Buzz Aldrin 'UFO' sighting - Is this the 'same old' news, or something new?

While reading 'the Age' news online, I noticed a story about Buzz Aldrin, and an alleged UFO sighting.

www.theage.com.au...

Buzz Aldrin saw 'unidentified' object during 1969 Apollo 11 flight
Buzz Aldrin, the second man to set foot on the moon, said he glimpsed an unidentified flying object during the Apollo 11 flight. .... .... Mr Aldrin, 84, however was reluctant to describe the sighting as an extraterrestrial craft, even though he does believe there are other life forms in space.

U.S. astronaut Buzz Aldrin speaks during a press conference at the Campus Party Mexico before his speech on July 31, 2013 in Mexico City. About 8,000 hackers, developers and geeks are expected to attend the annual weeklong, which first started in Spain in 1997 and now spread into various countries. The Campus Party event gathers electronic and computers lovers to share their experiences and learn one another.

I was curious about the time frame, so I did a search, and came up with the following article which states that he discussed this in a Reddit 'ask me anything' earlier this week (I could find no specific time).

news.nationalpost.com...

Buzz Aldrin excites conspiracy theorists when he tells Reddit he saw a ‘UFO’ on Apollo 11 flight

Buzz Aldrin, the second astronaut to walk on the moon, says he witnessed an unidentified flying object during the Apollo 11 flight, exciting the conspiracy theorists who believe that the mission was not filmed in a television studio. “I observed a light out the window that appeared to be moving alongside us,” he said during a Reddit AMA earlier this week.

So my question is, does this add anything new to the 'Buzz Aldrin UFO' topic, or is this simply a rehash of old news which is brought up over and over? In the National Post article there is a clarification from Aldrin

Aldrin, 84, said he could not confirm what the object was, technically making the object a UFO, but believed it to be part of his own spacecraft which had broken off.
“There were many explanations of what that could be, other than another spacecraft from another country or another world — it was either the rocket we had separated from, or the four panels that moved away when we extracted the lander from the rocket and we were nose to nose with the two spacecraft. “So in the close vicinity, moving away, were four panels. And I feel absolutely convinced that we were looking at the sun reflected off of one of these panels. “Which one? I don’t know. So technically, the definition could be ‘unidentified,’”he said.

This seems to lay the topic to rest, as Aldrin himself seems pretty convinced that what he saw was part of the craft he was in.

My own query is, is this the same sighting that is often used in an out of context manner to suggest that Aldrin saw a UFO possibly of extra-terrestrial origin? I wonder why conspiracy theorists would be so excited by this news, if it is as Aldrin himself suggests, highly probable that what he saw was of terrestrial origin?

I also wonder why people would feel the need to distort such information in promoting this sighting as an 'alien spaceship', and edit other videos (if this is the sighting used in prior instances to suggest Aldrin saw a 'UFO') to misinform the public? If so, this further serves to weaken the (already weak) credibility of Ufologists in the eyes of the general public. I would imagine that 'separating the wheat from the chaff' is essential if one is to perform a scientific analysis of the UFO phenomena, and promoting what one knows is fraudulent does nothing, except make Ufologists look like a bunch of liars. This is unfortunate for those who are actually looking for real anomalies.

That's easy, greed. UFO and aliens sell.

This type of garbage gets spread around this forum and others by believing members. Members that don't bother to research any further than a couple of UFO websites. They naively believe anything that written in an authoritative way.

Watch how many times his name is brought up again in future astronaut & UFO threads. Once you read his name being used as "evidence" of UFO in space, you can immediately discount that persons actual knowledge.

I don't know, his testimony seems a bit suspicious. This may require reading through the lines a bit.

If I understand this "part of the spacecraft" theory correctly, it would have to have been a rocket booster, which would have been jettisoned thousands of miles before. So, this booster, which had its fuel spent, and with no means of control just happened to hang along the side of the lunar module, unpowered and uncontrolled.

Maybe what Aldrin is saying is this. "I saw something that I can't identify. The official explanation is that it is part of the craft, and NASA has encouraged me to say that."

Consider what radio ham operations heard on the historic landing, when the transmission was moved to the private channel.

These guys saw unexplained stuff, many if not most of the Astronauts. I believe they have been encouraged to not disclose of certain events, which happened under "NDA" during their time at NASA.

originally posted by: Jchristopher5
I don't know, his testimony seems a bit suspicious. This may require reading through the lines a bit.



If I understand this "part of the spacecraft" theory correctly, it would have to have been a rocket booster, which would have been jettisoned thousands of miles before. So, this booster, which had its fuel spent, and with no means of control just happened to hang along the side of the lunar module, unpowered and uncontrolled.

You don't understand it.

It's been explained all over so many times, the only rationale conclusion
is that you want to misunderstand it.

Enjoy being confused, it's your choice.

originally posted by: Jchristopher5

Consider what radio ham operations heard on the historic landing, when the transmission was moved to the private channel.

Why would any rational personal believe that? There's not a shred of evidence, and there ARE radio listeners on record, by name, who listened in and heard exactly the same transmissions as NASA released.

You're free to believe what you want if it makes you feel smarter than the 'sheeple', but you're the guy bleating out there in the pasture, whether you recognize it or not.

Console yourself that you're not alone. But are you really proud of such company?

Somebody had to tell you this, your 'friends' haven't, apparently.

a reply to: JimOberg
Jim, I almost mentioned your name. I fully expected your angry response.

Your approach amuses me. You are quick to jump on this with your typical "I know more than you" attitude. I have seen your debunking routine on tv, and have read it on here many times. It never gets old.

Somehow you take the time to debunk every one of these posts, as if on queue, but never really address the undeniable testimony of guys like Cooper, Carpenter, and Charletain. The comments of all three didn't leave a lot of doubt as to their expert opinion. Cooper gives details on this sighting (he was senile right Jim?). The other two, said in effect, every NASA mission was followed and or tracked by UFOs.

I know you have spent many hours on this research. For you to ignore all the things that have been identified by these expert witnesses, yet how you quickly debunk anything questionable with your "know it all attitude", I can only conclude that you are either simple minded, ignorant, or a hired debunker.

I think you are a smart guy, so I will go with hired debunker. Who pays you?

My opinion is that Buzz loves the attention even though he has never come forth and admitted anything. Let's face it, he wasn't the enigma that Armstrong was..

IRM

originally posted by: Jchristopher5
a reply to: JimOberg
Jim, I almost mentioned your name. I fully expected your angry response.

Sounds like it was right on target.

Do consider the alternate theory that I propose. You have been conned by a pile of falsified, phony evidence, and are too proud to consider the possibility you were so foolish, so now you're in full-mode ego defense.

I think the name you were reaching for was "Chatelain", the phony "head of NAASA communications". but you seem to have subconsciously merged it with "charlatan".

Listen to your subconscious, it's trying to tell you something.

a reply to: JimOberg

Oberg, I knew the spelling wasn't correct, and should have looked it up.

But, it doesn't disregard the theory that you are someone's hired disinformation tool.

Now that you have shamelessly disregarded Chatelain in typical Oberg style, what about Carpenter. He are similar comments as Chatelain. Is was lying too? And Cooper was also, or was he insane, I forget. Seems like you always have some excuse when the comments don't match your play book.

I hope they are paying you well Oberg, for being a tool.

originally posted by: Jchristopher5
a reply to: JimOberg

Seems like you always have some excuse when the comments don't match your play book.

Don't be satisfied with "seems" from anybody. Before you get too invested in criticizing my conclusions, you really ought to read the evidence I present. It's easy to find, and it won't make your head explode. Well, maybe break your heart. But if you want to criticize it, criticize the argument, not your fantasy over what it "seems" to be without actually reading it. I'd do the same for you, for free.


Scott says hello/

www.jamesoberg.com...

Jim,
Thanks for offering me a forum. In the past, I've not bothered to refute these
and other outrageous reports of my belief in, or sightings of, UFOs (Flying
Saucers). They are too preposterous to favor with credibility or honor with
reply. You however, raise a different and more important issue, that of the
young kids who are not yet familiar with the power of logical thinking, who are
unsuspectingly led astray by the glamour of the UFO idea, and who tend to
believe the nonsense these twisted minds dream up and posit as fact on the
Internet. They claim that those who disagree, lie, and challenge us to prove that
UFOs don't exist. That's their leg up...proving non-existence is impossible.
So, Mr. Oberg, in order to help set these naive people free of the crazy beliefs
they are asked to adopt, feel free to quote me as follows, (and use any
adjectives you choose which are roughly synonymous with poppycock): The
quote (below) is absolute hogwash and a blatant lie. I never thought it, never
said it, and it never happened
NASA's Scott Carpenter "At no time, when the astronauts were in
space were they alone: there was a constant surveillance by UFOs."
I hope the two of us can help set at least some people straight
. Really enjoyed perusing your web page.
All best, and Merry Christmas
Scott

a reply to: JimOberg
What about Cooper?

originally posted by: Jchristopher5
a reply to: JimOberg
What about Cooper?

There's an internet feature called "search engine". Have you tried it?

Seriously, nothing more than gentle tease intended -- I suggest for your original questions on Aldrin and the following objects, you check out the idea that if they were parts of the booster, wouldn't they have been observable by telescope from Earth? Search on terms such as astronomer, telescope, Apollo, observation, use your judgment.

Were such objects seen from Earth on Apollo missions? You can bet the UFO sites won't tell you, they want to stack the deck and lure you into a predetermined interpretation. Go ahead and check this out yourself.

Ditto on amateur radio listeners and what they actually heard, not what the UFO websites tell you they heard. Those websites count on you being unable or uninterested in checking things out yourself.

Check it out.

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: Jchristopher5
a reply to: JimOberg
What about Cooper?

There's an internet feature called "search engine". Have you tried it?

Seriously, nothing more than gentle tease intended -- I suggest for your original questions on Aldrin and the following objects, you check out the idea that if they were parts of the booster, wouldn't they have been observable by telescope from Earth? Search on terms such as astronomer, telescope, Apollo, observation, use your judgment.

Were such objects seen from Earth on Apollo missions? You can bet the UFO sites won't tell you, they want to stack the deck and lure you into a predetermined interpretation. Go ahead and check this out yourself.

Ditto on amateur radio listeners and what they actually heard, not what the UFO websites tell you they heard. Those websites count on you being unable or uninterested in checking things out yourself.

Check it out.

I have heard of this search concept Jimmy. You are condescending. No one knows anything but you.

You didn't address Cooper's testimony.

Buzz has quite clearly identified the supposed UFO on numerous occasions as being part of the Apollo 11 Saturn, including on the pages that have been linked to above.

Every other explanation coming from people who aren't Buzz Aldrin is just wishful thinking.

Just to clarify: The Apollo 11 crew did not see alien spaceships of any kind at any time ever.

No Apollo astronaut is on record as saying they say any alien spaceships at any time during any of their missions, ever.

A few Apollo astronauts have said they believe such things might exist. This is completely different.

originally posted by: Jchristopher5
You didn't address Cooper's testimony.

I can see how you wound up so misinformed, you're acting like you're completely helpless and need to be spoon-fed with one on one tutorials. This is far from uncommon, I'm really interested in how information can be better indexed to be more readily accessible to truly open minded and curious people.

It's not what I or anybody else "know", it's what ANY person can do to obtain all angles on controversial issues and then verify the different presentations of evidence. Search engines really are not well designed for this purpose, it takes a little experience to shake it out of them, I really want to define the most productive methods for common use.

Think of yourself as a lab rat in a maze [I've often felt that way myself]. How can we all work together to sharpen techniques for most efficient utilization of the WWW? You will get the cheese, don't worry.

a reply to: JimOberg

It's senseless to chat with you. As usual, you are a know-it-all windbag.

You know what Cooper had to say, we have all seen his testimony. There was no gun to his head. You can't explain it away either, so you ignore it.

My theory is that NASA tightened up its NDA with the Apollo astronauts. That is why so many dance around it, even admit "they know" it's true, in the words of Edgar Mitchell, yet don't (I say can't) admit it publicly.

And, I think someone is paying you, Jim Oberg, to try to insult these things away on boards like this. I am on to you.

originally posted by: Jchristopher5
a reply to: JimOberg


But, it doesn't disregard the theory that you are someone's hired disinformation tool.

From where I'm sitting, there's only one tool on this thread and it ain't Mr Oberg.

Here's something 'new', examples of stuff flying along with Apollo, seen through telescopes from Earth:

www.astr.ua.edu...

a reply to: Jchristopher5
You're proving the point I made above. You've obviously done very little to no personal research and investigation into these quotes or testimony. If the facts you're shown don't fit into what you want to believe, you'll make up conspiracies and cover ups. How can what you say and support be taken seriously?

What's your comment on Scott Carpenter's email? You conveniently ignored it and skipped onto someone else. Too prideful to admit you may be wrong?

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
a reply to: Jchristopher5
You're proving the point I made above. You've obviously done very little to no personal research and investigation into these quotes or testimony. If the facts you're shown don't fit into what you want to believe, you'll make up conspiracies and cover ups. How can what you say and support be taken seriously?

What's your comment on Scott Carpenter's email? You conveniently ignored it and skipped onto someone else. Too prideful to admit you may be wrong?

I have done a lot of research. How nice of you to come in and side with Jim on this one.

I will look more into Carpenter's testimony. I am not afraid to admit when I am wrong. I am wrong quite often.