Shooting a UFO, STS mission (video)

Cool Vinogradov quotation -- did you hear it, or are you trusting some UFO website like Jeff Challender's??

Yes. I heard it yesterday live on NASA T.V. and then wrote it down right after.

it seems the question at hand is, (do you beleive?), to be true or a hoax. i myself would like to see more proof, but since i am not active in trying to get proof to otherwise state it wrong, the only one to blame is me. there has been way to many people in masses that have seen them and way to many who seen them in the past. i myself have never seen one, but my dad said he did and exsplained what happened. the nasa clip, i dont know, i was not there, but ufos i do beleive in.

According to the live-blog at forum.nasaspaceflight.com..., at about 1:35 EDT yesterday the NASA TV was carrying a post-EVA press conference. Are you sure about your logged time?

littlebird: "it seems the question at hand is, (do you beleive?), to be true or a hoax. "

By no means is it this simple. The question to me is, are such reports generated by honest misperceptions? And it's generally conceded that well above 80% or 90% are -- the question is, are ALL of them (except for the very small portion of 'hoaxes' -- either by the claimant, or a 'prank' by tricksters on unsuspecting witnesses).

For the space shuttle videos, there ARE no witnesses, the people there saw nothing they categorize as unusual. The video, as evaluated by people familiar with the technology and the typical operational features of spaceflight, shows nothing extraordinary or urgently unexplainable.

But for some UFO arguers, unhindered by knowledge about the phenomena on the video, it is indeed unusual, and honestly so.

Then there are some UFO arguers [NOT represented by any posters on this thread] who, for fun and profit, present false 'information' about these videos -- that's the only 'hoax' angle I can see about the specific cases under discussion here, and it's a minor sideshow.

More on the vinogradov comment:

See
forum.nasaspaceflight.com...

...for the timeline of the day.

Vinogradov was supposed to be doing "СОЖ MNT" (SOZh in cyrillic) and then exercise -- this from the on-orbit daily status report: "Vinogradov conducted the routine daily maintenance of the SOZh (Environment Control & Life Support System, ECLSS) system in the SM, including the ASU toilet facilities systems/replaceables and today also the weekly BRPK air/liquid condensate separator apparatus inspection."

...but could easily have looked out a window between tasks.

Originally posted by JimO
Thanks, Ecto -- I had not observed such a 'walk' behavior, but will pull out my copy of the video and look at it. did you actually see the motion as described, or are you passing on somebody else's description?

I observed it in the videos. Now, the version I saw was the 'Smoking Gun' tapes, but I am refering to unaltered, unzoomed footage. I will try to locate the appropriate footage with time stamps, and perhaps grab a gif to point to the suspicious particles.

As for parallax, there are four cameras in the corners of the payload bay and cameras on the robot arm, but for close-in objects how should they be aimed to both capture them? Also, the number of cameras that can be recorded and/or downlinked is limited.

Do their fields of view overlap? Do their fields of view overlap on a region of outer space? If so, can we see examples of the same ice particles floating around from multiple cameras? Are tapes stored for post-mission processing?

I've tried for a long time to get the NASA History Office interested in responding to widespread internet stories with full explanations, but they have mostly laughed them off.

That is unfortunate. I can understand the laughter. I cannot understand continuing to ignore the concerns of the masses. Folklore will continue to form in the absence of definitive information. When people see something floating around in space, they label it to give it meaning and a place in their world view. With little information to go on and laughing scientists the folklore will be wildly speculative. NASA has a limitted window of opportunity in which to define its own legacy.

The one time the NASA historian agreed to a small 'monograph' contract was in 2002 when he awarded me a $15,000 grant to write up a teacher's guide to explaining the 'Apollo Hoax' myth for students -- a contract that was cancelled in embarassment as soon as it was mocked on the ABC Evening News as a stupid waste of tax money. Don't expect any more NASA efforts along those lines!

A $15,000 grant is peanuts. If people knew how much the real pork cost, they would understand that it was a bargain to get the position of a knowledgeable person.

I suppose the shuttle itself would have to deploy a parallax array, and that would be costly. An addition to the ISS would make more sense, I'm aware, however, that we will be lucky to get a complete ISS, and that no one is going to be 'adding' anything.

So I'll just focus on the cameras in the shuttle bay. I'll try to research their position, orientation, and field of view.

[edit on 13-9-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]

"That is unfortunate. I can understand the laughter. I cannot understand continuing to ignore the concerns of the masses. Folklore will continue to form in the absence of definitive information."

i absolutely agree, and have pestered them for many years that it is their responsibility to clear things up with full explanations rather than arrogant trust-me pontificating.

besides, it would be fairly EASY to do so...

but the 2002 experience has really spooked them -- not in our lifetimes, i'm afraid.

the fear was, some congressman would raise a stink about the waste of one MILLIONTH of their annual budget on such a project. One frigging millionth...

Originally posted by JimO
The one time the NASA historian agreed to a small 'monograph' contract was in 2002 when he awarded me a $15,000 grant to write up a teacher's guide to explaining the 'Apollo Hoax' myth for students -- a contract that was cancelled in embarassment as soon as it was mocked on the ABC Evening News as a stupid waste of tax money. Don't expect any more NASA efforts along those lines!

Hi James,

Do you happen to have further details of the mocking "on the ABC Evening News"? This may be a full answer to various comments I have seen on the Internet recently criticising NASA for failing to address various alleged UFO sightings.

Also, I'm always intereted in seeing examples of short-sighted criticisms of items in NASA budgets.

Probably my favourite example is a comment by Representative Ronald Machtley of Rhode Island, who (in 1991) proposed elimination of SETI funding from NASA’s budget, asking:

“If, in fact, there is a superintelligent form of life out there, might it be easier just to listen and let them call us?”.

(For anyone that is not aware of the fact, the SETI funding _would_ have been used for listening...).

All the best,

Isaac Koi

Over at the www.nasaspaceflight.com blog on the shuttle mission, I asked about Vinogradov's comment on the 'object'. Here's a response:

Oli4 -- Posted 13/9/2006 10:12 AM (#67650 - in reply to #67597)
I heard this too. But as I recall I think he was talking about something inside ISS. Something that was there (and shouldn't be there) and he didn't know what it was. Directly after that I posted a comment in the topic saying 'do these Russians know what they are doing?'...


JimO - 13/9/2006 2:27 PM

Somebody sent me a question regarding something he heard on NASA TV yesterday, that needs at least an explanation:

"Commander Pavel Vinogradov report[ed] Unknown Object to Mission Control yesterday around 12:35 pm Central Time as the ISS/Shuttle Atlantis was passing over Africa...

He said in Russian and it was translated over the Air on NASA T.V. , " We have an unknown object. We don't know what it is ... If no one knows what it is ... then no one cares. Do you have any questions ? "

Mission Control answered , " No questions."
=========

JimO: So he was talking about an 'object' he was holding inside the station? Is there any evidence he was referring to an 'object' he was observing outside the station?

Originally posted by JimO
According to the live-blog at forum.nasaspaceflight.com..., at about 1:35 EDT yesterday the NASA TV was carrying a post-EVA press conference. Are you sure about your logged time?

The day in question ( "yesterday" from my post ) was 9/11/06. A day before the EVA.

NASA TV had just switched over from a live shot to the Mission Control room. That is when the comment was made. After that NASA T.V. played video from 9/11/01 to commemorate the 9/11 tragedy.

So why did you assume that 'object' was something outside the station versus something inside?

Re Monday, that's exactly the day Oli recalls the conversation, and he posted this note at that time:

Oli4 - Posted 11/9/2006 12:40 PM
Re: LIVE: STS-115 Fiight Day 3
Is it just me? Those Russians are really funny... Do they actually know what they are doing? Doesn't look like it.
--

So who is 'seeing' UFOs, the cosmonaut -- or you?

JimO I listened to it live. He reported an Unknown Object to Mission Control.

Despite what the other poster you quoted said , there was nothing to indicate that he was refering to something on-board the ISS.

"....there was nothing to indicate that he was refering to something on-board the ISS. "

Nor to one outside the ISS, either, I take it.

Well, you're free to 'see' what you want into this comment, as with so many others.

The shuttle crew had just come on board, the welcome was over and they were getting their safety tour -- and you imagine the cosmonaut paused to look out the window, see a UFO, call Mission Control -- and nobody else peeked or grabbed a camera?

You have a much broader imagination than I do, I'd say.

Access,
It is my understanding that the government is now on its third explanation for what the object crashed at Roswell was. Is this correct or incorrect?

If it is correct, why investigate something only to repeatedly lie about what it was, and then blame the public for the confusion?

Ecto, wrong thread. Take it somewhere people care about roswell.

JimO, I am responding to Access Denied's reference to Roswell, several posts above this one. Please see his post.

To make my point in reference to this thread a little clearer, I do not think that one can take an incident where the government creates an admittedly false cover story, and has an investigation, as an example of the public 'crying wolf.'

Meanwhile, I would not argue that the public's lack of dogmatic acceptance of information as provided by NASA is ENTIRELY a sign of a delusional public. It is also a sign of the extent to which th public is able to interact with NASA and its operations. Which is next to zilch. Although, I should add that people such as your self serve to try to diminish that barrier and that is admirable,.

My suggestion is merely that the public be given significantly higher bandwidth information, on a real time basis with respect to shuttle missions. I suggested one possibility in an earlier post.

It seems from some of Jim's comments that bandwidth is very limitted., and that is unfortunate. I feel that we are living in a time where real-time information content in the visual field should be far greater than what it is now, as per my earlier suggestion. However, I recognize that reliable communications is different from communications, and that the shuttle operational environment is 30 years old. Notwithstanding, an improvement therein seems logical, and I know NASA is researching such capabilities currently (laser communications etc.)

I also recognize that while some of us would take advantage of this information, many Americans would prefer extra reruns of Desperate Housewives.

Finally, I do recognize that despite all possible honest efforts, there will still be those that see a conspiracy in everything, and those that will choose unlikely fantasy over likely 'prosaic' phenomena. I jsut think a little perspective for the common man, in the way of 3d information, would give the public a better sense of space, and that would serve a valuable NASA goal while alleviating deviant folklore creation.

[edit on 13-9-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]

[edit on 13-9-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]

JimO : You have a much broader imagination than I do, I'd say.

I've just reported and transcribed what was said.

Is it normal to refer to something in your possession as an "Unknown Object" ?

Here are some examples of the use of the term "Unknown Object".


Station Crew Spots Small Unknown Object Floating Nearby 13 June 2003

Unknown object floats away from ISS Feb 8, 2004

Unidentified floating object near International Space Station Jun 27, 2006

So don't say I'm using my imagination when the term is well established and so is it's meaning , even by the current ISS Crew.





[edit on 13-9-2006 by lost_shaman]

OK, 3 for 3 examples are prosaic, station-generated 'objects' --
where's the 'UFO' ??