Gemini 11-UFO - S66-54585 (12-15 Sept. 1966) [Fake]

[GEP e.V.]

Does anyone recognize the attached image and know any details about it?
It is said to be from the Gemini 11 mission and was published by Ed Wilson in his book "The Simpkinson NASA Archive UFO."
To me, it looks more like a retouched photo.
I couldn't find the photo in the recordings from the Gemini 11 mission: https://tothemoon.im-ldi.com/gallery/gemini
Hans-Werner Peiniger, Deutschland

 

[Mick West]

The original seems to be here:

Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasa2explore/9452428826/in/album-72157634958743610

Clouds match

It does seem to be distorted (perhaps photographed from a screen at an angle), and (obviously) edited.

The claim here is that the public version has been edited to remove the saucer. But there's no actual evidence of this, so the simplest explanation is that this is a hoax.

 

[Mick West]

I couldn't find the photo in the recordings from the Gemini 11 mission: https://tothemoon.im-ldi.com/gallery/gemini

https://tothemoon.im-ldi.com/gallery/Gemini/11/8#S66-54585_G11-S
That's less cropped, so a better fit.

 

[purpleivan]

To me the image looks really fishy.

The glare around the UFO doesn't make sense, as I'd expect it to be centered on the bright portion of the object (its upper left), rather roughly the center of the object as a whole. Additionally the gridding pattern (old scanner artifacts?) can be seen clearly on all parts of the image (other than those parts that are essentially pure black), except for the UFO. This give the impression to me that the object was added in on top of that part of the image.

There are also some fine details of the UFO (a row of very short vertical stripes, almost dots) at roughly the mid point of its height, that seem a lot sharper than anything else in the image, which is a bit suspect.

Having had a quick look at NASA's gallery of Gemini photos (tothemoon.im-ldi.com/gallery/gemini), I found that the images taken by all camera types, were square, not rectangular like the image in the OP, so it's at the very least been non-uniformly cropped, if it's from a Gemini mission.
Additionaly, there are very view Gemini photos that appear black and White, with those that are, being some of those taken with the Zeiss Ikon Contarex and none of those B&W images show the limb of the earth.

My guess is that someone has used an old image of the earth from orbit, from something other than a Gemini mission (might not even be from a manned mission), that had something in it where the UFO is in this version of the image. That something (perhaps a detached piece of the vehicle, such part of as a fairing) was creating a roughly even, oval shaped area of glare and the UFO was edited in over it. That's just conjecture though, as without the unaltered image it would be difficult to confirm that.

Edit: Just seen Mick's post above, with the original photo (he posted while I was typing up my comment), so ignore my theory of the UFO being edited in on top of some something else producing glare in the original image. I guess whoever made it, was willing to put in the few extra minutes required, to add that bit of patterned glare.

 

[Ed Wilson]

Does anyone recognize the attached image and know any details about it?
It is said to be from the Gemini 11 mission and was published by Ed Wilson in his book "The Simpkinson NASA Archive UFO."
To me, it looks more like a retouched photo.
I couldn't find the photo in the recordings from the Gemini 11 mission: https://tothemoon.im-ldi.com/gallery/gemini
Hans-Werner Peiniger, Deutschland

View attachment 82904View attachment 82905

Dr Travis Taylors' Analysis

RE: Why NASA Hasselblad Frame S66-54585 Cannot Be the Source of the Simpkinson Lithograph using Dr Travis Taylors' Analysis

This letter provides a conclusive clarification regarding the origins of the now widely circulated Simpkinson lithograph, specifically addressing the question of whether NASA Hasselblad frame S66-54585 could be its direct source.

Matching Cloud Structure – But Missing Orbital Debris

While frame S66-54585 does match the lithograph's cloud pattern—notably a rare and identifiable three-pronged formation near Earth's limb—it fails a critical authenticity test: it does not contain the orbital debris visible in the upper-space region of the Simpkinson lithograph. These reflective flecks were previously circled and highlighted by Dr. Travis Taylor in his expert analysis- Included on page 555 of my first book, The Simpkinson NASA Archive UFO, is the image you see below—an annotated excerpt of the lithograph showing Dr. Taylor's written observation and visual markings: Thus, if the lithograph depicts such debris—as confirmed by Dr. Taylor—any matching source frame must also contain it. The total absence of these flecks in S66-54585 disqualifies it as the lithograph's origin

[Broken image links]

TRAVELING AT ROUGHLY 5 MILES PER SECOND, THE GEMINI XI SPACECRAFT WOULD HAVE WITNESSED RAPIDLY SHIFTING CLOUD FORMATIONS — MAKING A PERFECT MATCH LIKE THAT IN THE SIMPKINSON LITHOGRAPH POSSIBLE ONLY WITHIN A 90-SECOND WINDOW OF S66-54585. SINCE NO SUCH FRAME EXISTS IN NASA'S OFFICIAL ARCHIVE, THE LITHOGRAPH MUST HAVE ORIGINATED FROM A MISSING OR NEVER-RELEASED PHOTOGRAPH.

Hi thanks for starting this thread. I am Ed. Here is convincing evidence from Dr Travis Taylor to show that the image wqas NOT from this phot , but instead from within 90 seconds of its taking... I beg you to investigate the 800 plus further pages of evidence. The more eyes, the better ! Thanks, I welcome an investigation and will answer any questions......

[Admin: Removed off-topic material]

 

[MonkeeSage]

While frame S66-54585 does match the lithograph's cloud pattern—notably a rare and identifiable three-pronged formation near Earth's limb—it fails a critical authenticity test: it does not contain the orbital debris visible in the upper-space region of the Simpkinson lithograph. These reflective flecks were previously circled and highlighted by Dr. Travis Taylor in his expert analysis- Included on page 555 of my first book, The Simpkinson NASA Archive UFO, is the image you see below—an annotated excerpt of the lithograph showing Dr. Taylor's written observation and visual markings: Thus, if the lithograph depicts such debris—as confirmed by Dr. Taylor—any matching source frame must also contain it. The total absence of these flecks in S66-54585 disqualifies it as the lithograph's origin

This argument makes no sense to me. The hypothesis is that someone took the NASA image (or a scan or reprint thereof) and added the UFO. The counter-argument appears to be "yeah but there are other things also not present in the NASA image"...but how is that supposed to counter the hypothesis? The obvious explanation, consistent with the hypothesis, is that those other artifacts were also added (intentionally or inadvertently) while adding the UFO.

 

[JMartJr]

Here is convincing evidence from Dr Travis Taylor to show that the image wqas NOT from this phot , but instead from within 90 seconds of its taking...

I am not a photo expert... but this evidence sounds to me like it would also be compatible with somebody taking the frame from Gemini, adding a UFO, and editing in the "orbital debris?"

 

[Mick West]

circled and highlighted by Dr. Travis Taylor in his expert analysis- Included on page 555 of my first book

What is the source of this analysis? Where did Taylor post it?

 

[NorCal Dave]

Dr Travis Taylors' Analysis

Dr. Taylor was a regular on the scientifically vapid and silly TV show Ancient Aliens. He is also the chief scientist for the equally scientifically vapid TV show Secrets of Skinwalker Ranch. As such he lends his name and credentials to TV entertainment programs like Ancient Aliens that claim, among other things, that Reptilian, Grey and Nordic aliens are on Earth and have manipulated human DNA. And that there was a battle between various aliens and US military personal in the underground Ducle base in New Mexico (S14E8).

See also the discussion linked below, about Dr. Taylor claiming a poorly done LIDAR scan had revealed a "worm hole" over Skinwalker Ranch.

I think @MonkeeSage make a simple and compelling argument above. IF the UFO was added at a later date, it's likely the supposed orbital derbies is an artifact of that addition.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/sk...s-of-wormhole-from-lidar-scan-with-gap.13038/

 

[Mick West]

@Ed Wilson has been posting again, but just demanding we read his 800 page book before deciding if this is fake or not.

It seems obviously fake, and he has not presented any clear evidence otherwise. Unless Travis Taylor wants to back him up, that's where it's going to stay.

 

[JJB]

Does anyone recognize the attached image and know any details about it?
It is said to be from the Gemini 11 mission and was published by Ed Wilson in his book "The Simpkinson NASA Archive UFO."
To me, it looks more like a retouched photo.
I couldn't find the photo in the recordings from the Gemini 11 mission: https://tothemoon.im-ldi.com/gallery/gemini
Hans-Werner Peiniger, Deutschland

View attachment 82904View attachment 82905

This image looks strikingly like a vintage depiction of a "flying saucer," the styling matches mid-20th-century sci-fi aesthetics but it's almost certainly faked, likely a stock illustration, sci-fi artwork.

 

[aefactual]

Hi, I'm an Archival Producer for The History Channel's The Proof is Out There. Does anyone know where I could license the UFO image, not the NASA image of The Agena Target Docking Vehicle at a distance, as that is public domain.
Feel free to email me with any leads. kacie.mize@aegm.com

 

[jarlrmai]

Hey how about a 'the truth is in here' series about the amazing work of Metabunk?

 

[JMartJr]

Hi, I'm an Archival Producer for The History Channel's The Proof is Out There. Does anyone know where I could license the UFO image, not the NASA image of The Agena Target Docking Vehicle at a distance, as that is public domain.
Feel free to email me with any leads.

Might be simplest just to take the Gemini 11 photo S66-54585_G11-S and add a UFO, as somebody else did... just make your UFO enough different to avoid copyright issues.

But since NASA imagery (with a few exceptions) is in the public domain, IF the picture is genuine you should be good to go, though for commercial use you may need to contact them for clearance (the only contact I know is this one: nasa-entertainment-collaborations@mail.nasa.gov.) You probably know more about that than I do!

NASA content ... generally are not subject to copyright in the United States. You may use this material for educational or informational purposes, including photo collections, textbooks, public exhibits, computer graphical simulations and Internet Web pages. This general permission extends to personal Web pages.

News outlets, schools, and text-book authors may use NASA content without needing explicit permission, subject to compliance with these guidelines. NASA content used in a factual manner that does not imply endorsement may be used without needing explicit permission. NASA should be acknowledged as the source of the material.

Source: https://www.nasa.gov/nasa-brand-center/images-and-media/

If somebody else has a copyright on it, then it is obviously not a real NASA image. If, then, you do need to get permission from whoever created the image, mentioning that this shows it to be a fake would be nice.

 

[Mick West]

Hey how about a 'the truth is in here' series about the amazing work of Metabunk?

I'm actually on PIOT, and try to share the Metabunk work wherever possible.

 

[jarlrmai]

I'm actually on PIOT, and try to share the Metabunk work wherever possible.

Not sure what PIOT is and a quick google wasn't immediately getting anything..

Oh it's the TV show, (the) Proof Is Out There

 

[SMdelta]

Greetings. Brand new member here. The author of the above mentioned book about this photo was a guest on a podcast I just started listening to called UAP Unidentified Alien Podcast. Id never heard anything about this photo so I had a listen sitting in traffic. It was an interesting episode but I got the impression he was primarily trying to sell his book. I get it. I would want to do the same thing but I do agree that there really doesn't seem to be too much evidence to support it being real. I sincerely hope it is.