UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Astrophotographer]

http://history.nasa.gov/ap10fj/as10-video-library.htm

You can find the source material for the video clip here in Magazine K. It is about the 55 second mark. Doing a bit of research on it, the camera used could record film at 1, 6, 12, or 24 frames per second. Exactly which frame rate was used would determine how fast the film was sped up (if it were). 24 fps would be normal speed. 12 FPS would be 2X, etc.

 

[Rramjet]

There is a difference between "meteor" and "meteoroid". Look it up. You can't have a meteor on the moon because meteors are produced by meteoroids interacting with the earth's atmosphere. This link is a not applicable.

It is not what we choose to call it on a technicality, but the speed of the thing that is the issue– and the link is directly applicable in providing the average speeds of the different types of space debri (meteorites) - and the point there being that these things are very fast - and I merely made the point that especially if the video was sped up (as you claim), then the UFO could not be a meteorite. That is the point I made and a point you seem to have failed to grasp.

 

[Rramjet]

Why do you make such claims? Have you proven it is "clearly outside the LM"? How did you do so? What allows you to claim this.

Because it is clearly illuminated from the same angle as all the other external objects in the video (including the moon), while the interior of the LM is only illuminated by reflected light from the moon. If it were inside the LM then it would be a relatively dark object, the illuminated face being away from the camera. Thus it is quite obviously outside the LM. For that matter the illumination characteristics of the object indicate it is entirely spherical.

The SLA Panels were part of the upper stage and were gone long before they reached lunar orbit.

The point being, as I noted in my post, that the UFO could not have been an SLA panel…

What we seen in this clip is a "dot". Nothing more.

The UFO is clearly spherical. So it is much more than a mere “dot”. Being a sphere rules out a great many mundane objects (including a copy of the book entitled “War and Peace” by the way).

A piece of dirt, a fleck of material from the LM's skin…

Are any of these objects likely to be spherical? And if it were something “from the LMs skin” – a highly unlikely prospect in itself – then whence does it derive its velocity and directional characteristics?

Until you can demonstrate it is not some bit of dirt/material/rock/whatever, that remains the most likely source for the object.

Lovely attempt to shift the burden of proof Astro… and you make your claim so general that sum total of your claim here simply amounts to stating “It is a mundane object and that is the most likely explanation” - and that gets us precisely nowhere. You are simply grasping at straws. What we are trying to do here is pin down what mundane object it is likely to have been – if it has a mundane explanation that is. Your statements here do nothing to further an effort toward identification. Whatever it was, it was spherical, and that tends to rule against even your generalised assertions.

Again, I NEVER said anything about SLA panels. I still can't figure out why you brought it up because they were long gone from the craft days before this sequence was shot (they retrieved the LM from the upper stage a day or so after launch and then proceeded to the moon). The SLA panels tended to follow along but behind the LM/CSM. However, they were never even close to those two craft.

I ruled them out because if I had not you would undoubtedly have included them in the list of possible sources for the object. That they were long gone was precisely my point - a point you obviously missed as you now assert it as your own.

Trying to mount some ridiculous theory that they attempted to track it with a communications antenna is pretty absurd because the antenna did not have the capability to track anything. It was not a radar, which is what you seem to think it was. Perhaps the antenna array is confusing you into thinking it was some form of radar.

I hate to disillusion you but it was a form of radar (a “two-way Doppler and two-way ranging” array to be precise). Look it up, I gave you the links. Your continuing in ignorance of the evidence is exasperating. It was a “form of radar” – just not the form you are thinking of. Nevertheless I doubt it had the ability to track a “passive” object – maybe it could, maybe it couldn't - I am not sure, but seeing you are being pedantic I just thought I should point that out.

…besides, you gotta admit, it is an outrageous coincidence that the antenna seems to “track” the object so precisely – what are the odds? And if we use the logic of the UFO debunkers, anything so unlikely as such a coincidence would mean that it was not a coincidence at all. That is, such a coincidence is so highly unlikely that the obvious explanation (that it tracked the object) must be the correct one. (ie; The “alien” explanation is so highly unlikely that the obvious explanation (that it is something mundane) must be the correct one).

As for the green man comment, can you list the entire context of the conversation. My guess is it was a joke unless you really believe there were "little green men" outside.

Yes it was obviously a joke at the expense of Cooper. However, I would have thought that you would have known a bit of historical background that would allow you to understand the joke.

Cooper was well known for his “belief” in the ETH. When he enquired about the UFO he could see flying by on his monitor (“Hey, what's that guy doing on the front porch?”), the response was a wry “That's a green man, Gordo.” If it was anything that could have been immediately identified then the one or other of the astronauts would have identified it with “Oh, that’s just ..(whatever)..” Instead Stafford turned it into a joke at Coopers expense. He was put on the spot by Cooper’s question, and his natural reaction would have been to shy away from “I don’t know” and, quick witted, instead simply took the opportunity to turn it into a joke. …unless of course you believe there really was a “geen man” out there…

http://history.nasa.gov/ap10fj/as10-video-library.htm

You can find the source material for the video clip here in Magazine K. It is about the 55 second mark. Doing a bit of research on it, the camera used could record film at 1, 6, 12, or 24 frames per second. Exactly which frame rate was used would determine how fast the film was sped up (if it were). 24 fps would be normal speed. 12 FPS would be 2X, etc.

Again… lovely attempt to shift the burden of proof and get others to do the research for you. You made the claim that the NASA film was “sped up”, it is up to you to support that claim with evidence.

 

[Rramjet]

Most of your links are to the same .gif picture of Apollo.
Your link to "System specs" pointed to a brief mention of the Shuttle S-band system. Thus my joke about time travel.

Oh, sincere apologies... I see I doubled up my links - I meant to provide this link (http://history.nasa.gov/ap10fj/as10-day1-pt4-tli-docking.htm) which contains the transcripts and diagrams I mentioned in my previous post. The S-band antenna system is the same as later used in the Shuttle missions (as far as I can tell - and links from the Apollo 10 pages mentioning the array take you to that "Shuttle" specs page you made the joke about).

 

[TjW]

Oh, sincere apologies... I see I doubled up my links - I meant to provide this link (http://history.nasa.gov/ap10fj/as10-day1-pt4-tli-docking.htm) which contains the transcripts and diagrams I mentioned in my previous post. The S-band antenna system is the same as later used in the Shuttle missions (as far as I can tell - and links from the Apollo 10 pages mentioning the array take you to that "Shuttle" specs page you made the joke about).

So do you have any documentation from the mission that indicates they tried to track a UFO with the communication antenna, or is this just speculation on your part?

 

[Astrophotographer]

Because it is clearly illuminated from the same angle as all the other external objects in the video (including the moon), while the interior of the LM is only illuminated by reflected light from the moon. If it were inside the LM then it would be a relatively dark object, the illuminated face being away from the camera. Thus it is quite obviously outside the LM. For that matter the illumination characteristics of the object indicate it is entirely spherical.

How can you tell if a simple dot is "clearly illuminated from the same angle as objects in the video? I would love to see you demonstrate that claim. A speck can easily be illuminated from internal lighting. I am sure the astronauts were not operating in the dark.

The UFO is clearly spherical. So it is much more than a mere “dot”. Being a sphere rules out a great many mundane objects (including a copy of the book entitled “War and Peace” by the way).

Again, you make a claim with no supporting evidence. To you it "looks" spherical but it may not really be the case. From a distance, an asteroid looks spherical but up close it is not. Therefore, you need to prove it is truly spherical. To me it appears to be an indistinct dot that is not resolved into its true shape.

Are any of these objects likely to be spherical? And if it were something “from the LMs skin” – a highly unlikely prospect in itself – then whence does it derive its velocity and directional characteristics?

1. It could have been propelled by one of the RCS firings.
2. The LM and CM were maneuvering during this event. It may be that the LM had changed its orbital speed and, as a result, the free floating fragment's speed (which was paralleling the craft at the time) relative to the craft had changed causing it to appear to "jet" away from the LM.

Lovely attempt to shift the burden of proof Astro… and you make your claim so general that sum total of your claim here simply amounts to stating “It is a mundane object and that is the most likely explanation” - and that gets us precisely nowhere. You are simply grasping at straws. What we are trying to do here is pin down what mundane object it is likely to have been – if it has a mundane explanation that is. Your statements here do nothing to further an effort toward identification. Whatever it was, it was spherical, and that tends to rule against even your generalised assertions.

1. I am not attempting to shift burden of proof. I am stating that there is nothing to suggest it was anything "alien" in nature. Until you can demonstrate it was something else, it probably was something mundane. Can you present anything that suggests it was not a mundane object?
2. You are the one claiming it is spherical but I would like to see you demonstrate this to be true. Just because it looks like a sphere to you does not mean it was a sphere. To me it is a dot at the limits of resolution. That means it could be just about anything in size or shape.

I ruled them out because if I had not you would undoubtedly have included them in the list of possible sources for the object. That they were long gone was precisely my point - a point you obviously missed as you now assert it as your own.

You were wasting your time. I never mentioned SLA panels in my posting because they could not be involved. For some reason, you brought them up.

I hate to disillusion you but it was a form of radar (a “two-way Doppler and two-way ranging” array to be precise). Look it up, I gave you the links. Your continuing in ignorance of the evidence is exasperating. It was a “form of radar” – just not the form you are thinking of. Nevertheless I doubt it had the ability to track a “passive” object – maybe it could, maybe it couldn't - I am not sure, but seeing you are being pedantic I just thought I should point that out.

I am not sure where you have you gotten your information. It was an S-band antenna designed for direct communications with the earth. Read section 7.4.3. of the mission report.
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a410/A10_MissionReport.pdf

First of all, your link was to the shuttle's s-band system and your mention of "doppler shift" and two way ranging indicates you do not understand this system either. Try this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_S-Band

The tracking/doppler shift/ranging has everything to do with the ground station communicating and tracking the spacecraft. It has nothing to do with the S-band equipment being used as a tracking radar.

The craft could NOT determine the range to any object nearby by transmitting a signal at it. Most radar systems use a pulse modulated signal, where the signal is sent in a short pulse of RF and then there is a dead time where the system listens for a return signal. The S-band radio could not do this because it did not use pulse modulation (it was a phase modulated system) and did not have the equipment for such a task.

Feel free to examine the block diagram on page 2.8-3


http://www.joecodegood.net/files/nasa/apollo/operations_handbook_volume_1/Telecommunication%20System.pdf

I see nothing in this block diagram where signals from the S-band antenna are being processed to produce a radar tracking display of any kind. The only radar equipment has to do with an X-band transponder used to work with the LM's radar system for guidance in docking (it would retransmit the LM's radar signal back to the LM). It had a antenna independent of the S-band antenna(see fig 2.8-2 and section 2.8.3.4.7)

BTW, in my early US Navy training (before I went to nuclear power school), I was trained as an Electronics Technician. Our training involved the operation and repair of radar and communications equipment. I also taught a few years at Nuclear Field A school about radio communications equipment. None of the equipment I was exposed to was as fancy as the S-band equipment. However, the functions were essentially the same. Just laying out my qualifications on this. I don't consider myself an "expert" but I am knowledgable about what is being discussed. Feel free to present your qualifications on this equipment.

…besides, you gotta admit, it is an outrageous coincidence that the antenna seems to “track” the object so precisely – what are the odds? And if we use the logic of the UFO debunkers, anything so unlikely as such a coincidence would mean that it was not a coincidence at all. That is, such a coincidence is so highly unlikely that the obvious explanation (that it tracked the object) must be the correct one. (ie; The “alien” explanation is so highly unlikely that the obvious explanation (that it is something mundane) must be the correct one).

I am not denying the motion. However, I do not see how you can demonstrate it was being used to "track" the object. It does not even look like it was pointed in the correct direction.

Instead Stafford turned it into a joke at Coopers expense. He was put on the spot by Cooper’s question, and his natural reaction would have been to shy away from “I don’t know” and, quick witted, instead simply took the opportunity to turn it into a joke. …unless of course you believe there really was a “geen man” out there…

I am not sure Stafford had any idea that Cooper had ETH leanings. Therefore, it was probably normal banter one would expect from fellow pilots joking around. Cooper's ETH stories only cropped up in the past decade or two. During his time at NASA, I am unaware of him professing any UFO/ETH stories. Can you demonstrate that he was telling everybody about his UFO/ETH stories before 1969?

Again… lovely attempt to shift the burden of proof and get others to do the research for you. You made the claim that the NASA film was “sped up”, it is up to you to support that claim with evidence.

I am basing this on what they do with the shuttle films of the earth. At normal speed, the earth tends to very slowly go by (even though they are moving at over 17,000 mph) so they speed up the film. The motion of the craft seemed rather quick and the rapid motion of the antenna seemed excessively fast. To me, that indicated a faster speed than normal in the filming. I have presented evidence that the camera could produce sped up films by filming at low frame rates. I am still trying to determine the Antenna's gimbal system's maximum tracking speed. I doubt it is extremely rapid as seen in the film because the distance involved would not require rapid swiveling of the antenna system.

 

[Rramjet]

SkyLab 3 (20 Sep 1973)
(http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/SL3.html)

An error analysis of the numbers produced by Maccabee & Sparks for Skylab 3's red blob would be too much to ask for?

Anyone with good scientific formation and/or unbiased attitude would recognize that without it, the work's conclusions mean nothing.

Evidently you have not understood the discussion. An error analysis could be done... but the biggest component, given that the "UFO" was travelling at a some distance behind the Skylab, is the assumption that the distance can be estimated by the time between SL3 going into darkness - and then 5 or so seconds later the UFO went into darkness (…or turned off its lights). But was it 5 sec or 3 sec or 7 sec …or what? If one picks 5 seconds and puts an error bar of +/- 1 sec, one can then calculate the resulting range of size compatible with the +/- 1 second error. Big deal! And any other error component, such as the measurement of the spacing between blobs in image 2141, pales into insignificance in comparison. One of the interesting aspects of this sighting is that the "satellite" (or whatever) appeared red to the astronauts - and also to the film. This fact is not subject to error analysis. So, whatever the size of the thing, the question becomes, what up there …was red?

 

[Rramjet]

So do you have any documentation from the mission that indicates they tried to track a UFO with the communication antenna, or is this just speculation on your part?

Evidently you missed this discussion in my prior post...

… it was a form of radar (a “two-way Doppler and two-way ranging” array to be precise) (…) just not the form you are thinking of. Nevertheless I doubt it had the ability to track a “passive” object – maybe it could, maybe it couldn't - I am not sure…

…besides, you gotta admit, it is an outrageous coincidence that the antenna seems to “track” the object so precisely – what are the odds? And if we use the logic of the UFO debunkers, anything so unlikely as such a coincidence would mean that it was not a coincidence at all. That is, such a coincidence is so highly unlikely that the obvious explanation (that it tracked the object) must be the correct one. (ie; The “alien” explanation is so highly unlikely that the obvious explanation (that it is something mundane) must be the correct one).

 

[TjW]

So do you have any documentation from the mission that indicates they tried to track a UFO with the communication antenna, or is this just speculation on your part?

Evidently you missed this discussion in my prior post...

… it was a form of radar (a “two-way Doppler and two-way ranging” array to be precise) (…) just not the form you are thinking of. Nevertheless I doubt it had the ability to track a “passive” object – maybe it could, maybe it couldn't - I am not sure…

…besides, you gotta admit, it is an outrageous coincidence that the antenna seems to “track” the object so precisely – what are the odds? And if we use the logic of the UFO debunkers, anything so unlikely as such a coincidence would mean that it was not a coincidence at all. That is, such a coincidence is so highly unlikely that the obvious explanation (that it tracked the object) must be the correct one. (ie; The “alien” explanation is so highly unlikely that the obvious explanation (that it is something mundane) must be the correct one).

Rramjet, has it ever occurred to you that when engineers put a modifier in front of a word, that they intend a slightly different meaning than the unmodified word?

That transponder has "two-way tone-ranging capability". That doesn't mean it can find the range to anything. It means it has a mode which allows the ground station to measure how far away it is.
From the ground station, you put a sequence of tones on the channel. The signal gets to the transponder, and is repeated back to the ground station. By timing the round trip, you can calculate how far away the transponder is. By measuring the frequency shift due to Doppler effect, you can find how fast the transponder is moving relative to the ground station. A few of those samples and you have a pretty good idea of the trajectory.

So the transponder can't find the range to anything, by itself. For two-way tone ranging, there has to be a transponder on the other end.

Now, I wasn't born knowing this. But I was struck by how specific the source (not your interpretation of it, which conveniently left out the word "tone") was.

So I did a search. On "tone ranging" NASA "two-way".

This is a minor detail, but I think it shows the difference in our approaches to information.

 

[Rramjet]

So the transponder can't find the range to anything, by itself. For two-way tone ranging, there has to be a transponder on the other end.

Now, I wasn't born knowing this. But I was struck by how specific the source (not your interpretation of it, which conveniently left out the word "tone") was.

You may have missed the minor detail that I did point out that I doubted it could track a passive object - and you have confirmed that doubt with your opinion. I quoted the source verbatim. I was making a specific point about Astrophotographer’s denial that it was a form of radar (Radio Detection and Ranging) – which it obviously is.

Please don’t confuse this specific argument with Astrophotographer with my primary general point in reference to the S-band antenna. That is I pointed out that it was an outrageous coincidence that the antenna “tracked” the UFO so precisely and the odds of this were very small. My argument was then that UFO debunkers use the improbability argument against “aliens” being the explanation for UFOs, and using that logic the UFO debunkers must conclude that the antenna did indeed track the object. Nowhere did I state that it was not a coincidence.

However, none of us actually work in a semantic or existential vaccuum. We have evidence for UFOs being non-mundane objects, just as we have evidence for the S-band antenna not being able to track a passive object. Initially I was unsure of the capabilities of the S-band system, however I can accept that it could not track passive objects. Initially I was also unsure about whether there was evidence for UFOs being of non-mundane origin, however, in the cases I have presented in this thread, the evidence clearly points in that direction.

Regarding the starting point of the current argument, the “compilation video” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlLN_Jcg1pc) I have so far researched and concluded that quite a number of the videos/images in that compilation do indeed represent mundane objects and thus do not constitute evidence for UFOs. We are however left with a number of cases that so far have defied mundane explanation.

One of those cases would seem to be the Apollo 10 case (http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery/video/apollo/apollo10/html/lunar_activities.html - 22 May 1969: transcripts here (http://history.nasa.gov/ap10fj/as10-day1-pt4-tli-docking.htm). If the object observed in the video happens to have a mundane explanation then I will happily write this case off as evidence for UFOs as well. However, what little argument there has been put forward so far does not allow me to conclude that it was a mundane object.

I know the initial position of the UFO debunkers is that everything is mundane until proven otherwise. However, as a skeptic I cannot begin an exploration of a case with a predisposition in any direction at all – that would be unscientific. All I can do is observe the evidence and if no explanation is forthcoming assign “UFO” to the case.

Now, as I have stated many times, this does not necessarily mean ET. Possibly also there may be mundane explanations that are not readily apparent on the limited evidence we have – but by the same logic that I cannot assign ET to a case, I cannot assign mundane either.

However, where it is apparent in a case that the characteristics of the UFO positively defy mundane explanation (as is the circumstance with a number of cases I have presented in this thread) then I still do not assign ET. I merely note that the UFO is then “alien” to our concept of the natural or technological world.

Currently, with the Apollo 10 UFO, it is just a UFO. I am not calling it “alien” (my definition) nor am I calling it ET. I am still investigating and calling for possible mundane explanations. So far no plausible ones have been forthcoming. Meteorite seems implausible – the object is just too slow: something inside the LM close to the camera is implausible – the lighting characteristics suggest it is definitely outside the LM: A piece of dirt/debri/ rock etc seems implausible - the object is spherical in nature.

We also have transcript evidence that the astronauts did not know what it was – indeed one of them seems to have called it a “green man” (in joking reference to ETs).

So what are we left with? That is the question I am facing at the moment. What could it have plausibly been?

 

[Astrophotographer]

I was making a specific point about Astrophotographer’s denial that it was a form of radar (Radio Detection and Ranging) – which it obviously is.

The problem is that you do not have an understanding on how RADAR works and how the antenna operated. You were the one proposing that the S-Band Antenna was attempting to track the "object". Unfortunately, you have yet to demonstrate this was the case and we have demonstrated that it was impossible for the system to do so.

 

[TjW]

You may have missed the minor detail that I did point out that I doubted it could track a passive object - and you have confirmed that doubt with your opinion. I quoted the source verbatim.

You did not quote the source verbatim.
You left out an important qualifier, "tone"

I was making a specific point about Astrophotographer’s denial that it was a form of radar (Radio Detection and Ranging) – which it obviously is.

Which it obviously is not. It is no more a radar than the radar transponder in an airplane is a radar. Neither transponder does ranging, although both are interrogated by systems that do.

Please don’t confuse this specific argument with Astrophotographer with my primary general point in reference to the S-band antenna. That is I pointed out that it was an outrageous coincidence that the antenna “tracked” the UFO so precisely and the odds of this were very small. My argument was then that UFO debunkers use the improbability argument against “aliens” being the explanation for UFOs, and using that logic the UFO debunkers must conclude that the antenna did indeed track the object. Nowhere did I state that it was not a coincidence.

However, none of us actually work in a semantic or existential vaccuum. We have evidence for UFOs being non-mundane objects, just as we have evidence for the S-band antenna not being able to track a passive object. Initially I was unsure of the capabilities of the S-band system, however I can accept that it could not track passive objects. Initially I was also unsure about whether there was evidence for UFOs being of non-mundane origin, however, in the cases I have presented in this thread, the evidence clearly points in that direction.

Yes, there is evidence that the S-band comm system on the Apollo capsule was not a radar. It's in the technical manuals.

What equivalent evidence have you shown that UFOs are alien? So far, all we've seen here has been arguments from ignorance.
What, other than your not knowing what else it could be, points to anything you've shown as being alien?
Note that this doesn't mean I have to be able to identify it. I'm perfectly willing to accept that something is unidentifiable.

Regarding the starting point of the current argument, the “compilation video” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlLN_Jcg1pc) I have so far researched and concluded that quite a number of the videos/images in that compilation do indeed represent mundane objects and thus do not constitute evidence for UFOs. We are however left with a number of cases that so far have defied mundane explanation.

One of those cases would seem to be the Apollo 10 case (http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery/video/apollo/apollo10/html/lunar_activities.html - 22 May 1969: transcripts here (http://history.nasa.gov/ap10fj/as10-day1-pt4-tli-docking.htm). If the object observed in the video happens to have a mundane explanation then I will happily write this case off as evidence for UFOs as well. However, what little argument there has been put forward so far does not allow me to conclude that it was a mundane object.

I know the initial position of the UFO debunkers is that everything is mundane until proven otherwise. However, as a skeptic I cannot begin an exploration of a case with a predisposition in any direction at all – that would be unscientific. All I can do is observe the evidence and if no explanation is forthcoming assign “UFO” to the case.

Now, as I have stated many times, this does not necessarily mean ET. Possibly also there may be mundane explanations that are not readily apparent on the limited evidence we have – but by the same logic that I cannot assign ET to a case, I cannot assign mundane either.

However, where it is apparent in a case that the characteristics of the UFO positively defy mundane explanation (as is the circumstance with a number of cases I have presented in this thread) then I still do not assign ET. I merely note that the UFO is then “alien” to our concept of the natural or technological world.

Currently, with the Apollo 10 UFO, it is just a UFO. I am not calling it “alien” (my definition) nor am I calling it ET. I am still investigating and calling for possible mundane explanations. So far no plausible ones have been forthcoming. Meteorite seems implausible – the object is just too slow: something inside the LM close to the camera is implausible – the lighting characteristics suggest it is definitely outside the LM: A piece of dirt/debri/ rock etc seems implausible - the object is spherical in nature.

We also have transcript evidence that the astronauts did not know what it was – indeed one of them seems to have called it a “green man” (in joking reference to ETs).

So what are we left with? That is the question I am facing at the moment. What could it have plausibly been?

But oddly, when given plausible explanations, you handwave them away.
You treat your speculation as fact. You speculated that something was being tracked by a device incapable of that.
You speculate that the object is spherical. You have no evidence that this is so. You speculate that the object is too fast for this thing, and too slow for that thing, without any evidence of its actual velocity. All you really have is the rate of change of relative bearing.
You speculate on lighting conditions inside the LM, and treat that as fact. You pile the speculations together and proclaim a mystery.
But you want us to believe you start without predisposition?

 

[Rramjet]

How can you tell if a simple dot is "clearly illuminated from the same angle as objects in the video? I would love to see you demonstrate that claim. A speck can easily be illuminated from internal lighting. I am sure the astronauts were not operating in the dark.

Apparently you are not observing the correct video - as the object in my copy of the video is definitely much more than a “dot” or “speck”. It would therefore really be helpful if we were actually observing the same video. A version can be found here (http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery/video/apollo/apollo10/html/lunar_activities.html) and a clearer resolution downloadable version here (http://history.nasa.gov/ap10fj/as10-video-library.htm) (Note: you will need VLC media player to play the downloadable (extended) version as neither Quicktime nor Windows Media Player can access it). I am basing my assessments on the downloadable version, but the NASA “gallery” version is adequate.

Regarding object illumination:
First: All you have to do is look at the inside of the LM as shown in the video to see that it is dark. No internal light was being used to illuminate the internal parts of the LM that we can see – that much is glaringly (excuse the pun) obvious. Also the astronauts make a number of comments concerning how extraordinarily bright and glaring the whole scene is, internal lighting would have hindered rather than helped in such a situation.

Second: The sun is illuminating our view from almost directly above (and somewhat behind the LM from our POV). This is readily also apparent from the shadows cast on the CSM (especially noticeable in the latter parts of the downloadable version.

Third: If you observe the actual object itself, you can see that the object is clearly illuminated from the above and behind our POV. Whatever shadow (effect) is apparent on the object, it invariably appears on the underside. That is the brightest spot on the object remains on the upper part of it.

Fourth: With better resolution in the downloadable version, the object stands out as clearly spherical – indeed if asked, anyone would be hard-pressed to make a case that it was not spherical! Further, in many NASA videos of “debri” we see the debri looking basically spherical but pulsating. This pulsating effect is often (at least in part) explained as an artefact of spinning, out-of-focus, irregularly shaped objects. We see no such “pulsating” of the object in this video.

1. It could have been propelled by one of the RCS firings.
2. The LM and CM were maneuvering during this event. It may be that the LM had changed its orbital speed and, as a result, the free floating fragment's speed (which was paralleling the craft at the time) relative to the craft had changed causing it to appear to "jet" away from the LM.

To take your second point first:
2. There is no evidence that the LM changed its orbital speed to such a degree. Remember, the CSM and LM were manoeuvring within very fine tolerances, matching their orbital speeds precisely to enable docking – if the LM suddenly changed its speed to such a degree as to cause any object (“paralleling the craft at the time”) to seem to suddenly “jet away” (as you term it) - then so would the CSM (and moon) have done the same! This is inconceivable and not in accord with the evidence.

Now the first point:

Edited by Cuddles: 

Edited for moderated thread.

I have been quoting from the wrong transcripts!

Did nobody ever wonder about the timing (or the title of the page I have been quoting from)? In the link here (http://history.nasa.gov/ap10fj/as10-day4-pt13.htm) is a table (“Apollo 10 Lunar Orbit Significant Events-Times and locations”) and that table indicates that Lunar orbit CSM-LM docking actually took place at 106:22:02.0. In the transcripts I have been erroneously quoting from we are looking at times of around three hours after the launch (on day 1)!

It seems NASA does not include the transcripts for the CSM-LM docking section of the flight on its Apollo 10 Flight Journal website (http://history.nasa.gov/ap10fj/index.htm). Nor does it indicate that it intends to do so (as it does with the rest of the journey with the statement “Sections to appear in a later release.”).

So, I therefore must retract any conclusions or statements made based on the quoted transcripts and apologise (not that it would have wasted anyone’s time. Because had they looked at the links I provided they would have noted that I was in error – and if they did look at the links, then they fell into the same error I did). But I apologise if I managed to excite anyone’s interest based on my erroneous quotes from the transcripts...

Nevertheless I stand by all my arguments that were not based on the transcripts, but I see I must go back and do some re-evaluation. I will reply to the rest of the post (and other’s) after my re-evaluation. Once again apologies if I have mislead anyone here.

 

[Jocce]

SkyLab 3 (20 Sep 1973)
(http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/SL3.html)

An error analysis could be done... but the biggest component, given that the "UFO" was travelling at a some distance behind the Skylab, is the assumption that the distance can be estimated by the time between SL3 going into darkness - and then 5 or so seconds later the UFO went into darkness (…or turned off its lights). But was it 5 sec or 3 sec or 7 sec …or what? If one picks 5 seconds and puts an error bar of +/- 1 sec, one can then calculate the resulting range of size compatible with the +/- 1 second error. Big deal!

Would it be too much if I ask you to provide such an error analysis then? You know, just to show that there's not a significant difference between 3 and 7 seconds.

And any other error component, such as the measurement of the spacing between blobs in image 2141, pales into insignificance in comparison.

I would tend to believe this if you only could back of your assertions by numbers.

 

[Jocce]

I pointed out that it was an outrageous coincidence that the antenna “tracked” the UFO so precisely and the odds of this were very small.

I'm sorry but I must have missed the post where you show that the bright dot hasn't been added in later. I disctinctly remember asking you to provide evidence that the video clip you're using is unedited. As a scientist I'm sure you can appreciate the importance of making sure that the data you use to draw conclusions are valid.

 

[Jocce]

nm my previous comment. I saw now that you included a nasa source. The it's fine by me.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Apparently you are not observing the correct video - as the object in my copy of the video is definitely much more than a “dot” or “speck”. It would therefore really be helpful if we were actually observing the same video. A version can be found here (http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery/video/apollo/apollo10/html/lunar_activities.html) and a clearer resolution downloadable version here (http://history.nasa.gov/ap10fj/as10-video-library.htm) (Note: you will need VLC media player to play the downloadable (extended) version as neither Quicktime nor Windows Media Player can access it). I am basing my assessments on the downloadable version, but the NASA “gallery” version is adequate.

I posted a link to magazine K a few days back. You CAN watch it with Quicktime but I could not with media player. So, I have been watching the same film you have but you seem to have difficulties understanding the concept of the limits of resolution in any of these videos/films.

Regarding object illumination:
First: All you have to do is look at the inside of the LM as shown in the video to see that it is dark. No internal light was being used to illuminate the internal parts of the LM that we can see – that much is glaringly (excuse the pun) obvious. Also the astronauts make a number of comments concerning how extraordinarily bright and glaring the whole scene is, internal lighting would have hindered rather than helped in such a situation.

However, one can see some form of lighting on the dark areas of the window. Just because the windows were shaded does not mean there wasn’t any internal lighting. Considering that half the time, you are on the “dark side” of the moon where there was no sun and the landscape was much darker, you would have internal lighting illuminated continuously. It would be a waste of time and a distraction to keep turning the internal lights on and off every 10-30 minutes (whatever the time is for a half-orbit) just because it was too bright outside. Additionally, just because the surface of the moon is bright outside does not mean the interior of the cabin was lit up equally. The astronauts would not be wanting to fumble around in the dark and make a mistake would they?

Second: The sun is illuminating our view from almost directly above (and somewhat behind the LM from our POV). This is readily also apparent from the shadows cast on the CSM (especially noticeable in the latter parts of the downloadable version.

Can you present us with a reasonably precise angle with computations so we can verify your work? Assuming you are correct, it would be more reason for the astronauts to have internal lighting on, since the sun’s light would not illuminate the interior of the cabin.

Third: If you observe the actual object itself, you can see that the object is clearly illuminated from the above and behind our POV. Whatever shadow (effect) is apparent on the object, it invariably appears on the underside. That is the brightest spot on the object remains on the upper part of it.

I see a bright dot. I see no shadow. Can you provide us with a series of frame grabs showing that there is a shadow on the object? Can you demonstrate the degree of illumination changing on your “sphere”? Perhaps some measurements of some kind might help. If the sun was illuminating from above, I don’t see how you could see any shadow on the object if we are looking down on the object.

Fourth: With better resolution in the downloadable version, the object stands out as clearly spherical – indeed if asked, anyone would be hard-pressed to make a case that it was not spherical! Further, in many NASA videos of “debri” we see the debri looking basically spherical but pulsating. This pulsating effect is often (at least in part) explained as an artefact of spinning, out-of-focus, irregularly shaped objects. We see no such “pulsating” of the object in this video.

1. If it is spherical, you can provide us with a radius and circumference in pixels. I see an object that is on the limits of resolution. Simply stating it IS and MUST be spherical is not the same as demonstrating that it is. Exactly how many pixels in size is this “object”? My guess is about ONE pixel, which is a dot. Of course, we have to wonder about the film’s resolution capabilities don’t we. Exactly how small an object can the film resolve based on the distances involved?

2. An object does not have to spin. It is only visible for a brief period of time. Can you demonstrate that debris from spacecraft ALWAYS “pulsate”? If this is the reason you are going to eliminate it as just simply debris, then you are going to have prove this is the case.

2. There is no evidence that the LM changed its orbital speed to such a degree. Remember, the CSM and LM were manoeuvring within very fine tolerances, matching their orbital speeds precisely to enable docking – if the LM suddenly changed its speed to such a degree as to cause any object (“paralleling the craft at the time”) to seem to suddenly “jet away” (as you term it) - then so would the CSM (and moon) have done the same! This is inconceivable and not in accord with the evidence.

A few feet/sec is all it takes to make a piece of debris appear to move away rapidly (esp if the film is sped up). If you watch the entire sequence, the CSM is closing indicating somebody was maneuvering their craft. After all, this whole mission was to test the LM’s capabilities in orbit around the moon. Part of the capability would be to maneuvering the craft. Your claim that there was no noticeable change in orbital speed needs something a bit more substantial than your “gut” feel don’t you think?

I have been quoting from the wrong transcripts!

Good for you that you figured you quoting the wrong transcript. Now if you could just recognize that the S-Band antenna/equipment in the CSM was not a RADAR, then we might be able to move beyond that nonsense.

 

[Correa Neto]

SkyLab 3 (20 Sep 1973)
(http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/SL3.html)


Evidently you have not understood the discussion. An error analysis could be done... but the biggest component, given that the "UFO" was travelling at a some distance behind the Skylab, is the assumption that the distance can be estimated by the time between SL3 going into darkness - and then 5 or so seconds later the UFO went into darkness (…or turned off its lights). But was it 5 sec or 3 sec or 7 sec …or what? If one picks 5 seconds and puts an error bar of +/- 1 sec, one can then calculate the resulting range of size compatible with the +/- 1 second error. Big deal! And any other error component, such as the measurement of the spacing between blobs in image 2141, pales into insignificance in comparison. One of the interesting aspects of this sighting is that the "satellite" (or whatever) appeared red to the astronauts - and also to the film. This fact is not subject to error analysis. So, whatever the size of the thing, the question becomes, what up there …was red?

Nope. Anyone with a real and good scientific background would have realized that Mcabee's size estimates without an error analysis are useless. Once again, an example of UFOlogic methodology SNAFU.

By the way, error propagation is much more complex than "pick 5 seconds and put an error bar of +/- 1 second". I wonder why someone with real and good scientific training would think that's what it takes...

Without a proper distance measurement (with error), withou a proper angular measurement (with error), without a proper time measurement (with error) and without the proper error propagation calculations, its a no-go.

Oh, the red color?

Are you sure "aliens from beyond the borders of what we call nature" (whatever that means) is a viable, plausible option?

Maybe it was a commie UFO...

 

[Rramjet]

However, one can see some form of lighting on the dark areas of the window. Just because the windows were shaded does not mean there wasn’t any internal lighting. Considering that half the time, you are on the “dark side” of the moon where there was no sun and the landscape was much darker, you would have internal lighting illuminated continuously. It would be a waste of time and a distraction to keep turning the internal lights on and off every 10-30 minutes (whatever the time is for a half-orbit) just because it was too bright outside. Additionally, just because the surface of the moon is bright outside does not mean the interior of the cabin was lit up equally. The astronauts would not be wanting to fumble around in the dark and make a mistake would they?

Where can you see “some form of lighting”? I presume by “window” you mean the video frame rather than the LM window, for we can see nothing of the LMs actual window (eg; there are no reflections in it to give it away) and the only thing we see of the inside of the actual LM is on the left of the video window where we can see a dark diagonal section, possibly the left edge of the LM window frame itself, and that is certainly not lit internally.

The “light patches” in each video window corner and the dark irregularity down the right side are anomalies on the actual film. You can tell this because these do not change no matter where camera moves or what focal length it chooses. etc.

So I ask again: Where can you see “some form of lighting”? Simply there is no internal lighting to define the object so brightly. That much is so obvious I wonder that you even bother to argue it.

I stated:
“Second: The sun is illuminating our view from almost directly above (and somewhat behind the LM from our POV). This is readily also apparent from the shadows cast on the CSM (especially noticeable in the latter parts of the downloadable version.”

Can you present us with a reasonably precise angle with computations so we can verify your work? Assuming you are correct, it would be more reason for the astronauts to have internal lighting on, since the sun’s light would not illuminate the interior of the cabin.

Are you serious? The CSM is a barrel, the top half is illuminated, the bottom half is in shadow and the dividing line between illumination and shadow falls precisely down the centre of that barrel. Not only that but the line of shadow on the S-band antenna array is vertical (and watch carefully as the array turns when the object goes by). The sun is clearly "above" the scene. It is simple matter of straightforward observation. What “calculations” do you need?

I see a bright dot. I see no shadow. Can you provide us with a series of frame grabs showing that there is a shadow on the object? Can you demonstrate the degree of illumination changing on your “sphere”? Perhaps some measurements of some kind might help. If the sun was illuminating from above, I don’t see how you could see any shadow on the object if we are looking down on the object.

What you do and do not see is beginning to concern me. You see internal lighting where none exists. You do not see shadows on the CSM that clearly do exist (indicating the direction of the sun). And now you see merely a “bright dot” where a spherical object exists…?

1. If it is spherical, you can provide us with a radius and circumference in pixels. I see an object that is on the limits of resolution. Simply stating it IS and MUST be spherical is not the same as demonstrating that it is. Exactly how many pixels in size is this “object”? My guess is about ONE pixel, which is a dot. Of course, we have to wonder about the film’s resolution capabilities don’t we. Exactly how small an object can the film resolve based on the distances involved?

Your guess? If I may be allowed to quote you directly (from later in your post) “…needs something a bit more substantial than your “gut” feel don’t you think?”

Again, what you see or do not see is seemingly problematic for you. If you take a snapshot from the video and then in a quality image editor zoom in you can get a clear indication of the pixel size. I can resolve the object itself to about 36 pixels in size (6x6). Over a number of “frames” this is more than enough to determine its spherical nature. That is the central upper pixels are pretty much always the brightest in the array and the outer pixels always darker than the central ones – thus a spherical object.

I also compared the degree of variability across frames in the pixel shading between the object and pixels on the nose of the CSM (which should be relatively some of the most stable). The object itself has about the same degree of variability, perhaps slightly more than pixels on the nose of the CSM. This slight extra variability could be a result of it being in relatively faster motion - but it could also indicate that the object is more distant.

2. An object does not have to spin. It is only visible for a brief period of time. Can you demonstrate that debris from spacecraft ALWAYS “pulsate”? If this is the reason you are going to eliminate it as just simply debris, then you are going to have prove this is the case.

No, mine was merely a suggestion based on other’s explanations for visible pulsation of “debri” in other NASA videos. If you are refuting this explanation for pulsation seen in those videos then I am happy to let you do so. I merely noted that the object in the Apollo 10 video displays no such pulsation effect. Meaning of course one of two things, either it is spherical (as all the other evidence suggests) or it is an object with one circular face that is not “spinning” at all – presenting us always with the same circular facet of itself. I find the latter explanation stretches credibility somewhat (especially given the evidence of sphericity).

A few feet/sec is all it takes to make a piece of debris appear to move away rapidly (esp if the film is sped up). If you watch the entire sequence, the CSM is closing indicating somebody was maneuvering their craft. After all, this whole mission was to test the LM’s capabilities in orbit around the moon. Part of the capability would be to maneuvering the craft. Your claim that there was no noticeable change in orbital speed needs something a bit more substantial than your “gut” feel don’t you think?

C’mon Astro, please. The LM and CSM were trying to precisely match their relative speeds at the time for docking, they would not have tried something unheard of to this day like a sudden synchronised increase in speed in the middle of such a difficult (and never before attempted) manoeuvre.

 

[Astrophotographer]

With better resolution in the downloadable version, the object stands out as clearly spherical – indeed if asked, anyone would be hard-pressed to make a case that it was not spherical! Further, in many NASA videos of “debri” we see the debri looking basically spherical but pulsating. This pulsating effect is often (at least in part) explained as an artefact of spinning, out-of-focus, irregularly shaped objects. We see no such “pulsating” of the object in this video.

Well, I decided to do some frame grabs at the original resolution of the clip shown at the magazine K website. I took 6 frames at random and pasted them together. There are some interesting things to note:



One is that the claim there is "no such pulsating" is false as one can clearly see. I feel that the second frame is not a very good one because it appears to be a transition frame with the "object" moving. However, the first frame clearly shows an object that is not as bright as objects in the 3-4-5 frames and the 6th frame is much brighter than all of the frames. Therefore, the object was "pulsating".

The second observation is that the object is basically the same size (about 2.5 pixels) throughout its travel through the frame. An object in the distance would decrease in size as it moved away from the LM. Instead this object acts as if it is paralleling the camera lens. Anything large enough to be seen as a "sphere" would change in apparent size as it approached the craft from below. Based on this, it appears the object was close to the camera and small. All of this appears consistent with the debris hypothesis. Either it was just outside the window or inside the craft.

A third observation is there appears to be no distinct shadow on the underside of the object as claimed. In the sixth frame, the object's illumination appears even throughout. The fourth and fifth frames might show a change in illumination (I did not bother to do any measurements) but it is vague and may just be an effect of the blending of pixels between the object and the background. If there is a distinct shadow on the object, I can't see it. Maybe some of the other list members can point it out to me.

A fourth observation is that the object's shape is indistinct. Declaring it a "sphere" is nto being very scientiifc since the limits of resolution of the video clip (and possibly the original film) are just too small to establish this. High resolution scans of the actual frame may resolve this but it seems unlikely.