NASA's Alien Anomalies caught on film - PART II

Part II of LunaCognita anomalies on space





Here is part one , for those who didnt see the first part



[edit on 1-6-2009 by dracodie]

So what do you guys think about some of the images , and videos?

Can someone give explanations or posssible debunk some of them?

At 2:17, it is most definately a water drop on the camera's lense. The weird pattern of "flying" (more like moving) is a result of the movement of the camera or the object or ship it's mounted on.

I have to admit I was shocked at first. Was sure this is the best filmed evidence of a phasing ship, but soon I realised the change of colors is just due to reflection. See how it's black when it's above Earth, but turns light blue when it's moving towards it's direction in the camera's angle.

Most of the movie is amazing. Some obvious fakes but the others are really really good.

Originally posted by dracodie
So what do you guys think about some of the images , and videos?

Can someone give explanations or posssible debunk some of them?

Is there any way you can come up with that anybody could be able to seek out, on the internet, contrary views of many of these cases? Some of us have suggestions to make, but it would be more helpful to more people if we could develop a self-help strategy for anyone to use.

reply to post by dracodie


thanks for posting LunaCognita's new video

some of those objects are not space debri or ice particles.

star and flag


[edit on 1-6-2009 by easynow]

Interesting videos.
I've either seen the first one before or something like it and a lot of people claimed it was just ice crystals and the movement from the craft is what made them move but when I first saw it I thought that they were moving in reaction to the lightning.

They don't really seem like crafts to me but more organic they actually remind me of bugs as there is some independent movement.

Sure they could be ice crystal , debris , I don't know I wasn't there.

I really wish we had live web cams in space that we could watch , I can't imagine it would be too hard to do but of course it would make them have a total lack on control with it.

Would it be illegal for an every day person to try to come up with a way to get web cams into to space?
Sorry if I sound totally and utterly stupid and naive when I ask this question.

[edit on 1-6-2009 by pop_science]

In my opinion I think the clip at 2:43 of the first part is totally awesome, this is a blatant change of direction which suggest intelligent maneuvering..

[edit on 1-6-2009 by sc4venger]

What an amazing set of video!

Im absolutely floored right now by some of the videos. Most of them I have seen before, but some were just mind boggling at how the objects changed direction.

How can people be so ignorant and believe we are the only beings in the universe? I guess seeing really is believing these days. Too bad if one landed on some of these peoples lawns it still wouldnt change a thing.

I also enjoyed how the video was straight to the point. No bullcrap, just kept hitting ya with the evidence. Never saw this before but so glad I did. Very nice.

Originally posted by deadline527

Im absolutely floored right now by some of the videos. Most of them I have seen before, but some were just mind boggling at how the objects changed direction.

How can people be so ignorant and believe we are the only beings in the universe? I guess seeing really is believing these days. Too bad if one landed on some of these peoples lawns it still wouldnt change a thing.

Please get a grip on 'ignorant people who believe we're along in the universe'. In my experience there are very few of them, and never have been -- over the last thousand years or longer, intelligent people generally assumed the other worlds out there were also teeming with life, including intelligent life. Only during the 1800's as astronomers became able to determine the actual hostile physical conditions of nearby worlds did opinion swerve toward the view that for the worlds we can observe, the prospects are not good.

The real question always has been -- do some UFO reports require the existence of ETI? To argue backwards -- the existence of ETI proves UFO reports are caused by them -- seems almost superstitious and magical in its non-logic.

Now, denouncing ignorance is also a dangerous gimmick if you yourself show signs of it, so please also show some caution here. Normal motion of nearby shuttle particles includes frequence course changes in response to documented thruster firings.

The cause-and-effect is so direct and uncontrovertible that nowadays you notice that 'space UFO video' posters refuse to provide time/date data on the stuff they show -- possibly (and with the effect of) to prevent fact-checkers from obtaining shuttle thruster firing data and seeing that the dots change motion when (and only when) thrusters are known to have fired (as on STS-48).

Not knowing this is remediable ignorance. Easy to cure. Look around for serious prosaic explanations. Don't be so easily suckered.



[edit on 2-6-2009 by JimOberg]

Great video. Excellent material.

Just to clarify, here is the iss-013-e-40000 pic supposedly showing a ufo in the screen of the computer.

As you can see in the high definition image available for download, its just a wallpaper:

spaceflight.nasa.gov...

reply to post by JimOberg


You pose some really good arguments about thruster firing and such, but I have seen plenty of videos of thruster firings. Some of the clips in these videos are exactly that. But some are very, very intriguing. Usually when the thrusters fire it tends to move all the particles in the field of view. When you have a field of view with ninety nine percent stationary objects and then something comes zooming past while banging a ninety degree right turn right in front of you, it makes you wonder.

I do thank you for the explanation though, because many people do post UFO videos that are nothing more then thrusters being fired. I do believe time and date is always absolutely necessary when trying to determine the validity of a specific event.

Originally posted by deadline527
You pose some really good arguments about thruster firing and such, but I have seen plenty of videos of thruster firings. Some of the clips in these videos are exactly that. But some are very, very intriguing. Usually when the thrusters fire it tends to move all the particles in the field of view. When you have a field of view with ninety nine percent stationary objects and then something comes zooming past while banging a ninety degree right turn right in front of you, it makes you wonder.

Thanks for the kind words.

You do highlight some of the visual phenomena which is really really eerie -- unearthly, in fact. The lack of uniform response by all particles to a thruster firing can only be understood in terms of depth -- the three dimensionality of the scene, a feature that is masked because without air there is no 'masking haze' effect as distance increases. Add to this that really close-in particles are often shielded by shuttle structure from the thruster effluent pulse. This is NOT an easy idea to get ground-trained eye/brain processors to handle -- it wasn't for me, and I later got lots of practice before it became "Obvious 2.0".

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by deadline527
You pose some really good arguments about thruster firing and such, but I have seen plenty of videos of thruster firings. Some of the clips in these videos are exactly that. But some are very, very intriguing. Usually when the thrusters fire it tends to move all the particles in the field of view. When you have a field of view with ninety nine percent stationary objects and then something comes zooming past while banging a ninety degree right turn right in front of you, it makes you wonder.

Thanks for the kind words.

You do highlight some of the visual phenomena which is really really eerie -- unearthly, in fact. The lack of uniform response by all particles to a thruster firing can only be understood in terms of depth -- the three dimensionality of the scene, a feature that is masked because without air there is no 'masking haze' effect as distance increases. Add to this that really close-in particles are often shielded by shuttle structure from the thruster effluent pulse. This is NOT an easy idea to get ground-trained eye/brain processors to handle -- it wasn't for me, and I later got lots of practice before it became "Obvious 2.0".

Also to add, the further away an object is the less it would move during a thruster burn. Same reason the stars stay in place no matter how far we move. But, I dont have much experience with dealing with objects at such immense distances, so cant say much about it either way.

Either way, some of the phenomena in a few of the clips makes you raise you eyebrows and scratch your head. Its clips like that we need to see more of, instead of some of the utter junk that has been passed around. Although, lately I have seen a substantial number of semi-credible UFO sightings in my eyes and definitely think something is going on that we are not aware of.

Wow! Some nice stuff I hadn't seen before. I like that the first video presented similar ufos one after the other like that weird "L" shaped one. I found the one where it appeared a UFO was observing a space walk that appeared to have orbs around it interesting as well.

Here's one I found last night. This poster has weird intros and then shows the interesting stuff.



and another:



I am not sure what this is:




[edit on 2-6-2009 by mandroid]

Originally posted by JimOberg
Now, denouncing ignorance is also a dangerous gimmick if you yourself show signs of it, so please also show some caution here. Normal motion of nearby shuttle particles includes frequence course changes in response to documented thruster firings.

So then... in your expert opinion, what is THIS object floating by? Looks like a sheet of plywood



Nice stars in this one too, especially the Orion constelation

[edit on 3-6-2009 by zorgon]

They should've added the Derbyshire/Bonsall footage to ice the cake:

reply to post by dracodie


Most of these are REAL NASA videos.
The only ones that could be debunked, imo, are the images that have been cut out. Such as the triangle UFO at the beginning.
All the other ones are real.
It's crazy I know, but these are NASA videos.
You can look them up individually.
The Tether incident is what probably fully convinced me, and since then I've seen more of these videos than you can imagine.

can someone debunk this please ?

STS088-724-66

Originally posted by agnain
can someone debunk this please ?
STS088-724-66

Hi, agnain:
the image is labeled PAN-SNGLNT.,SPACE DEBRIS
if you'll take a look at the previous and the next shots,
STS088-724-65
STS088-724-66
STS088-724-67
STS088-724-68
STS088-724-69
STS088-724-70
then you will see that the label does make sense: it looks like some flat deformed mylar debris, which is consistent with the labels.



It has to be one of these dots

Space junk, space debris, space waste — call it what you want, but just as junk and waste cause problems
here on Earth, in space spent booster stages, nuts and bolts from ISS construction, various accidental discards
such as spacesuit gloves and cameras, and fragments from exploded spacecraft could turn into a serious problem for
the future of spaceflight if actions to mitigate the threat are not taken now.
The European Space Operations Centre has put together some startling images highlighting this issue.
Above is a depiction of the trackable objects in orbit around Earth in low Earth orbit (LEO–the fuzzy cloud around Earth),
geostationary Earth orbit (GEO — farther out, approximately 35,786 km (22,240 miles) above Earth) and all points in between.

In 1961, the first explosion tripled the amount of trackable space debris. In the past decade, most operators have started employing on-board passive measures to eliminate latent sources of energy related to batteries, fuel tanks, propulsion systems and pyrotechnics. But this alone is insufficient. At present rates, in 20 or 30 years, collisions would exceed explosions as a source of new debris.

www.orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov...
www.esa.int...
www.universetoday.com...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.eagletv.co.uk...

Hope this helps

Excellent, thank you.

It just does not look human, I mean satellites are generaly white/golden/blue.
This thing is black and has some reflective parts, it doesn't look like a burnt thing.

I believe it is indeed a burnt satellite but it's just a little weird.