International Space Station Commander Opens Up About His UFO Sighting In Space

JimOberg
Good point. Robert Bigelow has already launched two prototype 'space hotel modules' and he mounted external TV cameras on them to look for exactly this.

You might be surprised what he found, but you certainly can't accuse HIM of any 'coverup'.

So, what did he find? Or do you mean in the future tense, we "might be surprised" by what he 'may' find?

What?? strange lights in space? Nooooo.....it can´t be!! Those are ice crystals reflecting sunlight and flying in formation.

Ice crystals are better than flying lights anyday.

[feels good now]

radkrish

Ice crystals are better than flying lights anyday.

Floating lights, actually.

JimOberg

Telos, you're not GETTING "the astronaut's words", you're getting only those that the TV program likes to TEASE you with. Chiao is a friend of mine, he has no doubt it was bright fishing boats on the surface, seen briefly under special illumination conditions. The TV program needs to present a 'mystery' with possible solutions to be entertaining.

As for your "aren't they" question, the answer is NO -- they are trained to report anything unusual quickly and openly because of the potential hazard, and analysis and identification come later.

Thanks for your input. I don't doubt what your friend says he saw. However I disagree regarding how qualified they are to observe phenomenons. And for this I don't need to be friend with Leroy.

Urantia1111

Mianeye
reply to post by Telos

 

Is this the "smoking gun" or another saga to be debunked by the self appointed debunkers that lurk in this site in abundance.

No it's not the "smoking gun", it's just interesting but he really dosn't add anything else but more questions.

Don't pick on the debunkers, they are very usefull to this site

edit on 3-4-2014 by Mianeye because: (no reason given)

No. They aren't. For the most part they're here just to disrupt the discussion. That much is obvious. Regarding the Commander's sighting though, I have to agree there's nothing particularly special about it. I would think he would have had much more interesting things to say. He's likely prohibited from saying anything too interesting.

If people think that the idea of a skeptic trying to look at a UFO report from a detached objective position (a position of NOT assuming it is something asscotated with ETs unless there is some evidence to give credence that it is associated with ETs) is fundamentally a "disruption", then those people have a problem understand what critical thinking skills are.

Granted, Leroy Chiao's account is interesting and is not (immediately) explainable, but there are certainly explanations that are worth exploring further that does not include aliens or alien craft. Chiao himself gave an explanation (fishing boats) that it seem fits into many people's definition of debunking...

...So does that mean Chiao's explanation is only serving to disrupt? Is the astronaut in question actually disrupting the investigation by offering up his earthly explanation?

It seems by many people's definition, a debunker is anyone who puts forth the possibilities of other explanations besides "alien craft". If that is the case -- if that is the definition of debunker or skeptic -- then if the debunker or skeptic did not put forth these possible explanations (with evidence/reasons to support those explanations), then who would?

Is it healthy for Ufology to not consider earthly explanations for a sighting -- to do their due diligence in getting to the bottom of what mysterious lights are? Personally, I think Ufology NEEDS people who can be offer up objectively skeptical views on a sighting, and these people do not disrupt the conversation, but rather they add and important aspect to the conversation that otherwise may not be included.

Telos
Is this the "smoking gun" or another saga to be debunked by the self appointed debunkers that lurk in this site in abundance. :p

Pretty much another saga to be debunked. What all the UFO sites are missing out is this bit:

Despite his shock there was a rather mundane explanation for the lights - a fishing boat.

Chiao said: "One minor point is that it wasn't just one fishing boat, but a line of them strung out along the South American coast. That's why it looked like five lights from the ISS."

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...

Not so much a smoking gun as smoking haddock.

reply to post by Telos

Sounds like an oil rig sighting to me.

reply to post by AnteBellum

But seeing a UFO in space is pretty much the same as seeing it here on Earth.

False.
Last time I checked there were no bugs, birds, kites, weather baloons, swamp gas, quadcopters with led lights, airplanes, helicopters etc. in space.

Urantia1111
He's likely prohibited from saying anything too interesting.

Yeah, that's probably the reason he doesn't say what the OP wants him to have said. "They" won't let him.

Urantia1111
He's likely prohibited from saying anything too interesting.

draknoir2
Yeah, that's probably the reason he doesn't say what the OP wants him to have said. "They" won't let him.

Yeah. I'm not sure how some people are making the logical leap from:

"An astronaut says he saw a line of lights off the coast of South America, but has a mundane explanation"

to:

"But the very fact he says has a mundane explanation means that his mundane explanation is fake, and is evidence that there is more to this -- more than he is forbidden to talk about"

Seriously, how in the world can someone make that logical leap, and think THAT is a more reasonable conclusion than simply concluding the astronaut actually saw what he says he saw? What specifically about this story makes someone think the astronaut is not telling us the truth about the fishing boats?

Wouldn't it be easier to say nothing at all? Or maybe mention the fishing boats right off, rather than relay an interesting anecdote (I find it interesting, at least) about how mundane things back on Earth can look strange when seen from orbit?

reply to post by JimOberg


Thanks for your reply, sir.

As a rule, astronauts don't spend their time looking out the window at the dark Earth. How much pitch black midnight sight-seeing do YOU do?

If I was up there, every chance I got. I marvel at the views of cities at night that other astronauts have provided.

What was unusual in this case was Leroy was outside and unaware of where the Earth was relative to his momentary position.

What is unusual to me about his sighting is that he came forward with it. Why, if he wasn't sure about its validity, do you suppose he would do that?

We have reviewed other YouTubes before on here which are made by civilians from file footage. This report is from a commander aboard the ISS. More than most he would be hesitant abut doing this unless something compelled him to. Something out of the ordinary. Just my take.

As Jim says:

What was unusual in this case was Leroy was outside and unaware of where the Earth was relative to his momentary position.

What I am unclear about is how an astronaut, who is a highly trained individual, becomes unaware of their position or cannot discern lights in space versus lights on Earth? Maybe there are no reference points out there?

Seems yet another case of one person reporting something unidentified and flying and another re-reporting this to mean its visiting aliens.

The acronym "UFO" is the biggest obstacle to looking for visiting aliens i have ever come across.

reply to post by zilebeliveunknown


In respect to hard evidence it's the same!
Still just witness testimony and circumstantial like everything else.

And don't come back at me for being a skeptic.
I know they are here.

Cool post, and nice visual representation in that video. It IS a smoking gun because it's like he is describing this 'formation' (in the video below) from his angle. Sorry I keep posting this video, but together with this report IMO it makes undeniable evidence something is there, going on. No answer as to WHAT though.



(birds? )

With his testimony and this video we can possibly even draw some conclusions on size/altitude maybe even speed. Well, at least to me it has a connection What is this bloomin' V shape lights thing seen from eart' and space?

Can you imagine being 230 miles above Earth and seeing some fishing boats flying past you? I'd be asking the other astronauts if they spiked the water cooler with L.S.D.

reply to post by freelance_zenarchist


thank you for my afternoon chuckle. Thats hilarious!

JimOberg

What was unusual in this case was Leroy was outside and unaware of where the Earth was relative to his momentary position.

Indeed! So what you're saying is that the lights that flew past him may not have been between the ISS and the Earth, they may have been farther out in space. That would rule out the space boat theory then.

Since Leroy Chiao wasn't sure if he was facing the Earth or not I'm curious if during the investigation anyone questioned Salizhan Sharipov about which direction he was facing when Leroy asked him if he saw the lights. If Salizhan was able to determine which direction he was facing at the time of the sighting that could rule out which direction Leroy was facing.

Is it possible for lights on the surface of the Earth to be seen from the ISS with the naked eye and also an orbiting satellite, but not on the ISS camera?

I'm also curious if anyone has researched into boats that can "float" faster than 17,000 mph?


-note to Telos, you CAN make the quotation marks bigger.

reply to post by freelance_zenarchist

freelance_zenarchist
I'm also curious if anyone has researched into boats that can "float" faster than 17,000 mph?

The ISS's orbital period is 92.85 minutes. Divide that into about 16 equal parts and you get a window of time where he should have noticed if the lights were terrestrial-bound due to foreshortening effects from the curvature of the Earth and its rotation. This window of time is shortest for an object close to the equator and comes to just under 6 minutes. That is a pretty big window of observation where he could have misjudged the lights' origin.

If it were at the bottom tip of South America the window of time would be even longer. This is the same principal of why the days and nights last longer at the poles.

So, the timing probably works out ok. I'm not sure about the visibility of the lights from that distance though. It would be affected by a lot of factors including the atmosphere and the light's intensity. In addition, we have no real frame of reference to the perceived brightness. He is the only one that could be the judge of that.

On a side note, does finding a possible explanation really put this in the category of "identified"? I'm curious what the community thinks.

Thanks for the picture of the boat in space. It was hilarious .

reply to post by compressedFusion


In the video he doesn't state how long the sighting lasted, just that the lights flew past him, and the recreation shows the lights moving by quickly. Does it seem odd he would describe a sighting of lights for a duration of 6 minutes as "flying past"?

compressedFusion
On a side note, does finding a possible explanation really put this in the category of "identified"? I'm curious what the community thinks.

I say no, it's puts it in the category of a possibility.
After watching the NASA's Unexplained Files video the fishing boat theory seems like a sloppy force fit to me.

satellite images from around the same time

4 or 5 lights

in the area that Chiao had flown over a few hours earlier

It doesn't explain why the lights would show up on a satellite image but not the ISS's cameras.