Russian Experts to Analyze 'UFO' Footage Captured by ISS Astronaut Ivan Vagner.

Various news agencies are reporting this. The footage does look interesting. 5 UFO's filmed from the ISS.

However like most things out there, there could be a more mundane explanation.

If anyone could link the video, please do. I have linked varies sites as i am having issues with loading details correctly.


www.news.com.au...

interfax.com...

www.express.co.uk...


www.dailytelegraph.com.au... e4a291acb9e76

a reply to: alldaylong

Nobody's posted the exact time of the event, so the ISS position could be compared with candidate Starlink chains, for example.

Observations of distant satellites [as opposed to nearby vehicle-shed 'dandruff'] is rare. Early in the ISS program, Don Pettit created an app to predict Iridium flares seen from ISS and used it successfully. Arriving and departing vehicles can be seen several miles [sometimes several tens of miles] away but they are essentially 'flying formation' with ISS. Occasional rocket launches have also been observed, accidentally or by the Russians perhaps deliberately, from ISS.

Withholding time [and even date] is typical of decades of posts from Martyn Stubbs and others who collected shuttle dots videos, with the consequence [deliberate or not] of making any check on alternative explanations impossible. Fundamental context features, such as illumination conditions and lines-of-sight, are critical to any serious analysis of thee undeniably 'unearthly-looking' scenes.

I would have serious trouble getting sleep with that sort of view I could watch that for days...

my guess would be the star link..

a reply to: JimOberg

Thanks for your input Jim. Yes, what you state makes perfect sense ( as per usual )

As i said in my OP, maybe it's something of interest, but more is the case that it turns out to be something mundane.

this perhaps?

Just a reminder -- there really =IS= weird stuff observed out there demanding explanations.

One example:

www.jamesoberg.com...

According to Shostak there were no radio or tv signals thus it was a swamp gas chased by the planet Venus
/s

Nice to see such openess on the topic on the high level. I wonder who needed to die to finally open the flood gates.

I seeing them and I have video footage of this also

I witnessed 3/4 bright object light up around Antares

I also recorded 3/4 objects enter the atmosphere

They’re like shooting stars

But they don’t travel the sky they light up wit growing intensity super slow motion but as bright as the brightest stars in the sky

I’ll upload a video soon

My thinking was they’re coming from outer space into the atmosphere

They don’t behave anything like sats they’re much shorter lived but much brighter intensity

They’re momentarily in the sky

I’ve only witnessed this over the past year or two and i often sky watch for decades

This is a new pronomina

I have no idea of the dates involve here but this was happening in June & July 2020

a reply to: JimOberg

Having thought it over, would you not think that if it was Starlink he was observing, he would have been able to identify it by now ?

Maybe this did look completely out of the ordinary .

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: JimOberg

Having thought it over, would you not think that if it was Starlink he was observing, he would have been able to identify it by now ?

Maybe this did look completely out of the ordinary .

I could be wrong, but Starlink orbits at a much higher altitude than the ISS, does it look like the objects seen are in a lower orbit, or are they transcending upwards across the field of view?

originally posted by: JimOberg
a reply to: alldaylong
Withholding time [and even date] is typical of decades of posts from Martyn Stubbs and others who collected shuttle dots videos, with the consequence [deliberate or not] of making any check on alternative explanations impossible. Fundamental context features, such as illumination conditions and lines-of-sight, are critical to any serious analysis of thee undeniably 'unearthly-looking' scenes.

Why? What would be the purpose of that?

originally posted by: abeverage

originally posted by: JimOberg
a reply to: alldaylong
Withholding time [and even date] is typical of decades of posts from Martyn Stubbs and others who collected shuttle dots videos, with the consequence [deliberate or not] of making any check on alternative explanations impossible. Fundamental context features, such as illumination conditions and lines-of-sight, are critical to any serious analysis of thee undeniably 'unearthly-looking' scenes.

Why? What would be the purpose of that?

One obvious candidate intent would be to make determining a documented prosaic solution impossible. The STS-48 zig-zag video was solved only when the exact time-tagged telemetry records could be obtained.

Here's the level of documentation needed for a persuasive explanation of some of the more complex videos, for example:
www.jamesoberg.com...

This seems like it's ET but maybe the cosmonaut is secretly making a joke and trolling everyone.

a reply to: game over man

That's my guess. I think he knows exactly what it is and is just having some fun.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: JimOberg
Having thought it over, would you not think that if it was Starlink he was observing, he would have been able to identify it by now ? Maybe this did look completely out of the ordinary .

Well, I think that's a stretch. Be careful when you catch yourself imagining 'might-be-trues' that are mentally conjured up to support a conclusion you already want to reach.

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: abeverage

originally posted by: JimOberg
a reply to: alldaylong
Withholding time [and even date] is typical of decades of posts from Martyn Stubbs and others who collected shuttle dots videos, with the consequence [deliberate or not] of making any check on alternative explanations impossible. Fundamental context features, such as illumination conditions and lines-of-sight, are critical to any serious analysis of thee undeniably 'unearthly-looking' scenes.

Why? What would be the purpose of that?

One obvious candidate intent would be to make determining a documented prosaic solution impossible. The STS-48 zig-zag video was solved only when the exact time-tagged telemetry records could be obtained.

Here's the level of documentation needed for a persuasive explanation of some of the more complex videos, for example:
www.jamesoberg.com...

Ah I read that incorrectly I thought it was the release from NASA astronauts that obfuscating the evidence. Which seemed highly unlikely!
Thanks Jim

Why did this sighting fade away??? It was never debunked...this is a good sighting still...

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: JimOberg

Having thought it over, would you not think that if it was Starlink he was observing, he would have been able to identify it by now ?

Maybe this did look completely out of the ordinary .

I could be wrong, but Starlink orbits at a much higher altitude than the ISS, does it look like the objects seen are in a lower orbit, or are they transcending upwards across the field of view?

No, my understanding is Starlink sats orbit lower than other satellites. The idea is that by maintaining a lower orbit the signal latency between Earth and the satellites is much smaller. This is why I believe the Starlink sats are configured like a long interconnected string. They are in such a low orbit that if they were formed like a traditional satellite (one discrete object), they would be up over the horizon and gone very quickly. By physically lengthening the Starlink it keeps the object in the apparent sky longer, even though it's in a lower Earth orbit.

originally posted by: game over man
Why did this sighting fade away??? It was never debunked...this is a good sighting still...

It 'faded' because Vagner soon admitted the joke [Starlink satellites] when he posted a new video a few weeks later. Since that debunked the original claim, the UFO huckster industry suppressed Vagner's new comments, keeping their readers conveniently in the dark, where they like to keep them. Why do you tolerate that dishonesty?

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: game over man
Why did this sighting fade away??? It was never debunked...this is a good sighting still...

It 'faded' because Vagner soon admitted the joke [Starlink satellites] when he posted a new video a few weeks later. Since that debunked the original claim, the UFO huckster industry suppressed Vagner's new comments, keeping their readers conveniently in the dark, where they like to keep them. Why do you tolerate that dishonesty?

You're unreal Jim O'berg...what's the point with being rude?

Why do I tolerate dishonesty? Why are you asking existential or philosophical questions in a stupid UFO thread?

Seriously.

What in the world are you talking about? So I said I'm "intolerable of truth?" When did I say that? You quoted me..... Unbelievable. Why are you being so argumentative and confrontational in the context of this thread and my post? Toxic as hell. Chill out.

The debunking video or tweet, whatever you are referring to, was never posted in this thread, correct?