Astronauts on Skylab 3 photographed GIANT UFO 1973

Alrights lets re-examine something here from what the men themselves stated:

It was slowly rotating because it had a variation in brightnesswith a 10-seconds period. As I was saying, we observed it for about 10 minutes, until we went into darkness, and it also followed us into darkness about 5-seconds later. From the 5 to 10 second delay in it's disappearance we surmised that it was not more than 30 to 50 nautical miles [35 to 58 statute miles or 56 to 93 km] from our location. From its original position in the wardroom window, it did not move more than 10 or 20 degrees over the 10 minutes or so that we watched it. Its orbit was very close to that of our own. We never saw it on any earlier or succeeding orbits and we'd be quite interested in having its identification established.”

Alright I bolded (is that the right word? anyway) the key phrases. So it was slowly rotating and had a variation in brightness. As soon as I heard this I immediatley thought of a solar flare. Then again he stated that they went further into darkness and the object came back 5 seconds later. He also stated that it did not move than 10 or 20 degrees, which would be about correct. Because they were moving as well. There moving would give the false impression that the object was also moving. But why did it disappear? Well for one thing, its outter space, there are dust clouds in outer space and very thick dust clouds. There could have been a blind spot on the craft (like a blind spot on a car) and many other fcators. Its orbit was very close to our own, I bet it felt close, but was it really close? I doubt it, much like the brighter a light seems the closer it logically is, but with a simple experiment:

You have light A and light B. Light A is 30 feet away from you with a generic light bulb that gives off 80 watts of light. But light B is 50 feet away and has a designers light bulb that gives off 500 watts of light. Now logically the brightest one is closer (Light A), but that is not the case here, infact the furthest one is the brightest (Light B). You would say light B is closer because it is brighter, you would be wrong.

Its a simple light trick, luckily my chemistry teacher back in the day shpowed me this experiment and I have never forgotten it. So I am not calling these men liars, I just believe that they came up with the wrong conclusion.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/940736d2b01a.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e5da34a8442a.jpg[/atsimg]

Now looking at these pictures of solar flares, it really looks like the image you presented. Tak ethe first one, to me it looks like some sort of bird, a phoenix. The second one is just a solar flare from our own sun. But solar flares can happen on any star, so chances are they were right. It was a massive, bright object because its a solar flare. Thats what I think, I am probably wrong but it makes sense.

reply to post by TheMythLives























[edit on 29-3-2009 by easynow]

incident with the Gemini 11 Astronauts.

On September 13, 1966 during their sixteenth revolution, the Gemini 11
astronauts, Charles "Pete" Conrad and Richard Gordon, Jr., sighted an object
which they could not identify

FROM THE TRANSCRIPT OF GEMINI-11, TAPE 133., PAGE 1 (SEPTEMBER 13, 1966):

"WE HAD A WINGMAN FLYING WING ON US GOING INTO SUNSET HERE OFF TO MY LEFT. A
LARGE OBJECT THAT WAS TUMBLING AT ABOUT 1 REV. PER SECOND, AND WE FLEW . . .
WE HAD HIM IN SIGHT, I SAY FAIRLY CLOSE TO US. I DON'T KNOW. IT COULD DEPEND
ON HOW BIG HE IS AND I GUESS HE COULD HAVE BEEN ANYTHING FROM OUR ELSS* TO
SOMETHING ELSE. WE TOOK PICTURES OF IT."

according to Mallan, Astronaut Gordon
stated that the object was first seen out their left window, it "flew out in
front of us and then we lost it when it sort of dropped down in front of
us." This direction of motion is roughly opposite to that of the Proton 3
according to the NORAD report quoted in Mallan's article (see Figure 6).

Thus we have inconsistency (e), the Proton was behind the Gemini spacecraft
and (f), the object(s) were not even travelling in the direction of the
Proton satellite and booster.

According to Mallan, NORAD claimed that they were not tracking anything in
front of the space capsule. Thus, for all of these reasons the object(s)
could not have been the Proton.

The photographic evidence presented in this paper appear to be totally
inconsistent with the hypothesis that the Gemini 11 astronauts photographed
the Proton 3 and/or its booster rocket. Verbal evidence presented by Mallan
supports this conclusion. This writer has found no evidence to support the
conclusion stated by Roach in the Condon Report. Note: This sighting is
carried as "unidentified" by NASA.

brumac.8k.com...








[edit on 29-3-2009 by easynow]

Well done easynow! I was gone when this was posted (so I am only reading it now), I just learned of this case not to long ago myself and no one really knows about it, well now they do! I don't have much to add other then WELL DONE!

reply to post by TheMythLives


Well unfortunately for your "interstellar dust" theory, the planetary solar system does not contain hardly any large amounts of dust, it was all accreted into planets, the Sun, meteors, etc. If we were looking at an object in the Kuiper Belt then maybe, but not here.

Gosh, I'm sorry, yes I am immature.. But I totally laughed a lot when i saw 1:08 - 1:11 because it looked like a giant dildo!

Anyways, its a good video and the people who saw it definately seem dependable.. not some conspiracy theorist man sittin in his basement altering pictures from google images!