UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Dec > Dec 7

Re: Skylab 3

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac.nul>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 11:59:07 -0500
Archived: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 06:12:55 -0500
Subject: Re: Skylab 3


>From: James Smith <lunartravel.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 14:31:20 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
>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

>>>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.

Not only possible, it actually happened. They used the dye laser
("pumped" by the argon ion laser) to get other colors during
SL4, but only the argon ion in SL3. Look at Figure 3.1 (page 20)
or Table 4.1 (page 47). In each case the beacon wavelength is
given for SL-3A and SL-3B (apparently they are callling 2136 A
and 2137 B). The wavelength was 5145 A.

>>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.

You are correct about the photographic "quality" of the
document. One would hope that there is, somewhere, an original
copy of this document. At any rate, the pdf version on line
shows black that is peppered with white spots which could be
holes in the emulsion or what, I don't know. It is clear from
the copies I have of 2136 and 2137 that the photos were taken in
daylight. One can see clouds and ground structure (see the on-
line copy of 2137 at my web site) I also have a copy of 2136.
 It shows a slightly shifted version of the same scene. The
portion of cloud structure that is in both photos is, so far as
I can tell from side by side comparison, exactly the same
indicating that the time between pictures was probably measured
in seconds. There are indistinct (very low contrast) ground
features common to both photos.

In neither can I see clear evidence of the beam.

>>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.

Regarding the expectation that the beam image would be green, I
should point out that the photo analysts wrote (Figure 3.1) that
the beacon was" five times brighter than the background in the
green film band and ten times brighter in the blue."  This
means that the beam image should tend toward the blue rather
than green.They also wrote that "the red layer is not exposed by
the beacon" meaning that there was no tendency of the beacon
image to appear reddish (or a mix of red and blue/green).

>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
l>ine of multiple beams, but the experiment description says
>these photos were blurry so that there might have been some
>movement in taking the photos.

In Table 4.1 the date of the SL - 118 - 2136 and 2137 is Sept.
4, 1973. The SL4 experiments are were in December and January.

>>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.

My suggestion is that the photoanlysis thought that the photos
2138-2141 were a second set of laser beacon photos taken by SL3
astronauts, but that, in fact, there was no second set of photos
taken by the SL3 astronauts.

>>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",
>>might 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.

There is no disagreement here between us regarding the four
photos.

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

I have looked at a lot of "jiggled" photographs and even movies,
as you might imagine (I get photos of night lights taken by
hand-held cameras quite often). In a jiggle situation you
always get a sort of looping effect and bright spots occur when
the camera momentarily pauses to _nearly_ reverse direction. As
the photographer's hand vibrates about an average pointing
direction the bright spots are connected by fainter lines, but
since the hand never exactly retraces a motion (at least not in
my experience) the track of the pointing direction always makes
loops. The loops may be very narrow, but there are loops
nevertheless. IN this case there are dim but definite lines
between the bright spots but no evidence of hand vibration
loops, so I conclude that the structured image actually
represents some bright light source or reflective features
(glint spots? lignts?) of a single object.



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

See:

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


[ Next 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