UFO Footage from Apollo 10 Mission

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by PINGi14
 


If Apollo 10 was moving very fast and that satellite was stationery in orbit that can explain what is in the video.




posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by wlasikiewicz
reply to post by PINGi14
 


If Apollo 10 was moving very fast and that satellite was stationery in orbit that can explain what is in the video.

There are no satellites in synchronous orbit around the Moon. Well... none of ours at least!



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spookycolt
reply to post by gortex
 


Glad to see someone finally agrees with me.

How do we convince the rest of the sheep now?


The irony.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by PheonixReborn

Originally posted by wmd_2008

YES and guess what at some point they run out of fuel and all end up crashing on the surface!

A satellite in orbit around a body with no atmosphere needs no fuel to stay in orbit. It would only need fuel if its orbit was degraded by encountering drag from an atmosphere.


Except the moon's gravity is 'lumpy' and it 'pumps' close satellites into more eccentric orbits whose low points soon [a few months] shift to negative altitude, and they hit. There's a lot of 'stuff' about spaceflight that are not widely known, so it's not uncommon for people to make seemingly reasonable assumptions that happen to be wrong. The question is, is there some methodology to identifying and correcting such misconceptions before they lead to silly and false conclusions? I'm still trying to figure this out.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 10:06 AM
link   
NASA did studies of all stuff seen outside, in case it was hazardous.

Sad that the 1970 Apollo report seems to be 'off-limits' to UFO websites, I wonder why?

www.jamesoberg.com...



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
NASA did studies of all stuff seen outside, in case it was hazardous.

Sad that the 1970 Apollo report seems to be 'off-limits' to UFO websites, I wonder why?

www.jamesoberg.com...


You can't just link that report call it a study of 'all stuff seen outside' during Apollo program. Frankly speaking, that's just BS and only hurts your credibility. The report is very specific about which objects it analyzed and I don't see this particular object in the report. Can you point us to where exactly in the report is the analysis of this object?

If not, you are just spreading disinformation in my thread my friend.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by PINGi14

Originally posted by JimOberg
NASA did studies of all stuff seen outside, in case it was hazardous.

Sad that the 1970 Apollo report seems to be 'off-limits' to UFO websites, I wonder why?

www.jamesoberg.com...


You can't just link that report call it a study of 'all stuff seen outside' during Apollo program. Frankly speaking, that's just BS and only hurts your credibility. The report is very specific about which objects it analyzed and I don't see this particular object in the report. Can you point us to where exactly in the report is the analysis of this object?

If not, you are just spreading disinformation in my thread my friend.


Are you suggesting that NOT allowing access to the report leaves people BETTER informed?

The report describes the rationale and methodology of analyzing flight video of stuff seen outside.

It seemed to me that it would put the phenomenon in a realisic context.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 01:34 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by AthlonSavage
Someone will try and say its a piece of ice or some garage like that.

"Garage"?



Stupid skeptics.

No, we just have a different opinion.


And yes, it does look like a piece of ice or some other small debris just outside the _

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by PINGi14
 


It's more probable a low orbiting satellite than a bona-fide UFO.
Who knows.
Not that impressive but thanks for sharing.
S&F for exposing this to me though!



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by PheonixReborn

Originally posted by wmd_2008

YES and guess what at some point they run out of fuel and all end up crashing on the surface!

A satellite in orbit around a body with no atmosphere needs no fuel to stay in orbit. It would only need fuel if its orbit was degraded by encountering drag from an atmosphere.



Do you honestly think that satellites never need any kind of adjustment when in orbit even round the Moon, most are sent to do some kind of study look at the LRO, most of them in orbit round the Moon have been in low orbits so the Moon's gravity can have an effect.


the 50 km mission orbit shows significant evolution in eccentricity and argument of periapsis from month to month. If left uncorrected, these perturbations will cause LRO to hit the lunar surface within about 60 days



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
Someone will try and say its a piece of ice or some garage like that.

"Garage"?


I was looking for my garage the other day. I wonder how it got into orbit?
edit on 3-2-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 



The question is, is there some methodology to identifying and correcting such misconceptions before they lead to silly and false conclusions? I'm still trying to figure this out.
A controlled, searchable database specifically targeting what you describe, to be used as an athoratative reference would be nice.
edit on 3-2-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by PINGi14

Originally posted by JimOberg
NASA did studies of all stuff seen outside, in case it was hazardous.

Sad that the 1970 Apollo report seems to be 'off-limits' to UFO websites, I wonder why?

www.jamesoberg.com...


You can't just link that report call it a study of 'all stuff seen outside' during Apollo program. Frankly speaking, that's just BS and only hurts your credibility. The report is very specific about which objects it analyzed and I don't see this particular object in the report. Can you point us to where exactly in the report is the analysis of this object?

If not, you are just spreading disinformation in my thread my friend.


Are you suggesting that NOT allowing access to the report leaves people BETTER informed?

The report describes the rationale and methodology of analyzing flight video of stuff seen outside.

It seemed to me that it would put the phenomenon in a realisic context.


I am suggesting that it's bad practice to link a report that's missing critical info (such as actual diagrams of analyses) and call like it's the debunker's bible of "all stuff seen outside" feared by the UFO community.

I don't mind if you link that report, I just didn't appreciate how you over-hyped it and suggested it was some kind of document feared by the UFO community lol.



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien
reply to post by PINGi14
 


It's more probable a low orbiting satellite than a bona-fide UFO.
Who knows.
Not that impressive but thanks for sharing.
S&F for exposing this to me though!


How do you work that out all you ufo guys must have some super vision or something, no one has a size for that object it could be a piece of debris a few feet away or something larger a few hundred yards away.

It's the same as people on here that give estimates of speed for a dot on a video that the don't have any info on.





new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join