NASA Camera Operator Zooms In on Hubble UFO!

OMG it's called lens flare.

Originally posted by redhead57
I just don't think these things are ice crystals or space junk. Space would have to be pretty full of that stuff since we have so many shots of these things.

Space is pretty full of that stuff -- especially the space around space hardware such as the shuttle, the space station, and the Hubble.

If humans and space hardware exist somewhere together, you can bet that there will be quite a bit of debris, too.

reply to post by depthoffield


That one is the result of a long exposure time, (1/4 second). There is no "plasma", it is motion blur.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/7a3c8d16fcdd83bd.jpg[/atsimg]

Here's what it looks like with proper exposure (1/40 second):
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/41771269f1fbaaae.jpg[/atsimg]

Looks like some kind of clip to me.

[edit on 9/6/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


Well Phage,

You already know that I disagree with your erroneous determinations.

...But only because they are erroneous. =

Originally posted by Phage
That one is the result of a long exposure time, (1/4 second). There is no "plasma", it is motion blur.

Here's what it looks like with proper exposure (1/40 second):
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/41771269f1fbaaae.jpg[/atsimg]

Looks like some kind of clip to me.

Indeed, it could be also motion blur from a thumbling clip... sure EXIF data is priceless in many situations... Another example of misunderstooding an image alone having lack of enough informations and clues, when making just a fugitive look at it, me thinking of something mundane (plastic bag, transparent sheet of something) or somebody seeing plasma flows. So you have more data on that incident, including technical stuff (exposure), no wonder.

[edit on 6/9/09 by depthoffield]

reply to post by Phage


Once again, two and one-half pages of nonsense, smattered with reason, and finally a definitive voice of reason and clarity to at least shut down some extraneous junk brought INTO the thread that had nothing to do with the OP!!

BUT, reason and clarity aren't desired by the "true believers"....

BTW, the term "UFO" is getting too broadly used. People forget the acronym's origins.

Let's try some a new one:

Unidentified Maneuvering Object -- UMO

Because, 'flying' denotes (usually, at least in my mind) an activity being conducted in an atmosphere. For unknowns seen on orbit, or in interplanetary space, IF they exhibit independent motion, then let's just say they're maneuvering.

Of course, to qualify for that status, one would have to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the object is seen to alter its course, and appear to be under voluntary control from within or without. Still photos will not suffice.

Videos of these objects will have to take into account relative camera motion, in order to rule that out as a causal effect.

The unknowns brought forth in this OP, though, qualify for the 'UFO' moniker, except...the 'F' should stand for "Floating". AS IN, 'floating' along beside the Hubble or the Space Shuttle, or the ISS...depending on what is accompanying the unknown...

It's lens flare......

reply to post by Exuberant1


Awesome clip and it's funny coz the operator actually zooms and tracks it. They know it is something strange yet the never admit it. Thats almost proof in the way that they tracked the object purposely untill it dissapeared.

The government departments are compartmentalised no one knows whats going on even from the inside half the time.

Originally posted by Havick007
reply to post by Exuberant1

 

Awesome clip and it's funny coz the operator actually zooms and tracks it. They know it is something strange yet the never admit it. Thats almost proof in the way that they tracked the object purposely untill it dissapeared.

The government departments are compartmentalised no one knows whats going on even from the inside half the time.

Tracked it you couldn't f...... SEE IT till he zoomed in as usual see what you want to see NOT what is there.

reply to post by Exuberant1


I watched the video then read the comments on the first page only. It's disappointing to see that there seems to be little logic here and the comments reflect fantasy and conspiracy.

The camera videotaping the telescope seems to have been on a fixed mounting as opposed to being handheld; too steady. Then an operator moves the camera away to the darkness of space and seems to zoom in on the darkness for whatever reason. What you people want so bad to believe is a UFO, and some say debris, is lens flare! It behaves like lens flare and if you are not familiar with the various lens properties that allow flaring, then every similar image will be misidentified.

Why lens flare? Because the camera operator did not center the object; he went past "it". "It" wasn't the focus interest. "It" was created by the lens and light not agreeing with each other!

reply to post by Exuberant1

it seems that the camera operator must have realized that this downlink is being watched by members of the public because he quickly cuts away....

LOL

ist amazing how people project such fantasies like profesional camera men simply ` forgetting ` where thier feed goes

reply to post by ignorant_ape


Not every camera on the station is streaming live to the public at the same time. Some are being used but not streaming to the online nasa channel.

Do you understand?

reply to post by Exuberant1


camera operators and the ` behind the scenes ` staff KNOW what thier unit is doing - thats how , during live broadcasts etc the person infront of the camera knows which cammera to address

yes - the shuttle has multiuple cameras - and only one can be live at any given time - but the crew know which one it is - that way they dont switch it off or position it ` out of the way ` facing a bulkhead when its live

do you understand ?

[edit on 21-4-2010 by ignorant_ape]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Phage

 

BTW, the term "UFO" is getting too broadly used. People forget the acronym's origins.

Let's try some a new one:

Unidentified Maneuvering Object -- UMO

UMO's from UMMO perhaps?

Priceless!

IRM

May i ask if i may?
If UFOs are real, why doesnt NASA announce it to the whole world? that they are Real.

But If UFOs are fake and all of them are hoax and None exist why doesn't make a announce about that so we can rest?


The same goes for Nibiru
Why doesn't NASA make an announce to the world that Nibiru is fake and a hoax? So that way we can rest easy then?

But of course you will be wondering and saying, but NASA will be wasting time and money, havent they already wasted enough as it is?


And then if Nibiru is real, why dont just say it?

www.youtube.com...

Remember this why then on the news?

I was redirected here from a different post that was closed. That post had this picuture, which I don't think is the same one from this thread:

NASA picture with UFO in Background

The picture is very interesting.

But what I find more interesting is if you put in your browser:

(Warning, don't go to this link unless you are ready to be monitored.)

eol.jsc.nasa.gov...

You will get a page that has a warning that you are on a US Government Computer and you are being monitored ect. I think it says you must be authorized. I don't want to go on that page again. If you are feeling brave and want to mess around with it. There are other links on there. I would be interested what you found.


(edit: put the warning in)

[edit on 6-5-2010 by JackJack]

Just read what Maj._Skillz said and cease babbling.

+1 and +1 Maj._Skillz. For trying to tell 'em twice.

[edit on 6-5-2010 by potential_problem]

reply to post by JackJack


The link won't open on my PC, but I can access it on my iphone and I didn't get any warning. All I got was a load of links to photos taken of the Earth from the ISS.

Nothing else.

EDIT: I just got in on my PC and you do indeed get the following warning

This US Government computer is for authorized users only. By accessing this system you are consenting to complete monitoring with no expectation of privacy. Unauthorized access or use may subject you to disciplinary action and criminal prosecution.

You'd think that they would password the FTP if there was anything on there that they didn't want the public to see.

[edit on 6-5-2010 by RMFX1]

Originally posted by RMFX1
reply to post by JackJack

 

The link won't open on my PC, but I can access it on my iphone and I didn't get any warning. All I got was a load of links to photos taken of the Earth from the ISS.

Nothing else.

EDIT: I just got in on my PC and you do indeed get the following warning

This US Government computer is for authorized users only. By accessing this system you are consenting to complete monitoring with no expectation of privacy. Unauthorized access or use may subject you to disciplinary action and criminal prosecution.

You'd think that they would password the FTP if there was anything on there that they didn't want the public to see.

[edit on 6-5-2010 by RMFX1]

I know, you think they would password protect FTP pages. That warning is strange too because it says it is for authorized users only, that doesn't sound like a public page. It is interesting that the photo posted in my above post is from that page. Has anyone been on a NASA FTP page with that warning before? Is it common?

Very interesting for sure, great image too.