Astronauts on Skylab 3 photographed GIANT UFO 1973

this is quite interesting..

we have red unidentified satellites roaming around the Earth






and Blue unidentified satellites roaming around the Moon



www.lpi.usra.edu...

www.thelivingmoon.com...





[edit on 4-12-2008 by easynow]

im just a LITTLE curious as to why the picture of skylab is in perfect, pristine resolution, and the picture of the "UFO" (like every other UFO photo) is out of focus and horrible quality...

i believe them, but why is there no solid photo's of UFO's

"Look up in the sky, its a UFO, quick, get the camera, make sure to mess up the focus so the picture looks really bad!"

reply to post by Europa733

---

Well, you're omitting the fact that the crew SAW it. The photo is one thing, but in the debriefings they clearly discuss seeing it, with their own eyes. An enigmatic photo image does not discount their eyewitness accounts.


====
Mod Edit: snipped long quote used reply to:.

[edit on 12/7/2008 by Badge01]

get thread S&F thankyou easynow

It would great to hear the recordings of the astronauts comments during this event, pitty that we wont.

reply to post by easynow

---

As for the red blob pic, I have no clue, but the blue "ufo" picture on the moon looks like a comet inbound or outbound. Were there any comets or small comets in the general solar system area when we went to the moon?

i dont think we are seeing the full object here, i think the red glow is a reflection or heating of a leading edge

The odd shaped red image looks a bit like the images I saw today in the trailer for that video Interstellar. I have not seen the movie or video, but that was my first thought.

The blue thing also appears in AS14-66-9295, 97, and 99. It appears later in the pan sequence at 309. It then shows up in shots taken from inside the lander at 320,

It hangs around for a long time and jumps around a lot for a satellite. I think it's a lens reflection.

reply to post by easynow

---

cool!!

reply to post by longfade

---

Hi there,

I have never read that the crew was talking about anything else than a very bright red light, the biggest* ("satellite") they've seen during their mission. Someone also used the word "huge". This does not mean that they saw a weird looking satellite, like the one in the picture. (maybe due to motion blur)

Thing is, even the best fighter pilots will not be able to give reliable size estimates of something that is unknown to them in orbit or in the sky, just as long as they don't have any other known referential in their FOV. So even if they did talk about size (never read it), one have to be cautious about their estimations.

Now, don't get me wrong, this story is interesting and I am myself very interested about it because I did observe a red satellite not too long ago. You guys can read my report there (translate it with google) :

ufo-logic.xooit.com...

Cheers,
Europa aka Buck


[edit on 6-12-2008 by Europa733]

"Well, you're omitting the fact that the crew SAW it. The photo is one thing, but in the debriefings they clearly discuss seeing it, with their own eyes. An enigmatic photo image does not discount their eyewitness accounts. " -- longfade


That all depends on what the meaning of the word 'it' is....

The crew saw a bright satellite.

None of the crew made any claim, then or now, to have seen anything but a dot out the window.

Has anybody asked any of the crew -- all are still alive -- if they saw anything resembling the squiggle?

We don't know. all we know is, the promoters of this story have not TOLD us of any answers, if they did.

Wonder why?

And if nobody has even asked the eyewitnesses what they really saw, what kind of garbage pseudo-investigation IS this?


Separate issue, seeing stars in vacuum. Sure you can. Hubble does it every frigging day. It's not a question of resolving angular size, it's a question of photon flux in every 'pixel' (electronic, film, or eyeball retina).

Stars aren't seen in daylight on the Moon, or in orbit, because they're too dim relative to the Sun (another star -- but that's a quibble). The dynamic range of the receptor mechanism just isn't wide enough to detect low starlight and not be totally swamped by ambient sunlight. The dots on the Apollo images are probably dust on the scanned prints. That blue streak is a typical emulsion flaw.

On Apollo-16, a small UV telescope was deployed by the crew on the surface (in the LM's shadow) and it got terrific star images, that can be matched to known star charts. In a recent astronomy class exercise, students were given the pix and asked to make the match themselves -- it was easy.

On all Apollo and shuttle missions, astronauts used a star tracker to get iniertial frame reference marks, for navigation, via eyeball observation. Every day. Thousands of times.

So it doesn't matter if "somebody says" you can't see stars in a vacuum. The stars don't care. The astronauts don't care. Check things out -- we care, and are happy to help.

Hi there,

1 : Maybe because Brumac never talked to them about it (which is not a serious way to conduct an investigation if you ask me)

2: Maybe because he DID talk to them but since they didn't see anything else than a red light, this story wouldn't be as interesting for the ufology community if he mentionned it and it would contradict his calculus & speculations.

I DO NOT trust Brumac, like I DO NOT trust anybody within the ufology community that give credit to the ETH. Why, because they all deceived me
as soon as I started to have a critical look at their work.

Their beliefs ruine everything...

Cheers,
Europa aka Buck

reply to post by Phage

---

certainly possible Phage but don't you think a film emulsion defect would be a better explanation ? since it shows up in quite a few photos i find the lens reflection explanation questionable ?

i have seen this blue anomaly in some of the high resolution photos taken from the command module also and they appear as a very small dot.

so i am not sure what it is really


[edit on 8-12-2008 by easynow]

reply to post by easynow

---

It's been so long since I've used film that the possibility of a physical flaw went right by me. Curious though, it does not appear in all frames sequentially. I almost convinced myself it has to do with the vertical angle of the camera but I'm not sure about that either.

I have no doubt, whatever the cause, that it's a photographic artifact rather than an object or light source.

[edit on 12/8/2008 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage

---

ok well glad i bought back your memory of the film days

i am not ruling out lens flare but like i said it is seen in other photos that are from different magazines and different Apollo missions.

as far as it actually being an object , i am still not convinced it is not and i have some crazy theory's as to why i think that but i am not sure about it.

thanks for your input on this thread

[edit on 8-12-2008 by easynow]

I don't see how it can be a reflection. A reflection caused by what originating light source? The Sun? In frames AS14-66-9295, 97, and 99 that you referenced, cameraman Shepard's body position is such that there is simply NO way for direct light from the solar disc to be able to hit the chest-mounted Hasselblad camera lens, even obliquely. Of those images, 9295 in particular is taken almost directly downsun! Just look at the previous frame (9294), which is the direct due west "downsun" image showing Shepard's shadow in it. 9295 is framed only 15 degrees to the right of that, and is FAR closer to being a "downsun" than a "cross-sun" exposure. I will argue that the camera lens is most definitely in shadow when 9295 was exposed, so what light source is hitting the lens and causing this "reflection" to form?

Cheers!

edited for spelling.

[edit on 8-12-2008 by LunaCognita]

reply to post by LunaCognita

---

Yah, I know. Not such a good guess. I was thinking about the odd backscatter effects from lunar dust when looking downsun, but I really don't know.

So what's the prepared defensive reaction when the astronauts who were there say, when finally asked, that they never saw any squiggle-shape, just a bright point-source satellite-behaving object? Do we assume their minds were brain-wiped by the UFO crew, or have they all been threatened with painful deaths if they 'tell the truth'? You've got to be ready to resist contrary evidence if you plan to 'keep the faith'.

Well, if I ever got to ask them about this incident....
My prepared reaction would be to immediately demand some answers regarding the credibility and alleged "completeness" of the official public record that exists regarding the incident - seeing as how that is ALL we have had to build our case on over the decades. Then, I would ask them why we should trust that they are being entirely truthful with us now?

In the SkyLab III voice transcript and the "post mission debrief" of this incident, doesn't anyone else find it incredibly odd that the descriptions the astronauts provide of this object are about as basic as it gets?

What was the true shape of this object? We know it was "huge" and "red", and we know it was "oscillating", but that is about it. We know this thing appeared to be holding a similar orbit to Skylab and was estimated to not be "more than 30 to 50 nautical miles" away when they lost it across the terminator.

So, why didn't the astronauts explain the shape characteristics in detail, and why in the hell didn't Mission Control or the post-mission debriefers push for an explanation or descriptive of it's shape? Why would the astronauts, all three of whom were trained observers (Garriott was a scientist) fail to clearly define something as incredibly important as the shape of the UNIDENTIFIED object? Do you honestly think that they were NOT debriefed about the shape of this thing???

What was NORAD's reaction to this incident, and where is their tracking data and documentation related to this huge, oscillating object on orbit above our planet? Oops, none exists in the public record.

Why did someone "accidentally" fail to put a new Channel A tape in the recorder, a "mistake" that just happened to eliminate from the public record what was most assuredly an AMAZINGLY descriptive conversation the astronauts had amongst themselves while observing this object for 10 whole minutes!

Plus, let's not forget that NASA "accidentally" mis-labeled the photographs of this object in their “SkyLab III Photographic Index and Scene Identification” document, resulting in the four frames carrying the "BLANK" designation on one page and "satellite - unmanned" on another.

And, finally, ONLY FOUR PHOTOGRAPHS in 10 MINUTES??

The sparse, very selective evidence we have been given to work with regarding this incident, combined with what is so conveniently missing from the public record related to it, makes it pretty darn obvious that we are only being told and shown a very small portion of a much bigger story here. Simple common sense should bear that conclusion out. There is NO reason that we should have to be sitting here speculating on the possible shape of this object seen during the Skylab III mission, because there SHOULD be extensive descriptive documentation AND imagery of it available for us to review!! Of course that extensive documentation and imagery exists, but it is classified in the interests of "national defense".

This is the way the game works. There is a reason that stories like this Skylab III incident are not nearly as well known as they should be. It is because only a smattering of the truth is ever actually made public, and then NASA spreads those morsels of evidence out across multiple documents (as opposed to having a nice "COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF OBJECT SIGHTED BY SKYLAB III CREW DURING REVOLUTION 1863" for us to easily find and read).

Make no mistake. This "incident" was (and is) a BIG deal and was almost entirely covered up for years. We still have not been told anything close to the full story, and if we are ever told the full truth, I personally don't think it will be coming from the astronauts who were involved.

Cheers!