UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Mar > Mar 1

Re: An E-Mail To BadAstronomy On Apollo 11 UFO -

From: Lan Fleming <lfleming6.nul>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 21:55:24 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 07:37:26 -0500
Subject: Re: An E-Mail To BadAstronomy On Apollo 11 UFO -

>From: James Smith <lunartravel.nul>
>Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:07:35 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Subject: Re: An E-Mail To BadAstronomy On Apollo 11 UFO

>>From: Lan Fleming <lfleming6.nul>
>>To: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 11:56:11 -0600
>>Subject: An E-Mail To BadAstronomy On Apollo 11 UFO


>>If the panels were traveling at a speed of 2.5 m/s relative to
>>the Apollo spacecraft, the distance between the panels and the
>>spacecraft would have been about 517 km, or 320 miles after
>>that amount of time.

>I don't think its so easy to deduce anything like this.

True. That's why I made it a conditional statement, not a deduction.

>The panels are jettisoned while the spacecraft is still close enough
>to Earth to have the effects of the atmosphere enter into it. So
>you need to account for that.

I doubt atmospheric drag was a factor. The panels and the
spacecraft were traveling at escape velocity. The Apollo 9
mission never left Earth orbit, which is why the panels fell
back to Earth. I'm sure that the SLA panels on the Apollo 11
mission traveled roughly in the same direction as the
spacecraft, although  at a different speed that could have (but
not necssarily did)  put them far away from the spacecraft at
the time of the object's sighting.

>Then there is the matter of midcourse correction. How does that
>affect the position of the panels? Maybe it improves it or maybe
>worsens it.

Yes, but I haven't seen anything to suggest that NASA or anyone
else knows for sure.

As I said before, what I find most interesing about this case is
that Alrdin changed his story. During the debriefing after the
return to Earth, he seems to have ruled out the possibility that
the object was one of the SLA panels for the very logical reason
that their shape didn't match the shape of the object he saw.

There are photos of tumbling SLA panels showing them from
various angles on this web page:


None of these views match the description of the L-shaped object
that Aldrin described or the "open suitcase" that Armstrong
described it.

The Science program can be rightly faulted for not mentioning
that Aldrin identified the object as an SLA panel. But it seems
to me that Aldrin can be equally  faulted  for  failing to
mention  his reversal of opinion and for not giving any reason
for it.  The same goes for Armstrong, who didn't disagree with
Alrdin's dismissal of the SLA panel as an explanation during the
debriefing, but acted as if he and the other two astronauts knew
all along that the object was an SLA panel by the time he was
interviewed for his biography _First Man_. To me this is
duplicitous. While doubting the veracity of astronuats is often
treated as treasonous and un-American, this seems to prove that
there may be good reason for such doubts.

[ 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