Astronauts on Skylab 3 photographed GIANT UFO 1973, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 76 times


reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 02:02 PM by Europa733
Originally posted by easynow
ok here is the best analysis of this case ever put together and thanks to Bruce Maccabee and Brad Sparks for doing this work

www.brumac.8k.com...


Hi there,

How can someone trust this analysis when :

1 : They did not demonstrate that the weird shape (of the object) was not (or could have been) due to motion blur.

2 : They did not demonstrate that it was not (or could have been) a film & camera fault

3 : All their estimations rely on one single picture and 1 & 2 has not been demonstrated

4 : They did not even talk about 1 & 2

5 : Crew testimony and other photos show this was a bright point source


Now, anyone respecting the scientific method knows that I am talking about a serious bias here. Brumac is an optical physicist for aliens sake.

That being said, I do think that it is an interesting case & story but I do not trust at all their analysis.

Here is some other work done by Brumac, you will notice how "specialists" can be fooled by stupid tricks. Now how can someone trust his work after that ? : ufohoax.tripod.com...


Cheers,
Europa aka Buckwild


[edit on 3-12-2008 by Europa733]



reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 03:10 PM by easynow
reply to post by Europa733


thanks Europa733 for your input on this and i totally agree with you that the possibility of motion blur and camera defects were not discussed in the analysis report and your statements are justified imo.

i was concerned about that also since from what i can tell the calculations of the size of the UFO were being based on the photo showing the strange object.

i believe we would have to somehow prove that the object is not what it appears to be in order to recalculate the size of the UFO but the question is how can anyone prove this was a camera defect ? you could show examples of others but it still would not prove beyond a shadow of doubt that it was motion blur or a camera defect.

the fact still remains that this was an unidentified object that the Astronauts didn't recognize and it was dangerously close to the same orbit as the space station.

either NASA had a real encounter with a UFO and don't want to admit it or they are ignorant to other orbital satellites and almost caused an accident from miscalculations

either way it don't look good for NASA


reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 03:52 PM by Europa733
Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by Europa733


thanks Europa733 for your input on this and i totally agree with you that the possibility of motion blur and camera defects were not discussed in the analysis report and your statements are justified imo.

i believe we would have to somehow prove that the object is not what it appears to be in order to recalculate the size of the UFO but the question is how can anyone prove this was a camera defect ? you could show examples of others but it still would not prove beyond a shadow of doubt that it was motion blur or a camera defect.


Hi Easynow.

You are welcome.


First, extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. (talking about the size estimates) They made one, not me.


Ockham's Razor says simplest explanation is preferred.

In this case if you do not use any methods for estimating linear motion blur, (no methods were mentioned or used in this document) then you will have to considerate that the other pictures and the eyewitness testimony are more valuable data than this single picture.

Another thing they could have done is to send the original film for analysis to detect faults. Many other things could have been done but I am not a photography expert or an optical physicist to go any further. Since they did not do anything to guarantee that their estimations were reliable and if it was not possible by all means to prove & demonstrate that it could not be motion blur, then Ockham's razor is needed.

Cheers,
Europa aka Buck




[edit on 3-12-2008 by Europa733]


reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 05:48 PM by MagicaRose
reply to post by easynow


I've never heard anything about this one.
Star and flagged.
Excellent!



reply posted on 4-12-2008 @ 05:37 AM by easynow
i want to thank everyone for their kind words and contribution to this thread and i am glad to see that i have brought this case into the light again for people that may have not heard about this.

Originally posted by wdkirk
Some interesting information:

www.gnn.tv...

unexplained.wordpress.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Don't know that it helps, but, on the same path.



Thank You Wdkirk for those links

it seems you have read my mind ! i was just thinking about the possible connection to other strange Alien objects that have been reported orbiting planet Earth

Pentagon scare over the observance of two previously unobserved satellites orbiting the earth has dissipated with the identification of the objects as natural, not artificial satellites. Dr. Lincoln LaPaz, expert on extraterrestrial bodies from the University of New Mexico, headed the identification project. One satellite is orbiting about 400 miles out, while the other track is 600 miles from the earth. Pentagon thought momentarily the Russians had beaten the U.S. to space explorations.@


www.presidentialufo.com...



here is an interview with Clifford Stone from project camelot and he is talking about an Alien Probe that was found and it supposedly returns every 15-20 years

C: Well, I’ll tell you this, I think that by 2016 that something better have happened. Because at 2016 I think that we’re going to have to announce to the world that there’s a probe that comes very close to the Earth every 15 or 20 years. And we’ve been calling it an asteroid. It’s not an asteroid. But it actually in reality is an artificial probe. In other words, somebody else put it here. They have found us long time ago. The technology will probably be pretty much on a par to, say, Voyager. It’ll be old antiquated technology by all their standards.

K: So what are you saying? Is this probe… do you know what race?

C: I’m saying we have already found it. Our paradigm says that it can’t be an artificial craft of any sort, therefore we refuse to accept that and we call it an asteroid. I’m talking about BG1991. Roughly 30 meters in diameter, highly polished surface. Asteroids don’t have a highly polished surface. It took corrective course changes to avoid collision with another asteroid. That don’t happen. This one it did.

www.projectcamelot.net...

and for anyone interested this link has some very interesting reading about Alien life existing in our Solar System.
www.rfreitas.com...

so could this Red Unidentified Object that Skylab photographed been something Alien orbiting this planet ? it's possible imo and since there seems to be no public record of something actually identifying this object , i guess we will never really know thanks to NASA and their secrets.

and just for the sake of discussion...even if the estimates done by Maccabee were not correct it still doesn't change the fact that a red unidentified object was seen and described by the Astronauts as "Huge"

LOUSMA: The closest and brightest one we've seen.

BEAN: Huge one.





reply posted on 4-12-2008 @ 06:09 AM by commodore64
Originally posted by wdkirk
Some interesting information:

www.gnn.tv...

unexplained.wordpress.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Don't know that it helps, but, on the same path.



Thank you for this. I, as a Philip Dick fan, found this connection amazing. Also read this, very interesting: www.excludedmiddle.com...
Maybe it was VALIS, what Skylab astronouts did see.

[edit on 4-12-2008 by commodore64]


reply posted on 4-12-2008 @ 08:14 AM by easynow
reply to post by Fastwalker81


thank you Fastwalker81

There is another article that somewhat ties in with this. It's fairly old so maybe you have already seen it but I didn't saw it linked in this thread.

www.drboylan.com...


thanks for posting this link, i knew about this but could not remember enough about it to get a link so i really appreciate that

very interesting read for sure and it really makes you wonder if these stories are true ? and if they are...there is certainly a coverup about it.



[edit on 4-12-2008 by easynow]
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^



Aliens Among Us ...Video
  Posted 7 days ago with 65 member flags
Moon: inexplicable phenomena. Luna Cognita video.
  Posted 15 days ago with 60 member flags
UFOs \'Escort\' Mexican Aircraft - Radar Confirmed.
  Posted 10 days ago with 31 member flags
The Dyatlov Pass Incident--Russia\'s Mountain of Death
  Posted 17 days ago with 28 member flags
The Aurora, Texas UFO Incident (1897)
  Posted 1 days ago with 25 member flags