Astronauts on Skylab 3 photographed GIANT UFO 1973

Difficult to disprove this... we have credible witnesses.. a size confirmation of 800ft..... Remember a satellite means any object orbiting earth.. does not have to be man made..also the moon is a satellite..

"If it was indeed somewhere around 800 feet in size (as all available evidence suggests it was), then the very idea of NASA pretending that this object can be written off and explained away by simply labeling it as "satellite-unmanned" is an insult to us all. "

Don't get your testosterone flowing... We have four photos, three of which show a bright reddish dot, and the fourth a 'whazzit'. The three witnesses make no mention of any structural shape. They didn't see the whazzit image until returning to Earth.

What prosaic ways exist to create a whazzit on film, from a point source out the window? It's not like we haven't seen thousands of film flaws and defects and reflections presented as 'UFOs' for about half a century now, so the idea shouldn't be so alien.

If it were really as big as the inference (based on assuming the whazzit reflects a genuine structure), what consequences for other eyewitness reports, from space and from Earth, might there be? Like -- what would it have looked like to observers down on the ground? What? No reports? Hmmm....

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 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

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]

Well, well, well !!!!

easynow you have earned my respect.
This is a complete set of evidence that had been in hibernation for quite some time!
Congratulations on you and all people within posting comments since they are all adding to the data.
It seems i will spend sometime goimng through all of this in detail.

HOWEVER a questions rises to my mind as to how you came across this evidence and how it was not noticed or reffered to before.

Best Regards
GEORGETHEGREEK

(Since i havent yet read all of the posts within, excuse me if this has been mentioned earlier and i miised it)

[edit on 3/12/2008 by GEORGETHEGREEK]

[edit on 3/12/2008 by GEORGETHEGREEK]

Hey! Maybe it was those darn Russkies? We really don't know much about what they were sending up during those days. Who knows? Maybe they were the first to send up something huge and kept it quiet? Just a thought!

reply to post by easynow


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

reply to post by LunaCognita


Great research and followup!
Star and flagged!

Some interesting information:

www.gnn.tv...

unexplained.wordpress.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

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

This is a PERFECT example of "hiding something in plain sight". UFO researchers are too busy looking for keywords, buzzwords in the military files or NASA. Just look harder for the obvious. We try to create too many sightings by strange video, yet, when something ACTUALLY strange happens, it goes un-noticed.

For some reason I feel like I need to Bump up this thread.

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.

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]

Originally posted by easynow
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

First of all great thread easynow.

This reminds me of "The Black Knight from Space" which I find highly interesting. I saw that thread was already linked by another member.

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.

Apollo 10 Gets Glimpse Of An Extraterrestrial Monolith In Space

Keep up the good work.

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]

HERE'S WHAT I DONT GET:
they say you cannot see a star in a perfect vacume....then how did they think they saw a "red star"....in all the nasa photos now, u cannot see any stars in the sky, it's all black, but in this video i DID see a star...someone explain that huge CHANGE in how things work???

Anybody notice what's missing from this report? Interviews with the eyewitnesses.

No, selectively extracting debriefing transcript quotes from half a lifetime ago doesn't count -- who's to say what the crew was thinking. Only the crewmembers themselves can say -- and in this report, they aren't asked to.

Wonder why?

Forget the 'under-threat-of-defenestration-if-they-tell-the-TRUTH' meme, that's a tired old worthless excuse -- ask Ed Mitchell or Gordo Cooper.

How about a more likely reason to omit crew comments?

Like, "Are you totally out of your friggin' MIND, we watched a SATELLITE like others we'd seen only brighter, what have you been SMOKIN' ???"

Nah. Can't report THAT kind of testimony.

Better to count on the UFO wanna-believers not to notice the absence of the most crucial bit of evidence.

Originally posted by Enigma Publius
HERE'S WHAT I DONT GET:
they say you cannot see a star in a perfect vacume....then how did they think they saw a "red star"....in all the nasa photos now, u cannot see any stars in the sky, it's all black, but in this video i DID see a star...someone explain that huge CHANGE in how things work???

good question and i don't know the answer to that, maybe someone that knows about this can explain ?

i will say , a few times when i was looking at different Apollo images and i brightened up the background looking for hidden things i noticed there were some white dots that look to me like stars. you could not see them unless you brightened up the picture. i will try to find an example

well i have not found the exact example i was looking for but i think this will do

this is Apollo picture #AS12-51-7541


you can see there are a couple star like objects that can only be seen after the picture is brightened up. what it means i have no idea.







also i would like to present another Apollo photo #AS14-66-9301
www.apolloarchive.com...


interesting Blue UFO orbiting the Moon




if you would like to see this photo displayed in a larger picture you can visit Zorgon's site here...

www.thelivingmoon.com...

also more on this topic here
www.abovetopsecret.com...




[edit on 4-12-2008 by easynow]