Rotating object far from Gemini XI spacecraft?

[johne1618]

The following are three (overexposed) photos from the Gemini XI mission that seem to show a rotating object far away. The Gemini capsule is docked to the Agena Target Vehicle (its antenna is visible in the photo) so the object itself is not that spacecraft. The frames are consecutive and are all taken on Sep 13, 1966 at Ground Elapsed Time 25 hours 47 minutes.

What is this strange object?

I guess it is not simply a defect in the film.

Source: https://tothemoon.ser.asu.edu/gallery/Gemini/11/Hasselblad Super-Wide Camera 70 mm

1. Image S66-54659_G11-S



Blow-up of object in red circle in image S66-54659_G11-S



2. Image S66-54660_G11-S



Blow-up of object in red circle in image S66-54660_G11-S



3. Image S66-54661_G11-S



Blow-up of object in red circle in image S66-54661_G11-S

 

[Mendel]

bunch of out-of-focus blurry blobs, classic LIZ

why do you think they're "distant"? because of the background?

why do you think it's "rotating"?

 

[johne1618]

bunch of out-of-focus blurry blobs, classic LIZ

why do you think they're "distant"? because of the background?

why do you think it's "rotating"?

I think they're distant because they are so small. Judging by the image of the antenna if they were close objects they would be even more blurry.

I guess it's rotating because the three appendages on the bottom of the object seem to have rotated between the three frames.

Would you agree that it is an actual object rather than a defect on the film? In the middle image S66-54660_G11-S you can see a halo of glare around the object in the same way that there is glare around the antenna. Surely this fact shows that it is a real object and not a film defect?

 

[Mendel]

I think they're distant because they are so small. Judging by the image of the antenna if they were close objects they would be even more blurry.

They could be small because they're small. Paint flakes or chips of ice, for example.

I guess it's rotating because the three appendages on the bottom of the object seem to have rotated between the three frames.

I can't make out any appendages/limbs/branches.

Would you agree that it is an actual object rather than a defect on the film? In the middle image S66-54660_G11-S you can see a halo of glare around the object in the same way that there is glare around the antenna. Surely this fact shows that it is a real object and not a film defect?

It looks like a real object. It looks like it's in shadow in the first frame, indirectly lit by the surface that the camera is on, and in sunlight in the other 2 frames. I think it escapes attention because it is small (and close).

If it was a large distant object, for it to get that much brighter it would need to come a lot closer, and for that, it'd need to appear much bigger as it draws near—but it doesn't. It's also much brighter than any stars, and therefore should've been noticed by astronauts, which we don't have a record of. There's no astronomical record of it either.

 

[FatPhil]

bunch of out-of-focus blurry blobs, classic LIZ

why do you think they're "distant"? because of the background?

why do you think it's "rotating"?

Did any of the astronauts have a birthday during that mission? Was it a balloon animal from their party?

 

[purpleivan]

To me this is just yet another very small indistinct object caught in the LIZ.

The glare around the object, which seems to be relative to the brightness of the object itself, suggests that it's something that was present when the photo was taken and not some debris or damage picked up when it was developed or scanned. That being said, there is no infomation that I can see that would give a sense of the objects distance from the camera, as being small means absolutely nothing in a world in which small objects exist.

My guess, partially due to the apparently irregular and changing details in the 3 photos, is that it's a small, bumpy piece of ice, a short distance from the window the photo was taken through. The bumps on its surface would create changing patterns of light an dark (reflections and shadow) as it rotated.

Ice and other small pieces of debris (insulation material, paint chips etc.) floating around in close proximty to spacecraft has been a common feature of spaceflight from it's beginnings.

 

[purpleivan]

I just did a search for the ID numbers of one of the photos (S66-54659) and it looks like these three have been kicking around for a while in UFO circles.

https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/the-gemini-xi-ufo-audio-transcript-and-photos/

The explanation for it in the Condon Report was that it was the satellite Proton III.

 

[Mendel]

https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/the-gemini-xi-ufo-audio-transcript-and-photos/

The explanation for it in the Condon Report was that it was the satellite Proton III.

Content from External Source

I think the satellite identification suffers from being based on the assumption that the object is big.

 

[Rory]

Bruce Maccabee's analysis of it is very detailed and would be a good starting point for @johne1618 to begin his research:

https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Gemini-11-UFO.pdf

He concluded (in 2000) that it was still unidentified and seemed to dismiss Proton III as a candidate because he felt it was too far away. The Condon Report also said that at its distance from Gemini 11 it would be little more than a point of light, hence why Greenewald says the report "contradicts itself". Others, however, said that Proton III was ahead of schedule so could have been the object - though Maccabee says this was based on an error that was later acknowledged and calculated that it was actually behind schedule and would have been much further away than the 450km stated in Condon. In his conclusion he also appears open to it being something small and near.

 

[Mendel]

Article:

The satellite weighed 12,200 kg. It was cylindrical in shape with convex ends.

Source: https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/heasarc/missions/proton.html

doesn't look like the object in the animated gif to me, but...:

Article:

Source: https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/the-gemini-xi-ufo-audio-transcript-and-photos/

I'm not certain the radio exchange refers to the object in these pictures.

 

[Mendel]

The Condon Report also said that at its distance from Gemini 11 it would be little more than a point of light, hence why Greenewald says the report "contradicts itself

The Condon report says it's several objects ("it's obvious that the photographs are recording multiple pieces of Proton III", see my previous post), more than 1 km apart. Maccabee assumes it's just one:

Content from External Source

 

[Rory]

The Condon report says it's several objects

Wouldn't that still be a point of light?

why do you think it's "rotating"?

Interestingly, the astronaut initially described it as "a large tumbling object":


Source: https://historycollection.jsc.nasa.gov/JSCHistoryPortal/history/mission_trans/GT11_TEC.PDF

Though saying "it could have been anything from our Extravehicular Life Support System (ELSS) to something else" shows they also can't tell whether it's large and distant or small and near (they had jettisoned some food waste, garbage, and equipment they no longer needed a few hours before).

 

[Rory]

Others, however, said that Proton III was ahead of schedule so could have been the object - though Maccabee says this was based on an error that was later acknowledged

This idea of an "error that was later acknowledged" is disputed by Jim Oberg here:

https://yarchive.net/space/politics/ufo_gemini11.html

He also says that at the time (1996) there were no other ufologists who could compute satellite orbits from scratch, and that Maccabee used data he obtained (I suppose he doubts Maccabee's calculations).

He concludes:

What do I think the Gemini-11 sighting was? Right now with what I've seen, and considering all the evidence at my disposal, I'd say the following odds express my view:

Proton-3 65%
Other manmade satellite 30%
Other spaceflight-related event 5%
Unexplainable stimulus <<< 1%

But, anyway, this is all ancient history. There must have been some new thoughts about it since 2000.

 

[JMartJr]

(they had jettisoned some food waste, garbage, and equipment they no longer needed a few hours before).

That seems worth keeping in the front if one's mind when thinking about this case.

 

[Mick West]

This and other examples discussed by Oberg in 1977:
http://www.jamesoberg.com/77Feb-SW-astro-UFO.PDF

 

[johne1618]

I just did a search for the ID numbers of one of the photos (S66-54659) and it looks like these three have been kicking around for a while in UFO circles.

https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/the-gemini-xi-ufo-audio-transcript-and-photos/

The explanation for it in the Condon Report was that it was the satellite Proton III.

I like the explanation that it was the Proton III satellite.

I heard about the case from Darcy Weir's 2022 documentary "Secret Space UFOs: NASA's First Missions". They reported it as a UFO.