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.


UFOs filmed during NASA mission to fix Hubble telescope

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on May, 20 2009 @ 01:15 AM
ah, Dispatcher brings up a good point. I had also forgot about that whole "debris" field thing; in that case, I would video debris if I saw them. It it's dangerous enough to possibly kill me, its certainly cool enough to capture on video lol

posted on May, 20 2009 @ 01:24 AM
What a cool video, I cant wait for part two. It's interesting that stars aren't shown in allot of these videos, can someone tell me why, or is it because there hiding something? And I thought we would have seen even more debris and other stuff, maybe that's because of just large the distance is, but im sure i saw a video or something that showed all the satellites orbiting, and statistics on how much junk there is up there.

posted on May, 20 2009 @ 02:21 AM
very neat find!!!

Im sure they were filming that object for a reason..

posted on May, 20 2009 @ 02:28 AM
Hi, My first post but seeing the topic listed is what initiated my efforts to register with ATS.

Last night the STS125 was playing what was described as a 'sequential' video rather than a full stream via Nasa TV. I hadn't seen them do this before although it doesn't necessarily indicate that this was anything unusual until one of the still frames showed the following image. The sequential stills changed every 5 to 10 seconds and on one of them this appeared which I simply captured with a screen print:

The only change that I have made to this image is a crop but the original, which includes my desktop can be posted if necessary.
Anyone else see it?

[edit on 20-5-2009 by StvUK]

posted on May, 20 2009 @ 03:17 AM
Awesome video. It's obvious to me that this is the same UFO seen in the old STS NASA missions, and not because of the hole in the center, but because it materializes & dematerializes without even moving.

And something else to add: these aren't metallic flying saucers. Infact, they're not physical objects. They don't follow Newtonian and Einstein laws. The truth about these objects is that they're spiritual, extreterrestrial vehicles comprised of pure energy; pure light. If you were to see them in real life, you would think you were looking at a transluscent jellyfish with a pulsating heartbeat in the center. It's absolutely beautiful, and very real. They're the Pleiadians, and they've been monitoring our consciousness evolution for thousands of years.

Check this video out:

[edit on 20-5-2009 by cmazzagatti]

posted on May, 20 2009 @ 05:17 AM
I find this interesting because its shining like a beacon. Quite possible if its space junk its tumbling over and over again, but that would not account for the quick departure.

Thanks for sharing this. very interesting even if it turns out to be just junk.

posted on May, 20 2009 @ 07:46 AM
These do indeed look like the other UFO's we've seen flying around NASA missions in the past.

Which means it is probably just debris as they have been telling and showing us in the past.

Also note that in all, except perhaps maybe questionably one or two, of these videos the debris is not changing direction or velocity as a controlled vehicle would do.


posted on May, 20 2009 @ 07:57 AM
reply to post by cmazzagatti

How can you tell that they are not physical objects? Which Newtonian or Einstein laws don't they follow?

The objects "materialize" out of thin space for the same reason why you can't see any stars in NASA's moon photos. There could be many other explanations for these too. I bet you wouldn't even see the same with your own eyes, only with a camera...

Why has ATS become the gathering place of the ignorant ones?


There is the possibity that these objects are nothing more than space debris or sattelites , however I'm sure the astronauts know the difference and wouldn't bother filming these objects if there wasn't a good reason

How could anyone tell a difference from one white dot and the other white dot?
And if NASA is supposedly hiding the truth about the aliens then why are those recordings public???

Those white dots OBVIOUSLY are alien piloted flying saucers. The evidence is just OVERWHELMING. Don't deny the truth because a dot, sized around 10-20 pixels, is the best EVIDENCE of alien life.

Oh and a STAR and FLAG for you.

Noone take the above personally..


[edit on 20-5-2009 by DGFenrir]

posted on May, 20 2009 @ 08:37 AM
They do film debris all the time, it's crucial to identify debris around the shuttle so that they can indentify if they are parts that have fallen off the shuttle which are crucial for normal operation & re-entry.

posted on May, 20 2009 @ 09:14 AM

Originally posted by ravenflt
They do film debris all the time, it's crucial to identify debris around the shuttle so that they can indentify if they are parts that have fallen off the shuttle which are crucial for normal operation & re-entry.

Thank you ravenflt: you took the words right out of my mouth.

Is it at all possible that the astronauts are looking at something that might very well have the potential to harm their shuttle/Hubble, or future missions? Is it possible mission planners may rely heavily on FOD (foreign object damage) updates?

And I'm not talking harmful - as in naughty ET's - I'm talking debris, etc....

[edit on 20-5-2009 by mckyle]
[sorry - edit for typos/grammar]

[edit on 20-5-2009 by mckyle]

posted on May, 20 2009 @ 10:21 AM
I think the video is a classic example of someone trying to make something out of nothing by creatively recording a...recording. I think it is rather funny how the person tries to zoom in and focus on an object on the TV screen that is Out of focus. Like zooming in and trying to focus his camera is going to magically make the video screen of NASA, suddenly focus.

posted on May, 20 2009 @ 10:33 AM
reply to post by devilruski

Nice find! I can't see how they can explain this as ice particles, space debris, junk, lens obstruction, 'over focus', dust mites, swamp gas reflection, bugs in the shuttle, or any of the other BS explanations.

I'll be waiting for the 'official' explanation....nice cut away back to the control room, again.

I also have to comment on the videos coming down on this mission, as well as the past 3 or 4 missions. It appears as though they are utilizing some kind of back ground filtering when the video is processed. You never really get to see any stars. You would think the whole area would be lit up.

Just a thought....

posted on May, 20 2009 @ 10:37 AM
Good clip,and the musics not bad too-a lot better than the normal midi crap or cheap synth playing the xfiles melody!

posted on May, 20 2009 @ 10:40 AM
It's strange how the number of these sightings increases in direct relation to the amount of space junk there is in orbit.

When one of these sightings also has a radar signature bigger than a dinner plate wake me up.

posted on May, 20 2009 @ 01:21 PM
reply to post by L.HAMILTON

Whats the name of the song thats in the video? Sounds pretty good.

posted on May, 20 2009 @ 02:33 PM
If it isn't space junk, then might this be a precursor to disclosure? NASA letting out a drip drip drip of information to get people use to it?

posted on May, 20 2009 @ 11:45 PM
The reason they film debris is so that they can match the location on the ground with what the astronauts are seeing in space to make sure that it wasn't something that hasn't been spotted before. Tracking debris is a safety issue that needs to be updated constantly as the amount of debris changes all the time. When NASA is notified of debris, it's precise location is noted and then entered into their computers. This way they can keep track of where that debris is at all times. The real danger lies in the debris that hasn't been found yet. For the shuttle missions, NASA has a good idea where debris is located and can track it's movement from the ground and see where it's heading in relation to where the shuttle is at any given time. NASA has the capability to notify the crew well in advance when they need to move out of the way of approaching debris - that is, if it's something that has already been tagged. The greatest fear is to be blindsided by debris that hasn't been seen and tagged before. This almost happened on the last shuttle mission. A piece of debris that nobody knew was there came dangerously close to the space station and the astronauts had to board the Soyuz spacecraft that was docked at the time. Fortunately, it passed by and no harm was done. Outer space is being turned into a garbage dump. Remaining in orbit will soon be as dangerous - if not more dangerous - than the liftoff itself.

posted on May, 20 2009 @ 11:52 PM
As for the last video showing these strange anomalies "flying around" - it looks like something that was recorded through a microscope. I think one of the other posters got it correct. It looks like a recording of something that may have been seen on television or something. Kind of reminds me of looking at water samples under a microscope in Biology class. They certainly aren't UFO's in outer space.

posted on May, 21 2009 @ 03:31 PM

Originally posted by StvUK
Hi, My first post but seeing the topic listed is what initiated my efforts to register with ATS.

Last night the STS125 was playing what was described as a 'sequential' video rather than a full stream via Nasa TV. I hadn't seen them do this before although it doesn't necessarily indicate that this was anything unusual

Keep your eyes on the video feed, UK. Thanks foir sharing.

'Sequential still video' is a normal mode that is used when the shuttle's Ku-band antenna's line-of-sight to a TDRS relay satellite is blocked by shuttle structure, or is otherwise employed (such as for the rendezvous radar -- the same dish is used both for radar and hi-rate comm).

The shuttle can still communicate with the TDRS using lo-rate S-band channels (antennas are located around the waist of the shuttle so at least one is always in view of a TDRS), but without the dish, the data rate is so low that it takes about 8 seconds (I think) to transmit one frame, rather than a few dozens of frames per second at 'TV' rate.

posted on May, 21 2009 @ 07:09 PM
Thanks for explaining that Jim. I think that the sequential frame rate was probably 1 every 3-5 seconds and in a way assisted me in capturing it due to fumbling around on the keyboard once it appeared. A split second later and I would have missed the capture.

Enhancing the image displays an 'in' route of whatever it was in the form of a vapour trail and then a 'u-turn' as it headed back out towards the right. Not sure if my uploaded image will show that or not but it basically departed in the same direction as it entered.

Anyway, maybe nothing, but thanks for the reply

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in