It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The SKYLAB III UFO Encounter - The Evidence & Contradictions

page: 2
18
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 02:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Esoteric Teacher



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


yes i'm afraid that is the ugly truth, sorry that might not have been the kind of reply you were expecting but believe me, i wish it weren't true





reply to post by Maybe...maybe not



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


indeed it is a good one but i'm not sure which is the bigger mystery,

figuring out what the ufo really is, OR

figuring out why NASA would let themselves
look like bumbling fools with all the contradictory data ?






reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow



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


yea uh huh, like that's gonna happen ! LOL



interesting comparison with the Texas and Izatt images, i hadn't thought of that possibility. could be something to that idea




DON'T bother watching this video






posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 03:17 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


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.


On the one hand…..

As you say, it could simply be a camera issue that is making a “spherical” object look like a “jellyfish” type structure.

On the other hand.....

Perhaps it’s an object that’s moving very rapidly, perhaps akin to the famous Kaikoura case.

Caught on film by TV crew: The 1978 Kaikoura UFO sightings

Kind regards
Maybe…maybe not


[edit on 8-9-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 03:24 AM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


Easynow…..


it is a good one but i'm not sure which is the bigger mystery, figuring out what the ufo really is, OR figuring out why NASA would let themselves look like bumbling fools with all the contradictory data ?


I’ve been pondering that aspect of the case…..

Do you think the ”contradictory data” makes a significant difference to our understanding of the nature of the object?

If so…..why?

Kind regards
Maybe…maybe not



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 



Do you think the ”contradictory data” makes a significant difference to our understanding of the nature of the object?
If so…..why?



how could it not make a difference ?

the contradictory data makes it almost impossible to understand anything and i suspect this was done on purpose to obfuscate the truth. knowing the correct data would make a HUGE difference and if the tape recorder was in fact on like Garriott said it was, there could be vital information on that tape such as:

1-the acknowledgment of the actual amount of time they observed the object and any 'real time' conversations about it's characteristics.

2-it might tell us if any other cameras were used

3-it might reveal conversations from a covert radio channel

i could speculate further but i'm sure you get the point ?

[edit on 8-9-2010 by easynow]



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


did i answer your question ?

if i didn't maybe you can rephrase the question ?

just wondering since you didn't reply back


i have a question for you also,

if you were an Astronaut on board Skylab and was being chased by something red that you couldn't recognize, observed it for 10-20 minutes, had multiple kinds of cameras, (with free film) would you only take three Pictures ?







edit on 9-9-2010 by easynow because: unknown



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 

Hi Maybe....Maybe Not,

Just to add a bit to what Easynow mentioned, I would say that yes, the contradictions in the evidence chain all matter and should be part of any discussion about this case I think, though some things can certainly be argued to matter more than others.

The Channel-A tape debacle was so very convenient for NASA, because can you imagine the conversation the astronauts must have been having amongst themselves during the sighting itself? My god, that would be WILD to listen to or even read the transcripts of their 10 (or is it 20??) minutes of chatter as they tried to speculate and ID this red thing they were seeing out the wardroom window, right? I am not surprised by the official claim that the Channel-A tape was not running at the time, but I personally don't believe that convenient little excuse.

The cataloging error in the Photo Index also matters because you have to keep in mind that for at least 3 and a half decades after Skylab, the only way you could ever get a look at any Skylab imagery was by mail order catalog, paying a good chunk of change for every single frame you wanted to see, but first, you actually had to order the index catalog and choose your frames you wanted to spend your hard earned money on based on those simplistic little descriptions provided. Because of the way the Index Catalog was set up, it lists each frame twice using two different cataloging formats, so basically, depending on which format you decide to leaf through to select the images you want to buy, you have a 50% chance of coming away thinking that frames SL3-118-2138 thru to 2141 showed either a "satellite, unmanned", or were "Blank".

What I believe you are seeing here with those cataloging errors is NASA helping to "bury" a frame or frames of film in the archives, leaving them hidden in plain sight with incoherent labeling in the Index catalog. For decades, very few people ever bothered to buy those specific frames because many thought from looking at the ordering catalog the frames were probably blank. It was a totally different world before the Internet, and it is easy to forget how insanely spoiled we are today with the online access to archive info we have. Appreciating that fact is why I consider the old catalog error related to this Skylab III incident to be something that does matter, and can be used to point towards the possibility of at least a partial coverup of evidence. Either that, or it is just another coincidental error that just happened to help NASA bury evidence in the process. Incidentally, the same convenient cataloging errors happen numerous times in the Apollo archives - frame #20680 from Apollo 17 is a good example of a "buried" frame that was kept hidden through multiple cataloging "errors" over the decades. Nobody ever purchased that frame for all those years because it was plainly labeled as being "Blank" in the Apollo 17 Index catalog, and is still miscataloged today in places. The Lunar and Planetary Institute's Apollo Image Atlas still fail to even acknowledge 20680 exists at all. NASA has a track record doing this with controversial imagery.

The duration of the sighting contradictions is also interesting, because Beano's statement of "20 minutes or more" is 100%+ longer than the estimate given by Lousma and Garriott. 20 minutes of tally time gives them 10 extra minutes of observation and 10 more minutes of discussion about the UFO, and 10 minutes more to get more camera systems online and potentially shooting more images of this thing. That is one heck of a large time discrepancy. Too bad we dont have those pesky Channel-A tapes to give us an accurate timing of the sighting!

The issue of whether Skylab or the UFO passed the terminator first is the one that I dont really get too worked up about. It would have been nice to be able to have that info without the contradiction of "followed us" or "led us" because then it would have been worthwhile to accurately recreate the visuals of the scene in the Orbiter sim to see how it would have looked through the wardroom window on Skylab during the period of the sighting. I still should probably do that modeling anyways, just to create some hypothetical visuals based off Skylab's known orbital track info, but I dont think it will add much in the way of hard evidence due to the contradictions, other than I suppose it would help people visualize the astronauts eye-view of the scene a bit better.

Cheers,
LC



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by LunaCognita
 
I can conceive of a variety of situations whereby NASA would withhold or suppress data in the form of images, footage or audio. Sensitive information, national security or simply concealing indications of new technology. Pretty reasonable...

What I can't understand is the idea that NASA scientists, or politics, would release images and *hide* them with false catalogue numbers. Likewise, the idea that they'd release tampered images to hide evidence of critters/bases/ET craft on the Moon, Mars etc seems implausible.

They could simply not post the images. That's the easiest, most straightforward way to hide information and nobody would be any the wiser.

If you or me had the task of hiding evidence of ET artefacts, would you go to the trouble of 'hiding them in plain sight?'



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


reply to post by LunaCognita
 


Easynow, LunaCognita.....

I apologise for my delayed reply.

Workload "bites very hard" this week & this is the type of thread to which I really do like to give carefully considered thought when things are quiet.

It’s Friday morning here now…..I shall be back tonight!


Cheers
Maybe…maybe not



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 06:53 PM
link   
IgnoreThefacts says..."I LIKE cases like this, believe it or not..."

Jim Oberg adds... "Space debris.."



Easynow says...



Zorgon says... We call those the "Peekaboo" class spaceships... (Named by Springers wife way back in John's moon thread
)

Basically spheres/Blobs connected by thin lines. Found many more but not processed yet.

Copernicus Crater
18-25 November, 1966 and 6-18 August, 1967

LO-III-162-M3



Same area top view LO-V-155




Apollo 11 a11pan5913-16EvM.jpg Link Here



Apollo 14 AS14-66-9295.jpg Link Here



Apollo 16 Image AS16-111-18035HR Link Here





Atlantis STS-115 Video NASA archives The black object is a spent tank



Apollo 17 Image Video is here in zip folder



Oh yeah... forgot that one hasn't been present yet


To IgnoreTheFacts... Yes I am crazy
but then you too have a secret


To Jim Oberg... you can say 'space debris' or 'photo artifact' all you like... not buying it... but I do like ya


To Easynow... you once showed me a youtube video showing one of these connected sphere craft separating in the air. I lost that one so hopefully it was you. Also perhaps you could get with Luna and analyse that Apollo 17 clip. That one was sent to me anonymously some time ago



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not

no problem, take your time there's no rush on anything,

previous post: i meant to say, only three pictures when the object was close.



reply to post by LunaCognita

thanks LunaCognita,
since the NASA policy about UFO's is "don't go there" i would have to agree, they would most likely make things as difficult as possible for the average person to access that kind of information and hiding it in plain sight makes perfect sense to me






John Schuessler is a Denver area resident and retired aerospace engineer from Lockheed Martin. He worked at NASA on nearly every manned U.S. space flight since its inception.
www.theblackvault.com...
www.mimufon.org...



in this video Schuessler say's he never saw a written policy from NASA about ufo's but
the unwritten policy was " don't go there" and to him that is a policy.

he talks about it after the 4:00 minute mark in this video...









reply to post by zorgon


I lost that one so hopefully it was you.


no wasn't me but it sounds interesting !





Jim Oberg adds... "Space debris.."


more conflicting info from a NASA representative ?


Strange squiggle photo from Skylab is probably a film or camera fault, since crew testimony and other photos show this was a bright point source -- clearly a nearby artificial satellite.

www.debunker.com...


yes clearly it was a satellite and at the same time space debri !







Oh yeah... forgot that one hasn't been present yet


it has on youtube,





edit on 9-9-2010 by easynow because: i can ?



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Did that UFO really change shape in these pictures?



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   
And that brings another question to mind: shouldn't part of NASA mission be to seek out evidence of alien life, civilizations and visits to this solar system? If not then why not?



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Make a quantum jump to 4:44 for pulsing lights in
flight.
Unofficially a Foo sighting.
A pulsing propulsion mechanism draws in momentum
as a far far better way of moving.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Zorgon…..

It’s great to see you working away again here…..may there be more of it!



..a youtube video showing one of these connected sphere craft separating in the air. I lost that one..


You don’t by any chance mean this video, do you?

TallyUFO - It's been 5 years... anyone know what was over my home that day?

I actually mentioned you in the thread, in the context of the “plasma critter” hypothesis!

Kind regards
Maybe…maybe not



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


reply to post by LunaCognita
 


Easynow, LunaCognita.....

OK…..

My initial impressions pertaining to the “missing” NASA info were:

- That aspect was being used to hype up the “anti NASA” aspect of this

- The importance of the “missing” info was exaggerated because it probably wouldn’t add salient info & therefore understanding of this case

However, having given it further thought, I have changed my thinking because the paucity of information means that we simply must try to collate all available info with a view to ascertaining what the object might have been.

From a personal point of view, I guess to me this is even more important because this case remains the only “space UFO” case that to me, remains an "unknown" & I still feel (hope!) could be something exotic.

Kind regards
Maybe…maybe not



edit on 10-9-2010 by Maybe...maybe not because: Clarification & spelling



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
You don’t by any chance mean this video, do you?


No that is the Tallahasse one Have that and yeah its a 'Critter' giving birth... Even a MUFON director agrees on that one as did the one who filmed it when he posted on ATS... he considered it looked alive

But thanks for looking. I think it may have been Mike that had it... I probably even have a saved copy. Suks when ya don't have stuff at your fingertips



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by TeslaandLyne
 


Man, that is fascinating. Critters? Ufees?

Whatever they are - they are there! Thanks for that one



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow
 


Thanks watchZEITGEISTnow
I remembered a few like that.
Could not find the one in 'Secret Space'.
And I wonder why the demands of the post from witness63 are being ignored.
Is it that they gave up giving us alien hype.
Or no one will demand such action.
ED: Second ship came to the rescue of the stranded ship giving
off north and south aurora:

Due to the preponderance of negative carrier forces from Earth
the positive ions surrounding the bottom of the ship are knocked
out of the way giving rise to the red aurora while the negative
green aurora shows a negative exit from the ship.
Yeah there is definitely a big AC radiator inside the ship.
Not air conditioning.



edit on 9/11/2010 by TeslaandLyne because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2010 @ 09:25 PM
link   
This seems consistent with a fairly high number of astronauts discussing things they saw in outer space that were both operated and designed by intelligent creatures from the planet Earth. Of course, all these Astronauts could never tell a UFO from a star, right? Jesus Christ, wouldn't be #ed then!

The deniers cannot deny this video because it's (unknown and in the sky), making it a UFO, and it's more or less proven via video.

It's not swamp gas, a lens flare, Venus, or whatever the excuse of the week is.



posted on Sep, 27 2010 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by zcflint05
This seems consistent with a fairly high number of astronauts discussing things they saw in outer space that were both operated and designed by intelligent creatures from the planet Earth. .


In your dreams, zc. Try to do a little research before falling for the long-debunked tabloid stories, or the latest youtube garbage. There are tools that can prove useful to a sounder understanding of the stories. Please learn to use them.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join