UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Dec > Dec 6

Re: Skylab 3

From: James Smith <lunartravel.nul>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 14:31:20 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
Archived: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 07:21:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Skylab 3 


>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 23:32:09 -0500
>Subject: Re: Skylab 3

>>From: James Smith <lunartravel.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 14:08:31 -0500 (EST)
>>Subject: Re: Skylab 3

>>All I know about this is the description of the scene in the
>>photo index and the laser experiment.
>>"Evaluation of SKYLAB Earth LASER Beacon Imagery"
>>"Experiment Debrief"

>>"Bean: The laser was the only thing that I saw during the
>>mission that had a neon-light look to it... This actually
>>radiated like a neon light that's on in the daytime outside. It
>>has a brilliance to it."

>I looked up the tinyurl.com/yw4pym and found the report you were
>reading. Now I know what that experiment was all about. And
>guess what: during the Skylab 3 they used only the argon-ion
>laser which puts out 5145 A radiation which is - ta-dah -
>green!

But according to the report they say:


"The argon ion was also utilized to pump a Coherent Radiation
Model 490 jet stream dye laser to obtain the yellow/red
wavelengths."

"The spacecraft was illuminated with only one wavelength at
a time, and successful imagery was collected at 5145(green),
5900 (yellow), and 6250 (red) Angstroms."


It is possible they just tried one wavelength for Skylab 3.

>Therefore my earlier comments about photographing a red laser
>are moot. Also, the experiments were run during the daytime,
>despite my "logic" that they would be run at night. The intent
>was to determine whether or not a laser could act as a daytime
>beacon or brightness calibration in the presence of sunlit
>ground. They used powers up to 10 watts... which is quite
>bright!

I could not find anywhere it mentioned day time photos.
Where was that?
They mention that the photos show certain objects,
but the quality of the document gives me no idea or day or
night.

>Garriott said he could see it during the first experiment but
>not during the second. He said he took "some photographs" during
>the first experiment. Was 2137 the second of these? If so I
>would expect to see a green spot. But I don't.

The mission report (pg 14.-5) states that they photo- graphed
two times successfully and that "a third attempt was made but
was obscured by cloud cover". The photo index only shows two
sets of laser images. The first set SL3-125-2818/2819 from
magazine CX-34. The second set SL3-118-2136/2137 from magazine
CX-35. I am thinking the second attempt corresponds to 2136/2137
and that they didn't even try to film the cloud cover obscured
attempt. The mission report describes the visual appearance as a
line of multiple beams, but the experiment description says
these photos were blurry so that there might have been some
movement in taking the photos.

From my viewpoint, since the 2136 photos were taken on Sept 20,
this confirms that the UFO object was filmed on or after that
date and that the 300mm lens likely was still used (days
afterward would be a different matter).

I really doubt the red laser was what caused the UFO pictures
even though they oddly happened adjacent in the sequence.

>Anyway, the lens the used for laser experiments was 300 mm with
>f stop 4.8 - 8 and shutter time 1/125 to 1/500 sec. The film was
>"like" Ektachrome MS 2448.

>>Query: The second set of photos that we blew up we found
>>on the filmstrip, but they didn't come out; they were
>>underexposed. If I looked at the records correctly, they were
>>approximately an f/4.5 and the others were approximately a f/8.
>>They were also blurry so there might have been some movement
>>although the shutter speed was 1/500 of a second."

>Now that we know Garriott took "some photographs" during the
>first sighting (2136 and 2137), then the question is, did anyone
>take any photos during the second sighting? I think not. Then
>the "second set of photos" mentioned above is actually 2138-2141
>(the red object) which, they say, was underexposed.

No, the "first set" was SL3-125-2818/2819 from magazine CX-34.
The second set SL3-118-2136/2137 from magazine CX-35. The UFO
photos are still unidentified and not likely from the laser,
although it confuses matters to have them right after the other.

>I think that the photo analysts who were looking for laser
>imagery before talking to the astronauts, and without knowing
>that the Garriott intentionally photographed a "red satellite",
>mkght have through that there was a second set of photos
>corresponding to the second laser observation experiment. If
>this is what they thought it would have been natural for them to
>assume that 2138-2141 were the second set of laser photos. But
>if they so concluded (and I now think they did) they would have
>immediately also concluded that the photos were severely
>underexposed because there was no image of the earth and because
>nothing showed up in the pictures (except the very tiny red dot
>in the first three and a larger red "structure" in the fourth).
>They probably wouldn't have spent much if any time trying to
>understand how the red dot images could have occurred in
>underexposed photos.

No I don't agree, unless the astronauts say otherwise. I gather
they stand by their satellite story and that must mean the 2138-
2141 sequence are not the laser images but a satellite at a
totally different part of the orbit. Viewing the first set of
laser images might clear up this a little.

Could the 'structure' in the fourth be simply due to camera
jostle since no astronaut mentions it?

>>"On Skylab 3, Astronauts Bean and Lousma confirmed the beacon
>>size and shape manifested in the Skylab 3 imagery. They
>>described the beacon as both a neon tube lying in the plane of
>>he earth and as a searchlight coming up through the atmosphere.
>>Strangely, the photographs were taken by Scientist-Astronaut
>>Garriott who did not verify the beacon size and shape, but
>>described the beacon as only a dot."
>>The second set were prior to the "UFO" set. I assume "neon"
>>means red, but maybe not.

>Yes. I read the report and understand what they were saying.
>There are green colored "neon tubes" used in advertising signs,
>etc. At any rate, the laser was green and the shape of the
>source, looking like a line lying horizontally on the earth, is
>a perspective effect: looking along a laser beam projected
>roughly in your direction you see a line of light which gets
>smaller as you look toward the laser beam source.

This was in the '70s so I do not know the predominate "neon"
color back then. I thought red was the first one. Also, we
don't know what color they used of the tunable laser. But what
interested me was that Bean said it was the only thing that had
a neon light look to it. That is suggestive that the red UFO was
not too bright or "neon", whatever color that is.



Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

See:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/subscribers/


[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com