The SKYLAB III UFO Encounter - The Evidence & Contradictions

Here's a probably crazy suggestion from a complete amateur in this field.

Assuming the photo analysis of Maccabee and Sparks is on the right lines, could the red object have been a rotating rubble-pile asteroid heated by recently grazing the Earth's outer atmosphere?

www.space.com...

neo.jpl.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by Lowneck
Here's a probably crazy suggestion from a complete amateur in this field.

Assuming the photo analysis of Maccabee and Sparks is on the right lines, could the red object have been a rotating rubble-pile asteroid heated by recently grazing the Earth's outer atmosphere?

Let's put this way: Your idea is more plausible than the alien hypothesis.

You could pretty much say anything, and as long as it doesn't explicitly involve magic or invoke aliens - then it will be far more plausible and acceptable than the theory stating it might be aliens. You can even summon space NAZIs to account for this stuff and come off sounding saner than the guy who uses aliens to explain it.

What a joy.

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by Lowneck
Here's a probably crazy suggestion from a complete amateur in this field.

Assuming the photo analysis of Maccabee and Sparks is on the right lines, could the red object have been a rotating rubble-pile asteroid heated by recently grazing the Earth's outer atmosphere?

Let's put this way: Your idea is more plausible than the alien hypothesis.

You could pretty much say anything, and as long as it doesn't explicitly involve magic or invoke aliens - then it will be far more plausible and acceptable than the theory stating it might be aliens. You can even summon space NAZIs to account for this stuff and come off sounding saner than the guy who uses aliens to explain it.

What a joy.

Oh great ! ...... just what a UFO Alien forum needs .... another rabid skeptic

reply to post by easynow


I'm pretty sure that is a good thing.

Wouldn't you rather have skeptics who post their own ufo/lunar research than skeptics who just shout down everyone else?

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by easynow

 

I'm pretty sure that is a good thing.

Wouldn't you rather have skeptics who post their own ufo/lunar research than skeptics who just shout down everyone else?

Lunar research = Good

Skeptical opinions from folks that have never even seen a UFO = Bad





Back to the Skylab 3 :

As mentioned on page 1 ... the Coyne-Helicopter UFO incident was around the same time as the Skylab sighting and we also have this case from June 30, 1973 where some scientists aboard a Concord jet photographed a UFO over Africa which coincidently is right where the Skylab UFO was seen and photographed as well.


Scientist aboard Concord Jet Photograph UFO over Chad, Africa 1973

I just wish these videos would gut straight to the chase E.G. the actual UFO/bigfoot/Ghost image.

Originally posted by easynow
Lunar research = Good

Skeptical opinions from folks that have never even seen a UFO = Bad

Are you trying to imply that I have never seen a UFO?

Anyhow, I don't think it is "bad" if a skeptic hasn't seen a UFO and still talks about them. As long as they aren't using the topic to troll, all is well.

Plenty of ATS members have never seen a UFO, they shouldn't be classed as "bad" because they are being skeptical.

*It seems you are taking this subject too seriously. Lets' substitute a couple of words from that quoted statement of yours and see how it comes off:

Bible research = Good

Skeptical opinions from folks that have never even seen an angel = Bad