UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Rramjet]

Nope. Anyone with a real and good scientific background would have realized that Mcabee's size estimates without an error analysis are useless. Once again, an example of UFOlogic methodology SNAFU.

By the way, error propagation is much more complex than "pick 5 seconds and put an error bar of +/- 1 second". I wonder why someone with real and good scientific training would think that's what it takes...

Without a proper distance measurement (with error), withou a proper angular measurement (with error), without a proper time measurement (with error) and without the proper error propagation calculations, its a no-go.

The document (http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/SL3.html) explains in great detail the underlying assumptions behind each of the calculations and tests various scenarios assuming errors in one (or more) parameters to see what difference changing the assumptions makes to the results - and then matching the different results obtained to whether they indicate possible real world scenarios. The authors are not claiming error free calculations, indeed they point out the possible error margins whenever they make their calculations and what effect such margins might have on the final result.

However, let us assume for sake of argument that I have no idea what you are talking about with your “error margins” and I am merely a naïve observer simply interested in obtaining the correct information. Could you then please explain what you might have done differently in accounting for error margins in any of the calculations undertaken by the authors and what effects your amended calculations will have on the final results? If you cannot do this then perhaps you are simply making unfounded, generalised assertions – and that is not scientific.

Oh, the red color?

The authors explore in detail the possible reasons why the object may have appeared red. Perhaps you have not read the article closely enough and have missed that part?

Are you sure "aliens from beyond the borders of what we call nature" (whatever that means) is a viable, plausible option?

May I ask your motivation behind your persistent misquoting of my statement here? I have stated many times now that a UFO may be considered "alien” if it lies outside our common conceptions of the natural or technological world. In various incarnations of this statement I have included such concepts as “limits” and “boundaries” to our knowledge of the natural and technological world, but never have I classified UFOs in terms such as you include in your quotation marks above.

Maybe it was a commie UFO...

Perhaps you would care to explain your use of the term “commie” here? The authors of the article explain in detail why it could not have been of Russian manufacture – if that is what you mean. Perhaps you missed that part also?

 

[Astrophotographer]

Big snip as Rramjet attempts to rationalize away the potential for any interior lighting being visible.



Excuse the crayon arrows but they show areas of brightness that could be associated with interior lighting. The camera was set up to look out the window and not into the cabin. These bright areas appear to be lighting reflections and possibly areas were there was lighting affecting the film.

As for your claim that the sun is clearly illuminating the CSM, I am sure it is above the craft. However, the barrel's shadow is not so obvious to me since we are seeing the reflection of the scene at the front of the command module and it is a head on view.

I just wanted to see if you could do calculations showing the sun's position angle. I would think a scientist could take this information and perform a calculation so we can see if the shadows you claim that are on the "sphere" would line up. There seems to be not enough data for you to do so.

Again, what you see or do not see is seemingly problematic for you. If you take a snapshot from the video and then in a quality image editor zoom in you can get a clear indication of the pixel size. I can resolve the object itself to about 36 pixels in size (6x6). Over a number of “frames” this is more than enough to determine its spherical nature. That is the central upper pixels are pretty much always the brightest in the array and the outer pixels always darker than the central ones – thus a spherical object.

The problem with your "science" here is that the maximum resolution of the video clip is 640X480 (and the actual film does not even fill that frame). Anything that is two pixels in size that is enlarged/zoomed in can not reveal any more detail than the resolution of the two pixel size. All you are doing is enlarging noise and any "shading" you are seeing are possible artifiacts of the digital image. You have presented nothing to support your claim other than what you choose to see and tell everyone. I on the other hand have presented the actual frames (at the same resolution as the video clip, which is really all you can work with) for all to examine. If you can demonstrate that this dot is a true sphere with that data, feel free to do so.

I merely noted that the object in the Apollo 10 video displays no such pulsation effect. Meaning of course one of two things, either it is spherical (as all the other evidence suggests) or it is an object with one circular face that is not “spinning” at all – presenting us always with the same circular facet of itself. I find the latter explanation stretches credibility somewhat (especially given the evidence of sphericity).

1. You have not presented one iota of real evidence to establish "sphericity". All I have seen is you declare it is spherical. No data has been presented to establish your claim. The frames I have presented suggest it is an object of unknown size or shape. It sounds like you aren't calling this a UFO at all but an actual manufactured object of "alien" origin. Is this the case?

2. I have presented evidence that demonstrates the object's brightness does fluctuate by picking 6 frames at random. Feel free to present ALL the frames side by side and demonstrate that the brightness of the object does not change. Until you do so, then your claim that it does not "pulsate" is shown to be false.

C’mon Astro, please. The LM and CSM were trying to precisely match their relative speeds at the time for docking, they would not have tried something unheard of to this day like a sudden synchronised increase in speed in the middle of such a difficult (and never before attempted) manoeuvre.

Yes, they were attempting to match speeds, which means they were both adjusting their orbital speeds by a few feet per second, which is all it would take for a small bit of debris to appear to "jet away" from the LM.

 

[Correa Neto]

The document (http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/SL3.html) explains in great detail the underlying assumptions behind each of the calculations and tests various scenarios assuming errors in one (or more) parameters to see what difference changing the assumptions makes to the results - and then matching the different results obtained to whether they indicate possible real world scenarios. The authors are not claiming error free calculations, indeed they point out the possible error margins whenever they make their calculations and what effect such margins might have on the final result.

You must be reading another article. At the text you linked, there is nothing like explanations "in great detail [of] the underlying assumptions behind each of the calculations and tests various scenarios assuming errors in one (or more) parameters to see what difference changing the assumptions makes to the results - and then matching the different results obtained to whether they indicate possible real world scenarios."

There are no real error estimates (see below for details).

However, let us assume for sake of argument that I have no idea what you are talking about with your “error margins” and I am merely a naïve observer simply interested in obtaining the correct information.

Judging from the contents of your posts, I think it is quite possible that you actually have no idea of what I am talking about.

Could you then please explain what you might have done differently in accounting for error margins in any of the calculations undertaken by the authors and what effects your amended calculations will have on the final results? If you cannot do this then perhaps you are simply making unfounded, generalised assertions – and that is not scientific.

Simple. The first thing the authors should have made would be to evaluate the precision of the individual instruments used to gather the data (note that the type of instruments used must also be stated). The whole measurement methods should also be exposed. Example: what sort instrument was used to measure the object’s size? Was the object’s size measure on film? On what sort of film the object was measured? The original? A copy? What was the chain of custody? How were possible issues related to distortions related to the copying process dealt with?

The time (no chronometer was used – the astronaut was counting seconds) and distance estimates are subject to enormous margins of error. Regarding the distances, there were no references, no radar data, no triangulation data, nothing but wild guesses. One can only guess the precision of such estimates, but for sure they were enormous.

And it gets worse… They can not actually vouch for the optics used. They assume it was a 300mm lens, but it may have been 50mm. Another problem- was it telephoto or zoom? If you fail to acknowledge these are all very important issues, then any further discussions will be useless.

Is this the end of the methodological SNAFUs? No. The most crucial piece of evidence used, labeled “the fourth photo” (figure 1 at the link) and presented as showing a number of light sources which would compose the object, actually looks like nothing but the effect of a shaky long exposure picture of a single light point. Unless they can prove this was not the case, the whole estimate, even if the previously mentioned problems were not present, will go down the drain.

Now, lets assume all the issues above exposed could somehow be solved and error estimates are available for each measurement and they are adequate. How would someone proceed with the error estimate? How could someone probe the influence of each measurement error in the final size figure? The following links can point you to the math involved if you are interested.

http://www.physics.uc.edu/~bortner/...pendix 2/Appendix 2 Error Propagation htm.htm
http://academics.hamilton.edu/physics/smajor/Courses/195Guides/phys190_uncertainties_II.pdf
http://www.rit.edu/cos/uphysics/uncertainties/Uncertaintiespart1.html
http://www-fusion.ciemat.es/fusionwiki/index.php/Error_propagation

As you can see, no such estimates are present at the text you linked to.

To answer your question, the bottomline is that I would not have followed their steps. I would have never attempt to publish such imprecise estimates, use such a flawed methodology. The material at the link you posted may sound good to the ears of those without a minimal scientific background, but it has too many basic flaws to be of any real use.

The authors explore in detail the possible reasons why the object may have appeared red. Perhaps you have not read the article closely enough and have missed that part?

I do not consider what’s present in the text you linked as being anywhere close to an exploration in detail. Perhaps you are not used to read scientific works.

May I ask your motivation behind your persistent misquoting of my statement here? I have stated many times now that a UFO may be considered "alien” if it lies outside our common conceptions of the natural or technological world. In various incarnations of this statement I have included such concepts as “limits” and “boundaries” to our knowledge of the natural and technological world, but never have I classified UFOs in terms such as you include in your quotation marks above.

Its not a misquote. You more than once referred to UFOs as products of aliens or sentient beings from beyond the borders of what we call nature. That statement of yours is plagued with problems and an evidence of the poor methods you used. It is actually nothing but an attempt to host most if not all the ideas UFOlogists bring forward to explain UFO lore. It is you attempting to somehow lump together aliens from another universe, aliens from other planets, unknown natural phenomena and secret man-made flying objects, possibly with the inclusion of some nonsense such as manifestations of Jungian archetypes, unknown technological species and civilizations from our own planet.

Perhaps you would care to explain your use of the term “commie” here? The authors of the article explain in detail why it could not have been of Russian manufacture – if that is what you mean. Perhaps you missed that part also?

The author’s explanations are far from detailed. You overstate too much that article, another piece of evidence that you are not used to science’s methods, despite your claims.

For me, the only and single “unexplained” detail in that case is the red color (maybe because I have not spent too much time thinking about it). It doesn’t mean it is unexplainable or that “aliens from beyond the borders of what we call nature” is a valid plausible explanation. It only means my (as well as the article’s authors) limited understanding and knowledge failed to find a good explanation. They, however, jumped in to a “non-terrestrial” conclusion for which there is little if any support. This is another methodological flaw. To sum up, the whole article is a UFOlogy SNAFU, and presenting it to back a claim about aliens from beyond the borders of what we call nature is another one.

 

[Rramjet]

Big snip as Rramjet attempts to rationalize away the potential for any interior lighting being visible.

Excuse the crayon arrows but they show areas of brightness that could be associated with interior lighting. The camera was set up to look out the window and not into the cabin. These bright areas appear to be lighting reflections and possibly areas were there was lighting affecting the film.

So once again you ignore the evidence... I stated (in part) “The “light patches” in each video window corner and the dark irregularity down the right side are anomalies on the actual film. You can tell this because these do not change no matter where camera moves or what focal length it chooses. etc.” I could have added “no matter the camera position within the LM and no matter the subject outside the LM, these “light” artefacts remain precisely the same – unchanging, unmoved. It’s on the film Astro - an artefact on the film… please watch the whole film …all of it… from start to finish… you will see what I am talking about. There simply is NO internal lighting. All the light we can see is coming from outside the LM.

As for your claim that the sun is clearly illuminating the CSM, I am sure it is above the craft. However, the barrel's shadow is not so obvious to me since we are seeing the reflection of the scene at the front of the command module and it is a head on view.

Again…watch the whole film Astro…the whole film…you will see where the CSM is not head on that the shadows on the CSM indicate the sun is “above” the scene. But there are multiple places in the film where the shadows on the CSM directly indicate where the sun is in relation to our POV. If you have not noted this then you simply have not watched the whole film. Please do so before making any further statement in ignorance of the visual evidence. Besides, you even state I am sure it is above the craft”… so what are you arguing about? What possible motivation could you have for arguing the point?

I just wanted to see if you could do calculations showing the sun's position angle. I would think a scientist could take this information and perform a calculation so we can see if the shadows you claim that are on the "sphere" would line up. There seems to be not enough data for you to do so.

If the sun is directly “above” the scene (and even you acknowledge that), what possible calculations could I do that would add to that observation?

So, agreeing the sun is above the scene, let us test your scenario that the object is close to the camera and is travelling in a vertical motion (from bottom to top of the frame).

If the sun is above the scene (as you admit), (and especially) when the object is near the top of the frame, the brightest spot on the object should be at the top of the object and the lower part should be in relative shadow (as we see with the CSM). However, we simply do not see this on the object.

However, if the object is further away and we are looking down on the object from relatively far away and it is travelling (relatively) horizontally (away from us), then the brightest spot on the object will remain facing toward us – and this is precisely what we DO see.

The problem with your "science" here is that the maximum resolution of the video clip is 640X480 (and the actual film does not even fill that frame). Anything that is two pixels in size that is enlarged/zoomed in can not reveal any more detail than the resolution of the two pixel size. All you are doing is enlarging noise and any "shading" you are seeing are possible artefacts of the digital image. You have presented nothing to support your claim other than what you choose to see and tell everyone. I on the other hand have presented the actual frames (at the same resolution as the video clip, which is really all you can work with) for all to examine. If you can demonstrate that this dot is a true sphere with that data, feel free to do so.

The “problem with your science here” is that you do have not conducted any. Here is a series of snapshots of the object (taken at intervals of every 10 frames from when we first see the object to when it is close to the top of the frame – where a frame has fallen on a “smeared” object, I have simply moved to the next frame to take the snapshot…).

Two things are immediately notable. First the resolution is greater than your guess at 1 or 2 pixels (it is not so easy to see in this degraded sequence - necessary to fit within forum size limits, but the object is definitely defined within at least a 5x5 grid of pixels).

The second thing to note is the pattern of light and shade within those pixels. There is definitely a “bright” centre with progressively darker shading as we get further away from the centre. This pattern of shading strongly suggests a sphere. Alternatively, what other shape can you think of that would produce such a consistent pattern of shading at such a resoution?

You have not presented one iota of real evidence to establish "sphericity". All I have seen is you declare it is spherical. No data has been presented to establish your claim. The frames I have presented suggest it is an object of unknown size or shape.

Actually, I have been presenting the evidence for sphericity all along (culminating now in the above sequence), it seems you have simply have chosen to ignore it.

It sounds like you aren't calling this a UFO at all but an actual manufactured object of "alien" origin. Is this the case?

Please show me where I have stated or even implied a manufactured object of “alien” origin”. In fact I stated directly that:

Currently, with the Apollo 10 UFO, it is just a UFO. I am not calling it “alien” (my definition) nor am I calling it ET. I am still investigating and calling for possible mundane explanations. So far no plausible ones have been forthcoming. Meteorite seems implausible – the object is just too slow: something inside the LM close to the camera is implausible – the lighting characteristics suggest it is definitely outside the LM: A piece of dirt/debri/ rock etc seems implausible - the object is spherical in nature.

So once again you have totally ignored the evidence to erroneously contend something that is simply not true.

I have presented evidence that demonstrates the object's brightness does fluctuate by picking 6 frames at random. Feel free to present ALL the frames side by side and demonstrate that the brightness of the object does not change. Until you do so, then your claim that it does not "pulsate" is shown to be false.

Please prove your “6 frames at random” assertion. There is simply no evidence of brightness fluctuation on the object. The object is moving and the resolution in combination with the video frame rate is such that sometimes the object “smears” across frames, sometimes it also seems to disappear altogether… any changes in brightness would seem most likely an artefact of this process (unless you are contending the object really does appear and disappear as it travels…). Indeed in the sequence of frames I have shown above, while the brightness varies to some minor degree, it does NOT do so to a greater degree than a comparative set of pixels from the CSM itself. But I have already pointed that out… and you have positively ignored such statements from me with you “Big snip”. By “snipping” away the evidence of my statements to you, you do not remove those statements from the record, because they remain in my original post(s). All you achieve is to simply blind yourself to what my statements are telling you.

Yes, they were attempting to match speeds, which means they were both adjusting their orbital speeds by a few feet per second, which is all it would take for a small bit of debris to appear to "jet away" from the LM.

You are simply incorrect. Only ONE of the vehicles was doing any “adjusting”. Think about it Astro… please… think about it for just a moment or two… (hint: imagine the exponential multiplicity of the level of difficulty if both vehicles were trying to maneuver to match orbital speed) ... okay, so… only one vehicle maneuvering... and if it is the LM, then no object “jetting away” unless the whole scene does too – and that is something we definitely do not see. If it is the CSM, then it moves as we see it move and again, no object "jetting away" as a result (and it IS the CSM doing the maneuvering - not only is this indicated in various transcripts from other parts of the flight - but also directly on the film because the CSM moves in relation to the moon while the LM does not (relative to both their motion around the moon of course)

 

[Rramjet]

I stated:
“However, let us assume for sake of argument that I have no idea what you are talking about with your “error margins” and I am merely a naïve observer simply interested in obtaining the correct information. Could you then please explain what you might have done differently in accounting for error margins in any of the calculations undertaken by the authors and what effects your amended calculations will have on the final results? If you cannot do this then perhaps you are simply making unfounded, generalised assertions – and that is not scientific.”

Simple. The first thing the authors should have made would be to evaluate the precision of the individual instruments used to gather the data (note that the type of instruments used must also be stated).

It becomes rather obvious that you have not actually read the article - because if you had - you would have found therein the specifications of the camera used to gather the data.

The whole measurement methods should also be exposed. Example: what sort instrument was used to measure the object’s size?

From the film you mean? A micrometer.

Was the object’s size measure on film?

Perhaps you should actually read the article? The size calculations and how they were obtained are contained therein. I asked you to do so in my previous post to you on this subject. Can you please explain why you have not done so if you are pretending to a serious discussion here?

On what sort of film the object was measured? The original? A copy? What was the chain of custody?

I have contacted Dr Maccabee on this issue and he has stated that at the time he obtained copies in the form of “a film strip of 35 mm pix from 2137 through 2142.” direct (in person) from “Bara photo ... (who was) ...in charge of the NASA archive at that time” (in Washington DC).

How were possible issues related to distortions related to the copying process dealt with?

Have a look at the photos please. 2138 -2140 show a “dot” on the film. Any distortion in the copying process would have rendered these objects something other than a dot. 2141 (the photo of interest) was copied using the same process at the same time as the preceding (and following) photos – on the same single strip of 35mm film (the same size as the original film). No distortion is apparent on the preceding (or following) photos.

The time (no chronometer was used – the astronaut was counting seconds) and distance estimates are subject to enormous margins of error. Regarding the distances, there were no references, no radar data, no triangulation data, nothing but wild guesses.

Sure, “counting the seconds” is not millisecond precise, but it IS precise enough in the context. Normal people have a very good sense of time. If asked to estimate the span of a minute (for example), they can generally do so to within a second or two (many can actually get it bang on). In psychology, this fact can be (and is) used to test for the presence of mental disturbance (to put it at its most general). An erroneous estimate being diagnostic. There is no evidence of any of the astronauts suffering any kind of psychosis, so we can assume that their estimates of time were accurate to within the parameters they themselves stated – especially so if they were consciously counting the seconds. Garriott states directly that the object “followed us into darkness about 5-seconds later”. From studies of human perception of time, we might assume this to be fairly accurate. Confirming this assessment we have from the article itself:

“Sparks asked how Garriott estimated the time until the "satellite" went into the shadow. Garriott said he counted off the seconds as "one thousand one, one thousand two", etc. and estimated 5 to 6 seconds this way.” (http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/SL3.html)​

However, Garriott also stated in his debrief “From the 5 to 10 second delay…”. Here I suspect that he was “building in” his own “margin of error”, but from what we know of perceptual research and what we know of Garriott’s actions (in actually, consciously counting the seconds), we can legitimately conclude that 5 – 6 seconds is probably an accurate estimate.

The authors of the article however, actually maintain a margin of error here (5 – 10 secs) and use both the upper and lower limits in further calculations – and on the evidence, this is actually quite conservative of them.

Concerning the distance between Skylab and the object then, in the article (that you really should have read by now) the authors first state:

“…the calculated distance between the Skylab and the object was (5 to 10 seconds) times 7.64 km/sec = 38 to 76 km.”.

Now, as you seem to have not understood the concept of error margins in an applied setting (as opposed to some theoretical formulation divorced from application), the following statement should be of interest to you.

Thus we have the first error margin in a distance calculation (bounded between 38 and 76 km).

Obviously your contention of “enormous margins of error” and “wild guesses” can now (in turn) be assessed for what they actually are – subjective emotional appeals, rather than a true scientific assessment. Thus also we can now see that this statement from you ” One can only guess the precision of such estimates, but for sure they were enormous.” is erroneous. We KNOW the “precision of such estimates” and they have been described by the authors.

Not only that, but the authors indicate that they are perfectly aware of possible sources of error in their measurements of distance taken from the photos. Thus:

“The calculation just done is a lower bound on the spacing between the outermost lights” (http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/SL3.html)​

(Bolding mine: Rr)

Now tell me Correa Neto…what does “lower bound” mean to you in this context? Of course it means that in taking the measurement from the photo, they used the most conservative number from those measurements – as any true scientist understanding the effects of possible error would. And the following paragraph in the article describes in detail also what “minimum distance” means in this context.

And it gets worse… They can not actually vouch for the optics used. They assume it was a 300mm lens, but it may have been 50mm.

Actually, it “may have been” a 55mm lens… can you describe the error bounds on your erroneous statement here? …but let us not get bogged down in “minor” details shall we?

The assumption that it was actually the 300mm lens used arises from the fact that the NASA photo index indicates that the photo(s) preceding (on the same roll of film) the four in question (of the object) were taken with a Nikon with the 300mm lens attached. The authors state (quite reasonably) that:

“we believe it highly unlikely that they would have changed the lens on this camera if they wanted to take wide angle (55 mm) photos since they had four other Nikon cameras available, several of which had 55 mm lenses. We assume that Garriott simply grabbed a Nikon with the 300 mm lens, namely, the one used many days before during the beacon experiment.)” (http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/SL3.html)​

So their assumption here that it was a 300mm lens is quite reasonable. In fact to assume they changed the lens from 300mm to 55mm to take 4 photos - and then changed it back to again to take subsequent photos stretches credulity to its limit – especially considering the availability of a number of other cameras with 55mm lens already set up.

Moreover, if it was the 55mm, then the distance estimate would have been larger and the size of the object larger also! Thus again the authors have ‘erred” on the side of conservatism.

Another problem- was it telephoto or zoom?

Not a “zoom”. A set focal length lens.

If you fail to acknowledge these are all very important issues, then any further discussions will be useless.

Important issues obviously accounted for in the text of the article. Perhaps you should read the article, otherwise “any further discussions will be useless”?

Is this the end of the methodological SNAFUs? No. The most crucial piece of evidence used, labeled “the fourth photo” (figure 1 at the link) and presented as showing a number of light sources which would compose the object, actually looks like nothing but the effect of a shaky long exposure picture of a single light point. Unless they can prove this was not the case, the whole estimate, even if the previously mentioned problems were not present, will go down the drain.

You are simply incorrect here. If it was a simple “shaky long exposure”, there would be no blobs – just a (perhaps convoluted) continuous steak of light. To get a blob (or blobs), one needs to hold the camera steady. Moreover, in the previous photos in the series there is absolutely no evidence of any shakiness whatsoever – there is none in the photo of interest either (2141).

In a "normal" squiggly image due to hand vibration, when the total image is concentrated near the centre of the photo - as in this case (i.e., when the squiggle lines do not go off the edge of the photo) - there are only two ends - one of which corresponds to the image location on the focal plane when the shutter opened - and the other end which corresponds to where the image was when the shutter closed. The image in the fourth photo appears to have three "ends" of red lines.

Further: the camera with a 300 mm lens had considerable inertia, resisting hand vibration and the shutter speed was probably faster than 1/100 sec (other photos were taken at 1/250 to 1/500 sec). There were no vibrations of the Skylab 3 so any such vibration would be due to hand holding the camera, but in free fall (in orbit) the cameraman was not fighting the weight of the camera, so this would reduce hand vibration.

Now, lets assume all the issues above exposed could somehow be solved and error estimates are available for each measurement and they are adequate.

See above…

How would someone proceed with the error estimate?

They have been provided in the article. But I asked how you would do it.

How could someone probe the influence of each measurement error in the final size figure?

That has been done. Again I exhort you to read the article. And again I ask: How would you do it?

The following links can point you to the math involved if you are interested.

http://www.physics.uc.edu/~bortner/...pendix 2/Appendix 2 Error Propagation htm.htm
http://academics.hamilton.edu/physics/smajor/Courses/195Guides/phys190_uncertainties_II.pdf
http://www.rit.edu/cos/uphysics/uncertainties/Uncertaintiespart1.html
http://www-fusion.ciemat.es/fusionwiki/index.php/Error_propagation

As you can see, no such estimates are present at the text you linked to.

I asked you initially how you would actually apply your theories to the practical situation at hand and how you would do in practise what you seem to be espousing in theory. I see no evidence of your having been able to do that.

To answer your question, the bottomline is that I would not have followed their steps. I would have never attempt to publish such imprecise estimates, use such a flawed methodology. The material at the link you posted may sound good to the ears of those without a minimal scientific background, but it has too many basic flaws to be of any real use.

This is just a bunch of unfounded, generalised assertion and as I have pointed out so many times now that it is becoming ridiculous, merely stating unfounded assertions does not make them true.

Finally: You seem to be missing the main point, sort of like missing the forest by concentrating on individual trees. There was something "out there" near the Skylab 3. It was red. This conclusion is based on the visual sighting by all three astronauts and by the photos. There were no red satellites, so what was it? Why was it close enough for the astronauts to see? Why was it travelling along with the Skylab3 (which travelled a quite a distance during the sighting)? Why did it "go out" seconds after Skylab 3 went into the earth’s shadow? These are the questions that really need answering… not some frivolous distraction about “error margins”.

It doesn’t mean it is unexplainable or that “aliens from beyond the borders of what we call nature” is a valid plausible explanation. It only means my (as well as the article’s authors) limited understanding and knowledge failed to find a good explanation. They, however, jumped in to a “non-terrestrial” conclusion for which there is little if any support. This is another methodological flaw.

The authors concluded:

“Based on the available information, these authors conclude that there was no man-made satellite that could explain this sighting and hence the object was truly anomalous.” (http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/SL3.html)​

Indeed!
(...and perhaps if you had only read the article, you might not be lead into making erroneous statements about what the authors did or did not conclude?)

PS: Could you please explain your claim of “aliens from beyond the borders of what we call nature”. I am not sure I understand to what you are referring. Is this a new definition of yours concerning ET? You also place the statement in quotes as if you have sourced it from somewhere. Perhaps you can provide that source?

 

[Jocce]

the object is definitely defined within at least a 5x5 grid of pixels).

No, on the 7 snapshots i've examined it stays constantly within a 4x4 grid.

The second thing to note is the pattern of light and shade within those pixels. There is definitely a “bright” centre with progressively darker shading as we get further away from the centre.

And that pattern is consistent throughout the sequence. One would expect that a large object far away would have the illuminated part traveling upwards from our perspective since the angle to the sun changes quite a bit. We don't see that.

Actually, I have been presenting the evidence for sphericity all along (culminating now in the above sequence), it seems you have simply have chosen to ignore it.

You have not done anything like that. You claim it is a sphere when in reality, if you are correct and the object is far away, there is no way to tell that its shape on a 4x4 pixel grid. Each pixel on f ex a 40 meter wide object would be 10 metres. You simply don't have the resolution to tell if it's spherical or not.

There is simply no evidence of brightness fluctuation on the object. The object is moving and the resolution in combination with the video frame rate is such that sometimes the object “smears” across frames, sometimes it also seems to disappear altogether… any changes in brightness would seem most likely an artefact of this process

Which also can explain the smearing/antialiasing of it's outline, you know...with the brightest part in the center and with a grey shading around it where it blends in with the background.

 

[Rramjet]

No, on the 7 snapshots i've examined it stays constantly within a 4x4 grid.

Funny how the UFO debunkers only notice evidence that allegedly supports their claims, while ignoring any evidence that might not. 7 snapshots indeed… I provided 13 for you! And I am sure you have the capability to undertake some investigation of the film yourself. And can you point to which 7 snapshots you are talking about?

Once again we merely have a generalised, unfounded assertion from a UFO debunker. Do they really think at this stage we would simply take such statements as true on faith?

And that pattern is consistent throughout the sequence.

The bright centre with progressively darker shading toward the edges is a consistent pattern certainly.

One would expect that a large object far away would have the illuminated part traveling upwards from our perspective since the angle to the sun changes quite a bit. We don't see that.

Who says it is “a large object”? Who says it is “far away”? You will have to explain what you mean by ”the illuminated part travelling upwards”… You will also have to provide evidence that the angle of the sun changes “quite a bit”… (You would be wise to remember that the sun is very far away and that all light from it can be considered to be in parallel).

Once again all we have here is a set of unfounded assertions… I am beginning to think the UFO debunkers do not read any of my statements to them at all …what is so difficult about understanding that merely stating unfounded assertions does not make them true?

You claim it is a sphere when in reality, if you are correct and the object is far away, there is no way to tell that its shape on a 4x4 pixel grid. Each pixel on f ex a 40 meter wide object would be 10 metres. You simply don't have the resolution to tell if it's spherical or not.

No, my statement was “relatively far away” in comparison to a purported object inside the LM. The size and distance of the object is unknown.

However, its sphericity is evidential. Let me be a little more clear. Within the set of pixels there is a consistent pattern of light and dark shading. The “central” pixels are always brighter than pixels further toward the edge – and this is a progressive and consistent pattern over the whole object. The limited resolution actually works in favour of the sphere hypothesis – it is the consistency of shading pattern of the object throughout the video that is telling in this regard.

I will therefore ask one question of you. Given the resolution, the motion of the object and the video frame rate, what other shape of object other than a sphere could you imagine that would produce such a consistent pattern of shading within the limited number of pixels available?

Which also can explain the smearing/antialiasing of it's outline, you know...with the brightest part in the center and with a grey shading around it where it blends in with the background.

I am not sure how your “antialiasing” is applicable here. Perhaps you mean something like

“The term aliasing pertains to the process of sampling something smooth and continuous using a series of discrete measurements. If the measurements do not accurately represent the function, unwanted artifacts which are not present in the original will appear. The appearance of these artifacts is referred to as aliasing.” (http://www.lunaloca.com/tutorials/antialiasing/)​

But I think you have misunderstood what the effect of aliasing has on an image. The effect is to produce a jagged edge (this is the “artifact”) where a smooth edge should exist (because individual pixels are square and curved or diagonal lines can only be represented in a stepwise fashion).

So, pertaining to the images of the object I presented above ([qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=501&pictureid=3135[/qimg]) we get the effect seen. That is, blocks of shading rather than a continuum. One might argue that we lose detail within the object by sampling in this way, but one cannot argue that the general pattern of shading is erroneous. The pattern has become “stepped”, but within the limits of pixels, it remains a true representation of the underlying image.

The bottom line here is that in this video (http://history.nasa.gov/ap10fj/as10-video-library.htm - look for Magazine K - and I recommend viewing with VLC player for the functionality it supplies) we see an evidently spherical object of unknown size and unknown distance from the LM crossing our field of view. The critical point is that there should have been no such object out there! ...Unless of course someone can come up with a plausible mundane explanation as to why such an object was out there...

 

[Jocce]

Funny how the UFO debunkers only notice evidence that allegedly supports their claims, while ignoring any evidence that might not. 7 snapshots indeed… I provided 13 for you!

For some reason those 13 didn't show up before when I read your post. Thank you for proving my point though since it seems to stay within a 4x4 pixel area.

And I am sure you have the capability to undertake some investigation of the film yourself. And can you point to which 7 snapshots you are talking about?

Of course:
http://img18.imageshack.us/i/30837255.jpg/
http://img18.imageshack.us/i/27443219.jpg/
http://img821.imageshack.us/i/61207103.jpg/
http://img704.imageshack.us/i/64579357.jpg/
http://img189.imageshack.us/i/78197726.jpg/
http://img17.imageshack.us/i/68019137.jpg/
http://img130.imageshack.us/i/88122132.jpg/

Once again we merely have a generalised, unfounded assertion from a UFO debunker. Do they really think at this stage we would simply take such statements as true on faith?

At this point I don't think it even matters if you were given undeniable proof of anything. You cling desperately to your belief system and you just dismiss anything that threatens it.

The bright centre with progressively darker shading toward the edges is a consistent pattern certainly.

The pattern is not consistent other than that the central pixels are brighter (which would be expected anyway because of antialiasing effects. In some of your frames it is the 4 center pixels, in others it's a 2x3 grid and yet others it's 3x2.

Who says it is “a large object”? Who says it is “far away”?

Oh sorry, I thought you claimed that this was not debris or some other small object that was floating past the view. Maybe I misunderstood you then.

Once again all we have here is a set of unfounded assertions… I am beginning to think the UFO debunkers do not read any of my statements to them at all …what is so difficult about understanding that merely stating unfounded assertions does not make them true?

It's because your statements are just claims and not evidence. Although it is interesting to hear your opinions on misc. topics where you are clearly not an expert they remain uninformed opinions. It's also interesting how you, when it suits your purpose, claim that measurements, images etc. are perfect representations of reality but when the opposite is true, it's clearly an artefact from processing, bad quality in exactly that frame or whatever.

However, its sphericity is evidential. Let me be a little more clear. Within the set of pixels there is a consistent pattern of light and dark shading. The “central” pixels are always brighter than pixels further toward the edge – and this is a progressive and consistent pattern over the whole object. The limited resolution actually works in favour of the sphere hypothesis – it is the consistency of shading pattern of the object throughout the video that is telling in this regard.

Ok then, show me a sequence of images that proves that the object is not dome shaped with a flat bottom. Maybe you could provide a 4x4 image of a distant rock that clearly shows a different pattern? How about a water droplet? They are spherical...

I am not sure how your “antialiasing” is applicable here. Perhaps you mean something like

“The term aliasing pertains to the process of sampling something smooth and continuous using a series of discrete measurements. If the measurements do not accurately represent the function, unwanted artifacts which are not present in the original will appear. The appearance of these artifacts is referred to as aliasing.” (http://www.lunaloca.com/tutorials/antialiasing/)​

But I think you have misunderstood what the effect of aliasing has on an image. The effect is to produce a jagged edge (this is the “artifact”) where a smooth edge should exist (because individual pixels are square and curved or diagonal lines can only be represented in a stepwise fashion).

Then maybe you should check out the term I DID use instead? ANTIaliasing (hint: it's the opposite of producing jagged edges).

One might argue that we lose detail within the object by sampling in this way

Yes indeed, one might argue that. I think it's fair to say that we definately loose detail.

The pattern has become “stepped”, but within the limits of pixels, it remains a true representation of the underlying image.

How big an area would each pixel represent on different distances from the camera? Looking at that would help in assessing how much detail gets lost.

The bottom line here is that in this video (http://history.nasa.gov/ap10fj/as10-video-library.htm - look for Magazine K - and I recommend viewing with VLC player for the functionality it supplies)

I did.

Unless of course someone can come up with a plausible mundane explanation as to why such an object was out there...

Could be a rock...

 

[Jocce]

It becomes rather obvious that you have not actually read the article - because if you had - you would have found therein the specifications of the camera used to gather the data.

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

"35 mm Nikon camera"
"lens of either 55 or 300 mm focal length"
"film called SO-368 which is comparable to a type of Ektachrome (MS2448)"

These are not specifications. All we know is that it's some kind of Nikon camera that had a lense of either 55 or 300 mm and a film with unknown properties that is said to be (in some undefined way) comparable to a know format. Furthermore, the authors used a copy of that film with unknown properties and possible introduction of errors in the copying process.

Your claim that we have specifications is simply unsupported.

The whole measurement methods should also be exposed. Example: what sort instrument was used to measure the object’s size?

From the film you mean? A micrometer.

How do you know? It's not in the article. Furthermore, the author writes:

"The width of the image, measured from the middle "dot" to the end of the "extension" at the right side of the middle dot, is about 1/3 of the spacing between the upper and lower dots."

Why use such sloppy estimations if they have a micrometer and could measure with a high accuracy?

Have a look at the photos please. 2138 -2140 show a “dot” on the film. Any distortion in the copying process would have rendered these objects something other than a dot.

Obviously you have never developed film yourself if you if you think that single frames can't be affected by distortions in the development or copying process.

Normal people have a very good sense of time. If asked to estimate the span of a minute (for example), they can generally do so to within a second or two (many can actually get it bang on).

Source please.

In psychology, this fact can be (and is) used to test for the presence of mental disturbance (to put it at its most general). An erroneous estimate being diagnostic.

Source please.

Garriott also stated in his debrief “From the 5 to 10 second delay…”. Here I suspect that he was “building in” his own “margin of error”, but from what we know of perceptual research and what we know of Garriott’s actions (in actually, consciously counting the seconds), we can legitimately conclude that 5 – 6 seconds is probably an accurate estimate.

It must be nice to be able to just make such unsupported claims over an over again without any shame whatsoever. Source to perceptual research that supports your claim please.

“…the calculated distance between the Skylab and the object was (5 to 10 seconds) times 7.64 km/sec = 38 to 76 km.”.

we can now see that this statement from you ” One can only guess the precision of such estimates, but for sure they were enormous.” is erroneous.

If 38-76km is not an enormous error margin, then what is? You also conveniently skipped over this additional error source (that the authors aknowledged):

"Assuming that the fourth photo was taken just before Skylab went into the shadow (an "unfounded" assumption since we don't know at what times, during the sighting, any of the photos were taken)"

 

[Astrophotographer]

“no matter the camera position within the LM and no matter the subject outside the LM, these “light” artefacts remain precisely the same – unchanging, unmoved. It’s on the film Astro - an artefact on the film… please watch the whole film …all of it… from start to finish… you will see what I am talking about. There simply is NO internal lighting. All the light we can see is coming from outside the LM.

Let’s examine these possible “artifacts” you claim that have nothing to do with the LM interior lighting. Could it have been a development light leak? Not likely because the areas would vary from frame to frame and unevenly. Any film defects prior to exposure and development would be random and would not appear on the frames in the same place every time. We also have the test frame shot before launch at the beginning of the clip. It shows no sign of any artifacts. Why would the artifacts appear in the same parts of the exposed frames through the window but not in the test frame images? This is evidence that it is not a simple defect due to development or originally on the film.

You sound as if you have little idea on how film is exposed and developed. I had some experience when I used to develop my own negatives in slides in the 1980s. If you have a few 35mm negatives from different rolls lying around, you may notice that the frame borders show up in different locations. That is because the edges of the frame are established the instant the film is exposed. Each roll is unique because it was cut from a stock roll and fed into the camera slightly different. Since the “artifacts” always appear in the same spot on the frame, then one must draw the conclusion that these light images on the edges occurred when the frames were exposed and not before or after.

I also suggest you look at magazine L, where there is an interior film of the LM operations. The interior looks pretty well lit to me and the lighting (if it is from the moon itself or the interior lights could easily light up a small fragment floating about inside). Finally, the frames shot through the window on this roll of film ALSO show the same artifacts. What are the odds that two rolls of film would produce the same types of artifact? More evidence that these light patches happened during exposure and not before or after.



The only conclusion one can draw is that these light patches were produced by light inside the cabin of the LM (either by internal lighting or the bright surface of the moon) and not through any defects on the film created before or after exposure.

If the sun is directly “above” the scene (and even you acknowledge that), what possible calculations could I do that would add to that observation?

I would think it would be possible using the shadows you state you have observed, it should not be that hard to compute a position angle of the sun. It is data that can be used to evaluate your hypothesis. Failing to do so, I can only assume that you do not have enough data or are incapable of doing so. We can only assume that the sun is above the craft. We don't know if it is straight up, slightly to the right, slightly to the left, slightly behind the LM, or slightly behind the CSM.

However, if the object is further away and we are looking down on the object from relatively far away and it is travelling (relatively) horizontally (away from us), then the brightest spot on the object will remain facing toward us – and this is precisely what we DO see.

The optical problem with this theory is the angular size of the object must decrease as it moves farther away. It does not even in your greatly enlarged pixels (they all measure about 3-4 blocks/pixels across). No matter how far away the object began (unless we are declaring this a point source, which you are not), its angular size would decrease as it moves away. This does not happen. Perhaps you can explain this.

However The “problem with your science here” is that you do have not conducted any.

So, as a scientist, you choose not to employ any science to determine the objects shape but rely on “gut feel” on the equivalent of a Rorschach test. You just simply declare the object is spherical based on enlarging an object that can not be resolved as such given the limitations of the video clip. My claim is that it is simply a dot that can be any size or shape. How hard is that to accept? Why are you so married to the idea that it MUST be spherical in nature? If you can demonstrate it is spherical, I will accept it. However, you have not done so because it takes more than the “It is spherical because I say so” approach. I want to see you demonstrate it some other way.

Here is a series of snapshots of the object (taken at intervals of every 10 frames from when we first see the object to when it is close to the top of the frame – where a frame has fallen on a “smeared” object, I have simply moved to the next frame to take the snapshot…).

And you have simply enlarged the noise. The object is only a few pixels across and can not be resolved beyond the 1 pixel measurement. Making any determination about an object based on ½ or ¼ pixel shading is just not good science and exceeds the resolving capabilities of the clip you are examining. Compression artifacts and irregularities in the image can make it appear spherical to you but to others it is indistinct. For instance, in image #3 of the top row (going from left to right), we have a perfect square, Image #4 appears to be a cross, Image #5 is a rectangle with an extension on the right, etc. etc.

Two things are immediately notable. First the resolution is greater than your guess at 1 or 2 pixels (it is not so easy to see in this degraded sequence - necessary to fit within forum size limits, but the object is definitely defined within at least a 5x5 grid of pixels).

You can not resolve beyond 1 pixel. Suggesting you can is just not being very realistic with the data you have. It is GIGO. The original film was scanned and then compressed to a degree that you can download it on the internet. At 640X480 pixels you can not see anything beyond the smallest pixel at best. Even then, the compression technique can alter the appearance of the pixels and produce artifacts. Lastly, you have employed some form of image capture that also induces errors. If you simply used "Print screen" as the technique, the capture is not going to be entirely accurate. I used Roxio's video editor and I am sure that there are some problems with method as well. Suggesting the “shading” indicates “sphericity” is not good science. You have not even provided measurements to validate your claim.

The second thing to note is the pattern of light and shade within those pixels. There is definitely a “bright” centre with progressively darker shading as we get further away from the centre. This pattern of shading strongly suggests a sphere. Alternatively, what other shape can you think of that would produce such a consistent pattern of shading at such a resoution?

Where are your measurements to verify this? In some of these images, the brightest area is not in the center. For instance in the #4 image, the brightest area is not the four pixels defining then center but the one on the upper left. (it is 215 while the other three are 203 and 204). Image #6 shows the brightest area on the right two pixels (221 and 234 while the left are 203 and 204). Therefore, the brightest area is not exactly in the center and it varies from frame to frame. This is not what one would expect in your scenario of a perfect sphere evenly illuminated by the sun.

As for shapes, who is to say it is a “sphere”? Could it be a flat plate? Could it be a diamond? Could it be an octagon? Could it be a hexagon? What about a square? What makes you so sure that it is a sphere and what real science can you employ to verify this? These images show varying shapes and do not definitively show a sphere (except when you want it to). If I were to look at this assembly of images as my only source of data, I might suggest that it is an object that is irregular in shape seen at different angles.

Actually, I have been presenting the evidence for sphericity all along (culminating now in the above sequence), it seems you have simply have chosen to ignore it.

Nope, you just have not presented good reliable evidence that it is a sphere. You need to demonstrate the standards used to establish this? What data points are being used to evaluate “sphericity”? Until you can demonstrate how this is done, then you have not presented any evidence that suggests “sphericity” other than you declaring it a sphere based on your biased opinion on these images. I am merely of the opinion that one can not determine its shape or size, which is a valid approach. So far, you have made a poor case of demonstrating that this object is a sphere as you claim.

Please show me where I have stated or even implied a manufactured object of “alien” origin”. In fact I stated directly that:

By your own claim it is a sphere where you reject any mundane explanation for any other shape. Therefore it must be “alien” in nature/origin (by your definition). Because it is supposed to be a sphere, it can not be a fragment and therefore it must be manufactured in some way. Since you have implied that the object is moving not do to relative motion or orbital speed (you rejected the idea it could be a meteoroid) but its own motion, it must be artificial in nature. These are your arguments. If you want to clarify them, feel free to do so.

Please prove your “6 frames at random” assertion. There is simply no evidence of brightness fluctuation on the object.

I don’t have to because I presented them already. I thought the images were painfully obvious as I described. However, I can show you with your data. The leftmost dot has a level value of about 178, the #3 is 213, #4 is 203, and the rightmost has a level of 238. If you measure the brightest pixel in each of your frame selections, they have level values varying from 203 to 241. Therefore, it does change in brightness based on your own data.

any changes in brightness would seem most likely an artefact of this process (unless you are contending the object really does appear and disappear as it travels…). Indeed in the sequence of frames I have shown above, while the brightness varies to some minor degree, it does NOT do so to a greater degree than a comparative set of pixels from the CSM itself.

Feel free to demonstrate that they change as the same brightness levels as the moon or any other source in the sequence to prove your point. It seems that you consider these as artifacts but then choose to ignore the potential for artifacts in your enlarged images. Is that a scientific approach to evaluating the data?

You are simply incorrect. Only ONE of the vehicles was doing any “adjusting”. Think about it Astro… please… think about it for just a moment or two… (hint: imagine the exponential multiplicity of the level of difficulty if both vehicles were trying to maneuver to match orbital speed) ... okay, so… only one vehicle maneuvering... and if it is the LM, then no object “jetting away” unless the whole scene does too – and that is something we definitely do not see. If it is the CSM, then it moves as we see it move and again, no object "jetting away" as a result (and it IS the CSM doing the maneuvering - not only is this indicated in various transcripts from other parts of the flight - but also directly on the film because the CSM moves in relation to the moon while the LM does not (relative to both their motion around the moon of course)

Can you prove that only one vehicle was changing speed during this film clip? Do you have the data? Also, what you appear to be saying is that the LM had no way of changing its orbital speed by a small fraction so a small fragment could not move away from it (remember the camera was possibly filming at a reduced rate greatly exaggerating the speed)? If that were the case, then there would have been some serious potential for collision during docking operations as the astronauts would be able to make any fine adjustments in velocity. Think about that one. The only way you can prove the LM did not change speed is by present the actual flight data from the moment the film was taken. Let me know when you have that data.

 

[Astrophotographer]

The critical point is that there should have been no such object out there! ...Unless of course someone can come up with a plausible mundane explanation as to why such an object was out there...

And once again, you prove my point that it is your claim this is an object which is artificial ("should have been no such object out there" = no natural origin or from the spacecraft) that is "alien" in nature (by your definition of "alien"). Your rejection of any potential explanation is your opinion and it has been noted. You have presented absolutely no data or evidence that gives good reason to reject the possible explanations that have been offerred. You are basing your conclusions on belief and not science.

 

[Rramjet]

For some reason those 13 didn't show up before when I read your post. Thank you for proving my point though since it seems to stay within a 4x4 pixel area.

“Seems to stay”? Actually it is observably within a 5x5 grid of pixels. I find it fascinating how the UFO debunkers can simply deny the evidence, even when it is presented on the page before them. But so what… the whole point of the exercise was to indicate sphericity and the 4x4 grid of pixels will do just as well, if not better.

Thus, you have not answered my question. “What shaped object other than a sphere could produce such a consistent pattern of shading over the whole video”?
That is the question. That is the heart of the matter. Four, five, six pixels… this is just a distraction from the UFO debunkers – they simply will not (cannot) answer the critical question I just posed.

Of course:
http://img18.imageshack.us/i/30837255.jpg/
http://img18.imageshack.us/i/27443219.jpg/
http://img821.imageshack.us/i/61207103.jpg/
http://img704.imageshack.us/i/64579357.jpg/
http://img189.imageshack.us/i/78197726.jpg/
http://img17.imageshack.us/i/68019137.jpg/
http://img130.imageshack.us/i/88122132.jpg/

On the matter of your “snapshots” I meant: Where in the video did you select your seven “snapshots” from? I ask this merely because if I was so inclined I could hand select seven frames to prove my sphericity point much more strongly than I have done. I could even hand select seven frames to show that there is no object there at all…! So I am merely asking what your selection method was and where in the video you pulled your “snapshots” from? Moreover, your snapshots also seem to have had some sort of filter or process applied to them, as they are looking somewhat distorted and less clear and distinct that mine. In fact zooming in on them I notice there are artifacts in your image as if you had attempted to antialiase them. I therefore ask what process have you manipulated your images with here? Is not mentioning your obvious manipulation (compare them with mine by zooming in on both*) of your images here an attempt at deliberate subterfuge or deception?

*TIP: I use Image Zoom for Firefox (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/139/?advancedsearch=1) to allow instant zooming or rotation of images directly on a webpage by using the context menu or a combination of mouse buttons and scroll wheel)

At this point I don't think it even matters if you were given undeniable proof of anything. You cling desperately to your belief system and you just dismiss anything that threatens it.

Then you have simply ignored the evidence of my statements to you because by now you will (should) know that I will simply reply to such nonsense with: Merely stating generalised, unfounded assertions does not make them true. It never has, and it never will. You gotta admire the blind persistence though.

The pattern is not consistent other than that the central pixels are brighter (which would be expected anyway because of antialiasing effects. In some of your frames it is the 4 center pixels, in others it's a 2x3 grid and yet others it's 3x2.

Not only are the central pixels brighter but the surrounding pixels step down in brightness consistently around the whole object. They also do this consistently across the length of the video – something an object other than a sphere would be highly unlikely to do.

…and “antialiasing”? Do you even know what that means in relation to the video and to my snapshots derived from it? You have shown no indication that you do. You merely make the unfounded assertion. You provide no evidential support. You provide no rationale for the claim. Please stop throwing around unfounded assertions and do some proper analysis.

Oh sorry, I thought you claimed that this was not debris or some other small object that was floating past the view. Maybe I misunderstood you then.

Obviously.

It's because your statements are just claims and not evidence. Although it is interesting to hear your opinions on misc. topics where you are clearly not an expert they remain uninformed opinions. It's also interesting how you, when it suits your purpose, claim that measurements, images etc. are perfect representations of reality but when the opposite is true, it's clearly an artefact from processing, bad quality in exactly that frame or whatever.

Again we have a bunch of unfounded assertions with no basis in fact. When will UFO debunkers learn that merely stating such things does not, cannot, and never will replace sound scientific analysis backed by evidence? On the evidence it seems they simply cannot learn this lesson at least.

Ok then, show me a sequence of images that proves that the object is not dome shaped with a flat bottom.

Ah, at last, now we are getting somewhere. Show me any other space object (not manufactured) that does not spin or tumble as it travels through space. Such a shape as you describe would not produce a consistent pattern of brightness in the centre and progressively darker shading extending out to the edges in all directions, unless it had its “dome” facet facing us at all moments in time. If you can point to any other space rock that achieves this trick, then feel free to do so.

Maybe you could provide a 4x4 image of a distant rock that clearly shows a different pattern?

I can indeed. Here is a whole group of rocks that show differential patterns (even when nearly spherical) (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_gallery/photogallery-asteroids.html). Below is a series of images of Vesta (from the above site), rendered to the same pixel size as the object in the NASA video. As you can see by comparing the images on the website with the rendered image, the number of pixels is entirely sufficient to allow pattern differentiation.

How about a water droplet? They are spherical...

A water droplet cannot exist in space, it would vaporise (sublime) and then instantly freeze to a fine mist of ice crystals. For example:

“Finally, we have the question of liquids in space. In a vacuum most liquids have such a low boiling point that they vaporize almost instantly. For that reason, most substances exist in space in either the gaseous or the solid state. When the astronauts take a leak while on a mission and expel the result into space, it boils violently. The vapor then passes immediately into the solid state (a process known as desublimation), and you end up with a cloud of very fine crystals of frozen urine. Ooh, ick, the sixth graders may say, but I'm betting it's one physics demonstration they wouldn't soon forget.” (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/118/would-a-glass-of-water-in-space-freeze-or-boil)

Then maybe you should check out the term I DID use instead? ANTIaliasing (hint: it's the opposite of producing jagged edges).

So what is your point? You have shown no evidence that you even understand the process, let alone how it might apply in the current context (although I suspect that you attempted to utilise such a process on the images you supplied as examples above…).

How big an area would each pixel represent on different distances from the camera? Looking at that would help in assessing how much detail gets lost.

If this could be done then we could obtain a distance estimate for the object. Unfortunately it cannot be done.

Could be a rock...

Could it? How could it? A spherical rock? Where did it come from? Just asking…

 

[Rramjet]

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

"35 mm Nikon camera"
"lens of either 55 or 300 mm focal length"
"film called SO-368 which is comparable to a type of Ektachrome (MS2448)"

These are not specifications. All we know is that it's some kind of Nikon camera that had a lense of either 55 or 300 mm and a film with unknown properties that is said to be (in some undefined way) comparable to a know format. Furthermore, the authors used a copy of that film with unknown properties and possible introduction of errors in the copying process.

Your claim that we have specifications is simply unsupported.

Glad to see at least one person may have actually read the article before commenting.

Unfortunately you seem to have missed:

“…with a hand-held Nikon camera set at f/4.5 to f8 and with a shutter time of 1/500 to 1/250 of a second.” (http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/SL3.html)​

But what is your point here? Are you claiming that NASA would use substandard film? Surely we can assume the film was adequate for the task – indeed the photos indicate that it was. The only other critical thing was the lens – and here it is almost certain that it was the 300mm lens used… however, as I pointed out in my previous post, if it was the 55mm lens, then the calculated size of the object would have been much larger than that cited by the authors. They used the 300mm lens for their calculations and this is the conservative way to go. I also described the fact that previous and post images on the same roll of film show no distortions (errors in the copying process), and three of the four critical photos show mere dots, so that any errors would have made them into something else – so there is no reason to assume the copying process had anything to do with the image… but I described all this in my previous post. Just another example of a UFO debunker ignoring the evidence I guess.

How do you know? It's not in the article. Furthermore, the author writes:

"The width of the image, measured from the middle "dot" to the end of the "extension" at the right side of the middle dot, is about 1/3 of the spacing between the upper and lower dots."

Why use such sloppy estimations if they have a micrometer and could measure with a high accuracy?

I take back my assessment that you have actually read the article. I am disappointed but not surprised. Had you read the article you would have found:

“ On a direct copy (1:1) of the original film the maximum spacing between "dots," specifically the spacings betwee the centers of the upper and lower dots is about 0.87 mm. The focal length of the camera was (probably) 300 mm (it might have been 55 mm; see below). Thus the ratio I/F equals about 0.87/300 = 0.0029 (in radian measure) (or, if the focal length was 55 mm, the ratio is .87/55 = 0.0158). As pointed out above, this ratio is proportional to the object size, as measured perpendicular the line of sight (i.e., as "projected" onto a plane surface that is perpendicular to the line of sight), divided by the distance.” (http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/SL3.html)​

The authors then go on to use the time between the object and Skylab (5 – 10 secs, in conjunction with the speed of Skylab - 7.64 km/sec) to obtain a distance between them (between 38 and 76 km). Using that they then estimated the size of the object (between 110m and 220m).

They then go on to do something else which has direct bearing on your statement above:

“The width of the image, measured from the middle "dot" to the end of the "extension" at the right side of the middle dot, is about 1/3 of the spacing between the upper and lower dots. Thus the width would be about 37 m or 112 ft if 38 km away and 74 m or 224 ft if 76 km away.” (http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/SL3.html)​

(Bolding mine: Rr)

Recognise your quote here Jocce? The direct measurements provided an overall size for the object (LENGTH). Then they used the third “extension” of the object to estimate WIDTH. Direct measurement here would not have been appropriate because we cannot be sure of the angle of the “extension”. That is it could have been much longer – so they did a “quick and dirty estimate” to show the minimum estimated width of the object.

In true scientific conservatism, they measured accurately where they could (length), but where they could not they gave us a minimum estimate. All entirely conservative and on the lower error bounds providing the estimate with the smallest possible error margins. One could argue that the length could have similar problems to width measurement, but if so, then again, the size would have been much larger than estimated.

“Now let's assume that the various dots that form the fourth image are reflections from points or small reflective areas of a "typical" earth satellite (manmade!). Then this calculation indicates that the spacing between two reflective portions of the satellite was 336 or more feet. However, in 1973 there was no satellite remotely approaching that size (and only the space station is comparable now, over 30 years later). (NOTE: The Skylab-3 itself with docked Apollo module was the largest satellite object in orbit at the time, about 150 feet long.)

The calculation just done is a lower bound on the spacing between the outermost lights for the assumed distance” (http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/SL3.html)​

Obviously you have never developed film yourself if you if you think that single frames can't be affected by distortions in the development or copying process.

Ah, so that is what it has come down to now? The whole thing is merely an artefact of the copying process? On a single frame where all around it are just fine? Surely you can do better than that unlikely, implausible scenario (as I noted above and in my previous post)?

I stated:
“Normal people have a very good sense of time. If asked to estimate the span of a minute (for example), they can generally do so to within a second or two (many can actually get it bang on).”

Source please

For example:
“In an experiment comparing a group of subjects aged between 19 and 24 and a group between 60 and 80 asked to estimate when they thought 3 minutes had passed, it was found that the younger group's estimate was on average 3 minutes and 3 seconds, while the older group averaged 3 minutes and 40 seconds;[13] time seemed to pass more quickly for the older group.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense_of_time)

Now the Apollo astronauts were relatively young and the time interval estimate in question was a matter of 5 to 6 seconds. Even Correa Neto’s “enormous” error margins will not make an estimation of a period of 5 to 6 seconds into something else.

I stated:
“In psychology, this fact can be (and is) used to test for the presence of mental disturbance (to put it at its most general). An erroneous estimate being diagnostic.”

Source please.

For example: (http://www.unisci.com/stories/20011/0227013.htm)

It must be nice to be able to just make such unsupported claims over an over again without any shame whatsoever. Source to perceptual research that supports your claim please.

I make such statements because they are supported by evidence. My record in this thread speaks for itself. I may make mistakes every so often, but I have never set out to dishonestly claim something that cannot be supported by the evidence.

If 38-76km is not an enormous error margin, then what is?

38 to 76km is “enormous? We are talking about orbits and distances of many many thousands of kilometres and you contend 30 odd kilometres is an “enormous” error?

You also conveniently skipped over this additional error source (that the authors aknowledged): "Assuming that the fourth photo was taken just before Skylab went into the shadow (an "unfounded" assumption since we don't know at what times, during the sighting, any of the photos were taken)"

The object was observed by the astronauts over a period of 10 minutes. According to the astronauts, it was following Skylab at a steady distance (tracking at a similar orbital speed). Remember they were in daylight at the time and would have had the earth and its horizon to reference the objects motion in relation to themselves. The only thing they could not be sure about was the distance/size relationship. However, as they went into darkness, they noted the time the object followed them into darkness, and thus we are able to estimate a size from the photos they took.

 

[Jocce]

Glad to see at least one person may have actually read the article before commenting.

Unfortunately you seem to have missed:

“…with a hand-held Nikon camera set at f/4.5 to f8 and with a shutter time of 1/500 to 1/250 of a second.” (http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/SL3.html)​

So what was it set to? f4.5? f8?, Shutter speed 1/250 or 1/500? Those are details that you just gloss over and pretend that it doesn't make a difference.

But what is your point here? Are you claiming that NASA would use substandard film? Surely we can assume the film was adequate for the task

Was that task to take photos that resolve detail in what, to the naked eye, looks like point sources?

The only other critical thing was the lens – and here it is almost certain that it was the 300mm lens used

I rest my case.

however, as I pointed out in my previous post, if it was the 55mm lens, then the calculated size of the object would have been much larger

If, in fact, there was actual strucure seen in the film and not a somewhat shaky photograper.

I also described the fact that previous and post images on the same roll of film show no distortions (errors in the copying process)

Please show that it would be impossible for one single frame on a roll of film to be affected by disturbances during development.

and three of the four critical photos show mere dots

.

A fact that makes it more likely that there was some problem with un steady camera or disturbance during development. I haven't seen any of the austronauts report that they saw any structure.

I take back my assessment that you have actually read the article. I am disappointed but not surprised. Had you read the article you would have found:

...not what I was asking for. I asked you how you know they use a micrometer.

In true scientific conservatism, they measured accurately where they could (length), but where they could not they gave us a minimum estimate.

So they thought it was ok to assume that the length was perpendicular to camera but not the width. I see...

Ah, so that is what it has come down to now? The whole thing is merely an artefact of the copying process? On a single frame where all around it are just fine? Surely you can do better than that unlikely, implausible scenario (as I noted above and in my previous post)?

Still a more plausible scenario than an object unknown to mankind.

I stated:
“Normal people have a very good sense of time. If asked to estimate the span of a minute (for example), they can generally do so to within a second or two (many can actually get it bang on).”

For example:
“In an experiment comparing a group of subjects aged between 19 and 24 and a group between 60 and 80 asked to estimate when they thought 3 minutes had passed, it was found that the younger group's estimate was on average 3 minutes and 3 seconds, while the older group averaged 3 minutes and 40 seconds;[13] time seemed to pass more quickly for the older group.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense_of_time)

Now the Apollo astronauts were relatively young and the time interval estimate in question was a matter of 5 to 6 seconds. Even Correa Neto’s “enormous” error margins will not make an estimation of a period of 5 to 6 seconds into something else.

Ok, so you were exaggerating a bit with your 1-2 seconds precision then? How old were the austronauts?

I stated:
“In psychology, this fact can be (and is) used to test for the presence of mental disturbance (to put it at its most general). An erroneous estimate being diagnostic.”

For example: (http://www.unisci.com/stories/20011/0227013.htm)

So your claim is that this article proves that people who can't estimate time better than with a 1-2 seconds (over a minute) margin has a mental disturbance? Wow...I need to see a doctor. I was actually trying to do the counting method the austronauts used and I was really surprised how fast you need to count to get it right. First try I got 9 seconds...

38 to 76km is “enormous? We are talking about orbits and distances of many many thousands of kilometres and you contend 30 odd kilometres is an “enormous” error?

We're not talking about orbits. We're talking about the distance between two objects and the error margin is 25%. Would you say that an estimate of 0-38km gives a small error margin?

The object was observed by the astronauts over a period of 10 minutes. According to the astronauts, it was following Skylab at a steady distance (tracking at a similar orbital speed). Remember they were in daylight at the time and would have had the earth and its horizon to reference the objects motion in relation to themselves. The only thing they could not be sure about was the distance/size relationship. However, as they went into darkness, they noted the time the object followed them into darkness, and thus we are able to estimate a size from the photos they took.

Why do you write such a long piece of text when you still don't respond to what I posted? It is ASSUMED that the photo was taken when they went into shadow. But it is an UNFOUNDED assumption. Get it now?

 

[Correa Neto]

It becomes rather obvious that you have not actually read the article - because if you had - you would have found therein the specifications of the camera used to gather the data.

It is becoming rather obvious that either you are reading an article other than the one you linked for or that you are nowhere close to understanding the required standards for a scientific work.

As Jocce wrote, all the text has to say on the camera is

These photos were taken with a 35 mm Nikon camera with a lens of either 55 or 300 mm focal length using a film called SO-368 which is comparable to a type of Ektachrome (MS2448).

These are not proper camera specs. Correct camera specs should have included camera and lens model, among other data. Note also that further ahead the authors state that there were five Nikon cameras aboard. Were all of them of the same model?

From the film you mean? A micrometer.

Where is this stated at the article? How you obtained this information? Are you assuming it was a micrometer?

Assuming it was a micrometer, indeed, what was the model, what was the precision of the instrument and exactly how the measurements were taken?

Perhaps you should actually read the article? The size calculations and how they were obtained are contained therein. I asked you to do so in my previous post to you on this subject. Can you please explain why you have not done so if you are pretending to a serious discussion here?

Given the many errors you’ve been making since the start of this thread, I suspect you are the one pretending things here.

I have contacted Dr Maccabee on this issue and he has stated that at the time he obtained copies in the form of “a film strip of 35 mm pix from 2137 through 2142.” direct (in person) from “Bara photo ... (who was) ...in charge of the NASA archive at that time” (in Washington DC).

This information was not available in the text and you had to contact him to acquire. Was this also how you obtained the information regarding the use of a micrometer? A good scientific work should contain detailed info on evidence chain of custody and acquisition methods. And this is not present at the text you linked.

Note also that the information you provided is not enough.

Have a look at the photos please. 2138 -2140 show a “dot” on the film. Any distortion in the copying process would have rendered these objects something other than a dot. 2141 (the photo of interest) was copied using the same process at the same time as the preceding (and following) photos – on the same single strip of 35mm film (the same size as the original film). No distortion is apparent on the preceding (or following) photos.

What sort of processes were used to rule out or to deal with eventual distortions created by the copying/development processes? These questions should have been answered at the text. No, it does not mean you provided an answer. You merely stated that no distortion is apparent, and this is far from showing there is none.

Sure, “counting the seconds” is not millisecond precise, but it IS precise enough in the context.

Merely saying it is will not be enough, you must try to show it is. What do you consider as “precise enough”? Do not forget to expose the reasons.

Normal people have a very good sense of time. If asked to estimate the span of a minute (for example), they can generally do so to within a second or two (many can actually get it bang on).

Prove it. By the way, why don’t you try checking the effects of this +2s in the size estimates?

Garriott states directly that the object “followed us into darkness about 5-seconds later”. From studies of human perception of time, we might assume this to be fairly accurate. Confirming this assessment we have from the article itself:
“Sparks asked how Garriott estimated the time until the "satellite" went into the shadow. Garriott said he counted off the seconds as "one thousand one, one thousand two", etc. and estimated 5 to 6 seconds this way.” (http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/SL3.html)

5 to 6 seconds +what? Would that be 5+3s or 6+3s?

However, Garriott also stated in his debrief “From the 5 to 10 second delay…”. Here I suspect that he was “building in” his own “margin of error”, but from what we know of perceptual research and what we know of Garriott’s actions (in actually, consciously counting the seconds), we can legitimately conclude that 5 – 6 seconds is probably an accurate estimate.

Oh, now it became 5 to 10s. What’s this? 7.5+2.5s? Maybe between 5+?s and 10+?s… What are th possible values for “?”? 3 seconds? 5 seconds?

You suspect the astronaut was “building in” his own “margin of error”… How scientific. You are just trying to find ways to rationalize, to find an excuse for, the acceptance of an imprecise, qualitative at best, measurement and its later use in calculations which match the conclusion you want to reach- “beyond the borders of what we call nature”.

The authors of the article however, actually maintain a margin of error here (5 – 10 secs) and use both the upper and lower limits in further calculations – and on the evidence, this is actually quite conservative of them.

By now you should be aware that this is not how one must express the margin of error of a measurement, right? You should also be aware that is pretty much useless, since the distance between the object and Skylab is an unknown variable. This also shows the errors in these next comments by you:

Concerning the distance between Skylab and the object then, in the article (that you really should have read by now) the authors first state:

“…the calculated distance between the Skylab and the object was (5 to 10 seconds) times 7.64 km/sec = 38 to 76 km.”.

Now, as you seem to have not understood the concept of error margins in an applied setting (as opposed to some theoretical formulation divorced from application), the following statement should be of interest to you.

Thus we have the first error margin in a distance calculation (bounded between 38 and 76 km).

Obviously your contention of “enormous margins of error” and “wild guesses” can now (in turn) be assessed for what they actually are – subjective emotional appeals, rather than a true scientific assessment. Thus also we can now see that this statement from you ” One can only guess the precision of such estimates, but for sure they were enormous.” is erroneous. We KNOW the “precision of such estimates” and they have been described by the authors.

Again, I suggest you should start reading about how error margins of measurements and calculations are evaluated and stated.

Not only that, but the authors indicate that they are perfectly aware of possible sources of error in their measurements of distance taken from the photos. Thus:
“The calculation just done is a lower bound on the spacing between the outermost lights” (http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/SL3.html)
(Bolding mine: Rr)

Maybe they are aware. They have not, however, used it to carry on a proper error analysis.

Now tell me Correa Neto…what does “lower bound” mean to you in this context? Of course it means that in taking the measurement from the photo, they used the most conservative number from those measurements – as any true scientist understanding the effects of possible error would. And the following paragraph in the article describes in detail also what “minimum distance” means in this context.

“Lower bound”? To me it means nothing. The errors in estimating this “lower bound” and “most conservative number” have not been dealt with.

Actually, it “may have been” a 55mm lens… can you describe the error bounds on your erroneous statement here? …but let us not get bogged down in “minor” details shall we?

The assumption that it was actually the 300mm lens used arises from the fact that the NASA photo index indicates that the photo(s) preceding (on the same roll of film) the four in question (of the object) were taken with a Nikon with the 300mm lens attached. The authors state (quite reasonably) that:
“we believe it highly unlikely that they would have changed the lens on this camera if they wanted to take wide angle (55 mm) photos since they had four other Nikon cameras available, several of which had 55 mm lenses. We assume that Garriott simply grabbed a Nikon with the 300 mm lens, namely, the one used many days before during the beacon experiment.)” (http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/SL3.html)

“We believe”, “we assume”. Can they prove? Can they vouch for it? Just like you, they can only assume, suppose, not just on this issue, but in many others. They built a castle of cards based on these assumptions and beliefs.

You might consider this as reasonable. I do not.

Not a “zoom”. A set focal length lens.

Where have you found this information? I could not find it at the article. You asked the authors? Are you assuming again?

Important issues obviously accounted for in the text of the article. Perhaps you should read the article, otherwise “any further discussions will be useless”?

Your statement about these issues having been obviously accounted are evidence of how unused you are to scientific works, despite your claims. Perhaps if you read real scientific articles you would understand the differences. UFOlogy is not science.

You are simply incorrect here. If it was a simple “shaky long exposure”, there would be no blobs – just a (perhaps convoluted) continuous steak of light. To get a blob (or blobs), one needs to hold the camera steady. Moreover, in the previous photos in the series there is absolutely no evidence of any shakiness whatsoever – there is none in the photo of interest either (2141).

In a "normal" squiggly image due to hand vibration, when the total image is concentrated near the centre of the photo - as in this case (i.e., when the squiggle lines do not go off the edge of the photo) - there are only two ends - one of which corresponds to the image location on the focal plane when the shutter opened - and the other end which corresponds to where the image was when the shutter closed. The image in the fourth photo appears to have three "ends" of red lines.

Further: the camera with a 300 mm lens had considerable inertia, resisting hand vibration and the shutter speed was probably faster than 1/100 sec (other photos were taken at 1/250 to 1/500 sec). There were no vibrations of the Skylab 3 so any such vibration would be due to hand holding the camera, but in free fall (in orbit) the cameraman was not fighting the weight of the camera, so this would reduce hand vibration.

Nope, you are the one completely incorrect here. You are not very used to photography, are you?

First of all, for the streak of light to be continuous and homogeneous, the camera’s shaky movement (velocity) should have been homogeneous, in order for the film to have received the same amount of light along the apparent path. You tell me if it is reasonable for this to be accomplished by a shaky hand while taking a picture of a small point light. Note also that the streak of red light links the “ends” or claimed-to-be individual lights attached to some structure. This is exactly what one would expect in a shaky long exposure picture of a point light.

Second, the fact that the previous images were not shaky is absolutely irrelevant, since it by no means will force that particular image to be sharp. You know you just made a logical fallacy, don’t you?

Third, where you took the assertion that there should be only two ends for the recorded light path in long exposure shaky pictures of point lights? There may be one, two, three, four, etc. It all depends on how the camera was moved.

Fourth- have you ever had any experience with a camera with different objectives, say, changing between 55mm and 300mm? Have you ever noticed how it is actually harder to keep a steady hand with the larger lenses with more mass? Got any idea on the reasons why?

Fifth- who said vibrations from Skylab would be required to create a shaky picture? All it takes is the photographer not managing to correctly hold the camera or to track the object.

They have been provided in the article. But I asked how you would do it.

I answered- I would not because the original data and the methods are way too riddled with errors to be of any meaning. I pointed you towards how error propagation estimate should have been made IF the original measures had appropriate error margins. Your failure to understand this is a testimony to your lack of familiarity with science.

This is just a bunch of unfounded, generalised assertion and as I have pointed out so many times now that it is becoming ridiculous, merely stating unfounded assertions does not make them true.

You mean like the many you have the habit of making throughout this thread? Like those about cameras, rear radar warning systems of F4s, communications tracking antennas from Apollo spacecraft, cameras, squids being fishes, no such thing as bad evidence, I could go on but i would be overkill.

Finally: You seem to be missing the main point, sort of like missing the forest by concentrating on individual trees. There was something "out there" near the Skylab 3. It was red. This conclusion is based on the visual sighting by all three astronauts and by the photos. There were no red satellites, so what was it? Why was it close enough for the astronauts to see? Why was it travelling along with the Skylab3 (which travelled a quite a distance during the sighting)? Why did it "go out" seconds after Skylab 3 went into the earth’s shadow? These are the questions that really need answering… not some frivolous distraction about “error margins”.

Ah, it was red so it must have been related to “aliens from beyond the borders of what we call nature”. I can’t find an explanation, thus it must be [aliens, ghosts, god, bigfoot, add fringe subject of your choice here]. What an amazing piece of reasoning.

What was it? I do not know. This fact does not automatically turns “aliens from beyond the borders of what we call nature” in to a plausible explanation.

Why was it close enough to be seen by the astronauts? I don’t know. But is there any reason needed other than because it happened to be close enough?

Why was it travelling along with Skylab? I don’t know. Actually I don’t know if it was “travelling along” with Skylab. I am at a plane at night. I look through the window and I see the lights of another plane at an unknown distance. It seems to be following a path parallel to mine’s and disappears after some time. Does it means if was “following along” my plane? The article you linked to at any moment manages to prove the light was “following along” Skylab.

Why did it “go out” after Skylab entered Earth’s shadow? I don’t know. Are you sure “aliens from beyond the borders of what we call nature” are the most plausible option? Actually can you really be sure it "got out" after enereing in Earth's shadow cone?

And the error margins of the estimates is actually a crucial issue, since it blows away the size, speed, trajectory and distance estimates presented by the authors, leaving nothing but the red color as an enigmatic feature. Anyone with a basic understanding of how science works would understand that.

[quote-Rramjet]The authors concluded:
“Based on the available information, these authors conclude that there was no man-made satellite that could explain this sighting and hence the object was truly anomalous.” (http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/SL3.html)
Indeed!
(...and perhaps if you had only read the article, you might not be lead into making erroneous statements about what the authors did or did not conclude?)[/quote]

Please, Rramjet, we all know what’s implied here, we all know what you and the authors are pointing towards. It is not about unknown natural phenomena. You folks are proposing some UFOs, in this specific case the light sighted and imaged by Skylab crew, are the products of sentient non-terrestrial beings.

PS: Could you please explain your claim of “aliens from beyond the borders of what we call nature”. I am not sure I understand to what you are referring. Is this a new definition of yours concerning ET? You also place the statement in quotes as if you have sourced it from somewhere. Perhaps you can provide that source?

You are the source of this silly definition! You are the one whom more than once at this thread proposed UFOs are somehow linked to “aliens beyond the borders of what we call nature”, attempting to lump inside this sentence (which by the way seems to have came out right from some B-movie) a number of ideas proposed by UFOlogists to “explain” UFO lore. Sentient beings from other planets would be one of them, just like secret craft, unknown natural phenomena, sentient beings from other universe, Valeès nonsense, manifestations of Jungian archetypes, unknown terrestrial civilizations and other ideas, some of which (as well as most of the previously cited at this sentence) are very crazy.

Now, don’t you think it is about time for you to start learning something about real science?

 

[Frying Dutchmen]

Glad to see at least one person may have actually read the article before commenting.

Unfortunately you seem to have missed:

“…with a hand-held Nikon camera set at f/4.5 to f8 and with a shutter time of 1/500 to 1/250 of a second.” (http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/SL3.html)​

But what is your point here? Are you claiming that NASA would use substandard film? Surely we can assume the film was adequate for the task – indeed the photos indicate that it was. The only other critical thing was the lens – and here it is almost certain that it was the 300mm lens used… however, as I pointed out in my previous post, if it was the 55mm lens, then the calculated size of the object would have been much larger than that cited by the authors. They used the 300mm lens for their calculations and this is the conservative way to go. I also described the fact that previous and post images on the same roll of film show no distortions (errors in the copying process), and three of the four critical photos show mere dots, so that any errors would have made them into something else – so there is no reason to assume the copying process had anything to do with the image… but I described all this in my previous post. Just another example of a UFO debunker ignoring the evidence I guess.

I'm a bit camera guy and I feel that this

“…with a hand-held Nikon camera set at f/4.5 to f8 and with a shutter time of 1/500 to 1/250 of a second.” (http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/SL3.html)​

isn't a acceptable investigation into the lens focus of the camera . So I found a website for you to read http://www.uscoles.com/fstop.htm I hope it helps you understand that between f/4.5 and f8 there is a a large difference. Also adding the 300mm lens they had adds to the problem working out the amount of light coming into the lens.

I had a look for the film specs for the Nikon handheld and I found this;
http://apollo.sese.asu.edu/RESOURCES/apollo_films.txt
and
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4209/photo.htm

Why do you feel that Bruce Maccabee and Brad Sparks' work on this sighting to one of the best evidence of UFO's being ALIEN?

And why didn't Bruce Maccabee and Brad Sparks look up the specs of the film used by the 35mm camera since the one they quoted to be used was being used for another camera?

Also why is a digital zoom on photos is good enough to use when looking at photos that were taken by a 35mm camera?

 

[Bell]

Let’s examine these possible “artifacts” you claim that have nothing to do with the LM interior lighting. Could it have been a development light leak? Not likely because the areas would vary from frame to frame and unevenly. Any film defects prior to exposure and development would be random and would not appear on the frames in the same place every time. We also have the test frame shot before launch at the beginning of the clip. It shows no sign of any artifacts. Why would the artifacts appear in the same parts of the exposed frames through the window but not in the test frame images? This is evidence that it is not a simple defect due to development or originally on the film.

You sound as if you have little idea on how film is exposed and developed. I had some experience when I used to develop my own negatives in slides in the 1980s. If you have a few 35mm negatives from different rolls lying around, you may notice that the frame borders show up in different locations. That is because the edges of the frame are established the instant the film is exposed. Each roll is unique because it was cut from a stock roll and fed into the camera slightly different. Since the “artifacts” always appear in the same spot on the frame, then one must draw the conclusion that these light images on the edges occurred when the frames were exposed and not before or after.

I also suggest you look at magazine L, where there is an interior film of the LM operations. The interior looks pretty well lit to me and the lighting (if it is from the moon itself or the interior lights could easily light up a small fragment floating about inside). Finally, the frames shot through the window on this roll of film ALSO show the same artifacts. What are the odds that two rolls of film would produce the same types of artifact? More evidence that these light patches happened during exposure and not before or after.

View attachment 18501

The only conclusion one can draw is that these light patches were produced by light inside the cabin of the LM (either by internal lighting or the bright surface of the moon) and not through any defects on the film created before or after exposure.

I haven't read the whole thread, so excuse me if this has been brought up before. Could these artifacts on the films be produced by a light leak in the camera itself (how unlikely that might seem though)?

Also, why are pixels examined, where the original source is analogue film? The random scattering of film grain does not coincide with pixels, so imho that's a poor starting point for examining the different artifacts.

Once again all we have here is a set of unfounded assertions… I am beginning to think the UFO debunkers do not read any of my statements to them at all …what is so difficult about understanding that merely stating unfounded assertions does not make them true?

You do know that this also goes for interpreting blobs and spots as UFO's / flying saucers?

 

[Rramjet]

Any film defects prior to exposure and development would be random and would not appear on the frames in the same place every time.

What about a camera leak? And what is the dark “shape” down the right side of the video? Was the camera faulty in some way?

 

[Rramjet]

You sound as if you have little idea on how film is exposed and developed.

Unfounded assertion. Merely stating unfounded assertions does not make them true.

 

[Rramjet]

I also suggest you look at magazine L, where there is an interior film of the LM operations. The interior looks pretty well lit to me…

Magazine L at (http://history.nasa.gov/ap10fj/as10-video-library.htm)? So how do you determine (with what parameters do you determine) that the “interior looks pretty well lit” from INTERNAL lighting? It is patently obvious that the lighting is ALL sunlight coming in through the window. I see no other source of light at all in the video in magazine L. Perhaps though you can point out the source of your internal lighting?