The SKYLAB III UFO Encounter - The Evidence & Contradictions

awesome new video from LunaCognita about the Skylab 3 UFO incident. this sighting has never been explained and the object has not been identified.

LOUSMA: I saw a couple of satellites that appeared like a satellite would on earth.

I saw one that was not like one you would see on earth

www.brumac.8k.com...

I didn't bother with the video, rather I wanted to get the raw information before someone shoves a potentially biased video in my face.

But the the official documents you have in one of your links, there really isn't anything to investigate. This entire case can only be speculated about. A undetermined red light off in the distance that displayed similar orbital characteristics is all you can really say.

This is where one's desire to believe and add in whatever they want, make up any conspiracy.....pretty much anything really.

This sighting will never be explained and the object will never be identified. So it adds up to nothing unfortunately. Neat though, I like cases like this believe it or not.

reply to post by easynow


Ah hA! Lunacognita is a favorite!

*the missing audio from the event (channel A) is a massive RED FLAG!

The black knight for some reason comes to mind:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
and
www.thelivingmoon.com...

...and right on queue ITF - so this must have some merit - because when ITF jumps straight on - you know it's gonna be legit...

Nice post easynow S&F

[edit on 5-9-2010 by watchZEITGEISTnow]

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts

This sighting will never be explained and the object will never be identified.

I am glad you agree that it was a UFO.

That makes sense to do.

All three crewmen agree it was a point source, periodically changing in brightness. It looked nothing like the one squiggle photo, which looked nothing like the other photos that showed a point source.

The distance to the object was unknown, it actually could have been quite close, a piece of debris off the station's own thermal blankets.

Luna always makes very informative videos. There is simply questions being asked, and true data presented. There is no biased opinion or agenda that i can see.


This is a very interesting case and the contradictions raise several red flags. NASA's history of cover up proceeds this case. Not a man made satellite in my opinion.. great video

reply to post by easynow
It's a very interesting incident and inevitably frustrating for the lack of conclusions we can draw. The Maccabee/Sparks analysis is thorough and the astronauts' training seems to rule out ice particles, localised debris...

Garriot: We observed it for about 10 minutes prior to sunset. It was slowly rotating because it had a variation in brightness with a 10-seconds period. As I was saying, we observed it for about 10 minutes, until we went into darkness, and it also followed us into darkness about 5-seconds later. From the 5 to 10 second delay in it's disappearance we surmised that it was not more than 30 to 50 nautical miles [35 to 58 statute miles or 56 to 93 km] from our location. From its original position in the wardroom window, it did not move more than 10 or 20 degrees over the 10 minutes or so that we watched it.

Maccabee and Sparks crunch some numbers that suggest whatever the object was, it was at least 112 feet (37 m) in size. It's early and I have to run, but I seem to remember this analysis also indicated the object began to increase in velocity? If these figures are all accurate, we have an object possibly larger than anything in orbit at the time. Bizarrely, the unidentified object somehow gains speed. Fascinating and inconclusive!

reply to post by IgnoreTheFacts

I didn't bother with the video

i know the real reason why you didn't



reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow

Ah hA! Lunacognita is a favorite!
*the missing audio from the event (channel A) is a massive RED FLAG!

Ah HAH ! LOL

yes you are correct on both accounts : )




reply to post by Exuberant1

That makes sense to do.

indeed it does, denial is futile




reply to post by JimOberg

it actually could have been quite close, a piece of debris

why Jim, that sounds just like a "standard response" ? LOL

www.abovetopsecret.com...




reply to post by theMegaladon

There is no biased opinion or agenda that i can see.

thanks and i agree, LunaCognita did not show any bias in the presentation.




reply to post by Kandinsky

this analysis also indicated the object began to increase in velocity?

yes i believe you are correct, not sure what can explain that ?

it might be worth noting that 1 month later, Captain Coyne and the Crew of a Huey helicopter were flying over Ohio and spotted a unidentified red light off in the distance which later approached them and almost caused a collision ! was this red light ufo the same thing photographed by the Skylab crew ?

UH -1 Huey

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a392d98f232f.jpg[/atsimg]

The four-man crew of an Army Reserve UH-1H helicopter, based in Cleveland, Ohio, was returning from Columbus, Ohio, at about 10:30 p.m. following regularly scheduled physical examinations. It was a clear, starry night with no moon. They were cruising at 90 knots at an altitude of 2,500 feet above sea level, over farmland and rolling hills. Lt. Arrigo Jezzi, 26, was at the controls from the left-hand seat. Sgt. John Healey, 35, the flight medic, sat behind him. In the right rear seat was Spec. 5 Robert Yanacek, 23, the crew chief. Commanding the flight from the right front seat was Capt. Lawrence J. Coyne, 36, a 19-year veteran of the Army Reserve.


About 11:00 p.m. near Mansfield, Ohio, Healey saw a red light off to the left (west) heading south. Three or four minutes later, Yanacek noticed a single steady red light on the eastern horizon, and reported it to Coyne. About 30 seconds later, Yanacek announced that the light appeared to be converging on the helicopter, and they all watched it warily.

more info on this case www.abovetopsecret.com...




Skylab 3 incident - September 20, 1973

Coyne Helicopter incident - October 18, 1973.

both cases involved a ufo that appeared as a red light.

just a coincidence ?

[edit on 6-9-2010 by easynow]

C'mon this is a great UFO catch people!

Are you all asleep! Wake up!

It IS there - so WHAT is it? Is there anyway to get a comment from the astronauts that saw this UFO, now years have passed - and the times are a changin' - maybe they'd give an update to what they wanted to say, but at that time were to scared to do so?

Bueller? Bueller?

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
C'mon this is a great UFO catch people!

Are you all asleep! Wake up!

It IS there - so WHAT is it? Is there anyway to get a comment from the astronauts that saw this UFO, now years have passed - and the times are a changin' - maybe they'd give an update to what they wanted to say, but at that time were to scared to do so?

Bueller? Bueller?

They have commented. Nobody in the UFO world seems competent to research their way out of a paper flying saucer. Or at least, the folks you rely on for 'truth' appear to want to keep their new comments from your attention.

reply to post by easynow


i have a few simple easy thoughts i would like to share.

why would the government tolerate people making claims about ufo's and spreading lies (since it would be a threat to national security) without rounding people up and arresting them for fraud or something, if there was not some level of truth in the ufo phenomenon?

who is monopolizing the information? why?

those are some of my thoughts and questions concerning the ufo phenomenon.


[edit on 6-9-2010 by Esoteric Teacher]

reply to post by Esoteric Teacher


they tolerate it so the alphabet agency's can gather intelligence and they don't arrest people because it's not about proclamations and speculation, it's all about what you can prove. if you could prove something you would either be bought off, discredited or terminated.

even with no hard proof, anyone that gets close to the truth and is articulate and can present evidence in a coherent manor that the general public will understand, will have a discrediting campaign launched against them. look at what has been said in this very thread about researchers, look at the first reply, it was carefully crafted to get people to lose interest in watching the video, and look what happened to people like James McDonald. nuff said ?

it is my opinion, NASA has an agenda to discredit all conspiracies about Astronauts, ufo's and any evidence that puts NASA in a bad light. it's ok with them if you bring this subject up because they want to know where the leaks are so they can plug it with counter-intelligence operations.

The CIA has the mission of collecting all published civilian UFO
intelligence data. An Air Force public information release (still
in use) tells us that their investigation of UFOs ended with the
deactivation of Project Blue Book. Further, it says that UFO
investigations have been turned over to academic institutions and
civilian UFO research organizations. In practice, this means that
information of genuine scientific value will not be overlooked. In
other words, Blue Book never really ended, it just changed hands.
And, whether you know it or not, or like it or not, you are part
of the intelligence-gathering network, feeding straight to the
CIA's UFO files. But this particular brand of intelligence data is
perfectly open to the public, in the form of UFO books, journals
and public meetings. And this presents the government with a
unique problem. As a UFO researcher, you are simultaneously
gathering data for the government, and trying to break through the
wall of secrecy to discover what the government knows. You are
spying for them, and spying on them. By spying on your own
government and, in fact, doing so in a very aggressive manner, you
automatically trigger the counter-intelligence machinery.

ftp.fortunaty.net...

The quote posted by easynow does seem to make sense. When you try and get the truth to the public you simultaneously give away your game plan. Its a doubled edge sword. If you don't tell what you know, you hurt the cause; if you do you give away your trump card. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by Esoteric Teacher

 

they tolerate it so the alphabet agency's can gather intelligence and they don't arrest people because it's not about proclamations and speculation, it's all about what you can prove. if you could prove something you would either be bought off, discredited or terminated.

no kidding. you don't say. i might just believe ya.

reply to post by easynow


Easynow.....

Actually, I've always found this case very interesting.

In fact, to my mind it is the only "space based" video that seems to be able to withstand some level of scrutiny.

I have mentioned that & linked to your original thread on several occasions.

I have linked to your original thread here, for interest & convenience.

I hope this case doesn't "unravel" over time.....I do like the ones that remain to my mind....."unexplained"!

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not


[edit on 7-9-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
Actually, I've always found this case very interesting.

In fact, to my mind it is the only "space based" video that seems to be able to withstand some level of scrutiny.

But it's not a video, it's a sequence of stills.

...and tell me more about this 'scrutiny' you say the case has resisted.

Scrutiny by whom?





[edit on 7-9-2010 by JimOberg]

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
Actually, I've always found this case very interesting.
In fact, to my mind it is the only "space based" video that seems to be able to withstand some level of scrutiny.

But it's not a video, it's a sequence of stills.
...and tell me more about this 'scrutiny' you say the case has resisted.
Scrutiny by whom?

JimOberg.....

It's always a great pleasure to discuss these issues with you in thread!

But it's not a video, it's a sequence of stills.

You are correct.....I expressed myself incorrectly.

...and tell me more about this 'scrutiny' you say the case has resisted. Scrutiny by whom?

Well.....my own I guess.....

Look Jim.....

Don't debunk it.....let me "hang onto it by my fingernails"!

Cheers mate
Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
Don't debunk it.....let me "hang onto it by my fingernails"!

Cheers mate

The puzzling aspect of this story is the squiggle and why it is at odds with the other stills, and with the eyewitness recollections of a point source.

To assume the squiggle is an authentic record of something, you have to throw out all the other photographic evidence and witness testimony.

Could it have been a stuck shutter? The camera was hand held.

Alternately, was the original exposure time set too long -- this caused some spectacular 'jellyfish UFO' images on shuttle flights that were only photographing loose metal insulation clips drifting by outside.

Could it have been a refracted view through something on the window -- it was next to where the crew ate?

We can all agree it wasn't Venus or swamp gas. Whither do we go from here?

Originally posted by JimOberg

The puzzling aspect of this story is the squiggle and why it is at odds with the other stills, and with the eyewitness recollections of a point source.

Maybe you could ask a great reclusive ET contactee yourself?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by redwoodjedi

 

thanks for the reply ,

i did think about the dropa looking ufo's... but felt that they were not really similar enough to make the connection. imo

but i did come across this


Stehpensville light's ...Texas UFO pics

and then compared to dorothy's they seem to have some similarities imo

this was discussed in this thread here
www.abovetopsecret.com...&colorshift=yes&colorshift=yes
Stephenville lights - Dorothy Izatt and the moon, page 1