Buzz Aldrin saw an UFO?

I agree, Access, that the mechanics for 6,000 km separation sound about right. But I would disagree that Buzz was claiming he saw the booster. I don't think that is what he thought he saw, or at the very least was very concerned that it wasn't.

From reading the transcript (and ignoring the inserted insinuations so common in 'documentaries' these days), it sounds like they didn't know what it was as they thought the booster would be too far away to see. They asked mission control about the booster's distance to hint that they were seeing something. Because they couldn't communicate directly about seeing something without raising a fuss or informing the iron curtain, they shut up and went to sleep.

Of course, that doesn't mean it wasn't the booster, just that they were skeptical that it was at that time.

A booster 6,000 km away would appear point-like, would it not?

Aldrin: And a few moments later, why they came back and said
something like it was 6,000 miles away because of the maneuver,
so we really didn't think we were looking at something that far
away, so we decided that after a while of watching it, it was
time to go to sleep and not to talk about it anymore until we
came back and (went through) debriefing.

Sounds like Buzz does not believe the object was point-like enough to be the booster at 6,000 km distance.

[edit on 28-7-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]

Originally posted by Xeros
I very much doubt that the booster would be visible from 6000 miles away.

I agree, I mean how tall is th booster? Even if it was over a hundred feet long how can you see an object of that size across such distance? Can you see a sky scraper in New York from Los Angeles? Impossible and that is much bigger.

Originally posted by Access Denied
Newton claims an object in motion tends to stay in motion and in the vacuum of space there’s not much to slow you down. You might think when the booster separates it would stop but it just keeps on going too. Since they saw it through a telescope it had to be pretty far away so it’s possible the sun reflecting off of it made it difficult to tell exactly what they were looking at… especially if the booster was tumbling at all… or who knows, it could still be a UFO

This is why I ask, if Buzz saw this object--shouldn't have later Apollo launches seen the same object/rocket stage following behind them? Shouldn't we hear this same UFO story from the other trips to the moon? Did the laws of physics change?

He spoted this visually first without the telescope, so I would think later missions would of kept an eye out for a following object (I assume he reported his experience back to NASA after the mission) to try to figure what was going on out there.

Whew I didn't know there were 3 other threads on this same subject?

AD...I agree with everything you've said. The problem is simple to me; if Buzz saw the booster then the story should of stopped 36 years ago. Every other subsequent Apollo launch should of saw the same booster from their rocket following them and look the same. I haven't heard that yet. Why would NASA let Buzz "2nd on the moon" Aldrin, keep embarassing himself saying he saw a UFO when that same UFO was seen by every other Apollo mission and was known to be the booster?

Also if an object in motion tends to stay in motion...the next day they should of seen the object if it was paralleling them. It wasn't in sight after they woke up-- where did the booster go? How do the laws of physics turn themselves on and off in this story?

Now I don't really think this was an alien craft--it might of been--but I have my doubts. My questioning attitude is that NASA is lying about how the booster might of separated incorrectly or did something unexpected. OR...a more fun and sinister (and remote possibility) scenario is that Russia tried to monitor/sabotage the mission with an intercepting rocket. But then again that rocket should of still been observable the next day...unless it's speed was not that of Apollo and fell off pace or they had explosives strapped to it and blew it up while the crew was sleeping (hoping maybe to disable or knock off course Apollo 11). Anyway...I'll write the conspiracy novel on that later.

Either way something "logical" is missing from this story, not necessarily "physics" related, as much as why a known mystery (UFO=booster) hasn't been dismissed by now.

That sounds reasonable. Buzz might have to punch out the producers and the director.

Actually I saw the US broadcast of this and not the tabloid magazine, so my interest came from the TV show. The panels sound like the right answer. I couldn't buy the "striped" alien spacecraft that just kind of hung out with them...sounded too "unalien-ish".

So the TV lied to me? What is this world coming to when you can't trust everything you see on TV?

I still like my Russians secrectly shooting down Apollo theory better. I can't write a bestseller about panels.

Thanks AD...good work.

Maybe we can get buzz to interview here and set the record straight. Hehehe.
Oh come on, you know he is dying to interview at a conspiracy theory site.

Here is the excerpted segment with Buzz Aldrin from "Apollo 11: The untold Story" on Google Video if anyone wants to watch it.

video.google.com...


It really wasn't that bad or as sinister IMO as I thought it was going to be after reading this thread.








[edit on 1-8-2006 by lost_shaman]

So, what about it? Aliens have the right to travel in space with their spaceship, don't they? We are just lucky to see their amazing technology around us.

Well, do we believe it or not? I guess, who saw this spaceship, does.

Whoa hold your horses guys. The link AD posted said it was probably the panels from the upperstage seperation of the spacecraft. Which means they're not even sure, and that they may be wrong on that as well. Or doesn't it? Don't dismiss it too quickly guys..

I agree, Bandit. But the fact that the documentary goes out of its way to avoid the discussion of the panels is suspicious to me. If it is true that the documentary avoided discussing the panels, then they should have an explanation or an answer as to why. Anyone up for contacting them and asking?

Originally posted by Access Denied

So in your opinion it’s OK for the producers of a documentary to stretch the truth and omit key facts for “entertainment” purposes?

Why am I not surprised?

The Ad Hominems are getting old!

If it was really a stretch of the truth or an omission of key facts , then why wasn't that NASA's position in 1982 when Jim Oberg stated it.

UFOs and Outer Space Mysteries by James Oberg

( Excerpt from Chapter Three "The Apollo-11 UFO Incidents" )


The crew did indeed report to earth about another tiny object they watched through their monocular. To some of the astronauts, it looked cylindrical, just like their spent rocket stage which was known to be pacing them in a parallel orbit. Said Armstrong, "It was right at the limit of resolution of the eye; it was very difficult to tell just what shape it was." NASA's reasonable assumption was that it was indeed the rocket stage, since it was behaving just like a rocket stage should; other Apollo flights had reported much the same thing.

www.debunker.com...

Notice the omission of the key fact that the Rocket Stage was 6000 nautical miles away?

That's what a real example of omitting key facts looks like.








[edit on 1-8-2006 by lost_shaman]

Notice the omission of the key fact that the Rocket Stage was 6000 nautical miles away?

That's the typical type of response to expect, of course.

Right. So now we have several examples of people twisting things to their respective agenda. But besides that

Is there any way for us to determine where the positions of the panels were relative to the craft (6,000 km?) Is "much closer" really a reasonable answer?

What does the man whos name is in the title of this thread have to say, if not interrupted and choppsed into segments?

If we could know these two things, the quality level would go way up. Is there any way to approach either of these two.

Buzz Aldrin has made several contradictory statements(even within the British doc refered to by the OP). Also he was on the Coasttocoast show the other nite and seemed to contradict himself again. It's apparent his memory ain't what it used to be.
Tread lightly(bring yer grains of salt).

Nice to know you two are buddy buddy and havin your own little tet-a-tet somewhere else without us. But(and you knew this was comin) where's the proof or evidence to support this-

The panels are part of the booster stage and not that much different in profile and would behave similarly so what difference does it really make which it actually it was?

Other than a pretty picture you posted that claims there's no UFO I don't see any evidence to back your assertion.
And just in case you hadn't noticed I don't buy into Aldrins statements since he seems to contradict himself within the same testimony. His appearance on the Coast2Coast show was nothing less than disasterous to his credibility. He's old and senile and I bring a salt shaker to his interviews.
ciao

Originally posted by Access Denied

Fair enough. Then do us a both favor and at least try to make an effort to do your part in raising the bar in what was an otherwise enjoyable debate we were having elsewhere... and I know you know what I mean … that is getting old. You can’t have it both ways.

I don't know what your talking about ! I can't have it both ways???

Are you insinuating that I've lowered the bar somewhere? Another Ad Hominem?

I think your idea of "enjoyable debate" is where you consider your opinion impeachable and as such feel free and even justified to hurl Ad Hominems with reckless abandon.

Which part of “NASA’s reasonable assumption” did you not understand?

Another insinuation that I didn't understand something I quoted?

The panels are part of the booster stage and not that much different in profile and would behave similarly so what difference does it really make which it actually it was?

AD say's: " not that much different in profile and would behave similarly" !!!

What prey tell did you base that on? ...impeachable opinion?

AD say's: what difference does it really make which it actually it was?

Well obviously it doesn't seem to make very much difference in your opinion what it was.

Notice the omission of the key fact that the Rocket Stage was 6000 nautical miles away?

That's what a real example of omitting key facts looks like. = lost_shaman

I’m not so sure that’s a "key" fact given the context of a “tiny object they watched through their monocular”. Granted it’s relevant to a detailed analysis but I don't think it's an indication of conspiracy to obfuscate the truth on Oberg's part. Notice he quotes that Armstrong said "It was right at the limit of resolution of the eye; it was very difficult to tell just what shape it was." The question is as Ectoterrestrial has pointed out is what is that limit in space? Would the booster 6,000 miles away appear about the same as a panel 3,000 miles away? 4,000? 5,000? How much closer would the panels really be?

AD say's: Notice he quotes that Armstrong said "It was right at the limit of resolution of the eye; it was very difficult to tell just what shape it was."

I noticed , it was also repeated on the UFO Documentary in the segment with Aldrin when he said the same.

What is the difference ?

Oberg left out a true Key fact that the Rocket Booster was 6000 miles away, and the UFO Documentary is accused of not talking about the possiblity of panels. One of those is a FACT left out by Oberg and NASA the other is nothing more than speculation.

When talking earlier in this thread about only the UFO Documentary it was clearly labeled as "stretching the truth" and "omitting the facts".

When pointing out the more obvious example of FACT omission and truth stretching by NASA via Oberg, it's ( accourding to AD ) not "an indication of conspiracy to obfuscate the truth on Oberg's part."

A blatant and obvious double standard.






[edit on 2-8-2006 by lost_shaman]

Originally posted by Access Denied

I don't know what your talking about ! I can't have it both ways???= lost_shaman

AD say's: Ignorance is bliss?

There you go ... Seriously the Ad Hominems are really getting old.

If you have something you'd like me to address , you know what thread to address that on, your own.

AD say's : My idea of "enjoyable debate" isn’t “parliamentary debate” which is what the standard appears to be here in the absence of moderation. Obviously I’m in the wrong forum.

Wait what standard are you talking about care to give examples?

Ad say's: Have you or have you not made reckless ad hominem attacks here on the integrity of the men and women of the U.S. Air Force and NASA to name a few? In my book that makes you fair game.

Thus proving in your own words your "Hunting" what you consider in your opinion "fair game". As if your opinion grants you the innate right to "slaughter" the opposition to your opinion.

AD say's: " not that much different in profile and would behave similarly" !!!

What prey tell did you base that on? ...impeachable opinion? = lost_shaman

AD say's: An educated guess?

I make them as well everyday, are we to assume your's are infallible and mine are innately flawed? ( I hope everyone is taking notes here! )

AD say's: what difference does it really make which it actually it was?

Well obviously it doesn't seem to make very much difference in your opinion what it was. = lost_shaman

Ad say's: Do you really care if it was the booster or the panels… or is the only thing you’re concerned with is ruling out everything but a alien space ship?

Um... I think you will notice that the only persons here who said anything about "Aliens" were AD and Buzz Aldrin.

Oberg left out a true Key fact that the Rocket Booster was 6000 miles away, and the UFO documentary is accused of not talking about the possibility of panels. One of those is FACT the other is speculation. = lost_shaman

AD say's: The problem here as usual is you’re a making a huge assumption based on zero evidence. You’re assuming Oberg had this information AND chose to omit it. In the case of the documentary we have evidence that both of these things were done.

No. I am pointing out that even after 20 years had past Oberg stated as fact ,without mentioning anything about the Rocket Booster being 6000 miles away or any mention of panels , that NASA reasonably assumed the Rocket Booster "indeed" was what had been seen.

I linked to a source , so your accusation of assumption without evidence is patently FALSE and misleading.

AD say's: You’re assuming Oberg had this information AND chose to omit it.

Saying I'm assuming that Oberg had the information is also BOGUS and unfounded , because in the same chapter Oberg brags he's read the entire thousands of pages of transcripts.

A blatant and obvious double standard. = lost_shaman

AD say's:The question is who’s?

It was quite obvious from my last post , much less this one.





[edit on 2-8-2006 by lost_shaman]

I think you underestimate your abilities, access. Your work here is definitely done.
I think it would be worth hearing from Buzz himself on this issue, since we are discussing what Buzz thought he saw. I don't care who thinks he has gone senile, I'd rather hear it from the astrohorse's mouth, as he pleases, no interruptions or editing.

[edit on 2-8-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]

WhatsamattaU AD?
You gettin tired of losin?
So which are you at UFO Updates? Bruce or CDA?
Doesn't matter really, since they appear to be interchangeable.
Your mission here is accomplished. You have agitated and instigated and provided evidence of nothing. There happy.
Try space.com, maybe the discussion there will thrill ya after all they got some real saps there.