It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Buzz Aldrin 'UFO' sighting - Is this the 'same old' news, or something new?

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: cuckooold

If I was Aldrin, I'd be keeping the lid on things too. You don't reach 84 blabbing about secrets.




posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Aldrin says flat out he thinks what he saw was part of their craft ... yet somehow its evidence of ET craft. People are hilarious.



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 07:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jchristopher5
If I understand this "part of the spacecraft" theory correctly, it would have to have been a rocket booster, which would have been jettisoned thousands of miles before. So, this booster, which had its fuel spent, and with no means of control just happened to hang along the side of the lunar module, unpowered and uncontrolled.

By the time the S-IVB rocket stage was jettisoned, the Apollo spacecraft had already burned 99% of the fuel they would use to get to the moon. After burning fuel for the first few minutes of launch, a spacecraft going to the Moon spends the next three days basically coasting there (with maybe a few minor course correction burns along the way).

Therefore, it would not be implausible for jettisoned parts of the spacecraft to be coasting toward the moon along with the command module holding the astronauts.


Edit:
changed "command module" to "S-IVB" in the first paragraph for clarity.


edit on 7/13/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 07:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: Jchristopher5
If I understand this "part of the spacecraft" theory correctly, it would have to have been a rocket booster, which would have been jettisoned thousands of miles before. So, this booster, which had its fuel spent, and with no means of control just happened to hang along the side of the lunar module, unpowered and uncontrolled.

The Command Module the astronauts were in already burned 99% of the fuel they would use to get to the moon, too. After burning fuel for the first few minutes of launch, a spacecraft going to the Moon spends the next three days basically coasting there (with maybe a few minor course correction burns along the way).

Therefore, it would not be implausible for jettisoned parts of the spacecraft to be coasting toward the moon along with the command module holding the astronauts.



And to expand on that point, exraction of the LM from the Saturn S-IVB was done after the trans-lunar injection burn which means the S-IVB and discarded panels are on roughly the same trajectory, with nothing to slow them down.



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 07:48 AM
link   
a reply to: onebigmonkey

Yes . That is true. Not only was the S-IVB coasting with enough momentum to get to the moon, it was also along the general trajectory of the astronauts.


By the way I should mention that while you were posting, I was editing my post above to clarify that it was the S-IVB that provided the burn for the trans-lunar injection (the burn to get them to the moon).

Originally I said "the Command Module the astronauts were in already burned 99% of the fuel they would use to get to the moon", but that could be a bit confusing. I simply meant that by the time the Apollo craft had got to the point that only the CM and LM remained, 99% of the fuel used to get to the moon had been burned.


But yeah -- most of the final burn power required to get to the moon had been provide by the S-IVB, so it was coasting toward the moon just like the command module and astronauts.




edit on 7/13/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 07:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: Jchristopher5
If I understand this "part of the spacecraft" theory correctly, it would have to have been a rocket booster, which would have been jettisoned thousands of miles before. So, this booster, which had its fuel spent, and with no means of control just happened to hang along the side of the lunar module, unpowered and uncontrolled.

The Command Module the astronauts were in already burned 99% of the fuel they would use to get to the moon, too. After burning fuel for the first few minutes of launch, a spacecraft going to the Moon spends the next three days basically coasting there (with maybe a few minor course correction burns along the way).

Therefore, it would not be implausible for jettisoned parts of the spacecraft to be coasting toward the moon along with the command module holding the astronauts.



And to expand on that point, exraction of the LM from the Saturn S-IVB was done after the trans-lunar injection burn which means the S-IVB and discarded panels are on roughly the same trajectory, with nothing to slow them down.


It seems to me that you guys are trying to hard here to be skeptical.

I still find it implausible that a booster rocket, with zero fuel and no control would just happen to be alongside the craft, thousands of miles after it was ejected.

Sort of like a truck losing it's its trailer in Chicago, while headed 300 miles SW to St. Louis. The trucker gets to St. Louis, he sees the arch, then notices his trailer alongside him on the passing lane.
edit on 13-7-2014 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 08:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jchristopher5
I still find it implausible that a booster rocket, with zero fuel and no control would just happen to be alongside the craft, thousands of miles after it was ejected.


It wasn't right beside them, but rather some distance from them.

The S-IVB and the command module (CM) separated AFTER the burn that put them into trans-ulnar injection. That means that both the S-IVB and the CM were on a course for the moon after that burn. It was only after that burn that the CM separated from the S-IVB.

But by that time, the S-IVB was on a path similar to the CM. It doesn't matter if the S-IVB was no longer powered, because the CM (for the most part) did not do any major engine burns after that in order to be on a course for the Moon, either. It was already on that course coasting there, along with the S-IVB.



edit on 7/13/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 08:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jchristopher5

It seems to me that you guys are trying to hard here to be skeptical.


Not even trying there, it was easy.



I still find it implausible that a booster rocket, with zero fuel and no control would just happen to be alongside the craft, thousands of miles after it was ejected.


What precisely do you think would slow it down or make it change direction?

I should also point out that at no point does Buzz ever say that it is 'alongside' Apollo 11. It is, in fact, some way off.



Sort of like a truck losing it's its trailer in Chicago, while headed 300 miles SW to St. Louis. The trucker gets to St. Louis, he sees the arch, then notices his trailer alongside him on the passing lane.


Ever seen motorbike racing when a bike and rider part company?

In your scenario the trucker is continuing to apply acceleration while the trailer is not. The CSM and S-IVB/SLA panels are both travelling unpowered in the same direction.

It might be rocket science, but it's pretty basic stuff.



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 08:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jchristopher5
Sort of like a truck losing it's its trailer in Chicago, while headed 300 miles SW to St. Louis. The trucker gets to St. Louis, he sees the arch, then notices his trailer alongside him on the passing lane.


If the truck and trailer were both moving on a straight line path on a frictionless, flat, smooth surface, and the truck driver basically coasted the rest of the way, then I would expect the trailer to stay in relative proximity to the truck.

You seem to be missing the point that the CM didn't do any more major engine burns after the S-IVB separation (except for some minor course corrections). After separating from the S-IVB, the CM for the most part coasted to the moon for the next couple of days.


edit on 7/13/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People
I am not a rocket scientist. Space is a huge place, the rocket booster should have been propelled in the opposite direction when ejected, and it just seems unlikely that thousands if miles later it would be near the same place, wobbly keep the same pace as the moon rocket. It seems the initial disconnect burst, and the flailing of the burnt rocket the out space would be enough to ensure that.

I can't argue this point any further with my limited knowledge, however. I will leave that up to someone else. If i am wrong, I am wrong.



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 09:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jchristopher5
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

I am not a rocket scientist. Space is a huge place, the rocket booster should have been propelled in the opposite direction when ejected, and it just seems unlikely that thousands if miles later it would be near the same place, wobbly keep the same pace as the moon rocket. It seems the initial disconnect burst, and the flailing of the burnt rocket the out space would be enough to ensure that.



I can't argue this point any further with my limited knowledge, however. I will leave that up to someone else. If i am wrong, I am wrong.



If you're wrong, man up and say it. And learn more so you can help more.

Did you go to that link I posted that shows photographs taken through telescopes from Earth on various Apollo missions of the Command Module flanked by the SLA panels, a hundred thousand miles out? What's your excuse for refusing to look at that evidence? Let's hear it.

Nobody starts out an expert. Hereabouts we share expertise, every one of us. If you bypass that opportunity, you are acting foolishly.


edit on 13-7-2014 by JimOberg because: typo



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Here's the link suggested earlier that some people seem to want to not know about.

Please learn from it.


originally posted by: JimOberg
Here's something 'new', examples of stuff flying along with Apollo, seen through telescopes from Earth:



www.astr.ua.edu...






posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Jchristopher5

The separation of the CM form the S-IVB stage is not a violent event where the S-IVB would have been propelled in the opposite direction.

In fact the complete opposite is true. That's because the Lunar Module (LM) was stored in an adapter piece on the top of the S-IVB, just behind the CM. The CM did NOT propel the S-IVB backward and away from them quickly after separation, because then they wouldn't have been able to get the LM after separation.

The procedure was for the CM to gently disengage from the S-IVB (and the adapter on top of the S-IVB carrying the LM), then the CM turned around, docked with the LM, pulled the LM out of the LM adapter in the S-IVB, then the CM/LM combo gently moved away from the S-IVB.

But all of this was being done while both the CM and the S-IVB were moving at 25,000 +/- mph, and while both were already on a course toward the general direction of the moon. Sure -- the CM/LM combination did some maneuvers to be clear of the S-IVB, so their trajectories were not exactly the same, but it did not "quickly rocket away" form the S-IVB.


edit on 7/13/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 10:04 AM
link   
And just for fun, here is the LM being extracted from the CSM just after TLI.




posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 11:21 AM
link   
We all know nothing, we're just simply not worthy of knowing, we're just sheep according to Jim bob!

So forget UFOlogy because here in Jim Obergs 99 FAQ all the answers are there, because he said so!


LOL!



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: skyblueworld

You may not agree with Jim Oberg's general overall ideas on the UFO phenomenon, but I always thought his research into the subject was generally solid.

A case in point is this subject of the Apollo 11 "UFO". There is a lot of misinformation flying around about this (much of it due to Aldrin's "showman" style of storytelling), but Oberg is one source that could be used to get the raw facts on the story -- i.e., that the S-IVB could have in fact been on a similar trajectory as the CM, and it could have been the S-IVB that Aldrin saw (which Aldrin himself admits is entirely likely, but not before spinning a yarn about "mystery objects" in that showman-like style I mentioned before).



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 12:18 PM
link   
For an overview of the wild stories circulating in the first decade after the landing, see www.debunker.com...

I mentioned the trans-lunar report but was probably prematurely satisfied with the S4B solution, rather than S4B debris. Also, I had been unable to track down "Fred Bell" at the time.

Still, that WAS written more than thirty years ago!



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg

Well, when I say "S-IVB", I also mean the SLA panels that formed part of the LM adapter at the front of the S-IVB. What Aldrin saw could have been the S-IVB or a part of the S-IVB (namely, an SLA panel).

Maybe I need to be more specific about that, but I get wordy enough in my posts



edit on 7/13/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: JimOberg

Well, when I say "S-IVB", I also mean the SLA panels that formed part of the LM adapter at the front of the S-IVB. What Aldrin saw could have been the S-IVB or a part of the S-IVB (namely, an SLA panel).

Maybe I need to be more specific about that, but I get wordy enough in my posts




I'll cut slack for you, but MY original report in the late 1970s dismissing it as the S4B itself [the story became the 1982 book chapter] was simply wrong. Close, but wrong.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join