Strange Object Floating Outside The ISS

a reply to: 0bserver1

Why don't you provide a link to the image showing Mog from Zog

a reply to: wmd_2008

Yea that's a real EYE opener

And reflections show up in color not monochrome ...

a reply to: 0bserver1

I'm having a hard time accepting that object in the photo as a reflection for the following two reasons.

a. When they take pics through the observation port, the camera is held really close to the port's clear window.

b. Why are there are no reflections of other objects or surfaces in this or any other picture that was snapped through the observation port?

I looked through all the other pics from that specific mission on the NASA site. There's nothing in the aft flight deck that even partially resembles that object in the photo. There's no way it's part of the ISS because it would have to be tethered to the ISS (it appears to be floating in space), and that's not how NASA would operate. It is odd, too, that the object appears in no other photos.

We have no idea of scale. The object resembles the lens of a camera with a filter frame attached, so I checked the DSLR camera equipment suite they had on the mission, as well as the IMAX camera and accessories, and no dice.

This is a good puzzle indeed.

a reply to: TheTruthRocks

Mike Singh wasn't a fool the guy had magnificent threads.

He was way ahead of his time..

Personally I don't give a ... what everyone thinks this is it won't change my mind in a billion years.

And there are plenty of photographs I have my doubts about, but not this one..

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: OrionHunterX

originally posted by: misterassist
so nobody knows what it is yet?

Nope! And that sucks!

I would say we do

STS100-E-5156

R e f l e c t i o n s

There's a world of a difference between the two. The pic you linked to is clearly reflection. Anyone can see that. But the stark outlines of the image in the opening post doesn't look like reflection at all. Compare the two side-by-side and you'll see what I'm talking about!

a reply to: OrionHunterX

Why argue? You're going to have to wait a minimum of a billion years, apparently.

originally posted by: TheTruthRocks
a reply to: OrionHunterX

Why argue? You're going to have to wait a minimum of a billion years, apparently.

Now why didn't I think of that? Lol!

originally posted by: 0bserver1
Mike Singh wasn't a fool the guy had magnificent threads.

No, he wasn't (isn't) a fool, but he had (has?) a tendency of interpreting common things as if they were uncommon.

Although I think the object in the photo is a reflection, this is one of his best finds, as it's not that obvious that it is a photo/imaging artefact, so it does leave some space for interpretation.

He was way ahead of his time..

Not really, but he was a prolific anomaly hunter. I haven't seen any thing from him for almost a year.

Personally I don't give a ... what everyone thinks this is it won't change my mind in a billion years.

What other people think should never affect what we think, but we should consider facts.

Edited to add that, although Mikesingh posted many anomalies he usually posted them mostly as possibilities, not as facts, and that was one thing I liked about his posts.

originally posted by: TheTruthRocks
I'm having a hard time accepting that object in the photo as a reflection for the following two reasons.

a. When they take pics through the observation port, the camera is held really close to the port's clear window.

b. Why are there are no reflections of other objects or surfaces in this or any other picture that was snapped through the observation port?

As far as the camera being flat against the glass with no opportunity for reflections, look at the other photos in that sequence. You can see the window(s) in which the photographs were taken have several panes of glass. There's also a large gap between the interior and exterior windows:

Another photo showing multiple window panes:

This is another in the same series of photos that was taken with the flash on where you can see the reflection of the photographer. Note the window panes and insulation/seal between the windows on the lower right of the photo match those of the photos above :

The photo in question with the flash and possibly interior lighting turned off but the outline of the window still visible on the lower right:

On the bottom right you can see reflections with a greenish tint to them. If you CC&P a small portion of that reflection on the bottom right next to the "object" above the ISS, they strangely share the same color palette of green:


The object appears to be translucent and not solid. You can see the background darkness filtering through from behind. Also, the ISS is brightly lit while the object is dark. If they're in the same space, they should share at least some of the same lighting characteristics, even if it's in shadow. But the object is closer to the green reflection on the bottom right of the photo.

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

The object appears to be translucent and not solid

True because it's the fourth dimension projection

originally posted by: 0bserver1
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

The object appears to be translucent and not solid

True because it's the fourth dimension projection

Huh? Fourth dimension projection like a tesseract?

not an expert.
I am assuming that it is a nebula in the background.

ya' know? Kinda like "objects in mirror are closer than they appear" sort of thing?

When I zoom on it, the anomaly is further away from ISS than initial observation.
Doesn't lens flare/reflection come out a little more crisp?

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

Thanks for the thoughtful reply; I understand all that and I saw the same things you've pointed out. The greenish reflections in picture #4 (lower right corner of window panel) have a poorly-defined, cloudy appearance. They are not in focus and it's impossible to determine if that is a surface, an object, or more than one object. The unidentified object, however, is in pretty good focus; it's the detail in the object that has me puzzled.

It's easy to assume the greenish tint is due to iron oxides typically present in glass, but I think NASA would've specified low-iron optical quality glass for color accuracy in photos taken through it. You can see this greenish color when you look at the edges of a piece of clear glass, such as a tabletop.

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

yes, that's probably we see it more like a 2d image .

Whatever was up there at STS-100 wasn't human and sure wasn't a reflection either..

Ship with thousand faces

How much proof do you need?


Oh and no cut and pasting here by NASA..

a reply to: ArMaP

No, he wasn't (isn't) a fool, but he had (has?) a tendency of interpreting common things as if they were uncommon.

Interpreting, No.
Uncommon, yes


STS-100

originally posted by: TheTruthRocks
The greenish reflections in picture #4 (lower right corner of window panel) have a poorly-defined, cloudy appearance. They are not in focus and it's impossible to determine if that is a surface, an object, or more than one object. The unidentified object, however, is in pretty good focus; it's the detail in the object that has me puzzled.

The object is more focused than the lower right corner reflection, but it's less focused than the ISS. Seeing that the lower right corner reflection is, most likely, the corner of the window frame, it's as close as possible, while an object behind the person holding the camera would be a few meters away and would appear more in focus, like the object appears.

originally posted by: 0bserver1
Interpreting, No.

Yes, interpreting, as that's the only thing we do, we interpret what we see in the photos according to our own thoughts and experience.

a reply to: ArMaP

I don't look for interpretations, I look for symmetry and guided by experiences in combination with a slight touch of scientific research.

Just like cooking

a reply to: 0bserver1

I didn't say you look for interpretations, I said that what we (everybody) does is interpret what we see.

In this case you interpret it as a real object, I interpret it as a reflection of something inside the Space Shuttle.

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: 0bserver1

I didn't say you look for interpretations, I said that what we (everybody) does is interpret what we see.

In this case you interpret it as a real object, I interpret it as a reflection of something inside the Space Shuttle.

Fair game to me, I'm not the one here to convince, although I'm only pointing out what I see in those pictures.

One may say a great deal of imagination, then I can only say the world has been built on imagination and imagination is build from looking at the stars and listening to that tune that thrives the universe for billions of years.

originally posted by: 0bserver1
One may say a great deal of imagination, then I can only say the world has been built on imagination and imagination is build from looking at the stars and listening to that tune that thrives the universe for billions of years.

I agree, without imagination there's no creation.