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.


UFO picture taken by NASA

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 12:11 PM
If the other image of the same stereo pair shows nothing, then it was something extremely close to the lens, and its resembleance with iss shape was just a mere coincidence: i mean, in that case it was something so close to one of the two lenses that the other lens was unable to catch it: if both images were taken at the same moment then we have two possible solutions to the mystery:
1) A very, but very very very very small UFO, but some UFO all in all.
2) Glitch/dust whatever you want extremely close to one of the two lens.

Now, date looks to be a lil bit confused (2001____ (YYYYMMDD)GMT Time: (HHMMSS))
Guess we cant use it.

but we can use other data:
Center Point Latitude: 37.5 Center Point Longitude: 93.5
since ISS is not sticking there relatevely to Earth, we can compare these data with the one of the other image, and they are the same:
Center Point Latitude: 37.5 Center Point Longitude: 93.5
According to these data, and if time can be confirmed, ziggystar60 has most likely found the solution to the mystery. A very, extremely little UFO is better than some anonymous bunch of pixels on youtube anyway, isn't it ?

But date and time must be the same, not close, the same.

Anyway (a lil bit off topic) i don't get why they call it "Percentage of Cloud Cover: 10 (0-10) "
First of all, that would sound as if i cant see a heck, while i just see some cloud, and the general visibility is almost perfect.
In mathematics, a percentage expresses a number as a fraction of 100. So if their base should be 100, then i don't get why they talk about 10, and anyway they cannot call it percentage if it's not, (because it is not).

[edit on 9/8/2009 by internos]

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 01:11 PM
I don't think its a shadow. If something is high in orbit, it won't cast any shadows.

The higher the object is (away from the surface), fuzzier the shadow becomes, and disappears altogether quickly, because the light source (sun) is huge compared to the object.

About the UFO, it does look like a satellite with solar panels on both sides.

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 01:44 PM
reply to post by ziggystar60

nice find with the pictures. well Im not a cloud expert myself, but you can look at the clouds yourself and see they are almost exactly alike. There is maybe two minutes difference between image one and image two. look closely at every shape and you will see this too. There are two things that I do however find strange. 1) being the obvious.. where is the shadow? well That one I THINK i can answer.. atleast its the most logical.
2) though its not unheard of or impossible the second tiny cloud that casts a shadow as well has not moved from image one to two, or two to one.. however its shown.

As for question 1
Going off the cloud shapes toward the bottom, or left, of the photograph, one CAN see slight changes in the cloud shapes, thickness, etc... which is 100% normal. It MAY very well be that the centre of the cloud had changed so greatly (in relation to the distance of ISS from surface of Earth) that the cloud cover prevented the shadow from being taken on that second shot, because the cloud cover was so thick and tall.

That is what seems the most logical to me. Either that or it is NOT the ISS, and is someones satellite coming in to say hello, and good by, as it IS right over an almost un populated section of the desert in China. It could be a satellite landing, and the second shadow was not seen because it had already entered the cloud cover, at that exact moment in time.

Before I say conspiracy.. I want to make sure ALL logical bases are covered.
Cloud Experts... if you will kindly prove me wrong, or agree? I leave this to you as it seems the most reasonable to me.

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 01:49 PM
reply to post by rocksolidbrain

that too makes sense as the number of protons, electrons, or what ever sub atomic particles make light, would have over powered the shadow into a null existence. in a sense, light from the sun acts as a cloud, and simply snuffs out the darkness. Good call. I did not think of that mate. Gods I love physics

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 02:45 PM
It can't be shadow of ISS (assuming that ISS is the satelite from where this picture is made) or anything casted on ground/clouds, hundred of kilometers below. It should transform at some total solar eclipse at the ground/clouds zone.

It is simple: when you are near an object, it is big. When you go further and further, it becames smaller and smaller. We define here as angular size relative to the point of view.

Whilst the object's angular size eclipsing the sun is bigger than the sun's angular size, we have a total eclipse (no solar light). But when angular size of the object is smaller than the sun, we have a penumbra situation.

Now, when we are at the ground (or at the clouds, 10 kilometers up or down means nothing relative to the ISS altitude), we see ISS very small, less than 60 arcseconds, only instruments are able to resolve details. On the other hand, the sun's angular size is about half of degree. MUCH BIGGER than the ISS. (there are many ISS transits onto the sun/moon, and anybody can google them and see the difference in angular size)
one example:

So, something very much sunlight can block to make some kind of shadow? Virtually zero.

So it is a simple geometrical equation to make an ideea how long the ISS shadow will cast in space.
Assume the ISS is a perfect round object 100 meters in size. Assume you are at the maximum distance when ISS it makes a full eclipse of the sun, so, it have 0.5 degrees in angular size.
Therefore, the distance is:
100/tan(0.5) = 11500 meters.
We can double this distance, because even when ISS angular size is smaller but comparable to the sun (let's say half), it can produce some kind of detectable penumbra.
This is theoretically. Practically, the distance is much shorter, simple because ISS is NOT a 100 meters disc, but a much thinner structure. More, it's shadow will became fuzzy and fuzzy. I feel that the detectable shadow can be casted only maximum a couple of kilometers or so.
NO WAY casting shadow down to the ground/clouds hundred of kilometers away.

Now second solution, another sattellite captured briefly, and maybe by one of the pair of cameras...
Not sure what to say...but there in orbit, satelites have high velocities..about 8 km/sec... So, chances to see another sattelite are smaller because very brieffly going one "near" the other when having different orbits (near enough to appear with some details in the image), and again to the smaller exposure time of the image...
When trying to understand this, it became important to know what is the angle of the image captured (or the angular resolution of the camera), to estimate the distance to the alleged sattelite and to judge if there can be or not some motion blur. If there is some motion blur, in what direction? i don't think the fuzziness is due to motion blur.
About something really small, debris, it could be real, and it may have share the ISS orbit (being a product of it) enough to appear on that short exposure time when picture is taken, and posibly appearing a bit unfocused (as fuzziness suggest). More, this debris particle appear dark, maybe because is in the ISS shadow itself.

[edit on 9/8/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 9/8/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 9/8/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 9/8/09 by depthoffield]

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in