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 <snip> >>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: http://www.ehartwell.com/Apollo17/BlueMarblePhotoTimeline.htm 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 - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp