UFO on the ISS Feed - Nothing to do with the story from 2 weeks ago

a reply to: boncho

Still not seeing what you're seeing

Do you mean the blue brightness or the red brightness? Or neither and I'm missing it altogether.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: boncho

Still not seeing what you're seeing

Do you mean the blue brightness or the red brightness? Or neither and I'm missing it altogether.

Okay, that's actually the second object, or 'potential object' Im not even convinced myself that is something. The confirmed object is: this one

Whether or not its there 90 minutes later idk. Thats why I posted the thread. But on the pic you posted, it would be the left side object, or bright spot.

The reason I think it might be the same thing is because of how reflections of man-made objects work. If you look at the two pics I just posted, in one, both are prominent. In the other only one it. If its reflecting off an actually object it bahaves differently.

When the ISS passes 90 mins lately, there are two potential objects, but we can expect them to reflect the same way because the ISS is approaching differently.

a reply to: boncho

Could the brightness be a columnar peak being lit by the sun? That's all I was seeing.

90 minutes would make a big difference on the angle of sunlight though and (I imagine) increase/decrease the brightness significantly.

a reply to: boncho

I agree with you. Worth posting because frankly if something doesnt get posted...others will never know about it.

originally posted by: boncho

originally posted by: JimOberg
Fool me once, shame on you.

Fool me twice, shame on me.

Fool me eight hundredth and forty eighth ... [STAR WARS NG DOUBLE FACEPALM]

Hmm.... I think I've heard this one before:

Is that what Betty Cash said to you when you claimed the radiation burns on her hands was in her imagination?

Or when you identified V-Shaped Lights as fishing vessels.

Or when you compared the O'Hare sighting to a plane crash.

Or when you stalked people on Youtube, and focused on name spelling because the overall message lacked a response.

Or when you claimed a press release invalidated information, then attacked the person when attacking the message failed.

Or is this like when you wanted to cover for Marcia Smith so she didn't have to answer hard questions, but then contradicted Sheehan's testimony.

Well, at least you agree with Sarah Palin right? so you have her in your corner.

Tell us, did they do the same thing Condon did to Carl Sagan to slap him into line, or was it a deal you made to get there in the first place(?)

Condon would later consider blocking Carl Sagan’s entry into the distinguished Cosmos Club because Sagan--though quite skeptical of UFOs--had been "too soft on UFOs for Condon's taste." (Clark, 603)

Take your debunking BS and stay clear out of my threads. If you know what this was, you would've said as much. There's no boats up there so I can see how you may've drawn blanks.

For that, I want to buy you a beer, you deserve it!

originally posted by: JimOberg
Fool me once, shame on you.

Fool me twice, shame on me.

Fool me eight hundredth and forty eighth ... [STAR WARS NG DOUBLE FACEPALM]

JUST BREAKING UFO NEWS...
J.O. has seen roughly 850 photos, or videos,
of objects, that in his expert opinion, have fooled him.
Normally having an explanation for 99% of his investigations,
this news has stunned the UFO world .

a reply to: boncho

So who confirmed this object...because you are saying it's confirmed?

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: boncho

Could the brightness be a columnar peak being lit by the sun? That's all I was seeing.

90 minutes would make a big difference on the angle of sunlight though and (I imagine) increase/decrease the brightness significantly.

That's what I was trying to get at. If you watch the longer 6 minute version you can track the object for a few minutes. And no, if it was a twilight effect of the sun hitting cloud peaks you'd see it in other areas or hitting other clouds.

On the other hand, it is identical to a reflection of an unnatural object.

Here is a previous ground object reflection -VIDEO LINK- for reference. I also have a video kicking around somewhere of natural reflections, which are usually very distinct. Many form larger or uneven, oddly shaped forms of the outer reflective area.



Natural Shadows


As a comparison, look at the natural light reflection compared to the two lights on the ground (what I presume to be ground-based equipment)



Unnatural Shadows

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: boncho

So who confirmed this object...because you are saying it's confirmed?

Yes, literally, it's the object I confirmed to be an object. You are free to contest my conclusions. You need to present a case for it though. You aren't presenting anything.

Others were also curious how I reached my conclusions. I explain more in this post. Including 2 examples of lights reflecting off the environment. 1-case is a obviously natural reflections. and the other appears to be two man made objects, presumably equipment of some sort.

So in the original footage we have an unnatural reflection, you can determine this by looking at the other footage of what appears to be natural / unnatural. The assumed unnatural object is tracked for minutes, then goes out of sight. 90 minutes later when the ISS is in the same area, there are two odd-shaped potential objects.

If the original object, or reflective surface is still in the area 90 mins later, it would be in view. The reason it wouldn't be reflecting the same is because of the angle. In fact, this likely supports it being unnatural, while the angle of a man-made object would affect the sun causing a reflection, the atmospheric effects are not as selective.

Out of the two potentials, one I admit does appear similar, and very well could be a cloud formation. Though it seems high up for that type of cloud. The other is mildly reflective, and appears to have a shadow. It's a good candidate.

It's still possible the two formations are notrelated to the original object. Once you view the other video showing what is most likely equipment reflections off the ground, it suggests it's impossible to be a natural reflection.

I would say this conclusion is made with a fairly high degree of certainty. If you have alternative explanations feel free to present them.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: boncho

Could the brightness be a columnar peak being lit by the sun? That's all I was seeing.

90 minutes would make a big difference on the angle of sunlight though and (I imagine) increase/decrease the brightness significantly.

I made a picture with both examples of what I assume to be man made objects, hopefully it clarifies my point a bit. Also, here's some backstory. While I was reviewing a few weeks worth of ISS footage, I saved all the cool cloud formations, shadows, the moon passing in the background, lens flares, etc.

The investigation was out of interest over the bad info being pumped out [to search the source instead of the negative distraction], but also ended up with an educational twist, as I was engaged in a discussion about it, some people wanted explanations for stuff they didn't understand, as well as I had my own.

The original light, I paid no attention to when first witnessed. Though I recorded it along with all the others. It wasn't until I watched (scanned over) another 5-6 hours of footage (weeks worth of actual time passing therein).

The only similar instance was the two objects on the ground. If you look at the picture below, it appears where the two arrows are, those cloud peaks are actually higher than the 'light'. So if it were merely reflection of cloud peaks they'd be getting hit too.

It also appears there is a body to the object. Where the light's reflecting, it actually seems like behind the light, there is more to the object, if it were atmospheric twilight effects off a cloud, that part of the cloud (behind) would be lit up as well.






Here are a couple more that accentuate my point, notice how the light bleeds into the cloud, a bit of a smoothing effect.





Now, it's fine if anyone wants to come to the conclusion it's merely atmospheric twilight hitting a cloud. No worries. I'm just going to leave it in my interesting basket. I would say I'm 60-70% convinced it's a physical object, opposed to a cloud. As for the secondary objects, if one were responsible for the reflection, that'd be very cool. Doesn't need to be, no one has to believe it either. I just ask people look over the evidence before making their personal choice or conclusion on it. And then we can all move to the next case.

Im also going to be posting pictures from my reject pile too (in a new thread, soon), which are mostly interesting formations, shadows and shapes in the sky/clouds. There's some pretty cool clouds and pareidolia.

a reply to: boncho

Seems a reasonable methodology, please press on.

I hope my 99-FAQs was a resource to you but that was shuttle-era stuff.

The first one sure stays bright for minutes in the distance it keeps giving off full brightness .. Interesting .
The clouds eh I can't figure that one out yet.

originally posted by: boncho
Can't think of what would appear like that. Don't have any more info on the location or what not.

Lightning storm from above the clouds.

a reply to: boncho



I so rarely get itemized claims of factual/logical flaws in my reports [most critics just demand that nobody read them] that I was intrigued by your itemization and dove right into the links. Thanks for doing your best to document specific flaws in my views.
“Is that what Betty Cash said to you when you claimed the radiation burns on her hands was in her imagination?”
Betty Cash has never talked to me except in your imagination. The link was to an article by Leslie Kean, I didn’t see where she criticized anything I said about Cash-Landrum, when you claim I said something, please cite where –I- said it, not where some writer may have CLAIMED that I said it [or in this case, as far as I can tell, didn’t]. My complaint re the witnesses’ reported injuries has always been that Schuessler has always withheld their medical records regarding possible earlier treatments that could be related to reported symptoms.

“Or when you identified V-Shaped Lights as fishing vessels. “
These “V-Shaped Lights” are totally imaginary. Simple lights were in a V-shaped FORMATION, and a search of weather satellite photos showed exactly that shaped formation of fishing boats off the Argentine coast, exactly where Leroy Chiao reported seeing it. BTW, here’s a recent picture of us discussing this and other ’space folklore’ items. www.jamesoberg.com...


“Or when you compared the O'Hare sighting to a plane crash.”
Your link is, again, NOT to me making that claim, but to a critic attacking my comments on pilot testimony. Your statement that -I- compared the O’Hare sighting to an airplane crash is purely imaginary. Work on your English language comprehension skills., please.

“Or when you stalked people on Youtube, and focused on name spelling because the overall message lacked a response. “
The link you provided does not work. I recall my exchanges with a guy who claimed his grandfather knew von Braun, I was asking questions to establish whether he knew verifiable things about von Braun that could confirm his original claim. I find that to be a prudent technique, I recommend it.

“Or when you claimed a press release invalidated information, then attacked the person when attacking the message failed. “
That’s a long conversation, I’m not following you regarding exactly what you are describing me as saying or attacking. Be careful in getting into defensive mode on Ken Johnson, his claims of his status during Apollo are demonstrably at variance with all documentation [except what he produced himself] and all other witness recollections – never a ‘test pilot’ [flight school dropout], never an ‘astronaut trainer’ [not in his job description or in any astronaut’s memory], never ‘in charge’ of lunar photo archives [he was a shipping clerk with his own set of photos the real photo lab had given him], never a “Dr.” [mail-order certificate from a PO Box], never ‘fired’ for any reason, etc etc…

“Or is this like when you wanted to cover for Marcia Smith so she didn't have to answer hard questions, but then contradicted Sheehan's testimony. “
What’s the complaint? I asked Marcia if she wanted to respond to Sheehan’s accusations and she wanted nothing to do with him, we both agreed his narrative was delusional. How is refusing to provide contact information so somebody could harass an old colleague some sort of character flaw?

“Well, at least you agree with Sarah Palin right? so you have her in your corner.”
What kind of snarky jab is that? In my avatar as a recognized space historian, I wrote “It’s more complicated, but the essence is, Palin was right: the Soviets sowed the seed of their own collapse by setting off the Space Race”, and you’re welcome to provide evidence I was wrong. But you won’t, probably validating another comment of mine in the cited article : “I’m seeing up close how ‘Palin Derangement Syndrome‘ can compel otherwise intelligent people to foam at the mouth and babble nonsense to prove they’re right and she’s wrong. … “

“Take your debunking BS and stay clear out of my threads”
I can certainly understand why you would hope for this.

Do you want to follow up on any of these claimed flaws? I’m open to it.

originally posted by: JimOberg
a reply to: boncho

I so rarely get itemized claims of factual/logical flaws in my reports [most critics just demand that nobody read them] that I was intrigued by your itemization and dove right into the links. Thanks for doing your best to document specific flaws in my views.
(snip)
“Take your debunking BS and stay clear out of my threads”
I can certainly understand why you would hope for this.

Do you want to follow up on any of these claimed flaws? I’m open to it.

What an amazing reply! I'm proud of you, Mr Oberg. This guy has some nerve accusing you left and right without, obviously, doing serious, in-depth research which would have shut his big, offensive mouth. He should be censored by the ATS Board. And to make it worse, he violates ATS policy on good-neighborliness by telling you and in effect, all members, to stay off his threads! Some nerve! I'll do something you probably wouldn't do and call him a BIG anal cavity and tell him he can take his threads and shove them.

Mr Oberg you have class! Something boncho doesn't know exists.

a reply to: klassless

If you don't like his threads, don't read them, no need to get all brown nosed about it. It's completely off topic too...

Mr Oberg tries his dear hardest to paper over his already rusted accusations, and we all know what happens when you keep painting over the same rusty metal.

a reply to: skyblueworld

I am eager as always to respond to factual/logical issues in my reports. The quality of critical analysis I get from folks hereabouts is sometimes quite good and is helpful to my writing.

What do you think of my specific responses to Boncho's attempts?

a reply to: boncho

I was enjoying this topic. You put a lot of effort into it.

For me, there is a ton of stuff going on "out there" and "up there" yet much of it is hidden or obfuscated from most of us down here living in a micro-managed, edited, false bubble of so-called reality. Reality is much more vast than we've been conditioned and tweaked to believe.

So many times when someone catches something unusual in feeds such as this ISS one and tries to explore it online, well.... we see what happens. Then there are those whose job it is to intentionally post hoaxed stuff so that if anyone catches something credible the baseline of disinfo is called up and smeared all over an honest exploration.

Regardless, thanks for your efforts, OP. There was no wild speculation in your post; you were carefully and methodically trying to investigate and receive honest input on what you captured from that feed.

The carefully dosed crumbs we receive about the larger reality of upper and outer space do nothing to satisfy our interest and curiosity and if one is not a member of the various clubs who have this knowledge and who are sworn to secrecy then one is left out of the further understanding of our origins.

originally posted by: tweetie
a reply to: boncho

I was enjoying this topic. You put a lot of effort into it.

For me, there is a ton of stuff going on "out there" and "up there" yet much of it is hidden or obfuscated from most of us down here living in a micro-managed, edited, false bubble of so-called reality. Reality is much more vast than we've been conditioned and tweaked to believe.

......

The carefully dosed crumbs we receive about the larger reality of upper and outer space do nothing to satisfy our interest and curiosity and if one is not a member of the various clubs who have this knowledge and who are sworn to secrecy then one is left out of the further understanding of our origins.

We explore in order to be caught by surprise, and in the space business, we were always hair-trigger to respond to the unusual for MANY good reasons -- safety was paramount, but curiosity over new discoveries, always on our minds. I'm sorry you feel you are not allowed to share in the avalanche of images and readings from interplanetary spacecraft, from human space missions, from laboratories and observatories, from historical archives. I was in the guts of Mission Control for 20+ years and in the front row [literally] for much of that, and aside from technical details on several DoD payloads and crew privacy topics, there was nothing I witnessed flowing through the team that was diverted or camouflaged or misrepresented, especially any even remotely potentially UFO-theme-related phenomena. Perhaps in your passionate quest for the seductive illusions of 'secrets' you have been missing out on the cosmic thrills of genuine discoveries and the human experience of physically encountering and mentally adjusting to the first new arena for Earthborn life in hundreds of millions of years. That would be sad.

a reply to: JimOberg

Mr. Oberg, I appreciate and respect your long-term career in Mission Control. I honestly would have enjoyed watching what you did and seeing what you saw. I'm aware of your presence at ATS but not very aware of your working history or viewpoints. I did look at a website of yours when that rocket went up off of California which started a maelstrom on the internet. That seems like eons ago.

In my perspective, which is very likely different than yours, NASA is the lower level space program for the general public. By now, I'm pretty convinced there are many long term, advanced level space programs which go way beyond NASA's realm and mission purpose, and are mostly covert and hidden from the public except for the revelations which have surfaced over the years from various sources. Sources which have been attacked and discredited incessantly because they don't fit what the public is allowed to know.

Just so you know, I wasn't referring to you in any way, shape or form when I mentioned paid hoaxers. I was generalizing about the whole outer space realm and probably should have made that distinction so you would not take that part personally. However, your initial response to the OP pretty much ended this thread and for that I am disappointed.

I don't want to wend too far off topic but I wanted to clear up a few things for you so you know where I'm coming from.