PDA

View Full Version : Aldrin's S-IVB sighting



JonClarke
2007-Jul-04, 09:57 PM
the one that UFO folk think was a UFO. We had a discussion about this in the past, but I can't find it. Any suggestions (and yes, I did try the search function)?

Thanks

Jon

Added in edit That ought be "Sighting" :(

Nicolas
2007-Jul-04, 10:25 PM
The search function never worked for me...Sorry, can't help you.

astrophotographer
2007-Jul-04, 10:41 PM
the one that UFO folk think was a UFO. We had a discussion about this in the past, but I can't find it. Any suggestions (and yes, I did try the search function)?

I know UFOlogists disagree with this statement but Aldrin has openly stated it was probably one of the panels from the S-IVB.

http://nai.arc.nasa.gov/astrobio/astrobio_detail.cfm?ID=1568

Nicolas
2007-Jul-04, 10:47 PM
I was there when he explained the ins and outs of that story for the n-th time. In short, they didn't know what they were seeing at the time, didn't dare to ask Houston directly because they'd think the astronauts had gone nuts. So they asked where the stage was at the time, and concluded (between themselves) from the answer that they couldn't be seeing the stage. So they concluded it had to be one of the panels. Only after the mission they reported on this (IIRc). He added that the only unidentified aspect of that sighting is which of the 4 identical panels it was :).

(edit: I see the provided link gives pretty much the same info. I'm not sure on what he said about discussions after the mission or outside of public broadcast though, but anyway they never seriously thought "alien ship")

JonClarke
2007-Jul-04, 11:10 PM
Thanks!

Jon

AGN Fuel
2007-Jul-04, 11:50 PM
Hey Jon,

Is this (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=51426&highlight=S-IVB) the thread you were looking for?

The S-IVB discussion starts at Post 5.

JonClarke
2007-Jul-05, 12:00 PM
This has been most helpful. Of course the HBers don't believe it, because the statement is third hand. Is the incident mentioned in any of the books by Aldrin, Collins or Armstrong?

Jon

eburacum45
2007-Jul-05, 12:27 PM
Apologies, Dr Clarke; I'd already posted that link to the Aldrin 'phone call over at Space.com before I saw this thread. However, as you say, the true believers are not impressed.

Nicolas
2007-Jul-05, 01:11 PM
Well, I heard it first hand, but I'm sure I also don't impress the hoax believers :D.

JonClarke
2007-Jul-05, 09:25 PM
Apologies, Dr Clarke; I'd already posted that link to the Aldrin 'phone call over at Space.com before I saw this thread. However, as you say, the true believers are not impressed.

But thanks anyway. Help is alwaysd appreciated. One person actually said that he had learned from the discussion how baseless his suspeicious were. I think that is a positive outcome.

But the HBers are restless there at the moment, Moon Hoax, Mars hoax, therehas been a flurry of them.

Jon

JonClarke
2007-Jul-05, 09:26 PM
Well, I heard it first hand, but I'm sure I also don't impress the hoax believers :D.

after all, who are you? ;)

Another volunteer disinfo agent! :)

Jon

Count Zero
2007-Jul-06, 07:44 AM
The Apollo missions were totally faked, and while they were on the way there, Buzz Aldrin saw a UFO. Wait, what? <head explodes>

Nicolas
2007-Jul-06, 09:38 AM
after all, who are you? ;)

Another volunteer disinfo agent! :)

Jon

I don't know your income specifics, but it strikes me as odd if you'd call 30K per month a volunteer. ;) :D

WHarris
2007-Jul-06, 11:19 AM
I don't know your income specifics, but it strikes me as odd if you'd call 30K per month a volunteer. ;) :D

30K per month?!?!

I'm gonna have a talk with my agent!

JonClarke
2007-Jul-07, 11:12 PM
So will I - I'm not getting any of it? May be is being siphoned into another black fund :)

Seriously, as anyone chelced any of the books by the Apollo 11 crew for mention of this? It would be nice to have a bit more documentation other than a you tube clip (which I haven't seen) and a second report of a phone conversation.

Jon

Jon

gwiz
2007-Jul-09, 09:46 AM
It was mentioned in the post-flight crew technical de-brief, date July 31st 1969. If you have the Apogee Books Apollo 11 vol 2, it's on page 38. All three of the crew saw the thing, here's Armstrong's description:

"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."

They tried looking at it through the optics, but had difficulty getting it in focus. Collins suggested it could have been small and close, a piece of loose mylar from the LM.

Nicolas
2007-Jul-09, 05:09 PM
With the optics, they did identify the shape "of an open book" in the end, which is more or less in line with a panel. I though there were other arguments (not in the debriefing) to suggest it indeed was a panel.

3488
2007-Jul-11, 02:13 PM
I thought it was proven to be a panel from the S-IVB??

Mind you the woo-woos won't take it though. First they say that Apollo did not happen, but when someting like this comes out, some say it did & that they were being buzzed (rubbish pun not intended) by a UFO. :doh:

It would be very funny if it was not so pathetic. :mad:

When will these people grow up? :wall:

Andrew Brown.

Kelfazin
2007-Jul-11, 03:07 PM
And if you don't have the books you can download the original transcripts on the ALSJ here (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11.html). Volume 1, pages 6-34 to 6-36.

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.

Fazor
2007-Jul-11, 03:07 PM
The Apollo missions were totally faked, and while they were on the way there, Buzz Aldrin saw a UFO. Wait, what? <head explodes>
:)
I recall hearing Jay discuss issues such as this when I first joined BAUT. To the HB, it's apparent that their version of the events doesn't have to be consistent throughout the entire chain of events, as it is apparently enough for each part to be explained [suppress that laughter please] individually.

NEOWatcher
2007-Jul-11, 03:16 PM
...as it is apparently enough for each part to be explained [suppress that laughter please] individually.
A big issue I have on a daily basis with my job. I work with users on how to design a program flow, and they keep feeding me examples, and everytime I bring up the relationship between them, they are completely lost.
I have one project in testing for 8 months now because they want to test each case and can't see the patterns. One reason I've been so active here lately...

Kelfazin
2007-Jul-12, 10:44 PM
Interesting note, I'm reading through the Apollo 13 technical debrief (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a13/a13-techdebrief.pdf) and see they saw the SLA panels during the traslunar coast as well:

Page 17-2 (page 146 of the pdf document):

We saw the S-IVB. We reported the last time we saw it, we saw the SLA panels. I think Fred was mentioning the fact that during one part of the flight we saw some parts of the SLA panels on the S-IVB close by post 5. We could see a blinking star that was probably the SLA panel turning.

astrophotographer
2007-Jul-13, 01:51 PM
Interesting note, I'm reading through the Apollo 13 technical debrief (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a13/a13-techdebrief.pdf) and see they saw the SLA panels during the traslunar coast as well:

Page 17-2 (page 146 of the pdf document):

I remember seeing Pete Conrad talk about the same thing on a NOVA program about UFOs.

As for the UFO groups, recent discussions I have seen have tried to dismiss the SLA panels. The thought process is was that it was too far away to be seen and that an SLA panel does not look like an "open suitcase". There is a whole line of reasoning/back and forth on this at UFO updates mailing list last March. A sample can be found here:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2007/mar/m19-009.shtml

Note: Lan Fleming is a Mars face supporter and finds all sorts of conspiracies every time a new photograph or data for the face shows up revealing it is just a hill.

Kelfazin
2007-Jul-13, 03:04 PM
CT, Inc. Moving Goalposts since 1947!

JayUtah
2007-Jul-13, 04:06 PM
To the HB, it's apparent that their version of the events doesn't have to be consistent throughout the entire chain of events, as it is apparently enough for each part to be explained [suppress that laughter please] individually.

[Sound of suppressed laughter]

There is a difference between an ad hoc approach and a purely contradictory one. "Cosmic" Dave Cosnette is the canonical example of someone simply holding two contradictory beliefs: that the Apollo missions were faked, and that Apollo astronauts saw UFOs on the Moon. You can't really hair-split your way around that.

"Cosmic" Dave also commits smaller examples of that behavior. In one case he says there should be stars in Apollo photos. Then in another case he points to "stars" (white specks) and says that we're obviously daft for claiming there shouldn't be any, not realizing that he's arguing out both sides of his mouth. If he says those white specks are stars, then he can't also argue that there aren't any in the pictures.

Conspiracists tend to see those dilemmas not as contradictions but instead as tautologies. Of course tautologies are bad too, but in their argumentation a tautology is seen as a slam-dunk. They think their conclusion holds no matter what evidence or counterevidence we can supply. Of course the real implication of the tautology is that no evidence was consulted in the forming of the conclusion: if the conclusion is the same regardless of what the evidence says, then the evidence doesn't bear on the conclusion (i.e., to support it). Evidence only supports a conclusion when a change in the evidence affects it.

The other classic argument goes, "The Moon rocks are fake; but if they're real then they were retrieved from Antarctica or by an unmanned probe." Here the authenticity of the Apollo samples is shown to be irrelevant to the argument of whether Apollo missions were faked because as the evidence changes, the conclusion doesn't.

Ad hockery is different. It doesn't have to be a contradiction in order to fail; just unparsimonious. Conspiracists focus narrowly on individual data points and speculate an elaborate means of faking each one, independent of the others. Very often, but not necessarily, those elaborations contradict.

An excellent example is Rocky (formerly DaveC here) at ApolloHoax who is trying to explain the LRV dust plumes as elaborately graded, washed, and sifted sand exactly the diameter needed to avoid aerosolization but not other aerodynamic effects, placed only where the LRV would drive and not where an astronaut would need to step in it and leave a defined track. Other examples include where some acrobatic manuever is supported by wires and then another that occurs seconds later is explained by changing the frame rate. None of that is technically impossible; it just pales in feasibility to being in the lunar environment.

JayUtah
2007-Jul-13, 04:09 PM
The thought process is was that it was too far away to be seen and that an SLA panel does not look like an "open suitcase".

I wouldn't call that a thought process. The first premise is that it's too far away to make a positive identification. The second premise is that the alleged identification doesn't fit. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If it's too far away, then the "open suitcase" description is unreliable.

ngc3314
2007-Jul-13, 07:23 PM
I remember seeing Pete Conrad talk about the same thing on a NOVA program about UFOs.

As for the UFO groups, recent discussions I have seen have tried to dismiss the SLA panels. The thought process is was that it was too far away to be seen and that an SLA panel does not look like an "open suitcase". There is a whole line of reasoning/back and forth on this at UFO updates mailing list last March. A sample can be found here:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2007/mar/m19-009.shtml

Note: Lan Fleming is a Mars face supporter and finds all sorts of conspiracies every time a new photograph or data for the face shows up revealing it is just a hill.

There are (gasp) data available to tell how far away and how bright the SLA panels were. The panels were observed extensively from Earth, with reports of apparent magnitude range and characteristic time for variation as they tumbled. A few pictures are reproduced at http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html. There's an especially good one for Apollo 13 showing how symmetrically they left the spacecraft (a nice engineering touch).

At the time of the Apollo 12 report, 8 hours after SLA jettison, the SLAs would have been about 36 km from the CSM/LM combination (the uncertainty of about 25% in that value comes from limited documentation on the cropped fields of the ground-based photographs). Their brightest flashes would have reached about visual magnitude -7, allowing plenty of scope for them to be visible. As to apparent size, they'd naturally have looked quite small at that range, using a ruler on my handy 1/144 Saturn V on this shelf, roughly 4 by 7 meters. The long axis, seen sideways, would subtend less than an arcminute for the Apollo 12 report. For Apollo 11, one could crudely scale by time since ejection (I don't know of any reason that separation speed would have changed between the two spacecraft, but will stand by for JayUtah's correction...)

JayUtah
2007-Jul-13, 07:47 PM
I don't know if they did change the ejection velocity, but I can't see any reason either why they would.

Bottom line: if there's a "mysterious" object where the SLA panel is predicted to be, it's the SLA panel until proven otherwise, even if it doesn't immediately look exactly like it. It's simply more likely to be poorly-visible SLA than an alien taco stand that happened to show up right where the SLA would be.

TheyDidGoToTheMoon
2007-Jul-14, 09:46 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlkV1ybBnHI

Aldrin's interview.

Kelfazin
2007-Jul-15, 07:25 AM
Welcome to the board TheyDidGoToTheMoon :)

Orion437
2007-Jul-15, 02:17 PM
Aldrin never said that there was / is a conspiracy around his supossedly sighting, so there is no relation with the ct moon hoax teories.

TheyDidGoToTheMoon
2007-Jul-15, 02:25 PM
Thanks Kelfazin.

I don't think this has anything to do with any conspiracy to do with the moon.

Gillianren
2007-Jul-15, 06:28 PM
I was watching Buzz on Larry King; it was delightful. The look on Stanton Friedman's face when he realized they were going to make him sit just quietly and listen to Buzz! (Also, poor Michael Shermer. They needed to stack the deck a little better at the beginning; it was him against four CTs.)

R.A.F.
2007-Jul-15, 07:38 PM
Toward the end of the King show, Michael Shermer stated...


As soon as we find an actual alien, a body, an actual space craft, one of those probes that we hear all about, if somebody brings one of those, OK, that's all we need. That's all science needs is some kind of empirical evidence.

..which is of course very true. If only there were some actual, testable evidence, then the whole "visiting alien" question would be resolved once and for all time.

But I certainly won't be coerced (by people such as Stanton Friedman) into blindly accepting "evidence" that is simply not convincing.

Nicolas
2007-Jul-16, 09:57 AM
That aldrin interview obviously is a cut and paste job. I wonder whether he didn't mention the panel or they just cut it out. Because not too many years later (judging at his face), he certainly did mention them. Said something like "the only thing unidentified about that encounter is which of the 4 panels it was".

Gillianren
2007-Jul-16, 07:15 PM
He mentioned the panel on the interview I saw. He even had a toy Saturn V that he was using for demonstrations.

R.A.F.
2007-Jul-16, 07:32 PM
Here (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0707/13/lkl.02.html) is the transcript from the Larry King show being discussed.

Nicolas
2007-Jul-16, 10:42 PM
He mentioned the panel on the interview I saw. He even had a toy Saturn V that he was using for demonstrations.

He loves to play around with scale models of planes and rockets, also when not explaining things. :) But then again, who doesn't. :)

PhantomWolf
2007-Jul-19, 04:41 AM
Well in the transcript, though he keeps getting interupted, he does say it was one of the SLA panels.

Nicolas
2007-Jul-19, 08:32 AM
But including that would have made the video FAR less interesting to the UFO crowd, of course.