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.

 

Apollo 16 UFO

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Hi all,

I've done a basic search of the board and couldn't find a thread that I would want to place this in, so, I have created a new thread instead. Forgive me if this is rude, I've just joined ATS.

Anyways, in 2005 I had a sighting of my very own, a UFO hovered directly above my son and I, and ever since then I have been researching everything I can about them, I really want to find out if anyone else has a photo of what I saw. I have come across some compelling evidence and other evidence that’s, well, just down right dodgy.

I came across the official NASA UFO debunk for the Apollo 16 incident, and when I read it, I couldn't help wondering who they were trying to kid.

I have a one page investigation here Apollo 16

I would like your opinion on it; maybe you have come across something similar, or can point out an obvious flaw in my thinking.

Thanks,

Phanton

[edit on 3-10-2006 by phanton]




posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Do you know if NASA edited the footage out of order after it got back to Eart? I'd buy there explaination but one thing confuses me. The footage is supposedly being taken as they leave the Moon, but the section of footage with the UFO in it is closer to the Moon than the section before. Then the cut after the section with the UFO is even further away.

If they just got the ordering wrong in post production of editing this footage then that's fair enough, but if the edit was done in-camera then surely that means they went back closer to the Moon and then left again?

That troubles me more than the object in question (which does look like what they say it is).

Shot of the Moon just before UFO in frame:



Shot of the Moon with UFO in frame:



Shot of Moon just after UFO in frame:




posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 05:42 PM
link   
I know what you mean, but, the floodlight/boom is at the wrong angle.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by phanton
I know what you mean, but, the floodlight/boom is at the wrong angle.


Not necessarily. It was likely spinning so there would've been a point when it was at the right angle. The photo with both the Boom and the module was probably the best example of seeing it outside the module, rather than it being taken at the exact same time.

As I've already said the potential great mystery here is the possibility that they left the Moon, went back, then left again.

I've emailed NASA to ask how/if this footage was edited, hopefully they'll get back to me.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 05:37 PM
link   

John Nada
It was likely spinning so there would've been a point when it was at the right angle.


When what was spinning? The camera? The Astronaut? The Command Module or the floodlight/boom?

The floodlight/boom is 'attached' to the command module, and unlikley to have been deployed in flight as it's purpose is for space walks, one spins and they all spin, at the same time, in the same direction/vector! Simple psychics!

Wait, are you theorising that the astronaut was spinning around, outside the command module? Or the floodlight/boom was spinning outside and happened to brake off, present it's self in the view, then re-attach?

Sure, if the astronaut was outside the command/module then, yeah, he could have pictured it in the way NASA claims.


John Nada
The photo with both the Boom and the module was probably the best example of seeing it outside the module, rather than it being taken at the exact same time.


Again, simple psychics, boom is statically attached to Command module, if the boom was bendy and could pivot, then maybe it could have happened the way NASA claim. But it would have to bend and twist, in at least two points, to show the bulb.


John Nada
As I've already said the potential great mystery here is the possibility that they left the Moon, went back, then left again.


Likely they captured normal footage of the Moon on approach, then on the way back they saw the object, re-wound the tape a bit because it was full, then started to record over approach footage.


John Nada
I've emailed NASA to ask how/if this footage was edited, hopefully they'll get back to me.


I too have emailed NASA, about two weeks ago, and have heard nothing from them yet. I'll also post if I hear anything.

[edit on 4-10-2006 by phanton]



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by phanton
Again, simple psychics, boom is statically attached to Command module, if the boom was bendy and could pivot, then maybe it could have happened the way NASA claim. But it would have to bend and twist, in at least two points, to show the bulb.


I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I can't rule out it isn't what they say it is. It looks almost exactly the same as the Boom, so if it was an alien ship it's an unbelievable coincidence!

However there is an element of doubt there, and you seem to have done your home work so I'll agree it's in the mystery box for now.



Likely they captured normal footage of the Moon on approach, then on the way back they saw the object, re-wound the tape a bit because it was full, then started to record over approach footage.


You can't "film over" film stock mate, once it's used it's used.



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by John Nada
You can't "film over" film stock mate, once it's used it's used.


Why, your right, of course.



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Apollo 11 technical debrief tells how Armstrong and the Crew witness loads of objects, some UFO's and also some very strange phenomenon! Courtesy of NASA.


Section 6.40: Rest Periods

Aldrin
We're all good sleepers. The first one was not as good as the second or third, but the first sleep period was still surprisingly restful as far as I'm concerned.

Collins
I think particularly when you get into the later flights of extended EVA's and lunar activity, somehow the crew must place themselves in a frame of mind of looking on the separation of the LM as the beginning of the flight plan and to relax, get plenty of sleep, and conserve their energies in all the events leading up to that point. To arrive in lunar orbit tired can create problems and it's possible to do that if you don't approache it in the right frame of mind.

Armstrong
I think Mike's hit the nail on the head. We did precisely that. We got a lot of rest and got into lunar orbit eager to go to work and that's a particularly fortunate position to be in.

Collins
This is something we've talked about before the flight and I don't know how you can get yourself in that frame of mind but I think it is a frame of mind. You have to get yourself convinced that there will be a nice relaxing couple of days going to the moon.

Aldrin
The first unusual thing that we saw I guess was 1 day out or something pretty close to the moon. It had a sizeable dimension to it, so we put the monocular on it.

Collins
How'd we see this thing? Did we just look out the window and there it was?

Aldrin
Yes, and we weren't sure but that it might be the S-IVB. We called the ground and were told the S-IVB was 6000 miles away. We had a problem with the high gain about this time, didn't we?

Collins
There was something. We felt a bump or maybe I just imagined it.

Armstrong
He was wondering whether the MESA had come off.

Collins
I don't guess we felt anything.

Aldrin
Of course, we were seeing all sorts of little objects going by at the various dumps and then we happened to see this one brighter object going by. We couldn't think of anything else it could be other than the S-IVB. We looked at it through the monocular and it seemed to have a bit of an L shape to it.

Armstrong
Like an open suitcase.

Aldrin
We were in PTC at the time so each one of us had a chance to take a look at this and it certainly seemed to be within our vicinity and of a very sizeable dimension.

Armstrong
We should say that it was right at the limit of the resolution of the eye. It was very difficult to tell just what shape it was. And there was no way to tell the size without knowing the range or the range without knowing the size.

Aldrin
So then I got down in the LEB and started looking for it in the optics. We were grossly misled because with the sextant off focus what we saw appeared to be a cylinder.

Armstrong
Or really two rings.

Aldrin
Yes.

Armstrong
Two rings. Two connected rings.

Collins
No, it looked like a hollow cylinder to me. It didn't look like two connected rings. You could see this thing tumbling and, when it came around end-on, you could look right down in its guts. It was a hollow cylinder. But then you could change the focus on the sextant and it would be replaced by this open-book shape. It was really weird.

Aldrin
I guess there's not too much more to say about it other than it wasn't a cylinder.

Collins
It was during the period when we thought it was a cylinder that we inquired about the S-IVB and we'd almost convinced ourselves that's what it had to be. But we don't have any more conclusions than that really. The fact that we didn't see it much past this one time period – we really don't have a conclusion as 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.



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Collins
Skipping ahead a bit, when we jettisoned the LM, you know we fired an explosive charge and got rid of the docking rings 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.

Aldrin
We thought it could have been a panel, but it didn't appear to have that shape at all.

Collins
That's right, and for some reason, we thought it might have been a part of the high gain antenna. It might have been about the time we had high gain antenna problems. In the back of my mind, I have some reason to suspect that its origin was from the spacecraft.

Aldrin
The other observation that I made accumulated gradually. I don't know whether I saw it the first night, but I'm sure I saw it the second night. I was trying to go to sleep with all the lights out. I observed what I thought were little flashes inside the cabin, spaced a couple of minutes apart and I didn't think too much about it other than just a note in my mind that they continued to be there. I couldn't explain why my eye would see these flashes. During transearth coast, we had more time and I devoted more opportunity to investigating what this could have been. It was at that point that I was able to observe on two different occasions that, instead of observing just one flash, I could see double flashes, at points sepatated by maybe a foot. At other times, I could see a line with no direction of motion and the only thing that comes to my mind is that this is some sort of penetration. At least that's my guess, without much to support it; some penetration of some object into the spacecraft that causes an emission as it enters the cabin itself. Sometimes it was one flash on entering. Possibly departing from an entirely different part of the cabin, outside the field of view. The double flashes appeared to have an entry and then impact on something such as the struts. For a while, I thought it might have been some static electricity because I was also able, in moving my hand up and down the sleep restraint, to generate very small sparks of static electricity. But there was a definite difference between the two as I observed it more and more. I tried to correlate this with the direction of the sun. When you put the window shades up there is still a small amount of leakage. You can generally tell within 20 or 30 degrees the direction of the sun. It seemed as though they were coming from that general direction; however, I really couldn't say if there was near enough evidence to support that these things were observable on the side of the spacecraft where the sun was. A little bit of evidence seemed to support this. I asked the others if they had seen any of these and, until about the last day, they hadn't.

Armstrong
Buzz, I'd seen some light, but I just always attributed this to sunlight, because the window covers leak a little bit of light no matter how tightly secured. The only time I observed it was the last night when we really looked for it. I spent probably an hour carefully watching the inside of the spacecraft and I probably made 50 significant observations in this period.

Aldrin
Sometimes a minute or two would go by and then you'd see two within the space of 10 seconds. On an average, I'd say just as a guess it was maybe something like one a minute. Certainly more than enough to convince you that it wasn't an optical illusion. It did give you a rather funny feeling to contemplate that something was zapping through the cabin. There wasn't anything you could do about it.

Armstrong
It could be something like Buzz suggested. Mainly a neutron or some kind of an atomic particle that would be in the visible spectrum.



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 05:32 PM
link   
So, does the Floodlight/Boom theory hold any weight now?

Notice how NASA simply shifted the sightings from the 'Visual Sightings' section, to the 'Rest Periods' section. Sneeky huh....



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by phanton
Hi all,

I've done a basic search of the board and couldn't find a thread that I would want to place this in, so, I have created a new thread instead. Forgive me if this is rude, I've just joined ATS.

Anyways, in 2005 I had a sighting of my very own, a UFO hovered directly above my son and I, and ever since then I have been researching everything I can about them, I really want to find out if anyone else has a photo of what I saw. I have come across some compelling evidence and other evidence that’s, well, just down right dodgy.

I came across the official NASA UFO debunk for the Apollo 16 incident, and when I read it, I couldn't help wondering who they were trying to kid.

I have a one page investigation here Apollo 16

I would like your opinion on it; maybe you have come across something similar, or can point out an obvious flaw in my thinking.

Thanks,

Phanton

[edit on 3-10-2006 by phanton]


I'm sorry Phanton but this topic was discussed before.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

What attracts my attention in your thread is the Apollo 16 UFO over the Moon
image wich is consistent with the footage I provided showing the UFO to the right side of the Moon, not to the left as NASA published in their website.
The video provided by Skynet's Tom King also shows the UFO to the left.
This is the famous video seen in most websites and also in documentaries.

However the original 16 mm sequence film that was posted in YouTube shows
the UFO to the right side of the Moon. This video was removed two days later
for some reason but I made a copy for myself previously.

video.google.com...

I don't buy the EVA explanation by NASA and besides there were no spacewalks
in Apollo 16. However I'm still wondering about the issue of the inverted UFO image.
Was the UFO to the left or to the right side of the Mooon ?



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 09:14 AM
link   
The Apollo 11 information I posted earlier is simply to highlight that NASA don't want the general public to hear Astronauts talking about UFO's, so they hid it away.

Common sense tells me that the floodlight/boom is not the object we see and the object is not the boom, as my investigation reveals.

I do agree that the picture of the alleged floodlight/boom on the NASA website does look allot like the ufo, but, the picture presented to us as the floodlight/boom from NASA, is not the floodlight/boom from the command/module! It's not even the same shape!


Notice how the picture on the NASA website has chopped edges, corners that would otherwise reveal what it really is have been chopped off!

OMG! Can you all not see this?



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join