's a heck of alot of work, and these folks are the best of the best.

We all pray for safety and success, and there's a bunch of folks who thank you for your support and your good wishes.

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
They were told within minutes that the S4B was 6000 miles behind them (that was trackable). Thus, on 7-18-69, it was known that what they were seeing was not the S4B.

Right, they knew that it was not possible to see the S-IVB from a distance of 6,000 nautical miles.

I can certainly appreciate that logic. Now if we knew where the SLA Panels where it would be easy for us to say the same about them. Note that an SLA Panel is much smaller than the S-IVB, spcifically an SLA Panel is 10 X 21 X 7 ft. That's only slightly larger than the size of a European Soccer Goal. Because we know the size of an SLA Panel we know the limits of the Human Eye ( ~ 21 arc seconds) we can calculate at what distance and SLA Panel would become invisible to the Human eye. That being the case an SLA Panel reaches 21 arc seconds in appearant diameter at only around 40 nautical miles!

That might not mean that you couldn't see an SLA Panel at 50 nautical miles in space, but that's going to be very hard to see if at all and that's much closer than any of the SLA Panels could have possibly been at the time this incident took place. Any futher distance than this and an SLA Panel is going to be smaller and fainter than the smallest faintest stars that you can see. At 2,000 nm an SLA Panel has the same angular diameter as the S-IVB at 6,000 nm and that's being generous with the calculations and considering an SLA Panel as a circle with a 21 ft diameter which it is not.

So you see an SLA Panel might not be 6,000 nm away like the S-IVB, but it's about as equally implausible as seeing the S-IVB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

Paris Hilton has revealed more than the title suggests :w00t:

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pericynthion
Right, they knew that it was not possible to see the S-IVB from a distance of 6,000 nautical miles.

I can certainly appreciate that logic. Now if we knew where the SLA Panels where it would be easy for us to say the same about them. Note that an SLA Panel is much smaller than the S-IVB, spcifically an SLA Panel is 10 X 21 X 7 ft. That's only slightly larger than the size of a European Soccer Goal. Because we know the size of an SLA Panel we know the limits of the Human Eye ( ~ 21 arc seconds) we can calculate at what distance and SLA Panel would become invisible to the Human eye. That being the case an SLA Panel reaches 21 arc seconds in appearant diameter at only around 40 nautical miles!

That might not mean that you couldn't see an SLA Panel at 50 nautical miles in space, but that's going to be very hard to see if at all and that's much closer than any of the SLA Panels could have possibly been at the time this incident took place. Any futher distance than this and an SLA Panel is going to be smaller and fainter than the smallest faintest stars that you can see. At 2,000 nm an SLA Panel has the same angular diameter as the S-IVB at 6,000 nm and that's being generous with the calculations and considering an SLA Panel as a circle with a 21 ft diameter which it is not.

So you see an SLA Panel might not be 6,000 nm away like the S-IVB, but it's about as equally implausible as seeing the S-IVB.

Hi lost_shaman,

Just wanted to point out there's a difference between being able to resolve an object and being able to see it. The star Vega has an angular diameter of only about 0.0033 arcseconds as seen from Earth. That's way, way below the resolving power of the human eye, yet Vega is the fifth brightest star in the sky. By the way, in the interest of objectivity, most of the sources I've come across in a quick web search list the actual resolving power of the human eye at about 60 arcseconds even though the theoretical limit is lower (example link).

So, it's entirely possible that both the S-IVB and the SLA panels would have been visible from the Apollo 11 spacecraft even if the crew couldn't resolve details with the naked eye.

EDITED TO ADD:

At a range of 6000 nautical miles, though, I'd agree with you that the S-IVB would likely not be very visible to the crew. It's a brightness issue, though, not a resolution issue. The SLA panels would have been much, much closer to the spacecraft.

Pericynthion

Edited by Pericynthion
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cinders
Thanks for the vote of confidence, Cinders!

That's Collins, Cinders (Cooper was a mercury astronaut who wasn't flying in 1969) :) .

I bet you would get along grandly with Dr. Mitchell! He's quite a guy.

You can get a picture of some of his work here:

http://www.edmitchellapollo14.com

You...are...right!

A phenomenal job by everyone. Looks pretty good so far. It's a heck of alot of work, and these folks are the best of the best.

We all pray for safety and success, and there's a bunch of folks who thank you for your support and your good wishes.

:tu:

OHHH You're so right! It was COLLINS!! *ugh* sorry I had COOPER on the brain as I had recently watched him again on a film..

((hopefully Mr Collins does not read this thread.. I feel terrible))

Hey speaking of the ISS and Atlantis today... read the VIDEO information I uploaded here:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2bi1p_ob...ss-june-19-2007

You can ALSO DOWNLOAD the 17 meg file in AVI format from a link I posted there.. It looks much better if you download the file and watch it.

But WOW! That was some BIG HONKIN' Chunk of ICE... I swear I could hear it hit the ISS.. but what is really odd is the other 8 things I saw that flew by shortly after that "wormy looking thing" (ICE) hits the ISS.

Hopefully we'll see the Atlantis safe and sound back on planet earth Thursday.. right??

MID, thank you for correcting me on the name.. I really do feel terrible about saying the wrong name there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
Hi lost_shaman,

Just wanted to point out there's a difference between being able to resolve an object and being able to see it. The star Vega has an angular diameter of only about 0.0033 arcseconds as seen from Earth. That's way, way below the resolving power of the human eye, yet Vega is the fifth brightest star in the sky.

Hey Pericynthion,

I don't disagree with that because Stars are really different than the average object I'm sure you'd agree. Stars are themselves sources of light, rather than reflecting light. That makes a difference. Specifically, an SLA Panel is painted white on it's outside face. That simply means the albeito is high on one side. When we talk about Stars, we don't talk about albeito, but rather luminousity.

An everyday example. Just in the same sense that you could signal your buddy from miles away using a small mirror and reflecting sunlight into his direction, but your buddy would never be able to see you holding a white peice of paper from the same distance and the same size as the small mirror.

You can see the same effect at play when you see an Iridium Flare, you never see the satelite that is reflecting sunlight when you see an Iridium Flare you see the mirror reflection of sunlight off the Solar Panels as the reflection makes a swathing path across the surface of the Earth.

So having a very high albeito and having a very high luminousity, or mirror reflection of such, are two different things altogether. What holds true for instances of high luminousity do not equally traslate as truths for instances of high albeito.

By the way, in the interest of objectivity, most of the sources I've come across in a quick web search list the actual resolving power of the human eye at about 60 arcseconds even though the theoretical limit is lower (example link).

So, it's entirely possible that both the S-IVB and the SLA panels would have been visible from the Apollo 11 spacecraft even if the crew couldn't resolve details with the naked eye.

Pericynthion

You are correct the Human Eye's ability to resolve two objects with 20/20 vision is around one arc minute, and the smaller limit is theoretical based on the spacing of rods and cones.

Now it's correct that we are not really talking about 'resolving' two objects, but rather the ability to see an object reflecting sunlight in space from inside a lighted CSM-LM.

Here on Spritzers site a very similar example to this is given.

" But, if you see a 747 (231 feet long, wingspan 211 feet -l_s) flying 35,000 feet up in the air, you wouldn't see much detail at all. If there were no atmosphere, clouds, or other obstructions (and enough light), the average human eye could see a 747 at a whopping 150 miles up. But, you'd see it as a tiny point, and that's it. You wouldn't even know it was an airplane."

http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/features/ar.../20040819.shtml

So the average Human Eye, according to this example, could under ideal conditions similar to being in space see a 747 at 150 miles given enough light as a tiny point of light. Now an SLA Panel is much, much smaller than a 747. We should logically consider that under ideal conditions and given enough light the average Human eye will fail to see a smaller SLA Panel before it fails to see a larger 747.

For example, we could put 11 SLA Panels together lengthwise and that would still just be about equal to the length of a 747! It would take another 10 SLA Panels just to equal the length of the wingspan of a 747! Even then the 747 would have much more surface area to reflect light than our hypothetical 21 SLA Panels!

EDITED TO ADD:

At a range of 6000 nautical miles, though, I'd agree with you that the S-IVB would likely not be very visible to the crew. It's a brightness issue, though, not a resolution issue. The SLA panels would have been much, much closer to the spacecraft.

Pericynthion

I agree, brightness is an issue that enables greater viewing distances. It means literally there are more photons hitting your retina from a brighter object than a darker object of the same size and surface area. Here it is surface area and distance that determines brightness of different objects with the same albeito. As per the example I used above, the average Human eye has specific limits as to what can be seen even under ideal conditions even when we consider very high reflectivity of an object of a given surface area and distance.

That being said we are specifically talking about an SLA Panel that has one side painted White. It is specifically 10 X 21 X 7 ft , that presents 185 ft2 in surface area when directly facing an observer. When you think about it abstractly it seems like this really large thing out there with the CSM-LM, but actually it is very, very small when we start to talk about distances in hundreds of miles. Just as in the example used above, a 747 represents 1,000's of square feet (from any direction viewed), and yet here an SLA Panel is only a wimpy 185 ft2 in surface area directly facing an observer.

That isn't very large, another everyday example would be the average Gallon of Paint as a general rule of thumb covers about 350 square feet depending on the type of paint, that means a bit over half a Gallon of white paint would cover an SLA Panel that is 185 ft2. According to the Florida Home Builders Association the average living room is 195 ft2, 10 ft2 larger than an SLA Panel.

Edited by lost_shaman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID
But WOW! That was some BIG HONKIN' Chunk of ICE... I swear I could hear it hit the ISS.. but what is really odd is the other 8 things I saw that flew by shortly after that "wormy looking thing" (ICE) hits the ISS.

Yes, I looked at that. Looks more like a piece of some flexible fabric type of thing, actually. I know they had a mission management meeting last night to discuss that...among other things. I haven't heard what the discussion was at this point.

Hopefully we'll see the Atlantis safe and sound back on planet earth Thursday.. right??

Welll, maybe Friday!

Ceilings are too low and there's rain showers in the vicinity and thundershowers forcast within 30 miles of KSC. That prohibits landings for today.

MID, thank you for correcting me on the name.. I really do feel terrible about saying the wrong name there.

Oh, don't worry about that. Mr. Collins wouldn't be upset at all. I was just making sure you knew it was Collins and not Cooper!

I should've known that was just a slip of the keyboard!

Regards,

M~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mind_Freak
Paris Hilton has revealed more than the title suggests :w00t:

... I wonder how much it costs for a weeks pass? One Night in Paris just doesn't seem like enough. :w00t:

Edited by *EnIgMa*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
On 6/19/2007 at 9:47 PM, Pericynthion said:

At a range of 6000 nautical miles, though, I'd agree with you that the S-IVB would likely not be very visible to the crew. It's a brightness issue, though, not a resolution issue. The SLA panels would have been much, much closer to the spacecraft.

Pericynthion

Yes I agree, it is a brightness issue not an angular size issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
On 6/15/2007 at 7:09 AM, Lilly said:

Now this actually makes sense to me, I mean here we are with all sorts of real issues (energy issues, nuclear proliferation, terrorism etc.) and what do we focus on...a vapid, spoiled, little rich girl! This sounds quite like the stupid society in Buzz's book to me.

Me too, and maybe the point was missed by the interviewer that the Paris Hilton news was exactly that, ignoring the important stuff and distracting as many as possible from reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Daughter of the Nine Moons

12 year necro-post. Closed.

  • Thanks 3

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.