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: James Smith <lunartravel.nul>
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 11:47:43 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
Archived: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 16:01:31 -0500
Subject: Re: Skylab 3


>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 11:59:07 -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

>>"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.

The report does not clearly state that they _only_ used the
fixed laser wavelength of 5145A for Skylab 3 and did the
tunable laser starting with Skylab 4. You can deduce that
from the data in the report.

Since they gave an erroneous date of Sept 4 in the report for
the successful Skylab 3 laser images (as compared to the dates
from the Skylab 3 mission report), I think the images are
actually from the first attempt (SL3-125-2818/2819). The second
attempt (2136 and 2137, prior to the UFO images) were too
blurred so although the astronauts saw the laser beam, no
successful images were captured. This report did not list the
wavelength of the second blurred photo attempt or failed third
attempt. However, the mission report says the first two laser
viewing attempts were at 5145A.

So this rules out red, as you stated before.

>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.

I don't agree that the SL3-118-2136/2137 are the ones shown in
the report, but the ones I mentioned above. They would not show
blurred images in the report, but would show the distinct ones.
Also, the mission report states dates which make more sense as
matching the UFO time period, so I assume the Sept 4 dates are
in error.

>>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 photoanalysis 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.

No, again, the prior film magazine had the very good laser
images (the first set), and the two images you have (prior to
the UFO photos) were the second blurred laser ones. The
astronauts didn't even bother filming the third attempt due to
cloud cover.

>>...the 2138-2141 sequence are not the laser images but a
>> satellite at a
>>totally different part of the orbit....

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

I agree that they cannot be the laser beam. But the value in
them it that they do help corroborate the time period and give
insights as to more of the likely camera
data/operation/settings.

>>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.

Yes, that makes sense, but can we apply the same photographic
principles in zero gravity. Floating around, bumping into
things or bracing the camera against the window and slipping,
are quite different than guys holding a camera or using a tripod
on Earth. Just an idea. That's why its helpful to compare
other images from the same astronauts (and camera hopefully).
 But there seems little to compare. Most "blur" or jostled
 images were of Earth and that kind of motion not easy to
resolve (well maybe if you had some fancy software). A few
images were of the Moon, so maybe those could be examined. And a
couple of the jettison. But those were much earlier in the
mission and taken by whom? No records. What we need is image
"blur" analysis of the prior film magazine that seemed to have
so many blurred images.

The only reason I raise this issue is why no record exists or
the astronauts stating the satellite had structure. I suggested
to Sparks that if the satellite was spinning very fast (compound
rotation), the photo would differ quite differently to any
visual appearance when they were looking in the camera (to
frame, focus, aim, etc) immediately prior to taking the picture.
The main reason the object caught their attention seems to be
its brightness, and then its 10 second period, but seeing its
structure would seem quite an outstanding thing they should have
mentioned.



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