Skylab 3 UFO

[mindme]

The story goes that the Skylab 3 crew photographed an object in orbit (variously) 300-1000 feet long. Nothing man-made was in orbit at that time 1000 feet long therefore wink wink.

Bruce Maccabee published about it. I'd post the URL but grrr the system won't let me post an URL until I've made 15 posts.

If you google on

Maccabee skylab 3

Click the first link (the wiki link) it has a link to his write up. If you put periods in the line below you'll get there as well


brumac 8k com

You'll see it as the third "click here" item.

I'm not very math-y so I can't follow Maccabee's calculations. Anyone have a take?

[Ocelot]

Linky

http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/SL3.html

[DC]

lol i never ever heard of that story. Its pretty old though.
sounds interesting.

[mindme]

Thank you kindly Ocelot.

[King of the Americas]

These images are just as interesting as the white floating 'blob' images sent from a shuttle mission a few years ago.

I think they claimed that it was a plastic bag.

My guess is that it was a U.F.O., be it 'floating' or 'flying'. It's an 'object', and it's 'unidentified'...

The only conclusion I'd draw, is that it's a "U.F.O."

[Sherman Bay]

The story goes that the Skylab 3 crew photographed an object in orbit (variously) 300-1000 feet long. Assumes facts not in evidence. An "object"? How do you know?

What you do know is you have a poor, fuzzy, out of focus image on film. Enlarge it and you don't necessarily get details of an "object", but you will enhance any photographic artifacts. Think of the distortion caused by JPG compression. Would enhancing a photographic fault caused by compression tell you anything about the original image as seen by the camera?

This story is new to me, and I don't have a perfect explanation, but we would be remiss not to consider things like reflections and optical factors (if the astronauts saw the same thing, that would tend to rule out photo-only abberations).

[King of the Americas]

Assumes facts not in evidence. An "object"? How do you know?

What you do know is you have a poor, fuzzy, out of focus image on film. Enlarge it and you don't necessarily get details of an "object", but you will enhance any photographic artifacts. Think of the distortion caused by JPG compression. Would enhancing a photographic fault caused by compression tell you anything about the original image as seen by the camera?

This story is new to me, and I don't have a perfect explanation, but we would be remiss not to consider things like reflections and optical factors (if the astronauts saw the same thing, that would tend to rule out photo-only abberations).

Did you READ any part of the link?

The astronauts SAID they saw the object for several minutes, AND photographed it.

It IS or was an 'object'.

[mindme]

This was in 1973, a decade before people discovered "sprites" and "elfs". The red color looks a lot like a sprite/elf. I think Garriott was taking photos and he assumed he was looking at a satellite. He would not have known about sprites back then I gather. But I think they saw the light for about 10 minutes which is longer than a sprite or elf lasts.

I don't follow Maccabbee's math or how he arrives at his own figure that the object is 300+ feet long. But I gather he needs to make a few assumptions to arrive at his answer. These assumptions would be considered in a peer review process but Maccabee, despite being a Phd in Physics, doesn't submit it for peer review. He actually makes no overt claims about a UFO (ie space ship), of course. Just he thinks Skylab 3 unknowingly photographed a very large object.

[Stray Cat]

The object is just a dot in the other photos, that suggests to me that on the 'blow up' of picture 4 (where the object has some odd shape) is caused by camera shake, making the single light point seem to dance around. But it's just speculation based on seeing similar effects on photos and on video.

[mindme]

The object is just a dot in the other photos, that suggests to me that on the 'blow up' of picture 4 (where the object has some odd shape) is caused by camera shake, making the single light point seem to dance around. But it's just speculation based on seeing similar effects on photos and on video.

Yeah exactly. I think James Oberg commented in some w/u on this site that its just motion blur. I don't think the camera on skylab was fixed but the astronauts basically just shot out the window. If you look NASA's index of photos from Skylab there are a couple listed as blurred before the "ufo" pics and one almost immediately after.

I'm gathering Maccabee assumes the 4th photo isn't caused by motion blur.

[Astrophotographer]

I agree with the motion blur theory as far as the shape. It was a handheld camera shot with a telephoto lens through a window of a dot moving with skylab. The shutter speeds look to have changed (the objects brightness varies) as the astronauts were probably "bracketing" the exposure. Not surprisingly, the "Squiggle" is one of the brighter ones indicating a shorter exposure time or low f-ratio setting. I think it is a reasonable assumption that the exposure time was a lot slower than Maccabee and Sparks guessed.

[mindme]

I agree with the motion blur theory as far as the shape. It was a handheld camera shot with a telephoto lens through a window of a dot moving with skylab. The shutter speeds look to have changed (the objects brightness varies) as the astronauts were probably "bracketing" the exposure. Not surprisingly, the "Squiggle" is one of the brighter ones indicating a shorter exposure time or low f-ratio setting. I think it is a reasonable assumption that the exposure time was a lot slower than Maccabee and Sparks guessed.

That makes 100% sense. Thanks a lot.

[Sherman Bay]

Did you READ any part of the link?Yes, Sir, I have.The astronauts SAID they saw the object for several minutes, AND photographed it.

It IS or was an 'object'.Nothing they said proves it was an object, just an image. I can see a reflection in glass and photograph it just fine. If it is out of focus, when I enlarge it, it may appear to have a non-spherical or unusual shape. None of that proves I am observing an object.

The facts suggest an image more than an object. Calling it an object is jumping to conclusions.

[King of the Americas]

Yes, Sir, I have.Nothing they said proves it was an object, just an image. I can see a reflection in glass and photograph it just fine. If it is out of focus, when I enlarge it, it may appear to have a non-spherical or unusual shape. None of that proves I am observing an object.

The facts suggest an image more than an object. Calling it an object is jumping to conclusions.

The astronauts saw the "image" rotate. The also noted that it shared a similar orbit for at least part of their revolution. Once they went to the dark side, it took some 5 to 6 seconds, for the "image" to reappear behind them, giving them an estimation as to its following distance.

"Images" don't rotate...I guess you failed to read 'all' of the account.

[tyr_13]

"Images" don't rotate...I guess you failed to read 'all' of the account.

Yes they do, or they appear to. I'm confused why one would think this is not the case.

[Sherman Bay]

"Images" don't rotate...I guess you failed to read 'all' of the account.They don't? You must have different images than we have in this world. Besides, for a fuzzy point of light, blinking on and off looks a lot like rotating. Think of display lighting on Times Square signage.

[MG1962]

Well the astronauts in the de-brief said the object blinked out because it crossed the terminator behind them. That is how they came up with the distance estimate. I will give the guys cred on this. It is an intriguing case. Funny so many UFO researchers have never referenced it

[Sherman Bay]

Well the astronauts in the de-brief said the object blinked out because it crossed the terminator behind them. That is how they came up with the distance estimate. Funny how easily assumptions can be made. The only thing I can agree on is that the image appeared to change drastically at about the time an object of the expected type would have crossed the terminator if it was behind them.

What if a reflection had blinked out at about that time for some other reason?

It's a little like saying that based on the diameter of the crop circle, the flatness of the crops, and the temperature of the air, it proves a 30 ft, 40 ton spaceship from Zetta Reticuli visited Farmer Jones yesterday. You can see the crop circle and measure it, but everything else is fantasy and extrapolation without additional proof.

[King of the Americas]

Funny how easily assumptions can be made. The only thing I can agree on is that the image appeared to change drastically at about the time an object of the expected type would have crossed the terminator if it was behind them.

What if a reflection had blinked out at about that time for some other reason?

It's a little like saying that based on the diameter of the crop circle, the flatness of the crops, and the temperature of the air, it proves a 30 ft, 40 ton spaceship from Zetta Reticuli visited Farmer Jones yesterday. You can see the crop circle and measure it, but everything else is fantasy and extrapolation without additional proof.

What if the simplest answer is the correct one? The "object" blinked in & out BECAUSE it crossed the terminator point...

The 'image' was created by what specific phenomena, if not an actual object?

A glare on the window, seen by all 3 astronauts, AND the camera?

The glare/image never appeared again in subsequent orbits...

It is amazing to me that 3 astronauts + a camera ALL say "object", and yet 'skeptics' say 'maybe image'...

Prove "image", or the present finding of "OBJECT" stands.

[Astrophotographer]

Correct me if I am wrong but the red color was supposed to be a reason that it was not reflected light. However, they use the terminator as the fuler for the distance, which means they were using the idea that it was a reflection.
I still think it was some sort of space junk that was reflecting light just right. If it were an alien spaceship (the implications of the UFO report being cited), then it could alter course, emit it's own light, etc. It did none of these things. This implies it was reflecting light from the sun (even though it was a reddish light) and had no propulsion system. In that case, the squiggle is probably caused from camera vibration.

[MG1962]

It's a little like saying that based on the diameter of the crop circle, the flatness of the crops, and the temperature of the air, it proves a 30 ft, 40 ton spaceship from Zetta Reticuli visited Farmer Jones yesterday. You can see the crop circle and measure it, but everything else is fantasy and extrapolation without additional proof.

Seriously, how does this example relate to the discussion. These three astronauts did not work back from secondary sources. They saw the primary source of the phenomena

They observed the phenomena oscilating. A fair assumption of rotation being present. Before my next point I will correct something. The object led them through the terminator, not the other way around as I previously mentioned

Both Bean and Lousma had extensive flight training. So they would understand the problem of identifying distances without depth perception. In fact the way they did it is the only thing I can think of to try and establish this information

A major element is the fact that during the 10 minute observation time, the lighting around both Skylab and the object changed dramatically.

The object was also observered before photographing.

The only assumption that I can see is the estimated size of the object. None of the astronauts did this in the debrief, this is an added fact by those with an agenda.

All of the above suggests to me we are not dealing with either a lighting or image artifact, but a physical object. What is it? No idea, but I suspect a phone call to the Soviets at the time might have cleared it up. If it was not a known object then my default would be some expended peice of booster or other refuse. It might even have been a chunk of Apollo 13 going by

[King of the Americas]

All of the above suggests to me we are not dealing with either a lighting or image artifact, but a physical object. What is it? No idea, but I suspect a phone call to the Soviets at the time might have cleared it up. If it was not a known object then my default would be some expended peice of booster or other refuse. It might even have been a chunk of Apollo 13 going by

AGREED.

All the evidence together points to an "object", rather than an image artifact...

And the object remains "unidentified". That said, I'd have great difficulty saying this was an alien craft...it 'could' be. But it could also just be space junk, from a terrestrial source.

[MG1962]

AGREED.

All the evidence together points to an "object", rather than an image artifact...

And the object remains "unidentified". That said, I'd have great difficulty saying this was an alien craft...it 'could' be. But it could also just be space junk, from a terrestrial source.

And I will give cred to the guys who did the research on this. At least it is interesting and might be (1000 to 1 long shot) actually a UFO. Which is far far better than most of the stuff of this nature you see

[HeyLeroy]

(snip)

If you google on

Maccabee skylab 3

Click the first link (the wiki link) it has a link to his write up. If you put periods in the line below you'll get there as well


(snip)

It's now the second link.

The first link is to this thread.

Cool.

[Sherman Bay]

What if the simplest answer is the correct one? The "object" blinked in & out BECAUSE it crossed the terminator point...Correlation does not prove causation.

I once built a "light box", about the size of a bookshelf speaker. I took some randomly blinking christmas tree lights and mounted them behind some frosted plexiglas in a box. Then I'd tell my friends that it blinked according to the music I played in the room. It was easy to convince them (and that was a simple answer, and not impossible) that the lights coincided with the music pulses. They didn't always, of course, but those times were ignored. The times they did coincide were "proof" of my assertion. Super-easy to mislead people who have preconceived notions, y'bet.The 'image' was created by what specific phenomena, if not an actual object?Don't know and not enough evidence to suggest. It's entirely possible that some critical piece of the puzzle is missing. That's how many magic tricks are done. Only someone trained in special observing methods would notice something that is typically ignored.A glare on the window, seen by all 3 astronauts, AND the camera?Sure, why not? I am looking at a glare on a window right now. I guarantee that if anyone else came into the room, they would see it as well as I do. And so will my camera. In fact, glares and reflections on glass and mirrored surfaces are the bane of photographers everywhere.The glare/image never appeared again in subsequent orbits...Which proves what, exactly? The reflection on my window will go away, too, if I turn off a light or wait until the sun goes down. It does not convert the reflection into an object just because it isn't there an hour from now.It is amazing to me that 3 astronauts + a camera ALL say "object", and yet 'skeptics' say 'maybe image'...The camera said no such thing; it only recorded an image and you interpreted what it recorded. No camera in the world says something is an object, only people do.

The astronauts are subject to the same jumping to conclusions that we all are. It is only the skeptics that are unwilling to make that leap.Prove "image", or the present finding of "OBJECT" stands.No, Sir, an alien-ish object is much less likely than an image. I don't doubt that an image was seen, and the film proves that. Without more evidence, that's all it proves and you are speculating, extrapolating and indulging in wishful thinking.

I would be the first to agree that it was an object if you can find further and sufficient corroborating evidence.

[King of the Americas]

Correlation does not prove causation.

I once built a "light box", about the size of a bookshelf speaker. I took some randomly blinking christmas tree lights and mounted them behind some frosted plexiglas in a box. Then I'd tell my friends that it blinked according to the music I played in the room. It was easy to convince them (and that was a simple answer, and not impossible) that the lights coincided with the music pulses. They didn't always, of course, but those times were ignored. The times they did coincide were "proof" of my assertion. Super-easy to mislead people who have preconceived notions, y'bet.Don't know and not enough evidence to suggest. It's entirely possible that some critical piece of the puzzle is missing. That's how many magic tricks are done. Only someone trained in special observing methods would notice something that is typically ignored.Sure, why not? I am looking at a glare on a window right now. I guarantee that if anyone else came into the room, they would see it as well as I do. And so will my camera. In fact, glares and reflections on glass and mirrored surfaces are the bane of photographers everywhere.Which proves what, exactly? The reflection on my window will go away, too, if I turn off a light or wait until the sun goes down. It does not convert the reflection into an object just because it isn't there an hour from now.The camera said no such thing; it only recorded an image and you interpreted what it recorded. No camera in the world says something is an object, only people do.

The astronauts are subject to the same jumping to conclusions that we all are. It is only the skeptics that are unwilling to make that leap.No, Sir, an alien-ish object is much less likely than an image. I don't doubt that an image was seen, and the film proves that. Without more evidence, that's all it proves and you are speculating, extrapolating and indulging in wishful thinking.

I would be the first to agree that it was an object if you can find further and sufficient corroborating evidence.

So, are YOU admitting to performing this hoax on the Skylab, or have you been made aware that there were other magicians in orbit at that time?

"Images" don't rotate.

What light are you suggesting was turn on, then off, and then back on again?

Not, 1, 2, but "3" astronauts, + the camera...what other corroborating evidence would lead to you conclusively say "object", rather than image?

[Stray Cat]

"Images" don't rotate.
A reflection in the glass will do the same as what ever it's reflecting is doing. But actually rotating and appearing to rotate are two different things anyway.

What light are you suggesting was turn on, then off, and then back on again?
I doubt a critical thinker would want to pin it down with guesswork.
There is a gap between "we don't know which of the instrument lights could have been reflecting in the window" and "It was a UFO outside of the window" that can be filled with as much (or as little) speculation as required.

Not, 1, 2, but "3" astronauts, + the camera...what other corroborating evidence would lead to you conclusively say "object", rather than image?
3 people and a camera could all see and record the same reflection, if that's what it was. The fact is the pics leave it ambiguous and from what I've read of the story, there is nothing that corroborates it.
The photo's are a misidentification and that throws doubt on the rest of the validity of the story for me.

[King of the Americas]

A reflection in the glass will do the same as what ever it's reflecting is doing. But actually rotating and appearing to rotate are two different things anyway.


I doubt a critical thinker would want to pin it down with guesswork.
There is a gap between "we don't know which of the instrument lights could have been reflecting in the window" and "It was a UFO outside of the window" that can be filled with as much (or as little) speculation as required.


3 people and a camera could all see and record the same reflection, if that's what it was. The fact is the pics leave it ambiguous and from what I've read of the story, there is nothing that corroborates it.
The photo's are a misidentification and that throws doubt on the rest of the validity of the story for me.

Maybe I am alone in this thought, but if an astronaut could not tell the difference between a light reflecting from inside the module, and a sincere object 'outside' it, I wouldn't clear them for the flight...

That ALL 3 astronauts failed to consider and or test this 'inner-light' reflection notion speaks to your skeptical denial, rather than the reality that the guys we send into orbit are partially blind and dumb.

"Hey look at the red object ahead of us.", "Let me see.", "Wow, it appears to be rotating."

And you seriously think they mistook it for an inner-light reflection???

That's more than a little ignorant...

[Stray Cat]

That's more than a little ignorant...
Ruling out the possibility of a reflection based on your assumptions is a little ignorant.
I made it clear I was not speculating that it WAS a reflection, i just didn't rule out that possibility as there is no conclusive evidence to show if it was or it wasn't. :rolleyes:

[shuttlt]

This is a rare event whatever caused it. Whatever the explanation is, it's likely to be improbable. I haven't seen enough information on this thread to reject any explanation with certainty.

[King of the Americas]

Ruling out the possibility of a reflection based on your assumptions is a little ignorant.
I made it clear I was not speculating that it WAS a reflection, i just didn't rule out that possibility as there is no conclusive evidence to show if it was or it wasn't. :rolleyes:

I never said it was 'impossible'...just that given their intelligence, training, and physical ability...it is VERY unlikely that they'd be that stupid.

We don't put stupid, partially blind, untrained people in orbit.

For them NOT to have ruled that out initially, would be unexpected, to say the least.

Suggesting that this is 'likely' a reflection, IGNORES the training and testing we require of our astronauts

[Vortigern99]

I find that I agree with KotA, that a light reflected on the port-window, from somewhere inside the shuttle, is not likely to have been misinterpreted by the astronauts as originating in exterior space. I realize this often happens with UFO sightings and UFO photography. (For example, the infamous video of "millions of squiggly white UFOs", viewed in relation to a jettisoned, mile-long tether from an orbiting shuttle, is easily explained by ice or water beading and streaking across the outside of the port-window.)

However, in this particular case, it seems reasonable to conclude that several astronauts, who were moving around freely inside the capsule, trying to get a better view of the "object", would have blocked any light emanating from the console or elsewhere inside the shuttle. Their bodies, passing between the light and the window, would have doused the light, only to see it reappear again once they moved out of its path. This did not happen, or is not reported as having happened. Therefore, we can safely conclude (I think) that the object was indeed an object and not a reflection in the window.

As to what that object might have been, Astrophotographer's speculation that it was a piece of satellite or shuttle debris illuminated by the sun -- which is known to produce red light in certain conditions -- seems credible, and is sufficient to forestall the leap toward an extraterrestrial or paranormal explanation.

[Stray Cat]

I never said it was 'impossible'...just that given their intelligence, training, and physical ability...it is VERY unlikely that they'd be that stupid.

We don't put stupid, partially blind, untrained people in orbit.

For them NOT to have ruled that out initially, would be unexpected, to say the least.

Suggesting that this is 'likely' a reflection, IGNORES the training and testing we require of our astronauts
Then explain how a squadron of trained military pilots filmed a fleet of UFO's tailing them, when it was nothing more than some oil platforms in the sea?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uavnfy0e6n8

Misunderstandings are commonplace and all humans are capable of them.
Take an ambiguous report, spin it which ever way you choose and we are not getting the full picture.

The only 'evidence' is a misidentified photo. One in which the shutter speed was too long and the little red dot has blurred into a trailing shape.

The origin of the little red dot could be many things INCLUDING a reflection.

[Astrophotographer]

Actually, it was only one plane with the oil wells.

[Stray Cat]

I stand corrected :boxedin:


(but judging by the spread of the footage he convinced a lot of supposedly intelligent trained military professional people with his footage.) So there is more than one person who has been 'fooled' by the illusion.

[Astrophotographer]

I stand corrected :boxedin:


(but judging by the spread of the footage he convinced a lot of supposedly intelligent trained military professional people with his footage.) So there is more than one person who has been 'fooled' by the illusion.

Oh....I agree. There are a lot of people who bought this video as alien spaceships. My website (http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/Mexico04a.htm) documents the "early days" of the event, when UFOlogists were all ga ga over the video. One even proclaimed these UFOs were acting intelligently. Too bad, the UFOlogists did not act that way. BTW, Dr. Maccabee was one of those who felt there was something to this film and fought the idea of oil wells for a while. He still believes that some radar contacts were UFOs but, as I recall, he now considers the video nothing more than oil well fires.

[Caustic Logic]

Sorry, didn't read all. But I saw the pics and motion blur sounds as plausible as anything. "UFOs" in space offer whole different challenges than inside the atmosphere. Has anyone EVER got solid evidence of a flying saucer/cigar/orb/fireball type UFO as seen down here passing through space up there? If not, interplantery explanations fall off in plausibility. They have to come and/or go through space and should be seen there occasionally.

[Astrophotographer]

The USAF tracks just about everything in orbit these days (I am not so sure of the early 1970s). There are a lot of telescopes looking for NEO's and none have managed to image any massive craft entering earth orbit or it's vicinity. However, they did manage to record the Rosetta craft and mistakenly identify it as a NEO!

[Sherman Bay]

what other corroborating evidence would lead to you conclusively say "object", rather than image?An observation from a different source such as radar or other detection device. An observation from a different angle or location. A match with a list of space junk in the area. An admission from China that they were shadowing the craft.

In short, an observation from something that is less likely to be subject to the same biases as another astronaut in the same cramped vehicle.

[King of the Americas]

Then explain how a squadron of trained military pilots filmed a fleet of UFO's tailing them, when it was nothing more than some oil platforms in the sea?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uavnfy0e6n8

Misunderstandings are commonplace and all humans are capable of them.
Take an ambiguous report, spin it which ever way you choose and we are not getting the full picture.

The only 'evidence' is a misidentified photo. One in which the shutter speed was too long and the little red dot has blurred into a trailing shape.

The origin of the little red dot could be many things INCLUDING a reflection.

http://www.aerospaceguide.net/spacestation/skylab.html

First, we aren't talking about "pilots". These were "astronauts", there is a qualified difference. Second, they weren't strapped in, like a pilot is. Third, none of the Skylabs were as cramped as a cockpit, and allowed for lots of movement.

Skylab consisted of five parts:

Orbital Workshop was the living and working area for the crew.
Airlock Module was used by the Astronauts to access the outside of Skylab for spacewalks.
Apollo Telescope Mount (ATM) was attached to one end of the cylindrical workshop. It was used to study our sun, stars and earth with no atmospheric interference.
Multiple Docking Adapter allowed more than one Apollo spacecraft to dock to the station at once.
The Saturn Instrument Unit (IU) was used by NASA teams in Huntsville to reprogram the space station using a massive ring of computers. The unit was used to guide Skylab itself into orbit. IU also controlled the jettisoning of the protective payload shroud and activated the onboard life support systems, started the solar inertial attitude maneuver, deployed the Apollo Telescope mount at a 90-degree angle and deployed Skylab's solar wings.

Your comparison is a bad one. I stand by my conclusion, it was an object, and NOT likely a reflection.

[Stray Cat]

I stand by my conclusion, it was an object, and NOT likely a reflection.
And you always will.... Which is fine by me.

My point was that ALL PEOPLE can misidentify stuff, your failure to accept that assertion will enable you to continue to accept nonsense as evidence.

It's a dot on a photograph. Nothing more, nothing less. :rolleyes:

[King of the Americas]

And you always will.... Which is fine by me.

My point was that ALL PEOPLE can misidentify stuff, your failure to accept that assertion will enable you to continue to accept nonsense as evidence.

It's a dot on a photograph. Nothing more, nothing less. :rolleyes:

And YOUR failure is recognizing that some are much less likely to BE mistaken.

[Stray Cat]

And YOUR failure is recognizing that some are much less likely to BE mistaken.
I'm also not the one reaching far flung conclusions about what the red dot was.

[King of the Americas]

I'm also not the one reaching far flung conclusions about what the red dot was.

I concluded "object", that can't be identified.

What is far flung about that?

YOU are the one being unreasonable, ignoring ALL evidence that says "object", rather than image artifact or reflection.

[MG1962]

And you always will.... Which is fine by me.

My point was that ALL PEOPLE can misidentify stuff, your failure to accept that assertion will enable you to continue to accept nonsense as evidence.

It's a dot on a photograph. Nothing more, nothing less. :rolleyes:

I am not sure how you can claim that. Two crew members specifically say they saw the phenomena before photographing it. Therefore that excludes an image artifact. Changing light conditions and observation point dismiss the possibilty of a reflection. All that is left is something physical outside the space craft

The crew were clearly curious enough to mention it the next day of the mission, and to bring it up during mission debrief

[Stray Cat]

I concluded "object", that can't be identified.

What is far flung about that?
Your ruling out the possibility of it being a reflection based upon a false assumption that astronauts can't make mistakes.

YOU are the one being unreasonable, ignoring ALL evidence that says "object", rather than image artifact or reflection.
No....... Where did I rule that out?
My only analysis of the 'evidence' (the photo of the red dot) concluded that it was a red dot with a motion trail due to camera shake... it could be an object OR a reflection.

[Stray Cat]

I am not sure how you can claim that.
Because all people can misidentify stuff and it was a dot on a photograph.

But please don't interpret that as me saying it was a photographic anomaly. What I'm saying is all we can see is a dot on a photograph. To the astronauts it would have looked like a dot in the distance.

[King of the Americas]

Because all people can misidentify stuff and it was a dot on a photograph.

But please don't interpret that as me saying it was a photographic anomaly. What I'm saying is all we can see is a dot on a photograph. To the astronauts it would have looked like a dot in the distance.

God damn you sure 'seem' like one ignorant sum'bitch...

Astronauts are NOT 'most people', and are LESS likely to mistake a reflection caused by an inner light as opposed to an object outside the craft.

It DID NOT look like a red dot to the astronauts!!!

READ THE ENTIRE REPORT...!!!

[MG1962]

Because all people can misidentify stuff and it was a dot on a photograph.

But please don't interpret that as me saying it was a photographic anomaly. What I'm saying is all we can see is a dot on a photograph. To the astronauts it would have looked like a dot in the distance.

I accept that, and was the first thing I looked for. How the astronauts figured how far away it was. With no depth perception in space we have no way to tell if something is bright and far away or dim and very close.

Then I checked the bios of the three crewmen, one had a very extensive flight career, one a reasonable one, and the last no flight experience. Bascially I wanted to confirm how the astronauts would know how to observe the object

The only thing I have not been able to confirm is the state of space tracking at the time. I have vague memories that only live sats were trackable, replying on their signal outputs to get a fix

[mindme]

The only thing I have not been able to confirm is the state of space tracking at the time. I have vague memories that only live sats were trackable, replying on their signal outputs to get a fix

I've seen people claim NORAD or whatever had no record of tracking a satellite in that orbit. Therefore, ho ho, must be an alien space ship.

There's many problems with that claim. As you point out, they might not have been able to track objects in the early 1970s unless the satellite was broadcasting a signal. It would make sense they'd want the skylab people to report unknown satellites if that were the case.

And then there is the definition problem. A satellite could be something that we put up there and goes ping back at a receiving station on earth. Or it could mean just anything orbiting the earth. The moon is, of course, a satellite.

So "we were not tracking a satellite" could mean:

1) there is no known thing that goes ping in that orbit (a living transmitting object)

or

2) there is no known hunk of metal in that orbit

It could well have been a hunk of soviet rocket. If so, one could say "we were not tracking a satellite" and that could be true. Garriott could have written satellite in his log book and that was true as well, using the second definition.

[Sherman Bay]

I am not sure how you can claim that. Two crew members specifically say they saw the phenomena before photographing it. Therefore that excludes an image artifact.Why? I can see my reflection in a window and I can photograph it.Changing light conditions and observation point dismiss the possibilty of a reflection. Why? I can see reflections in my window from many angles and many times of day. Worse yet, there have been UFO cases where an observer saw Venus, then a few minutes later when Venus faded, they saw Jupiter, but weren't aware that they were IDing two different objects as one.All that is left is something physical outside the space craftPossible, but not proven.

I think you may be assuming that there is only one, flat, reflective surface involved. And while I'm not familiar with the construction details of the craft, I'll bet there are many parts of it that may reflect or emit light and there may be multiple bounces; double windows, etc. all contribute. At night, the inside of my car provides many reflective surfaces and many light sources from many angles; it's not just a single-pane flat picture window in a totally dark room.

[Sherman Bay]

To elaborate on my last post...

I often look out at Lake Michigan at night as I have big picture windows on that side of the house. It's a frequent occurance that I see a point of light that at first looks like a big ship on the horizon, and sometimes it is exactly that (or sometimes a small ship much closer). But sometimes it is an LED from a room clock, or a nightlight, or someone on the beach with a flashlight. On rare occasions, it has been a distant helicopter, and once I saw a spectacular meteor sweep across half the sky, seemingly only 10 miles away and just skimming the surface, but I later learned it was hundreds of miles away and many miles high. Sometimes I get binoculars to look at a spot of light only to find it is a reflection from an electronic gadget in the room that I had forgotten about, or a double reflection from an LED that bounced off a wall mirror or even the glass in a framed picture. And I have LOTS of framed pictures all over the house.

And these reflections really mess up photography. I have to go to pains to NOT have them show up in a photo. The best solution is to step outside. Too bad the astronauts couldn't do that.

So sometimes the light is an object, sometimes it's just a light. I've learned never to assume without investigation. Humans are too easily fooled.

[King of the Americas]

To elaborate on my last post...

I often look out at Lake Michigan at night as I have big picture windows on that side of the house. It's a frequent occurance that I see a point of light that at first looks like a big ship on the horizon, and sometimes it is exactly that (or sometimes a small ship much closer). But sometimes it is an LED from a room clock, or a nightlight, or someone on the beach with a flashlight. On rare occasions, it has been a distant helicopter, and once I saw a spectacular meteor sweep across half the sky, seemingly only 10 miles away and just skimming the surface, but I later learned it was hundreds of miles away and many miles high. Sometimes I get binoculars to look at a spot of light only to find it is a reflection from an electronic gadget in the room that I had forgotten about, or a double reflection from an LED that bounced off a wall mirror or even the glass in a framed picture. And I have LOTS of framed pictures all over the house.

And these reflections really mess up photography. I have to go to pains to NOT have them show up in a photo. The best solution is to step outside. Too bad the astronauts couldn't do that.

So sometimes the light is an object, sometimes it's just a light. I've learned never to assume without investigation. Humans are too easily fooled.

Wow, are you also an astronaut 'trained' in telling the difference between a reflection and an actual object outside the craft?

[Sherman Bay]

Wow, are you also an astronaut 'trained' in telling the difference between a reflection and an actual object outside the craft?Yes. Are you?

You mean experts can't be fooled?

[King of the Americas]

Yes. Are you?

You mean experts can't be fooled?

No, I'm not, and thus CAN be fooled 'more easily' than someone who really IS an astronaut.

[Sherman Bay]

OK, King, I was being snarky. But I am a photographer and videographer with over 50 years experience both professionally and as a hobbyist. It amazes me how people who only dabble in the field at best, even well-trained observers, are amazed at what is comonplace and mundane to anyone in the photography, lighting or optical field.

Orbs or rods, for example. Most photographers have seen them, had to deal with it as an unwanted optical phenomenon, and don't consider it paranormal when a bug flies past a lens or a snowflake gets caught in a flash, so it's absurd when someone says, "Look, an orb! A ghost!"

Photographers have to cope with unwanted reflections all over the place. If more were objects, it would probably be easier to deal with. So yes, I am trained to recognize optical phenomena.

[King of the Americas]

OK, King, I was being snarky. But I am a photographer and videographer with over 50 years experience both professionally and as a hobbyist. It amazes me how people who only dabble in the field at best, even well-trained observers, are amazed at what is comonplace and mundane to anyone in the photography, lighting or optical field.

Orbs or rods, for example. Most photographers have seen them, had to deal with it as an unwanted optical phenomenon, and don't consider it paranormal when a bug flies past a lens or a snowflake gets caught in a flash, so it's absurd when someone says, "Look, an orb! A ghost!"

Photographers have to cope with unwanted reflections all over the place. If more were objects, it would probably be easier to deal with.

I deserve snark, after my comment toward Stray Cat.

I am familiar with the rod-effect.

And fully accept that 'my' untrained eyes are able to fool me easily. Someone like you would be less likely to be fooled, and astronauts EVEN LESS likely to fail in identifying something being a reflection on the window or something outside their craft.

That window was as much a tool on that craft, as anything else. I'm sure they were trained to use it.

[Sherman Bay]

That window was as much a tool on that craft, as anything else. I'm sure they were trained to use it.OK. But you may be putting too much trust in the training (and communal reinforcement*, BTW). No one, even experts, even non-experts, is perfect. I have often made the wrong first guess about something I saw. I am trained and curious enough to persue it until I reach a reasonable and better-informed conclusion, but my resources may be better than the astronauts (I can step outside and instantly remove the influence of windows; they cannot).

"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." (David Hume)

We have pretty good evidence that they saw a bright light. We have much less evidence that it was a large, solid object nearby.
-----------------

* By communal reinforcement, (http://www.skepdic.com/comreinf.html) I mean the tendency for 3 astronauts to appear to agree on what was seen. They were probably exchanging notes and observations on the spot and by the time the incident was reported, their combined perception of it may have been altered. If you could have separated them immediately afterwards, it's likely that each description would be quite different.

[Caustic Logic]

Sorry KOTA, reflection is possible.

However, doesn't everyone here agree that it most likely wasn't? What options would that leave other than some kind of object actually filmed? Then the question would be, what, what?

[Stray Cat]

Sorry KOTA, reflection is possible.

However, doesn't everyone here agree that it most likely wasn't? What options would that leave other than some kind of object actually filmed? Then the question would be, what, what?
Is it OK to leave it as a simple "Unknown" due to lack of evidence?

I've always been fine with accepting that I don't know, if that has been the case.

[Stray Cat]

God damn you sure 'seem' like one ignorant sum'bitch...
But I'm not resorting to name calling just yet.

Astronauts are NOT 'most people', and are LESS likely to mistake a reflection caused by an inner light as opposed to an object outside the craft.
I didn't say 'most people'. I said 'all people' and though I agree that some people are less likely to misidentify an optical effect, Astronauts are trained pilots, engineers etc, not experts in optical effects or photography so it still doesn't rule out the possibility that they made a mistake.

It DID NOT look like a red dot to the astronauts!!!
READ THE ENTIRE REPORT...!!!
I'm not really bothered what the article says they said. The only reliable evidence is what we can see, which is a red dot in some photographs, one of which has a motion blur due to camera shake which has been misidentified as a solid strange shaped craft (which is why I can not take anything that is written in the article seriously and have to rely solely on the photographic evidence which is purely objective).

[King of the Americas]

I'm not really bothered what the article says they said. The only reliable evidence is what we can see, which is a red dot in some photographs, one of which has a motion blur due to camera shake which has been misidentified as a solid strange shaped craft (which is why I can not take anything that is written in the article seriously and have to rely solely on the photographic evidence which is purely objective).

And THIS is my problem, you are 'ignoring' 3 highly trained astronauts' accounts of what they saw. Eye witness testimony IS "evidence", even if it is weak. Coupled with the photographs, that weak evidence is corroborated.

I would like to recant the "sum'bitch" term, but I think you ARE being "ignorant", in choosing to 'ignore' the astronauts' accounts. Ignorant being an adjective, and not a noun. So, I'm not calling you a name, but rather describing your behavior.

I will freely admit that it is 'possible' that all 3 astronauts AND the camera witnessed a reflection, but the possibility is remote, at best. The windows on such a space craft aren't big, it is likely that they each took turns looking at it, which means movement in front of the port hole, maybe with two of them looked at it at the same time. These actions would have caused a reflected light to blink out, so it would almost entirely have ruled out a reflection option. Given its blinking out was due to passing the termination point.

I find no wrong in accepting and indeed 'concluding' it was an "object" and NOT a reflection, with a likely hood of that finding being accurate above 99%.

Now this is where I stop. There is clearly NOT enough information from which to identify the object's make-up, origin, or purpose. It is, MOST LIKELY, an "unidentifiable object".

[Caustic Logic]

I find no wrong in accepting and indeed 'concluding' it was an "object" and NOT a reflection, with a likely hood of that finding being accurate above 99%.

Now this is where I stop. There is clearly NOT enough information from which to identify the object's make-up, origin, or purpose. It is, MOST LIKELY, an "unidentifiable object".

I tend to agree, say 90% sure, they saw and filmed an object and not a reflection (unleess they're intentionally pulling a prank here). It was bright red but not y-shaped as in the article's lead blow-up. Good on you just keeping it where it belongs from there - an object that is in space and unidentified. Has anyone here even offered a good guess? Why does frame 2139 (http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/sky3pix2139.jpg) have three red dots? Why does it glow bright red? It seems too obvious to me that it might be related to the "Goddard laser beacon experiment." Frames 2136 and 37 are supposed to be of this, according to the article, but seem to show no kind of laser pointer action. But the immediate next photos, 2138-41 show bright red mystery satellites... confusing.

And THIS is my problem, you are 'ignoring' 3 highly trained astronauts' accounts of what they saw. Eye witness testimony IS "evidence", even if it is weak. Coupled with the photographs, that weak evidence is corroborated.

I don't think the cat was ignoring the astronauts (but they do always love laser pointers!). But their clues haven't been posted in the thread yet that I've seen. So let's have a look, from the original link.

GARRIOTT: OK. About a week or 10 days before recovery and we were still waiting for information to be supplied to us about the identification. Jack first notices this rather large red star out the wardroom window. Upon close examination, it was much brighter than Jupiter or any of the other planets. It had a reddish hue to it, even though it was well above the horizon. The light from the Sun was not passing close to the Earth's limb at the time. 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. Its orbit was very close to that of our own.

And that's pretty much it, right? The most detail provided there? So what does this say? Is there a good way from all this, and the photos, of saying where and what shape and size this apparent object was?

[Stray Cat]

And THIS is my problem, you are 'ignoring' 3 highly trained astronauts' accounts of what they saw. Eye witness testimony IS "evidence", even if it is weak. Coupled with the photographs, that weak evidence is corroborated.
Not really ignoring them... just trying to ignore the slightly sensationalised article in favour of the physical evidence.
But taking what the astronauts 'say' and what they show us doesn't seem to corroborate anything except that they saw a red dot and they photographed a red dot. The only difference being they described it as rotating because of a variation in light intensity that they picked up. I'm not sure that gets me any further forward with being able to identify it.

[King of the Americas]

Stray Cat,

Didn't you say:

... you to continue to accept nonsense as evidence.

It's a dot on a photograph. Nothing more, nothing less. :rolleyes:

Calling 3 astronauts' reports "nonsense", and then remarking that all we have is a dot on a photograph, and nothing more, 'seems' to me like you are ignoring or dismissing the accuracy of their reports...

---

I don't know what the object is, or was. Moreover, I see much futility in 'trying' to identify it. We simply don't have enough information to even begin identifying it.

It could be space junk, it could be an alien raft, it could be an as of yet unidentified glowing life form that can exist in a vacuum. Without a lot more information, I can't lean one way or the other.

[Stray Cat]

Calling 3 astronauts' reports "nonsense", and then remarking that all we have is a dot on a photograph, and nothing more, 'seems' to me like you are ignoring or dismissing the accuracy of their reports...
Well for a start what I ACTUALLY SAID was:
My point was that ALL PEOPLE can misidentify stuff, your failure to accept that assertion will enable you to continue to accept nonsense as evidence.

It's a dot on a photograph. Nothing more, nothing less. :rolleyes:
Which when it hasn't been selectively edited and taken out of context, makes a lot more sense.
My statement about "nonsense" was directly regarding your assumption that people don't make mistakes, not calling the 3 astronauts statements nonsense. :)

[King of the Americas]

Well for a start what I ACTUALLY SAID was:

Which when it hasn't been selectively edited and taken out of context, makes a lot more sense.
My statement about "nonsense" was directly regarding your assumption that people don't make mistakes, not calling the 3 astronauts statements nonsense. :)

What was the 'evidence' in question that I should have considered 'non-sense', and NOT given credence to?

Forgive my misreading your statement, but I don't know what 'other' evidence you were referencing...

[Stray Cat]

I guess what I was trying to say was that if you automatically presume that 'some' people don't make mistakes, you run the risk of accepting nonsense as evidence... sorry if it wasn't clear, I could have written it better. :)

[King of the Americas]

I guess what I was trying to say was that if you automatically presume that 'some' people don't make mistakes, you run the risk of accepting nonsense as evidence... sorry if it wasn't clear, I could have written it better. :)

Understood, but just so you know, I never said anyone was incapable of making a mistake, only that 'some' were far less likely to do so... Sorry if 'I' wasn't clear.

:)

[Vortigern99]

Just to put things in perspective, on a scale of probability based on the evidence, it's probable that the thing is a physical, external object; it's less probable that the thing is an internal reflection; it's considerably less probable that the thing is a free-floating biological organism in the void of space; and it's far less probable that the thing is an alien spacecraft.

[MG1962]

Just to put things in perspective, on a scale of probability based on the evidence, it's probable that the thing is a physical, external object; it's less probable that the thing is an internal reflection; it's considerably less probable that the thing is a free-floating biological organism in the void of space; and it's far less probable that the thing is an alien spacecraft.

I think thats a pretty fair summing up. I do like this case because at least something unusual happened. Many examples we see involve no more than someone throwing a frisbee in the air and screaming OMG UFO!!!!

[King of the Americas]

Just to put things in perspective, on a scale of probability based on the evidence, it's probable that the thing is a physical, external object; it's less probable that the thing is an internal reflection; it's considerably less probable that the thing is a free-floating biological organism in the void of space; and it's far less probable that the thing is an alien spacecraft.

A floating glowing biological is LESS likely than a non-human craft...?

Did your crystal ball tell you that, or did you just make it up?

[Vortigern99]

Why so snarky? You want to rearrange the degrees of probability, be my guest. It's not like it's written in stone.

For the record, I arranged them in order of probability, so that by my reckoning, an organism is more probable than a spacecraft. This is because we have evidence for organisms existing (though not in space), but none for extraterrestrials.

But feel free to insult me rather than asking me to clarify my point.

[King of the Americas]

Why so snarky? You want to rearrange the degrees of probability, be my guest. It's not like it's written in stone.

For the record, I arranged them in order of probability, so that by my reckoning, an organism is more probable than a spacecraft. This is because we have evidence for organisms existing (though not in space), but none for extraterrestrials.

But feel free to insult me rather than asking me to clarify my point.

My bad...no coffee this morning.

I may have just shot a burglar trying to break in, or the mailman merely opening my mail slot...

---

I wouldn't bother ordering them at all, given that it would be pointless, inaccurate, and wholly without basis.

...I need an espresso.

Apologies for the snark-ity retort.

[Vortigern99]

Thanks for saying so.

It's worth noting that all organisms we know of extract some kind of gas from the air -- be it CO2 or O2 -- in order to survive moment-to-moment. (Someone please correct if I'm mistaken. Microbiology is not my strong suit.)

Determining how an organism could survive in the gas-less depths of interstellar space would be a fun project at this point... don't you think?

[Caustic Logic]

More likely some glowing red space manatee than an alien craft? Hmmm... I'm just going to claim ignorance on how to even assess probabilities like these.

I was kidding above about implying this was a laser pointer type-thing, but I am having a hard time just ignoring that this was seen right after (supposedly) a "laser beacon experiment." I tried Googling a bit, but don't know enough to even know where to find details on how this would work, and what it should look like. I'd like to know if we can rule it out as a factor.

Obviously the astronauts would probably know what to expect, and not report it as a satellite. Unless there was some mysterious effect no one expected, or something...

[mindme]

On Google books I was reading a recent memoir by the astronauts of Skylab 3 and one of the astronauts thought it was Mars and the other two thought it was a satellite. 30 years later, none of them think they saw a giant space ship.