UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Mar > Mar 23

Re: Armstrong On The Apollo 11 UFO - Fleming

From: Lan Fleming <lfleming6.nul>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 13:53:33 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 07:41:04 -0400
Subject: Re: Armstrong On The Apollo 11 UFO - Fleming


>From: James Smith <lunartravel.nul>
>Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 13:12:40 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
>Fwd Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 09:52:17 -0400
>Subject: Re: Armstrong On The Apollo 11 UFO - Smith

>>From: Lan Fleming <lfleming6.nul>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 22:33:41 -0500
>>Subject: Re: Armstrong On The Apollo 11 UFO

<snip>

>>I still think it's important that the credibility of people in
>>positions of authority needs to be called into question when
>>their stories change with time, whether the authority is the
>>U.S. Attorney General, who's had some problems with that
>>recently, or a famous astronaut. I'd like to hear Buzz Aldrin
>>explain why his story changed in the years since the Apollo 11
>>mission debriefing when he essentially rejected the panels as a
>>likely explanation.

>Perhaps, but I am cynical and always suspect "authorities". I
>prefer to spend my time arriving at answers to the UFO question
>using my own data than relying on their authority and their
>data.

I'm probably at least as cynical as you are. But it's
authorities such as famous astronauts to whom appeals are made
in support of the view that the UFO issue is not worth serious
attention from serious people. The bizarre characters who are
attracted to the UFO subject certainly don't help gain support
for scientific UFO research, but I think the scientific
community's dismissive attitude toward UFOs would be essentially
the same, even if everyone who called themselves UFO researchers
was stone cold sober, so long as people like Aldrin and
Armstrong show such open contempt for the subject. Given the
enormous influence of celebrities like Apollo astronauts (not to
mention the vast amounts of public monies spent to send them
into space as objective observers), I think we should expect
more objectivity from them and they should be held to account
(but won't, of course). Their opinions matter much more than
mere facts do. Stepping down from my political soapbox, I'll
return to the specifics of the Apollo 11 case that I think is
interesting.

>>By the way, it occurred to me that the midcourse correction you
>>found out about could make some other source of debris from the
>>CSM/LM less likely. Assuming that the object was something more
>>than an ice particle, the only events that I can think of that
>>would have generated any major debris would have been the
>>separation of the spacecraft from the booster and docking with
>>the LEM. The 485-mile downtrack distance between the panels and
>>the spacecraft that you computed for the midcourse correction
>>would also be the distance to any big chunks of debris left
>>floating around near the booster after the transposition and
>>docking, barring the off chance that the debris got a good kick
>>in the downtrack direction from a thruster or explosive bolt.
>>And whatever debris there was would have been a lot smaller than
>>the SLA panels and even harder to see at that distance.

>Yes, this is true. However, they did have a waste water dump in
>the hours prior to the UFO sighting (the switch to passive
>thermal control flight mode occured after the dump).

But from the original descriptions of the object by all three
astronauts in their debriefing, it sounded like the object was
something consiberably more substantial than an ice particle.
Astronuat Collins said in the debriefing:

"The fact that we didn't see it much past this one time period -
 we really don't have a conclusionas to what it might have been,
how big it was, or how far away it was. It was something that
wasn't part of the urine dump, we're pretty sure of that.
Skipping ahead a bit, when we jettisoned the LM, you know
wefired an explosive charge and got rid of the dockingrings and
the LM went boom. Pieces came off the LM. It could have been
some Mylar or something that had somehow come loose from the
LM."

So Collins, at least, ruled out the water dump explanation. And
the problem remains that there doesn't seem to have been any
major mission event that occurred prior to the object's sighting
and after the midcourse correction that would have generated
substantial debris, such as the debris he described from the
jettisoning of lunar module much later in the mission. Maybe it
was just an unusually large chunk of ice and the astronauts were
letting their imaginations run away with them, as some "UFO"
witnesses do. But given the astronauts obvious biases concerning
UFOs, this seems unlikely to me.



Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

See:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/


[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com