From: Lan Fleming <lfleming6.nul> Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 12:47:56 -0500 Fwd Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 11:37:41 -0400 Subject: Re: Cultural Taboos & Prejudices - Fleming >From: James Smith <lunartravel.nul> >To: ufoupdates.nul >Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:16:37 -0400 (GMT-04:00) >Subject: Re: Cultural Taboos & Prejudices >>From: Lan Fleming <lfleming6.nul> >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul> >>Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:35:12 -0500 >>Subject: Re: Cultural Taboos & Prejudices >>The bad science done on the official side is >>mostly done by bona fide scientists. And there is way too much >>that is _very_ bad, a recent case in point being the treatment >>of the Apollo 11 UFO sighting by a Ph.D. astronomer and by the >>Apollo astronauts who witnessed it and then changed their story >>for public consumption from what they had concluded in the >I don't know if you are referring to Dr. Plait or to Dr. >Morrison. If you look at what Morrison did, all he did was ask >Aldrin. He didn't even TRY to use the raw data to determine >whether the panels could in fact be seen. Then look at what >Plait did, simply took Morrison at his word and didn't TRY to >determine independently whether what Morrison or Aldrin were >saying was true. This is not at all peer review, but simply >water cooler talk. > >They should simply not say anything. Well, "the Bad Astronomer" said a whole lot about it, mostly doing a lot of hand-waving to make the unlikely panel explanation seem to be a near certainty. >I have already discussed how it could be the panels but without >added data, its useless to speculate. If Aldrin could tell us >how the object appeared to be passing by, then that would be >helpful. By this I mean, was it 1) "moving" from the front of >the CSM to the aft, 2) visa versa or 3) was it really moving >side to side, which due to the fact they saw it during the >rotisserie mode the CSM was in at the time (lengthwise axis >normal to the ecliptic plane), meant it could likely not be >moving but just be following them as the panels would. Also, >even with the disorienting spin nature of the flight mode, they >should have been able to give some rough estimate of the >direction the object was seen (namely towards Earth or towards >the Moon). Even this meager data is left out of their accounts. As I mentioned previously, Armstrong explained how the panels got ahead of the spacecraft in First Man. His explanation ignored the relative velocity panels to the spacecraft after they were jettisoned and the even larger velocity difference due to the midcocurse correctin that you found out about. >I don't blame the crew for changing their story. They can't be >expected to explain everything they see and can't make >inflamatory remarks. But the problem isn't that they failed to explain what the object was. In fact, they left it _unexplained_ in their debriefing, rejecting the booster panel as a possibility because its shape didn't match that of the object they saw. The problem is that in recent years they've been actively promoting the panel explanation despite the fact that there is no logical reason for them to have changed their original opinion (except, perhaps, for the political motive of not exciting the "UFO nuts" as Armstrong rather nastily expressed this as a concern in First Man).
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp