It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Strange Object Floating Outside The ISS

page: 4
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 04:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: 0bserver1
a reply to: ArMaP

A camera has multiple shot options, one of them is spot focus/focus spot/spot metering. Meaning its concentrated on the center field, not the surrounding fields and everything on the outside and that's closer to the the camera will be blurred


Really spot focus & focus spot that sounds the same to me, Yes on digital SLR's you can select the focus area but if that was a real object and close to the shuttle then depth of field comes into play and the full length of the ISS is in reasonable focus. There are a few tricks to avoid reflections including turning off lights, getting the lens as close to the window as possible and a cover over the camera/lens to stop stray light hitting the glass.




posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 04:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: 0bserver1
a reply to: OrionHunterX



click to enlarge

Besides from reflection or something else, it seems as if the whole ISS is cut and pasted into the scene here, I've brightened the contrast and the straight pixeled lines do not match the rest of the image.

a straightly lined lasso tool is being used for cutting the ISS into the original picture..

the green marker shows how it supposed to be, and the red marker shows cut and pasting to straight pixel lines..


So we have a dowloaded image in jpeg format that has levels altered and saved again as a jpeg the ISS is not a cut and paste.
edit on 15-1-2018 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 08:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008
There are a few tricks to avoid reflections including turning off lights, getting the lens as close to the window as possible and a cover over the camera/lens to stop stray light hitting the glass.

And polarizing filters.



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 09:21 AM
link   
I'm usually quick to poke fun at people that think every anomaly ever caught is either magic space dust or some sort of reflection or whatever. (Seriously, some guys will travel to fantastical lengths, linking several different hypothesis together to make their statement make sense, as they cannot [and refuse to] even fathom the possibility that we aren't the sole inhabitants of the Universe...).......

........ But in my opinion it really does look like a reflection, maybe of the camera being used to take the picture with the outlines of said person's finger on the side.



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 10:11 AM
link   
If that object were floating in space (such as a resupply module), it's a pretty safe assumption it would be exposed to the same bright sunlight as the ISS. There's nothing out there that could be casting a shadow to obscure the object, unless it is way off in the distance, it's huge, and it's in the shadow of the moon.

That leads me to believe it's something not out in space.



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: TheTruthRocks




it's a pretty safe assumption it would be exposed to the same bright sunlight as the ISS


The shadow as if I should believe the ISS was really there, came from the ISS. I think looking at the shadows on that thing that maybe those shadows were cast from the " ISS " but honestly I think were seeing two total different scenes here and the unknown object is nothing more than an alien spacecraft..

And this is a projection of an alien being in space!



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Chadwickus

Maybe I was wrong, most of the time I find you a hard line skeptic, but yes you did put out those images and that was a great thing to do



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

I believe they used IR spectra lenses, IMO that means they also capture things that aren't seen by normal vision. And as we know IR shows green on the actual photograph



long-wave infrared spectra. IR Lenses are optical lenses that use specific substrates or anti-reflection coatings to maximize performance for applications operating above 700nm including thermal imaging


Now the question arises why, why using advanced optical equipment if you just want to snap something you didn't want the public to know about let alone putting them online?
edit on 0b50America/ChicagoMon, 15 Jan 2018 13:19:50 -0600vAmerica/ChicagoMon, 15 Jan 2018 13:19:50 -06001 by 0bserver1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: 0bserver1
I believe they used IR spectra lenses, IMO that means they also capture things that aren't seen by normal vision. And as we know IR shows green on the actual photograph

Two things:
- IR lenses are not enough, the film or sensor must be sensitive to IR. Common digital sensors are sensitive to IR, but, if I'm not mistaken, only to near IR, the closest to the visible wave lengths;
- IR doesn't show as green.


Now the question arises why, why using advanced optical equipment if you just want to snap something you didn't want the public to know about let alone putting them online?

What "advanced optical equipment"? We don't know the characteristics of the camera.



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: hiddenNZ
a reply to: tommyjo

Umm...the shuttles stopped flying in 2011 I thought?


You are quite correct. The Shuttle Endeavour video footage would have been from 2011.



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 03:52 PM
link   
So bottom line what is it?



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: 0bserver1

They used a bog standard DSLR look at the first pic in the series the one I linked to.

Digital sensors can see IR but they have a filter to block it so colours appear natural so please link to the source off your quote.



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Outlier13
a reply to: skunkape23

lol...do you mean the original machine that had a base plate of prefabulated aluminite, surmounted by a malleable logarithmic casing in such a way that the two main spurving bearings were in a direct line with the pentametric fan? The latter consisted simply of six hydrocoptic marzlevanes, so fitted to the ambifacient lunar waneshaft that side fumbling was effectively prevented. The main winding was of the normal lotus-o-delta type placed in panendermic semi-bovoid slots in the stator, every seventh conductor being connected by a nonreversible tremie pipe to the differential girdlespring on the "up" end of the grammeters.



That's the one!



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 01:33 AM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP




What "advanced optical equipment"? We don't know the characteristics of the camera.



True , so we can only presume that because in space they needed camera's that were IR sensitive to capture more of the whole spectrum of what could be in space other than what was visible on normal camera's.
a reply to: wmd_2008

I think just what ArMaP said we actually don't know what they used so we can speculate all week long what they used or not .

I seem to have a different opinion as you both have and that I can live with . What I see in those pictures deviates from many here , it's not the first time I see those same objects near earth spacecraft and therefore made my own conclusions about those photographs.

a reply to: antar

That we have to make our own conclusions, those with or without us..

edit on 0b26America/ChicagoTue, 16 Jan 2018 01:47:26 -0600vAmerica/ChicagoTue, 16 Jan 2018 01:47:26 -06001 by 0bserver1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 02:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: 0bserver1
a reply to: ArMaP




What "advanced optical equipment"? We don't know the characteristics of the camera.



True , so we can only presume that because in space they needed camera's that were IR sensitive to capture more of the whole spectrum of what could be in space other than what was visible on normal camera's.
a reply to: wmd_2008

I think just what ArMaP said we actually don't know what they used so we can speculate all week long what they used or not .

I seem to have a different opinion as you both have and that I can live with . What I see in those pictures deviates from many here , it's not the first time I see those same objects near earth spacecraft and therefore made my own conclusions about those photographs.

a reply to: antar

That we have to make our own conclusions, those with or without us..


Actually we can find out if you know were to look or make an effort.

Standard issue cameras on ISS/Shuttle havebeen Nikon cameras for a long time the Kodak DSLR had a Nikon mount so could use Nikon lenses

Cameras used on NASA Missions

The Shuttle had Nikon NASA F4 to start with, the Nikon F4 was a film camera which NASA converted to digital operation. 1 mp 1024x1024 Monochrome CCD sensor. Then Nikon-based Kodak DCS 460, DCS 660 and DCS 760, Nikon D1, D2X, D2Xs, D3, D3X, D3S, D4.

They had IR versions of cameras but colours would not look correct as you will see below.


The Nikon NASA F4 Electronic Still Camera was one of the first and rarest fully digital cameras with development started in 1987. While Nikon delivered a modified Nikon F4 body, most of the electronics for the digital camera and housings were designed and built by NASA at the Johnson Space Center and other suppliers. It was first flown in September 1991 on board the Space Shuttle Discovery, mission STS-48. Later the cameras were flown on several other Shuttle missions[4] including STS-44, 45, 42, 49, 53, 56 and 61.


They then used camers like Nikon D3S, D4s

Digital sensors have an IR fliter attached to them because they are sensitive to IR some more than others.


All sensors used in digital cameras are (to some extent) sensitive to infrared light. This is simple to verify. Standard remote controls uses infrared light to signal the device. Take a TV or DVD remote control, point the remote at your digital camera and push one of the buttons. No visible light can be seen, but if you look at the preview or review of the remote on your camera's LCD screen, you should see the infrared light emitted by the device as a bright spot.


You will even see that with a mobile phone.


IR-light may cause image defects such as flare, false colours, hot spots and chromatic aberrations. It is not a good thing (in an ordinary photograh) to have the image affected by IR-light. As a measure against these defects, an IR-blocking filter in usually placed in the front of the camera's sensor.


I notice no link to the IR lens quote you posted, the cameras are standard DSLR so when they take pictures the colours are correct.

Typical IR shot 790 nm supercolor converted Canon EOS REBEL T3i


edit on 16-1-2018 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: 0bserver1
True , so we can only presume that because in space they needed camera's that were IR sensitive to capture more of the whole spectrum of what could be in space other than what was visible on normal camera's.

If they wanted to use a special camera to get images with more information than what a normal camera shows why use the camera behind a glass? That would limit the camera to the characteristics of the glass, if the glass acts as a IR filter, for example, they wouldn't get any IR with their "special camera".



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: 0bserver1
True , so we can only presume that because in space they needed camera's that were IR sensitive to capture more of the whole spectrum of what could be in space other than what was visible on normal camera's.

If they wanted to use a special camera to get images with more information than what a normal camera shows why use the camera behind a glass? That would limit the camera to the characteristics of the glass, if the glass acts as a IR filter, for example, they wouldn't get any IR with their "special camera".


Just what I was thinking -- the cupola windows are probably treated to reduce IR and UV transmissivity, I have the charts for shuttle windows but never bothered to get ISS window characteristics. Should be easy enough to FOIA.

Even as far back as Skylab, crew windows were narrow-band, to get UV photos of Comet Kohoutek the crew actually had to go outside on an EVA.

Shuttle Columbia did have an optically flat UV-transparent middeck hatch window for specific scientific observations, at other times there was a UV filter attached over it. I was told that if the filter wasn't installed, even scattered light from naked sunlight streaming inside could induce retinal damage ['snow blindness;] within 15 minutes.



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 03:48 PM
link   
And as you Can see the reflected object is out of focues.
its to close!
So it Can Not be the camra.


originally posted by: 0bserver1
a reply to: ArMaP


NASA

Yeah, you're probably right.

a reply to: Chadwickus

Thanks, mate for them links, I shouldn't look deep into these photographs, you never know who's reflection shows up?

peekaboo



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP

Not if you use external filters. And you don't know what IR will be blocked by those windows ?

Short wave or long wave IR ? Short wave can be seen through glass on camera's with IR lenses
edit on 0b55America/ChicagoTue, 16 Jan 2018 17:51:55 -0600vAmerica/ChicagoTue, 16 Jan 2018 17:51:55 -06001 by 0bserver1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 08:15 PM
link   
C'mon folks.. it's clearly the Tardis. For the initiated, this is time and relative dimension in space. : )




top topics



 
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join