It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Strange Object In Space! And It's Not The ISS!

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 07:00 PM
the second two coul be like a metorite breaking up. you know like on entry. does look interesting tho dont it?

posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 07:08 PM
when churning out ideas as to what this thing could be we must remember that it was stationary to all other objects in the sky and was as such for some period of time.

Therefore it is NOT in orbit.

Does this mean that it is 'anchored' in a region of our upper atmosphere?

If so, then it cannot be:

a secret space station
object burning up on re-entry

So what could it be?

THe only two possibilities i can really think of is:

some kind of biological entity
an aerial vehicle of some description

If its an aerial vehicle of some kind then i suppose it could be argued that its 'fiery' appearance could possibley be due to some kind of shield or barrier.

THis could perhaps explain its appearance.

BUt it is very bizzare and a great pic - well done.

posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 07:10 PM
everyone sees something different. to me it looks like one of the pictures of Christ looking over His shoulder. i can see eyes, nose, and hair. but then again, I don't even know what Christ looks like.
nice pic though

posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 07:12 PM
it could be anything under a microscope for example.

posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 08:07 PM
I was outside smoking a cig, and noticed something gold and flashy in the sky, to the south east of Las Cruces NM. I also noticed what I think is Mars to the north of it. It was just now that I saw it, with my naked eye. Again it's a flashing gold dot that is almost as bright as mars, and the same color.

Go outside and look, and see if you all see it.

posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 09:47 PM
Great thread mike...
but in your last picture that you posted on your first post, it looks like someones face is photoshopped into the object.... can anyone else see a face.. look really close.

posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 09:57 PM
This is extremely interesting I have Flagged it. Will keep an eye on this one. Hope we can expand on this in the near future.

posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 10:08 PM
no disrespect here, but a secret space station? shaped like a lump of poo?
c'mon now.

It most like just a NEO passing by lit up by the sun and/or partially burning up near the upper atmospere.

Nice find as always mike, but I think I'll have to wait and see on this. As I don't buy the whole F.A.S.T. phenomena (and this seems to fit in the same realm). I believe someone just came up with a clever way of taking pictures of ordinary heavinly bodies, or sattelites, or the ISS, and makeing them look a bit more Alien.

Need much closer clearer pictures, like taken from the ISS itself. I won't hold my breath though on waiting for Nasa to do that.

posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 10:23 PM
its a hyper star ship...

posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 10:51 PM
Nola213 said,

no disrespect here, but a secret space station? shaped like a lump of poo?

Bear with me here ok? I believe there is a Secret Space Station out there. I don't think Nasa would have built it so it 'looks like' a regular Space Station. Like John Lear implies, too many eyes are watching the night sky.

posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 11:06 PM
Okay, for starters.


One of my studies specifically involved light play with over exposure. YES you can get some wonky things when you over-expose to a light source, and move things even a hairs-breadth...

Reference the light in this image if you are lost in the following paragraphs.

I want to educate you all. When light-play is done to a camera, the lines always inter-connect. UNLESS said object is moved drastically away or turned 'off' (like a flashlight pen). Thinning a line is done by moving the light away or minimum exposure.

However, a base-thickness is always there, unless it is off. If we look closely at the image provided in this thread, there are minute details much smaller than Mars could of been. Specifically, to the right side, bottom right, and bottom left. Dim that they may be, it is impossible for it to be Mars, minimally exposed and moved about. If it is, for some reason Mars, then the exposure time would have been phenomenal and the brightest points would be near-white. This is not so.

Thus, it is safe to conclude: NOT MARS.

Second, at this time, Mars was not in that general area of the sky, as viewed in that direction and that time (based only what we've been told).

Point taken? Not Mars.

Not necessarily a space object either, or an alien, or station. Just: Not. Mars.

[edit on 4-1-2008 by Foxe]

posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 12:03 AM
reply to post by Foxe

Thanks for that Foxe!

OK, here's some more...

An earlier communication from Michael MacLaughlin to me:

Just took some shots of the ISS. Same settings show the ISS to be much smaller, faster moving, and in the wrong direction.

Here’s the pic of what he says is the ISS, but again he’s not too sure!


posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 01:16 AM
reply to post by buddhasystem

..sorry Mr. Lear but that was funny

oh yeah,

great pics! even though I couldn't decipher what they look like or mean for the life of me

posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 03:20 AM
Is there anyway that the originals or raw images could be sent to someone, maybe to someone on here got determine if the images that mike posted are originals and not edited copies?
Like i said and gave links to, these photos are a striking resembelence to the ones that are post at the website where they are called mystery space machines, I provided links to the images and the website.
See if in fact that the images posted here were taken by the person that claimed that they were, or its a non issue then ill STFU

Nobody else on here seems to have made the correlation so if im wrong, either way, this should be looked into further and keep on top of this story.
Idont currently have the s/w to extrat that type of information from an image.
I mean they ARE pretty similar

[edit on 1/5/2008 by Kr0n0s]

posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 05:09 AM
reply to post by Kr0n0s

Although they are both similar, there are distinct differences that are expected -- given the different techniques used to capture the images. But the fact is these pictures were taken by a friend of Mike's, who is trusted by most on these boards (including me). So I have no doubt in my mind this isn't the work of John Lenard Walson, who has been the subject of much recent discussion on these boards -- in regards to being exposed as a hoaxer.

Btw if you weren't aware, there has already been several large threads on the subject of those rense pictures long before Rense even covered them -- just incase you wanted to check them out.

[edit on 5/1/08 by Navieko]

posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 06:09 AM
I am not a astronomer, but could it be comet 8P/Tuttle?

position Comet 8P/Tuttle

Postion januari first. Is must be a little further now.

That is in close postion to Earth these days, i here. Visible with binoculars

Source astroversum with photo

posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 06:14 AM
My question is why would anyone try and shoot the ISS with 135 MM lens
even at the 200mm effective digital range, you would use a longer lens to shoot a baseball game at the stadium.. No matter how great the camera is..

Also keep in mind that the 135mm=200mm only applies to lenses that were not specifically created for digital cameras if however this lens is newer and for digital photography that rule may not apply, I agree with another who posted this image appears to be motion blurred..

I am not an expert by any stretch but that is just to short of a focal length with not enough light gathering capability to muster and image like that from space no matter how long you leave the shutter open which in our always rotating night time sky would start to blur (because of the motion of the earth) noticeably after about 20 seconds.

I agree though that the photograph is neat.


[edit on 1/5/2008 by geocom]

posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 09:07 AM
reply to post by Navieko

Fair enough, I have not been to ATS much, if any at all in around two months because of a posting ban, so I wasnt sure if the ones on rense had been covered or not.
Btw, I like Mike Singh (sp) as well so I wasnt trying to call him a liar or anything.
I've always enjoyed his threads, he has eyes like a hawk when it comes to locating strange objects pics, especially Mars pics.

[edit on 1/5/2008 by Kr0n0s]

posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 12:10 PM

Originally posted by mikesingh

Does anyone else think this looks like an old mans face looking to your left, if the blackness around it were a hood or cowl , something like the emperor wears in Star Wars?

Wierd how our eyes play tricks on us, well on me I should say. I can see faces in almost anything. I know there's a scientific term for it too.

Anyways back to the Secret Space Station.

I'm sure the U.S. gov. has many secret things in space, perhaps , and even highly likely a space station, but pictures this blurry taken with a regular camera through a telescope (I believe this is the technique, to put it the most simpleist?), is just not gonna produce clear enough images for us to say yes that is definitely this, or that is definitely not that, ect.

We need clearer images is all I'm saying. Some witness testimony (like a disgruntled or retired astronaut), would be nice as well.

posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 12:28 PM
Nice stuff Mike.

I've just taken the time to look through and read all the replies to the thread.

The picture taken is, without a doubt, an interesting one from my perspective, but having little knowledge of photography i cannot even pass an opinion on the subject, so i guess i'll just have to see what pans out

I'll give you a star though, i am a generous guy after all

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in