UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Astrophotographer]

Moreover, because of the differential shading artefacts (caused by the relatively poor resolution, the video frame rate and the fact that the object is in motion), your “hand selecting” of various individual pixels is an erroneous and unscientific method of sampling – the scientific method would be to average the brightness across the whole image, then note the variation frame to frame and then conduct a similar comparative analysis on a set of the same number of pixels of comparative initial average brightness that one would expect to be most stable (like from the CSM). That is science Astrophotographer – what you have done here is pseudoscience.

I am not the scientist. You are. I have pointed out that the image brightness varies. You are required to present evidence it does not. This is your claim (that there is no fluctuation in brightness). I attempted to put numbers on these values. You rationalize that it is pseudoscience but you have not presented one iota of evidence other than "it is because I say so". Feel free to step beyond that methodology to prove your claim.

 

[Jocce]

The only explanation for no variation in the size was the object were moving parallel to the camera.

There might be another explanation. If the object is so small it could for all practical purposes be considered a point source, the "shading" around it could well be either a diffraction pattern from lens or window or simply an artifact from compression. Of course, a point source has no shape so rramjet is wrong with his sphere claim anyway.

 

[Astrophotographer]

There might be another explanation. If the object is so small it could for all practical purposes be considered a point source, the "shading" around it could well be either a diffraction pattern from lens or window or simply an artifact from compression. Of course, a point source has no shape so rramjet is wrong with his sphere claim anyway.

Very possible. However, I think I figured out the "dark shape" that appears on the right side of all the LM window shots. According to this website:

http://history.nasa.gov/ap10fj/as10-video-library.htm

Right Angle Mirror. This accessory, when attached to the bracket-mounted 16-mm camera and lens, facilitates photography through the spacecraft rendezvous windows along a line of sight parallel to the CM X-axis with a minimum of interference to the crewmen. It adapts to the 18-mm and 75-mm lenses by means of bayonet fittings.

The camera was probably shooting through the right angle mirror and there was something on the mirror (very close to the camera and out of focus) that produced the dark shape. The instant the mirror was removed for interior filming, the dark shape disappeared. If this is true, then it agrees with my analysis that whatever was on the film was recorded at the instant of exposure. The LM interior was obviously not dark and was causing the flashes of light visible on the edges. This also could illuminate a something small that passed between the camera and the window (or outside it). So far, nothing that Rramjet has presented has refuted this possibility.

It is the most likely source of the object and it seems the astronauts were oblivious to the object's existence. No mention of it exists in the tapes and the craft did not attempt to avoid it by adjusting their trajectory. As a result, they either did not see it (because it was way too small or inside the cabin) or ignored it because of the mundane nature of what it was (they saw it as a bit of debris that was moving by the craft, which was sped up by a slow frame rate used by the camera).

 

[Bell]

Very possible. However, I think I figured out the "dark shape" that appears on the right side of all the LM window shots. According to this website:

http://history.nasa.gov/ap10fj/as10-video-library.htm

Right Angle Mirror. This accessory, when attached to the bracket-mounted 16-mm camera and lens, facilitates photography through the spacecraft rendezvous windows along a line of sight parallel to the CM X-axis with a minimum of interference to the crewmen. It adapts to the 18-mm and 75-mm lenses by means of bayonet fittings.

<snip>

Would this mean the images on the film are captured mirrored (up is down, but left is left) compared to film exposed only through a lens (up is down, left is right)? If so the original film (including the film edge) can proof or disproof this.

 

[Rramjet]

I don’t have time to individually reply to all the posts here but I will make some general comments.

I want to make one thing absolutely clear at the outset. I have never claimed that the objects under discussion below somehow represent ET or “aliens in spacecraft from other worlds” or anything of the kind. They are merely UFOs. Anomalous objects for which no plausible mundane explanation has so far been forthcoming.


Apollo 10 (22 May 1969)
(http://history.nasa.gov/ap10fj/as10-video-library.htm - Magazine K)

There has been a lot of unfounded assertion about “artifacts” (compression, digitisation, etc). Nothing specific mind you, just the general assertion of the possibility. However, until UFO debunkers can point out specifically what they refer to here and how their alleged “artifacts” have specifically affected the film/images, then their claims will remain mere unfounded assertion and as such we are entitled to dismiss them without further consideration.

I on the other hand have demonstrated specific artefacts in the film. For example there are definite artefacts causing brightness variations in the images. This was determined by comparing the brightness fluctuations of the object with fluctuations in the known objects (which should have been stable) such as the CSM. There are also other artefacts such as the “smearing” of the object image across frames (and its complete disappearance in a few of them). These are caused by a combination of low resolution and the video frame rate.

It is also clear that we are able to resolve the object down to a resolution of about a 5x5 grid of pixels (and thus not a “point source” as some have claimed) and this is entirely adequate to observe the shading/brightness patterns on the image to determine that the object is spherical. I have demonstrated this here:

([QIMG]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=501&pictureid=3135[/QIMG])

And have also shown this is a legitimate conclusion based on the fact that we can determine variations in shading pattern at the specified resolution by showing the images here: ([QIMG]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=501&pictureid=3149[/QIMG]} in comparison to the original Vesta photos here (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/planetary/asteroid/hst_vesta.jpg)

What the UFO debunkers have NOT been able to show is that any other shaped object (other than a sphere) could have produced the shading patterns observed.

As for the object being something small and inside the LM: Certainly it was not dark inside the LM, but the light illuminating the inside was coming from the outside (as evidenced in this video: (http://history.nasa.gov/ap10fj/as10-video-library.htm - Magazine L), meaning any object between the camera and the window would have been illuminated from the opposite side to the camera and thus could not display the bright spot in the central region (as observed). In fact it would have a darkspot there. Simple applied physics.

One thing that does seem apparent is that Astrophotogrpaher is probably correct when he asserts that:

“ …I think I figured out the "dark shape" that appears on the right side of all the LM window shots. According to this website:

http://history.nasa.gov/ap10fj/as10-video-library.htm

Right Angle Mirror. This accessory, when attached to the bracket-mounted 16-mm camera and lens, facilitates photography through the spacecraft rendezvous windows along a line of sight parallel to the CM X-axis with a minimum of interference to the crewmen. It adapts to the 18-mm and 75-mm lenses by means of bayonet fittings.”/I]​

THIS would also explain why the images are reversed back and forth in various incarnations of the film (NASA documentaries, YouTube footage, etc). No-one is any longer quite sure of which way round it should be presented!

However, the conclusion that the “light patches” most apparent in the upper and lower right corners of the film (but also present in the other corners) are from internal LM lighting is erroneous.

I agree that the interior was not dark, because there was a great deal of reflected light from outside lighting the scene, and this light obviously overwhelmed whatever interior light there might have been – as is evidenced in Magazine L video (where incidentally it has still not been pointed out where the alleged internal lighting is originating from). The “light” patches at (especially) the right hand corners of the video are then obviously from something else entirely - and this can easily be proved by looking at the frames between 5:48 – 6: 05. Here the image is completely black (no mirror, no window, no scene whatsoever), yet the light patches in the corners remain – and it becomes apparent they exist in all four corners as well and critically with a “shaded” band extending horizontally between the corners. This “band” is obviously an artefact and I suggest directly related to the “light patches” artefact.

Interestingly at 5:30 - 5:40 one CAN see internal reflections in the LM window and these indicate specifically the level of light inside the LM at the time.

But most importantly, the final thing to note that directly refutes the “internal light” hypothesis are the scenes from about 00:59 on. If you notice there is some minor movements in the mirror (watch the top right corner carefully), but the actual light patches remain exactly as they are: perfectly stable. They do NOT move with the mirror.

This fact is supported by the fact that the “light patches” appear on every frame of the film, unmoved, unchanging, no matter what the camera does in terms of movement or focal length changes.

Thus they are not external “objects”, but internal artefacts.

Skylab 3 (20 Sep 1973)
(http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/SL3.html)

Jocce and Frying Dutchman demand greater detail on the camera specifications, but to what purpose? What would knowing the specific model of the Nikon camera, or the specific model of the 300mm lens add to our knowledge of the case? Or the specific f-stop… more or less light… so what?

There has been some speculation about how I know certain details not stated in the article - but I have already indicated that I did contact the authors and have obtained clarifying detail confirming the chain of custody of the photos, etc (I even directly quoted such a clarification in a previous post). That’s just basic research – nothing startling in it.

Much has been made of possible “distortions” in the copying or development process. Given that no other photo from the same roll displays “distortions”, it is unlikely then that the single contentious frame (2141) would be the result of distortions.

As for camera shake: One of the best known “UFO photos” of direct relevance can be seen here (http://www.mercuryrapids.co.uk/ufofiles-blackboxsecrets/Image11.jpg). This is a single frame taken from a video of a UFO and was the result of camera shake of the type we are discussing here. Other exemplar photos that prove the erroneous nature of some of the comments in this regard can be found here (http://samgraphicdesign.wordpress.com/2008/08/11/avoiding-camera-shake/) or here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/iansand/73651158/)

The bottom line is that when I stated:

“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.”​

Not only do I have the photographic expertise of Dr Maccabee to support that:

“Bruce spent his early year in Rutland, Vt. After high school he studied physics at Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Worcester, Mass (B.S. in physics) and then at The American University, Washington, DC (M.S. and Ph. D. in physics). In 1972 commenced his long career at the Naval Surface Warfare Center, presently headquartered at Dahlgren, Virginia. He has worked on optical data processing, generation of underwater sound with lasers and various aspects of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) and Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) using high power lasers.” http://www.ufoevidence.org/researchers/detail23.htm)​

I have the evidence of actual photos as well.

It is worth reiterating that in a zero G environment, the inertia of the heavier 300mm lens will mitigate against hand held camera shake.

In regard to the accuracy of the timing. It is quite obvious that over a 5-6 second interval, the error margin is utterly insignificant. For example research cited here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense_of_time), for the appropriate age group, means the error is about +/- 0.08 seconds.

The “assumption” that is was the 300mm lens? If it WAS the 55mm lens then the calculated size for the object would have been much larger and most definitely not relatable to anything anyone had up there at the time.

In relation to “error” generally. In all the authors calculations, they used the most conservative data and measurements – that is they used the “lower bound” of any error margins - and thus the final result factored in the types of errors discussed by the UFO debunkers and is thus a conservative result that in all likelihood understates the case. And this is right and proper for any truly scientific analysis.

Mind you, the UFO debunkerss are never specific about their measurement “errors”. They cannot point to what they might have done differently. They cannot point to where the authors calculations were in violation of error bounds or have not taken into account measurement error. Instead they make a general unfounded assertion that the “errors” were “enormous” without ever being able to specify what they mean by that.

Regarding the astronaut’s observations, it must be remembered that they observed the object over a period of ten minutes and that they were in daylight for that period. They were thus able to determine that the object was trailing them in a similar orbit and at a similar speed and that at the end of the period it trailed them into darkness after a 5-6 second interval. What they could not know was the distance/size relationship, however, given the photo and the astronaut’s specific timing, that calculation can be performed and the resultant size was too large for anything up there at the time – even accounting for measurement error!

As for where the authors of the article obtained some of the information it must also be noted that: “(Sparks spoke to Garriott in October, 1973, soon after the mission had been completed.” (http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/SL3.html)

As for the author’s conclusions: The authors titled their article “ANALYSIS OF THE PHOTOS OF AN UNIDENTIFIED OBJECT OBSERVED BY THE ASTRONAUTS OF SKYLAB 3” and concluded their article with “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). NOWHERE in their article is the word “alien” mentioned. No “extraterrestrial”, no “ET”, nothing.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I don’t have time to individually reply to all the posts here but I will make some general comments.

I want to make one thing absolutely clear at the outset. I have never claimed that the objects under discussion below somehow represent ET or “aliens in spacecraft from other worlds” or anything of the kind. They are merely UFOs.

No problem then. Everyone can agree they are UFOs

Anomalous objects for which no plausible mundane explanation has so far been forthcoming.

Your positive claim that they aren't mundane will need evidence. You'll need to show your work how you eliminated all mundane explanations. Then the burden of proof will be right where it needs to be.

 

[TjW]

<snippage by TjW>
I have never claimed that the objects under discussion below somehow represent ET or “aliens in spacecraft from other worlds” or anything of the kind. They are merely UFOs. Anomalous objects for which no plausible mundane explanation has so far been forthcoming.

Then why are you presenting them? This thread was started, so you said, to provide evidence "not only for UFOs, but also for "aliens"".

If you don't have any, say so.
If you do have some, present it.

 

[Rramjet]

No problem then. Everyone can agree they are UFOs

They can …(if they wanted to) …but I think you will find plenty of people arguing against that proposition here. Perhaps you might care read over some of the posts in the last few pages to affirm that for yourself?

Your positive claim that they aren't mundane will need evidence. You'll need to show your work how you eliminated all mundane explanations. Then the burden of proof will be right where it needs to be.

I have been presenting the evidence. Perhaps you might care read over some of my posts in the last few pages to affirm that for yourself?

Then why are you presenting them? This thread was started, so you said, to provide evidence "not only for UFOs, but also for "aliens"".

I am presenting the above cases because they supply evidence for UFOs. Not only that, many of the cases I have been presenting supply evidence for “aliens”: That is UFOs that seem beyond our common conception of the limits of the natural or technological world (and that of course merely means they are “alien” in nature, not that they are necessarily explicable in terms of the ETH). The Sklyab 3 object is a case in point. On the evidence it is far too large to have been a manmade satellite (not to mention the red colour...).

 

[Astrophotographer]

It is also clear that we are able to resolve the object down to a resolution of about a 5x5 grid of pixels (and thus not a “point source” as some have claimed) and this is entirely adequate to observe the shading/brightness patterns on the image to determine that the object is spherical. I have demonstrated this here:

([QIMG]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=501&pictureid=3135[/QIMG])

And that amounts to nothing more than seeing what you want to see. The shapes vary from image to image (you even admitted to this). You have not shown one iota of actual data obtained from these images that establishes it is a sphere. It is your opinion and it is subjective. It is not a scientific evaluation of the data. If you were to show this sequence to 100 people on the street, I doubt that all would say they were looking at a sphere. You also have not explained why the images size does not get smaller if it were moving away from the camera.

What the UFO debunkers have NOT been able to show is that any other shaped object (other than a sphere) could have produced the shading patterns observed.

You have not established how you determine it to be a sphere other than your own opinion. That is not science. It is like looking at the face on mars pictures from Viking and saying it most definitely showed a face. When higher resolution images were taken, it became something much more mundane. The scientists were right when they stated the resolution (which was greater than 1 pixel) was not good enough to establish that it was a face and it was more likely to be something mundane that appeared to look like a face.

Your blobs that you have highly magnified are indistinct dots. Just because they are greater than one pixel does not make them anything more than that.

As for the object being something small and inside the LM: Certainly it was not dark inside the LM, but the light illuminating the inside was coming from the outside (as evidenced in this video: (http://history.nasa.gov/ap10fj/as10-video-library.htm - Magazine L), meaning any object between the camera and the window would have been illuminated from the opposite side to the camera and thus could not display the bright spot in the central region (as observed). In fact it would have a darkspot there. Simple applied physics.

The entire cabin was well lit. One can see the instrument panel with no problem even though there was no direct sunlight/moonlight on them. How do you explain that? Based on your argument, these areas should not be so illuminated. The same thing that made them well lit could easily light up a piece of debris inside the cabin. So, the idea that such a fragment would be dark is not accurate. We already know that the object did not have constant illumination on it (as evidenced by the data obtained from your images where the intensity of the blob changes as well as its shape). This is more evidence that it was not a sphere reflecting the sun from the outside.

When you explain to us how you established the object as a sphere through data and not through some subjective test as "It is a sphere because I have declared it as such", let us know. Meanwhile, in my opinion, there is absolutely nothing presented by you so far to indicate it is absolutely a sphere and nothing to indicate it is something other than a piece of debris inside or outside the craft.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Would this mean the images on the film are captured mirrored (up is down, but left is left) compared to film exposed only through a lens (up is down, left is right)? If so the original film (including the film edge) can proof or disproof this.

I don't know. I suppose NASA would reorient the film in the copying process to make it a more accurate representation of the events. Only access to the original films would be able to determine this.

The closest we have are the low resolution (and 640X480 mp4s are low resolution no matter what Rramjet says) magazine mpegs that have been debated here. I personally would love to see higher resolution scans of the actual individual frames that cover the event in question (maybe they are out on blue ray and Rramjet can get us a copy to show us the "sphericity" of the object in much greater resolution). It certainly would help "resolve" what was actually on the film and might "shed some light" on the true shape of the blob/dot we are seeing.

 

[TjW]

I have been presenting the evidence. Perhaps you might care read over some of my posts in the last few pages to affirm that for yourself?


I am presenting the above cases because they supply evidence for UFOs. Not only that, many of the cases I have been presenting supply evidence for “aliens”: That is UFOs that seem beyond our common conception of the limits of the natural or technological world (and that of course merely means they are “alien” in nature, not that they are necessarily explicable in terms of the ETH). The Sklyab 3 object is a case in point. On the evidence it is far too large to have been a manmade satellite (not to mention the red colour...).

No. You have been presenting evidence for Unidentified Flying Objects. Everyone here has agreed things unidentified exist. They've agreed since your original post. Unidentified means we don't have enough information to explain them, not that they are necessarily unexplainable.

Your definition of alien, above, seems to me to be essentially identical to unidentified. You grandly use the words "our common" instead of the word "my" in your definition. But it's an argument from ignorance, and this has been pointed out to you before.

 

[RoboTimbo]

They can …(if they wanted to) …but I think you will find plenty of people arguing against that proposition here. Perhaps you might care read over some of the posts in the last few pages to affirm that for yourself?

The posts where you ask for possible mundane explanations and are given reasonable ones? I think you've missed reading a majority of the thread where dozens have said that UFOs exist. Maybe not using your contrived, personal definition but the actual definition of UFO, yes, people have actually stated that UFOs exist. I suggest using the search function or just look at the first page of this thread.

I have been presenting the evidence. Perhaps you might care read over some of my posts in the last few pages to affirm that for yourself?

I just did and you are correct. You have been presenting evidence. It is, unfortunately, not evidence for aliens or "aliens". It is very good evidence for UFOs, just not using your personal definition of UFO. I suggest that you read some of Astrophotographer's (or Jocce's or Bell's or TjW's or Correa Neto's or Frying Dutchman's or Wollery's or Jack by the Hedge's or Stray Cat's) posts to see what good evidence looks like.

I am presenting the above cases because they supply evidence for UFOs. Not only that, many of the cases I have been presenting supply evidence for “aliens”: That is UFOs that seem beyond our common conception of the limits of the natural or technological world (and that of course merely means they are “alien” in nature, not that they are necessarily explicable in terms of the ETH). The Sklyab 3 object is a case in point. On the evidence it is far too large to have been a manmade satellite (not to mention the red colour...).

You really don't need to provide evidence for UFOs. Again, if you will simply reread (or read for the first time) page one of this thread, the existence of UFOs is already acknowledged.

I think what you're trying and succeeding to do is present evidence that you can't think of what some things might be.

 

[Jocce]

It is also clear that we are able to resolve the object down to a resolution of about a 5x5 grid of pixels (and thus not a “point source” as some have claimed) and this is entirely adequate to observe the shading/brightness patterns on the image to determine that the object is spherical.

What I'm sure you mean here is that you have been able to resolve the image of the object down to a resolution of about a 5x5 grid. That is not the same thing as resolving the actual object. Abberations in either lenses, windows, mirrors etc will scatter the light and an object that would cover one pixel (basically being considered a point source) would look like it's gradually darkening through the edges. Another example of this is this Hubble picture of a starfield where, if you zoom in on a single star, you will see the same phenomena:
http://bork.hampshire.edu/~sam/extraordinary/Hubble_Deep_Field_location.gif

The brighter stars look like spheres when you zoom in.

Added to this is the compression of the video which is pretty heavy to reduce filesize. Compresion artifacts are also usually seen along the edge between very differently coloured or bright areas in an image.

In summary, this could well be a small object close to the camera or a bigger object far away but in both cases, nothing can be said about it's shape. There are simply too many other things that could account for rramjets percieved sphericity. If he wants to maintain his claim that it is a sphere he simply has to show that it is and not handwave away any other potential explanations.

 

[Correa Neto]

Jocce and Frying Dutchman demand greater detail on the camera specifications, but to what purpose? What would knowing the specific model of the Nikon camera, or the specific model of the 300mm lens add to our knowledge of the case? Or the specific f-stop… more or less light… so what?

Anyone with real and good scientific formation would understand why the camera and lens models are important. It is about methodology. It is about data QA/QC. It is about setting a divide between science and pseudoscience. If you do not take in to account the effects of exposure and aperture on pictures while measuring images of objects you are at the risk of making big mistakes.

If I present a paper on mineral chemistry and used a microprobe to track, say, the variation of a certain element along a crystal, I must state who made the equipment and its model, as well as other specs such as detection limits and operational conditions. A perfect track of sample preparation and collection, needless to say, are crucial issues. If you can’t understand the analogy and the reasons, you need to go back to basics.

There has been some speculation about how I know certain details not stated in the article - but I have already indicated that I did contact the authors and have obtained clarifying detail confirming the chain of custody of the photos, etc (I even directly quoted such a clarification in a previous post). That’s just basic research – nothing startling in it.

That’s one more evidence that the article was written following poor methodology, since these information pieces should have been present at the text. Example- the authors said they later learned there were five cameras aboard. How they learned that? From a report? Which one? From verbal communication? From who and when?

Not to mention the information you claim to have obtained is far from being detailed enough.

Much has been made of possible “distortions” in the copying or development process. Given that no other photo from the same roll displays “distortions”, it is unlikely then that the single contentious frame (2141) would be the result of distortions.

Merely stating it does not make it true. This is not post modern philosophy. Any good scientific work will detail the methods used to probe these possible distortions and eventually dealing with them. Heck, not even the copy process is detailed. Where and when was it made? What was copied? A negative, which was later developed?

As for camera shake: One of the best known “UFO photos” of direct relevance can be seen here (http://www.mercuryrapids.co.uk/ufofi...ts/Image11.jpg). This is a single frame taken from a video of a UFO and was the result of camera shake of the type we are discussing here. Other exemplar photos that prove the erroneous nature of some of the comments in this regard can be found here (http://samgraphicdesign.wordpress.co...-camera-shake/) or here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/iansand/73651158/)

The bottom line is that when I stated:
“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.”
Not only do I have the photographic expertise of Dr Maccabee to support that:


“Bruce spent his early year in Rutland, Vt. After high school he studied physics at Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Worcester, Mass (B.S. in physics) and then at The American University, Washington, DC (M.S. and Ph. D. in physics). In 1972 commenced his long career at the Naval Surface Warfare Center, presently headquartered at Dahlgren, Virginia. He has worked on optical data processing, generation of underwater sound with lasers and various aspects of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) and Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) using high power lasers.” http://www.ufoevidence.org/researchers/detail23.htm)
I have the evidence of actual photos as well.

Rramjet, you attempt to appeal to authority by posting part of MacCabee’s CV was noted and as you should have understood by now, it is not what one would expect from someone with scientific formation. A work must be able to stand by itself by its methodological rigor, accuracy, etc., regardless of who were its writers. And this is obvious not the case of the text you linked to. If it were good, you would not need to write long texts (with logical fallacies included) while attempting to defend it.
Now, moving on, your statements about the long exposures can be easily demonstrated to be wrong.
Here are blown-ups of pictures I took last year from my apartment’s window, as a Chinese lantern flew above it (yes, I can provide the full image to show the object was at the center of the image and yes, the objective was to reproduce claimed exotic paths recorded on film). The camera I used was a DSLR Canon EOS50D which happened to be with my 300mm Canon EFS zoom objective. Further details can be gathered at the pictures’ EXIF files, which can also be made available or found with the original pictures.

Predicting your answer, I also got out of the house I was a few days ago and took some shaky shots of Venus using the same camera but with a 18mm-55mm Canon EFS lens. Here are the blown-up central parts and yes, once again I can post the whole shots.

As you can see, in shaky long exposure shots where images are concentrated at the centre of the frame, you can indeed have blobs and there may be zero, one, two or more “ends of the line”. It all depends on how the camera motion conditions the trajectory of the beam of photons originated by the point light over the film (or CCD in the case of the above pictures).
Thus, the numbers produced by measurements (which have very poor error margin estimates and quite possibly a great variance) over the fourth picture are meaningless, since it can (and most likely) show nothing but the product of the long exposure of a point light instead of a solid object with three lights.
Thus, the actual bottom line is that your statements are flawed.

It is worth reiterating that in a zero G environment, the inertia of the heavier 300mm lens will mitigate against hand held camera shake.

It is worth reiterating that physics is not one of Rramjet’s strong points. What’s harder to stop once it starts moving- a small or a big objective lens?

In regard to the accuracy of the timing. It is quite obvious that over a 5-6 second interval, the error margin is utterly insignificant. For example research cited here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense_of_time), for the appropriate age group, means the error is about +/- 0.08 seconds.

Again, please learn how to express properly the error margin. You’ll see that 5 to 10 seconds or 5 to 6 seconds is not equal to say, 5+0.08s to 6+0.008s. AS anyone with real scientific formation would realize.

The “assumption” that is was the 300mm lens? If it WAS the 55mm lens then the calculated size for the object would have been much larger and most definitely not relatable to anything anyone had up there at the time.

This is nothing but an assumption, and an assumption based on methodological errors, since the size estimates are flawed.

In relation to “error” generally. In all the authors calculations, they used the most conservative data and measurements – that is they used the “lower bound” of any error margins - and thus the final result factored in the types of errors discussed by the UFO debunkers and is thus a conservative result that in all likelihood understates the case. And this is right and proper for any truly scientific analysis.

This is not how error margins are exposed and dealt with, that was not a proper and truly scientific analysis.

Regarding the astronaut’s observations, it must be remembered that they observed the object over a period of ten minutes and that they were in daylight for that period. They were thus able to determine that the object was trailing them in a similar orbit and at a similar speed and that at the end of the period it trailed them into darkness after a 5-6 second interval. What they could not know was the distance/size relationship, however, given the photo and the astronaut’s specific timing, that calculation can be performed and the resultant size was too large for anything up there at the time – even accounting for measurement error!

As for where the authors of the article obtained some of the information it must also be noted that: “(Sparks spoke to Garriott in October, 1973, soon after the mission had been completed.” (http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/SL3.html)

Smoke and mirrors attempting to hide the fact that the estimates are also flawed because there was no way to properly establish if the light was actually following a course parallel to Skylab and how far it was from Skylab.

As for the author’s conclusions: The authors titled their article “ANALYSIS OF THE PHOTOS OF AN UNIDENTIFIED OBJECT OBSERVED BY THE ASTRONAUTS OF SKYLAB 3” and concluded their article with “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). NOWHERE in their article is the word “alien” mentioned. No “extraterrestrial”, no “ET”, nothing.

So, I take from this that they can not exclude the possibility of a mundane explanation, right? Especially when the methodological flaws are taken in to account, right?
And I can also then take from it that this article then can not be used to back claims about the presence of “aliens beyond the borders of what we call nature”, right?
It can not also be used to back the presence of tulpas, unknown earthly civilizations, beings from other universes, secret man-made crafts, etc., right?
So tell me, why you brought this article forward at this thread?

 

[Rramjet]

Regarding my explanation for why the object is spherical:

And that amounts to nothing more than seeing what you want to see.

I seems you have not yet learned – even after my seemingly endless repetition - the simple lesson that merely stating unfounded assertions does not make them true.

The shapes vary from image to image (you even admitted to this).

Well no, I have been discussing the variations in brightness, and I have explained precisely why that is so. It is an artefact of the frame rate coupled with the low resolution. However, the same argument definitely applies to the apparent shape of the object as it moves across time as represented in the film.

You have not shown one iota of actual data obtained from these images that establishes it is a sphere.

I have provided you the data ([QIMG]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=501&pictureid=3135[/QIMG]) and have also provided a detailed explanation for the shading patterns - which leads to the conclusion that the object is spherical. I have also asked you to come up with alternative explanations. Merely stating (incorrectly) that I have not provided the data does nothing to provide alternative explanations for that data.

It is your opinion and it is subjective.

No, that is your opinion. I have entered the data onto the record and proposed an explanation for it – that the object is a sphere. If you have other views that can be supported by the evidence then please put them forward.

It is not a scientific evaluation of the data.

Again, that is merely your opinion.

If you were to show this sequence to 100 people on the street, I doubt that all would say they were looking at a sphere.

Science is not a democracy Astrophotographer. It is based on observation and analysis of evidence in light of previous experience.

You also have not explained why the images size does not get smaller if it were moving away from the camera.

Indeed I have. You have merely chosen to ignore that explanation (it was quite detailed you know). I explained that the poor resolution (coupled with frame rate and object movement) meant that the brightness (and of course the apparent shape of the object) displays artefactual variation - beyond whatever change in size of the object might be apparent otherwise. You have simply failed to address that point. Basically the resolution is too poor to determine any apparent change in size of the object. Further, we do NOT know the plane of motion of the object NOR its size.

You have not established how you determine it to be a sphere other than your own opinion. That is not science.

This is merely a repetition of points you made above - to which I have responded.

It is like looking at the face on mars pictures from Viking and saying it most definitely showed a face. When higher resolution images were taken, it became something much more mundane. The scientists were right when they stated the resolution (which was greater than 1 pixel) was not good enough to establish that it was a face and it was more likely to be something mundane that appeared to look like a face.

If I were using 20-25 pixels to conclude a “face” – then I would be extremely worried about my own methodology. Fortunately I am merely hypothesising (and then concluding) a very basic shape – a sphere. Hardly the anthropomorphism that went into interpretations of “the face on Mars”.

Your blobs that you have highly magnified are indistinct dots. Just because they are greater than one pixel does not make them anything more than that.

My “blobs”? I fail to see how one can describe defined squares as blobs… but then perhaps I should not be surprised, as this assessment comes from one who observes image #3 ([QIMG]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=501&pictureid=3135[/QIMG]) as a “perfect square”.

The entire cabin was well lit. One can see the instrument panel with no problem even though there was no direct sunlight/moonlight on them. How do you explain that? Based on your argument, these areas should not be so illuminated.

(Possibly reflected but more probably direct) sunlight is flooding in through the LM window and washing over the instrument panel - which is adjacent to that window! External light is flooding over it from that window Astrophotographer. Look at 00:20 to 00:28 for direct evidence of this (http://history.nasa.gov/ap10fj/as10-video-library.htm - Magazine L).

Then look at 1:10 to 1:24 and you will see the astronaut’s suit glaring in the bright light – and also note the glare on the wall panel over his right shoulder – all this from light flooding in through the tiny window next to the instrument panel! THEN look as the camera pans further to display the furthest interior of the LM – it is in relative darkeness!

Your contentions concerning the magazine L video are thus just plain wrong Astrophographer. Meaning of course that your conclusions based on this erroneous interpretation and applied to the magazine K (“UFO”) video are also incorrect.

The same thing that made them well lit could easily light up a piece of debris inside the cabin.

So it could - but given the overwhelming nature of the light source coming from outside the LM, then the object would be DARKER on the face toward the camera, with the darkest spot being directly facing us – and this is precisely the opposite of the shading patterns we actually observe on the object.

So, the idea that such a fragment would be dark is not accurate.

That statement is merely represents a misinterpretation of the light source coupled with a misrepresentation of my contentions.

We already know that the object did not have constant illumination on it (as evidenced by the data obtained from your images where the intensity of the blob changes as well as its shape).

I have explained in detail the artefactual nature of the brightness (and shape) variation. You have simply ignored my detailed explanations and have never directly addressed or refuted them in any way whatsoever.

This is more evidence that it was not a sphere reflecting the sun from the outside.

You have provided no evidence whatsoever to support this unfounded assertion.

When you explain to us how you established the object as a sphere through data and not through some subjective test as "It is a sphere because I have declared it as such", let us know.

What am I to make of this type of statement from you? Clearly it flies in the face of the evidence. I cannot state that more strongly.

Meanwhile, in my opinion, there is absolutely nothing presented by you so far to indicate it is absolutely a sphere and nothing to indicate it is something other than a piece of debris inside or outside the craft.

Your opinion will count for nothing unless you can provide explanations supported by the evidence as to why you hold such an opinion.

The closest we have are the low resolution (and 640X480 mp4s are low resolution no matter what Rramjet says) magazine mpegs that have been debated here.

This is your problem in a nutshell Astrophotographer. I have consistently claimed the resolution is poor – yet here we have a statement from you asserting that I have claimed the opposite!

I personally would love to see higher resolution scans of the actual individual frames that cover the event in question (maybe they are out on blue ray and Rramjet can get us a copy to show us the "sphericity" of the object in much greater resolution). It certainly would help "resolve" what was actually on the film and might "shed some light" on the true shape of the blob/dot we are seeing.

True. And as it seems the arguments all have been highlighted concerning this case, and that we are now simply going around in circles with this one, I think we can all agree it is a UFO and therefore I suggest we move on. The other case under discussion is of course the Skylab 3 object (http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/SL3.html). Do you have any opinions on this case Astrophotographer or do you want me to present another case that supports my contentions in this forum?

 

[Rramjet]

No. You have been presenting evidence for Unidentified Flying Objects. Everyone here has agreed things unidentified exist. They've agreed since your original post. Unidentified means we don't have enough information to explain them, not that they are necessarily unexplainable.

Actually in many (if not most) of the cases I have been presenting it means we do have enough information to explain them in mundane terms – yet simply cannot do so.

If you have questions about what “enough (or sufficient) information” actually means in this context, then I suggest you read over the definitional criteria in this research document (http://www.ufocasebook.com/specialreport14.pdf).

Your definition of alien, above, seems to me to be essentially identical to unidentified.

Not at all. It means much more than merely “unidentified”. It means that the characteristics of the UFO positively defy mundane explanation insofar as such characteristics seem to go beyond our concepts of what natural and/or technological systems are capable of.

You grandly use the words "our common" instead of the word "my" in your definition.

I actually used the term “our common conception” because it has a broader meaning than merely “my” conception. It refers to our collective and defined knowledge of what natural and technological systems are capable of – not just “my” (perhaps) limited version of that.

But it's an argument from ignorance, and this has been pointed out to you before.

What “argument from ignorance”? Certainly if we don’t know what something is we are of course “ignorant” of its true nature (and what it might represent), but that can hardly be called an “argument from ignorance” – it is an objective fact: We are ignorant.

 

[Rramjet]

The posts where you ask for possible mundane explanations and are given reasonable ones?

That’s merely your opinion. An unfounded assertion. Haven’t the UFO debunkers learnt by now that merely stating unfounded assertions does not make then true?

I think you've missed reading a majority of the thread where dozens have said that UFOs exist.

Oh yes indeed. Your “majority” pay lip service to the idea, but when it comes down to the actual evidence and arguments, they are strenuously against it. They say many things, but in practice it is a different story.

Maybe not using your contrived, personal definition but the actual definition of UFO, yes, people have actually stated that UFOs exist.

My definition of UFO? Unidentified Flying Object perchance?

I suggest using the search function or just look at the first page of this thread.

On no, I believe you that they have stated that they “believe” in UFOs. But they don’t really… they actually believe in UFMOs (Unidentified Flying Mundane Objects). At least that is what all of them have been arguing the case for…

I just did and you are correct. You have been presenting evidence.

Gratified that we can agree on something at least.

It is, unfortunately, not evidence for aliens or "aliens".

Again I agree. It is NOT evidence for aliens (meaning ET or “aliens in spaceships from another world” – as circumstantially compelling as that case may be – there is still not enough direct evidence to support the contention). As for “aliens”, well, that is a definitional term: Some UFOs are “alien” because they have characteristics that defy our concepts of the natural and technological world (gee, another way to say it .

It is very good evidence for UFOs, just not using your personal definition of UFO.

…again… mydefinition? A UFO is a UFO is a UFO…

I suggest that you read some of Astrophotographer's (or Jocce's or Bell's or TjW's or Correa Neto's or Frying Dutchman's or Wollery's or Jack by the Hedge's or Stray Cat's) posts to see what good evidence looks like.

Well, that is a mere unfounded assertion. A matter of opinion. And the mere stating of it does not make it true.

You really don't need to provide evidence for UFOs. Again, if you will simply reread (or read for the first time) page one of this thread, the existence of UFOs is already acknowledged.

I am glad you are convinced. You obviously have dropped your contention that they are “gods” of some sort or other. I commend you on this step.

I think what you're trying and succeeding to do is present evidence that you can't think of what some things might be.

Oh, not me alone. Scientific research has been undertaken and the “unidentified” conclusion has been reached many times (for example: http://www.ufocasebook.com/specialreport14.pdf).

 

[Hold on!]

The ones that don't believe are becoming the "minority"

 

[Astrophotographer]

Another example of this is this Hubble picture of a starfield where, if you zoom in on a single star, you will see the same phenomena:
http://bork.hampshire.edu/~sam/extraordinary/Hubble_Deep_Field_location.gif

I found it interesting that if you zoom in on the individual stars each one has a different shape. The shapes vary on some of the fainter star images (crosses, squares, half-crosses, etc) and the pixel size of the individual stars vary from 1-5 pixels, which is very similar to the size of the object in question.

That being said, it is hard to compare the two images. It is no better than his Vesta comparison, which is flawed by the nature of how he manipulated the images. To be an accurate replica of the Apollo-10 film, one has to film on 16mm film, through a window (or possibly in the spacecraft), a known object in space. Then one needs to convert it to MP4 format and then examine the object through frame grabs. Perhaps the better method would be to take some of the Apollo films, which do show fragments near or in the spacecraft and examine those.

 

[Rramjet]

Abberations in either lenses, windows, mirrors etc will scatter the light and an object that would cover one pixel (basically being considered a point source) would look like it's gradually darkening through the edges.

But clearly the object is not a “point source” … and clearly you have not thought through the implications of what those “Abberations” (sic) of yours must mean. The object travels from top to bottom of the video. Thus any aberration would have to apply evenly over that whole area at the very least - and logically would apply to other subjects in the video (over the whole area) - would it not? Perhaps you can point to your “aberration” or otherwise indicate exactly what the aberration is?

Yet again a UFO debunker has made some generalised, unfounded assertions without ever being able to be specific. What aberrations? Where is the evidence for these aberrations? Why don’t they affect anything else in the video?

Another example of this is this Hubble picture of a starfield where, if you zoom in on a single star, you will see the same phenomena:
http://bork.hampshire.edu/~sam/extra...d_location.gif

The brighter stars look like spheres when you zoom in.

Apart from the fact that stars are spheres - and thus concluding from the shading patterns after “zooming in” that they are spheres would be a correct interpretation - I asked if you could demonstrate anything other than a sphere could cause the shading patterns we observe on the object. Clearly you have yet to do so.

Added to this is the compression of the video which is pretty heavy to reduce filesize. Compresion artifacts are also usually seen along the edge between very differently coloured or bright areas in an image.

And so you will be able to point those out as well (and I don’t mean in your obviously manipulated images, I mean in my (relatively) “clean” images here ([QIMG]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=501&pictureid=3135[/QIMG]). Where are your alleged “compression artifacts”? What is their affect?

In summary, this could well be a small object close to the camera or a bigger object far away but in both cases, nothing can be said about it's shape.

Yes, size and distance determination is a problem.

There are simply too many other things that could account for rramjets percieved sphericity.

This is mere unfounded assertion (again). What “too many things”? This is the critical question you have been unable to answer.

If he wants to maintain his claim that it is a sphere he simply has to show that it is and not handwave away any other potential explanations.

I have presented the data and have proposed an explanation for that data – a spherical object. This explanation fits the data. What “other potential explanations” are you proposing that I “handwave” away? You keep making unfounded assertion but merely stating unfounded assertions does not make them true.