OK has anyone been paying attention to NASA tv

a reply to: CosmicAnomaly

Thank you for that bit of information, I was unaware of that system.

So that begins to explain one "set" of images. There are however, many others that may not be so easy.

Well the Cupola on the ISS has quite a few windows on it:

That observational window is obviously used to look at earth. There is no earth in the ufo picture the camera looks as though its staring into space.

Why doesn't someone ask Nasa where the camera is located?

a reply to: AthlonSavage

HDEV Facts:
While the HDEV collects beautiful images of the Earth from the ISS, the primary purpose of the experiment is an engineering one: monitoring the rate at which HD video camera image quality degrades when exposed to the space environment (mainly from cosmic ray damage) and verify the effectiveness of the design of the HDEV housing for thermal control.
The four cameras of the HDEV experiment are oriented in different directions and with different views relative to the ISS travel direction. They are in positioned, 1 looking forward, 1 looking nearly straight down, and 2 looking back. This provides several different viewing angles to the viewer.
The cameras are programmed to cycle from one camera to the next, and only one camera can work at a time. As they cycle, each camera must turn off and the next camera turn on before the HD video starts, taking about 8 to 10 seconds to change. Through this cycling, comparable data can be collected on each camera; while also providing, as a bonus, different Earth viewing perspectives.
The University of Bonn in partnership with the German Space Agency (DLR) is implementing the "Columbus Eye" program based on the HDEV streaming video. A webpage is in place (columbuseye.uni-bonn.de... in German) that incorporates the HDEV UStream video and describes the Columbus Eye project, which will leverage ESA astronaut Alexander Gerst educational activities in space. For all questions regarding HDEV, please contact the HDEV Principal Investigator, Susan Runco.

originally posted by: tanka418
....By-the-way...the OP video was recorded from the Copula.

How did YOU find out about the crew's secret sex closet?

[grin]

I think you meant 'cupola'. No copulation there, AFAIK.

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: tanka418
....By-the-way...the OP video was recorded from the Copula.

How did YOU find out about the crew's secret sex closet?

[grin]

I think you meant 'cupola'. No copulation there, AFAIK.

Yeah, I realized that error a bit later...

So...not much fun in space; eh?

originally posted by: eriktheawful
The ISS HDEV camera assembly...windows included:

When installing a fixed camera in an enclosure, it is important that the lens of the camera is positioned right up against the window to prevent any glare. Otherwise, reflections from the camera and the background will appear in the image. To reduce reflection, special coatings can be applied on any glass used in front of the lens.

-- Source

Ya know; I bet the builders of HDEV know this...

So...how about we call this what it is; reflections within the lens assembly...a lens flare. NOT, a reflection on a window. In this context "window reflections" are very unlikely.

a reply to: tanka418

You'll note (IF you go back and read all the posts I've made in this thread), that at NO time have I suggested that ANYTHING is a reflection.

You asked about windows. I replied.

You asked about cameras having windows. I replied.

However, and considering the massive amount of photography that I do, yes, it is quite possible to be a reflection internally from a lens.

That's still a reflection however. Window or lens.

No idea if that's what the OP is or not.

But there's no sense in disregarding it as a plausible idea either.

originally posted by: tanka418
Locations of windows and cameras is something that should have been known BEFORE any mention of reflection was made.

Actually, the location of the camera taking this reflection should have been posted first on the youtube video....

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: tanka418
Locations of windows and cameras is something that should have been known BEFORE any mention of reflection was made.

Actually, the location of the camera taking this reflection should have been posted first on the youtube video....

Yes it should have. This is actually a new camera system...was installed last Aril.

a reply to: tanka418

Yes; jumping to conclusions! I am fully aware of the previous posts n this; many of them are patiently wrong! Many of the so-called "reflections" are a view that can't be had form any window on ISS.

The reflections don't have to be from inside the ISS. Here are two threads I responded to showing reflections outside of the ISS that were believed to be mysterious objects:

---------------------------------------------



So if you claim you never mentioned a UFO and you don't believe it's a reflection, what is it?

This from someone that has mentioned in other threads the following:
- You believe you can summons UFOs at will or predict where they will be.
- You believe the 'Starchild' skull could be alien.
- You believe alien abductions could actually be happening.
- You believe aliens could be exact matches and indistinguishable from humans.
- You believe aliens have already addressed the U.N. G8 and G20.

Any of that is relevant how?!??

It's relevant because it shows your mindset. Apparently, you have convinced yourself that aliens are visiting Earth and working with humans. Also that you can beckon UFOs. Those are your statements, so you need to own up to them and what's involved with believing such nonsense. You're on the outer fringe of most believers on this forum and already go into this biased. You could logically assume that you would support the theory that it's a strange object outside of the ISS. Possibly an alien craft. Besides, you're not coming from a neutral position as you're trying to make it seem. I provided the photo of a reflection from glass back onto the lens that you asked for. Your response isn't that you admit there's protective glass there and a reflection is possible, you're still arguing about the position of the camera and come back with some lame reasoning that the random image I pulled from online could be Photoshopped.

You're floundering with your responses. You've taken a defensive stance rather than a proactive one helping the thread by giving evidence this isn't a reflection or evidence of anything other than something mundane.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8

This from someone that has mentioned in other threads the following:
- You believe you can summons UFOs at will or predict where they will be.
- You believe the 'Starchild' skull could be alien.
- You believe alien abductions could actually be happening.
- You believe aliens could be exact matches and indistinguishable from humans.
- You believe aliens have already addressed the U.N. G8 and G20.

It's relevant because it shows your mindset. Apparently, you have convinced yourself that aliens are visiting Earth and working with humans. Also that you can beckon UFOs. Those are your statements, so you need to own up to them and what's involved with believing such nonsense. You're on the outer fringe of most believers on this forum and already go into this biased. You could logically assume that you would support the theory that it's a strange object outside of the ISS. Possibly an alien craft. Besides, you're not coming from a neutral position as you're trying to make it seem. I provided the photo of a reflection from glass back onto the lens that you asked for. Your response isn't that you admit there's protective glass there and a reflection is possible, you're still arguing about the position of the camera and come back with some lame reasoning that the random image I pulled from online could be Photoshopped.

You're floundering with your responses. You've taken a defensive stance rather than a proactive one helping the thread by giving evidence this isn't a reflection or evidence of anything other than something mundane.

So I guess the original context is to confining for you; you are the second person to attempt to "creep" the scope of this to allow you irrelevant material.

Now then this business:

This from someone that has mentioned in other threads the following:
- You believe you can summons UFOs at will or predict where they will be.
- You believe the 'Starchild' skull could be alien.
- You believe alien abductions could actually be happening.
- You believe aliens could be exact matches and indistinguishable from humans.
- You believe aliens have already addressed the U.N. G8 and G20.

1. I have on several occasions done exactly that; "summoned", or predicted the appearance of UFO. I could offer a demonstration; but, that would require you to illustrate how it is in my best immediate interest; good luck!

2. The most recent data indicates a non-terrestrial involvement at the genetic level. I have always found it interesting how people like you can "cherry pick" your data and have any confidence in that data. Seriously, using obsolete data is not how the data analysis thing is done!

3. Alien abductions have and continue to occur. It doesn't matter if you accept reality or not, reality still IS. There are many here on ATS that have been abducted, me included. For some this continues...

4. Yep absolutely, there is no reason, probabilistically, for ET to be significantly different...at any level. However, there is also no reason to suspect that ET might be like Terrestrials. Beyond the whole "chemistry of life" thing anyway.

5. Yes ET, actually, a specific ET has addressed the U.N. general assembly, U.N. Security Council, UN. Special Committees, the G8 and G20. This is kind of like the abduction thing; your acceptance is not required, and I rather suggest you continue to remain in your cocoon.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
I provided the photo of a reflection from glass back onto the lens that you asked for. Your response isn't that you admit there's protective glass there and a reflection is possible, you're still arguing about the position of the camera and come back with some lame reasoning that the random image I pulled from online could be Photoshopped.

No, actually you didn't...go visit the link I provided above. It will show you "why" there is no reflection off the "glass" in front of the lens. What you showed was a view from a new camera that was here to fore not possible (that camera was install April 14). Try as you might; you will not be able to prove a reflection off of any glass except for views from the Cupola, there they are almost certain to occur.

The problem here is that you, and many others simply passed judgment on the image without any real evidence. You said "reflection" without any regard as to whether or not a reflection was even possible; and then you try to condemn me for calling you on your BS. Hell man, you didn't even know how many windows ISS has until I made y'all "look", and most of you still don't know. And, none of us has any idea at all about how many cameras there are and where they are mounted. Yet you seem quite comfortable passing judgment with out any usable data...

I sincerely hope you don't think of yourself as a "Seeker".

a reply to: tanka418

1. I have on several occasions done exactly that; "summoned", or predicted the appearance of UFO. I could offer a demonstration; but, that would require you to illustrate how it is in my best immediate interest; good luck!

2. The most recent data indicates a non-terrestrial involvement at the genetic level. I have always found it interesting how people like you can "cherry pick" your data and have any confidence in that data. Seriously, using obsolete data is not how the data analysis thing is done!

3. Alien abductions have and continue to occur. It doesn't matter if you accept reality or not, reality still IS. There are many here on ATS that have been abducted, me included. For some this continues...

4. Yep absolutely, there is no reason, probabilistically, for ET to be significantly different...at any level. However, there is also no reason to suspect that ET might be like Terrestrials. Beyond the whole "chemistry of life" thing anyway.

5. Yes ET, actually, a specific ET has addressed the U.N. general assembly, U.N. Security Council, UN. Special Committees, the G8 and G20. This is kind of like the abduction thing; your acceptance is not required, and...

Well, all I can say is I'll let all of ^^that^^ speak for itself.

I rather suggest you continue to remain in your cocoon.

The only cocoon here is in your world of aliens and UFOs you've spun for yourself. I guess you stay true to the teachings of Steven Greer. Make amazing claims without the need to provide any evidence to anyone. We should just take your word for it. Works great for the gullible and naive.
That's quite a list of encounters and alien knowledge. I suspect there are many many more to that list also. Evidence of any one of those claims would shatter everything. You could single-handedly end the speculation with just one. What's holding you back?

----------------------------

The problem here is that you, and many others simply passed judgment on the image without any real evidence. You said "reflection" without any regard as to whether or not a reflection was even possible; and then you try to condemn me for calling you on your BS. Hell man, you didn't even know how many windows ISS has until I made y'all "look", and most of you still don't know. And, none of us has any idea at all about how many cameras there are and where they are mounted. Yet you seem quite comfortable passing judgment with out any usable data...

Sorry, having many opportunities for decades while providing no previous factual evidence of alien beings, the default answer up until this moment will always be a boring "Earthly" one. You're beginning at the wrong end. You're arguing a spot that fades in and out as something completely unexplainable. Like you see a detailed spaceship zoom up to the space station and zoom off. Meanwhile, you've done zero to show what you think it is.
Someone mentioned what a direct source would say. I wonder what any of the astronauts on the ISS would say about it. Would you happen to file in line with the conspiracy that the astronauts can't speak about the subject? I guess it would be useless then.

I think the only arguments here should be analytic.

- The shadows did not change on the ISS during the time the UFO (and I mean UNIDENTIFIED) was being filmed.
- The close up of the object shows that it was oscillating somewhat and moving from side to side.
- The fade in and out is extremely smooth.

I think it was out there. As for what it was; we can only look at our history of "no information" if someone knows about it or not. It becomes evidence that you can put away for future comparisons.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8


a reply to: tanka418
"1. I have on several occasions done exactly that; "summoned", or predicted the appearance of UFO. I could offer a demonstration; but, that would require you to illustrate how it is in my best immediate interest; good luck!

2. The most recent data indicates a non-terrestrial involvement at the genetic level. I have always found it interesting how people like you can "cherry pick" your data and have any confidence in that data. Seriously, using obsolete data is not how the data analysis thing is done!

3. Alien abductions have and continue to occur. It doesn't matter if you accept reality or not, reality still IS. There are many here on ATS that have been abducted, me included. For some this continues...

4. Yep absolutely, there is no reason, probabilistically, for ET to be significantly different...at any level. However, there is also no reason to suspect that ET might be like Terrestrials. Beyond the whole "chemistry of life" thing anyway.

5. Yes ET, actually, a specific ET has addressed the U.N. general assembly, U.N. Security Council, UN. Special Committees, the G8 and G20. This is kind of like the abduction thing; your acceptance is not required, and..."

Well, all I can say is I'll let all of ^^that^^ speak for itself.

Well yes it will speak for itself. The problem here is that you have never examined any of the evidence for the above; you, again, have simply passed judgment on something you don't like, and of course condemned it without proper analysis.

And, that actually shows that you are not qualified to analyze data...You do not use scientific procedure, you do not use any existing data in your analyses; you simply judge something based entirely on your personal "comfort zone" and to hell with reality and science.

That's quite a list of encounters and alien knowledge. I suspect there are many many more to that list also. Evidence of any one of those claims would shatter everything. You could single-handedly end the speculation with just one. What's holding you back?

All of the data you need to verify the above "claims" is available publically...you should go and find it; make some attempt to understand it in it's proper context...then maybe you will have a leg to stand on.

Sorry, having many opportunities for decades while providing no previous factual evidence of alien beings, the default answer up until this moment will always be a boring "Earthly" one. You're beginning at the wrong end. You're arguing a spot that fades in and out as something completely unexplainable. Like you see a detailed spaceship zoom up to the space station and zoom off. Meanwhile, you've done zero to show what you think it is.
Someone mentioned what a direct source would say. I wonder what any of the astronauts on the ISS would say about it. Would you happen to file in line with the conspiracy that the astronauts can't speak about the subject? I guess it would be useless then.

Beginning at the wrong end...??.. Ya know, I very seriously doubt you know which end is the correct end to start from. That would be one of the many reasons I actually use some amount and degree of REAL science and data analysis procedure...

It is also "why" I called y'all on your faulty analysis...it's not so much the accuracy of your result, as it is the manner in which you arrived at your conclusion.

for instance: you stated the "anomaly" was a reflection in a "window". Of course it clearly is not. You fail to understand and account for the engineering that went into the design and mounting of cameras. Which in this case is not behind a "window" (there are no windows in the Columbia module. And then of course you scoffed at any engineered attempt to reduce or eliminate the probability of reflection in the overall assembly...this based on your lack of knowledge of how the system was designed and the possible remedies available for issues like "reflections". You also exhibit a general lack of knowledge of the mechanics of reflections in this context...again, visit the link I provided above...it will get you started.

I haven't speculated on "what" that was because there is not sufficient data to determine. Although, based on context, and engineering, I will have to say that it most certainly is not a reflection in a window.

originally posted by: Shadowhawk
a reply to: CaptNemo2012

It looks like a reflection on the glass. Not a very compelling video.

geez.....another one?....thanks to the OP for the clip, but it probably can be easily explained away.

a reply to: tanka418
Hmmmmm... Are you sure you're not a member of CSETI? Again, an awful lot of talking, but very little substance or evidence of anything. Your "data" exists in these links you've posted before. I've already gone down that road with you in other threads. You've yet to show a single piece of evidence that proves anything. Let's just say your threshold of evidence is far lower than mine or most of the scientific community. That's why this phenomena can't be taken seriously. Nor can I take you seriously when you continue to claim personal knowledge, but give zero evidence of that either. Talk is cheap as they say.

Yes yes... I've never researched any of these cases, I make snap decisions while doing no investigation, I pass judgment because I'm not comfortable of admitting aliens are real, I know nothing when it comes to the scientific procedure, I don't know how reflections work, etc. etc. Right?
At the risk of going down the wrong T&C path here, which would be far too easy, I'll repeat what I said previously. Drawing from your own personal experiences, why don't you provide evidence of these experiences? You could put an end to the UFO/alien speculation. It's foolish for you to point to other "evidence" when you claim you have your own like the ability to call UFOs at will.

That damned UFO is an attention wh@re I see:





Look.. here he is with a few of his buddies:

Data overload!

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
Hmmmmm... Are you sure you're not a member of CSETI? Again, an awful lot of talking, but very little substance or evidence of anything. Your "data" exists in these links you've posted before. I've already gone down that road with you in other threads. You've yet to show a single piece of evidence that proves anything. Let's just say your threshold of evidence is far lower than mine or most of the scientific community. That's why this phenomena can't be taken seriously. Nor can I take you seriously when you continue to claim personal knowledge, but give zero evidence of that either. Talk is cheap as they say.

Ya know; IF I want this argument...I have a 19 yo kid...

Threshold of evidence? Just what the hell is that supposed to be? Other than your lame excuse to reject valid data you don't like...

In scientific research evidence is accumulated through observations of phenomena that occur in the natural world, or which are created as experiments in a laboratory or other controlled conditions. Scientific evidence usually goes towards supporting or rejecting a hypothesis

-- en.wikipedia.org...

Your concept of "evidence" is broken...

ETA: By the way; some of the "low threshold" evidence I offered was the engineering used in the enclosure and some engineering that reduces/eliminates the very "reflections" you are claiming. But, I guess that engineering is actually irrelevant...

a reply to: tanka418

What glass would that be?

This appears to be an external view, thus no glass…

What do you think camera lenses are made from, Oatmeal?

EYA: Thats why we can't rule out lens flare or refraction. Especially since the "object" appears to be moving from shadow to light to shadow.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: tanka418

What glass would that be?

This appears to be an external view, thus no glass…

What do you think camera lenses are made from, Oatmeal?

EYA: Thats why we can't rule out lens flare or refraction. Especially since the "object" appears to be moving from shadow to light to shadow.

So...tell me...

Do you NOT pay attention like my kid, or are you deliberately obtuse?

The "glass" referred to here is not the lens, but rather the "protective" w_indow in front. You know the pane of glass that produces no reflections for the camera. By the way; there are some technical reasons that no reflection is produced, but I suppose y'all would rather remain ignorant of that...

Lens flares are rather a different animal. Since they are not produced in the same manner. But...if you were to look at the design of the enclosure (I've already mentioned this) you will notice some engineering that will virtually eliminate the lens flare as well.

Again, you are jumping to conclusions, in a manner that is far worse than I am accused of. In your case all of the data needed to reach an intelligent, scientific conclusion is available; yet you never avail yourselves of that data, nor do you use or acknowledge it....that is your bad!