Just on Nasa TV! STS119 Discovery encounters UFO!

Originally posted by Akezzon
Also, the lens anomalies I've be presented here on ATS have another "feel" to it compared to the ones in the NASA clips.
The Anomalies have a fuzzy texture inside of them, and the contours are not as sharp as in the NASA video.

The way the lens artifacts look depends on the way the lens is made (the type of lens and the elements it uses), so only lens made in the same way can show artifacts that look the same. Because of that, any experiment made with common consumer cameras will show the same artifacts if they are made with cameras that use lens from the same maker, and different makers create different artifacts.

That is one of the reasons this photo of Venus, taken with a Panasonic DMC-FZ30 ...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c85a710cea47.jpg[/atsimg]

looks different from these out of focus lights on the top of a bridge taken with a Canon MV730i
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/91203dec09ec.jpg[/atsimg]

I think you all, also have to open your mind more about life forms in space now since the "old" new news have been announced about bacteria in space.

The bacterias found by ISRO were not in space, they were in the high atmosphere, they were found on samples taken by a balloon, not a space craft.

That proves that life forms, not based upon the same building blocks as the inhabitants of earth are made off, can survive in an hostile environment as space.

They did not said that they were based on different "building blocks", they only said that they were unknown species.

PS: although I find it possible for life forms to live in space (despite some "logistic" problems, like locomotion), I think what we see on most NASA videos are just small particles reflecting light.

In this case, I can not see anything that can give a clue to where the object is, in front or behind the "cross-hairs", but it looks to me like a very small, out of focus, reflective (or with a high albedo) object.

Originally posted by ArMaP


In this case, I can not see anything that can give a clue to where the object is, in front or behind the "cross-hairs", but it looks to me like a very small, out of focus, reflective (or with a high albedo) object.

My friend , as a lurker on the 114 thread , I see you put forth some interesting

pics and charts. I dont agree with you on a few of them , but I respect


your quest to look at all angles


But sometimes Art, your eyes are your best tool


Look at it again, its clearly behind the hairs


And sometimes my friend , a Duck is a Duck

Refer to Tether to compare this anomaly

reply to post by kresh7


That’s a great vid you got there, and if you remember the tether incident, you can see that this one is exactly the same object as the ones that were buzzing behind the tether. Well they can’t debunk this one that easy I would say. But probably they are going to say that some astronaut lost his El sombrero in space !

[edit on 11/02/2007 by 0bserver1]

Yes, dear ArMap.
I know they look different depending on how the lens is made.

But to me ALL Nasa objects look alike, no matter what camera they have used.
In my opinion they are A LOT different than the pics you posted just now as well.

Regarding the bacteria.
Ok, didn't knew that. But does that matter?
They found it so close to space that if anything can live at that altitude, then why not survive in space as well?

More over, I think our late shuttle Columbia had an experiment brought with them, where they took out biological entities like bacteria and fungus out into deep space, open the lid and exposed it all from radiation and the cold hostile environment. This "box" even survived the explosion and the decent down to earth. When scientists open the lid the bacteria was unharmed.

Gonna see if I can find anything about it.

I know I've read about it in a science magazine.

And no, I never said "they" said anything about building blocks. That was my own thoughts. =)

And ofc all of these objects are not ET's.
On the other hand... No one of us can or ever will come up with solid evidence confirming that these are ET's nor Dust particles.

We can barely come with a suggested solution and then let it be up to each person to use their own judgment if we wanna buy it or not. And then, we are just where we are now...

=)



[edit on 18-3-2009 by Akezzon]

reply to post by Seany


Yeah you said that right , you can feel the authenticity in all of this!

Ok, as an addition to my latest post, I wanna add this article.

Microbiologist Robert McLean assumed his experiment
aboard the shuttle was lost when Columbia broke apart
upon re-entering the Earth's atmosphere Feb. 1, 2003.
But its container was found intact in a convenience store parking lot in Nacogdoches

Full Article

There are several threads this could be posted in though, but I think it is just as relevant in here as in the other bacteria threads.


[edit on 18-3-2009 by Akezzon]

This is not a UFO I took a stillshot. It looks alot like a beam from a flashlight.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/e1352becc0ca0e38.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by NephraTari
This is not a UFO I took a stillshot. It looks alot like a beam from a flashlight.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/e1352becc0ca0e38.jpg[/atsimg]

So you say ITS not a UFO


And its a FLASHLIGHT



Well you solved it imo

Another example of the light bending around the metal.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/50704d8606b5c4d3.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by NephraTari


Wouldn't a "flashlight beam" have some transparency to it? Who exactly is shining a flashlight out into space anyway?

reply to post by NephraTari


Look, guys....a 'still shot' is as disengenuous as it gets!!!

You have to look at the video, to see that whatever the bright white oblate object is ( I say it is the Moon, out of focus) that moves very slowly through the frame...and, BTW, no one is excited on the audio....

It is the Moon....out of focus, because the camera is designed to focus on the docking port.....the Moon is a very bright object, of course....

I canjust imagine, if we could uplink this thread to the Shuttle right now, they would all get a good laugh....just before they go to sleep.....

Originally posted by weedwhacker

I canjust imagine, if we could uplink this thread to the Shuttle right now, they would all get a good laugh....just before they go to sleep.....

They would laugh to try to forget about whats really out there so they dont have nightmares when they go to sleep...since they are up there with all that nothing to see move along subliminal programming.

What would verify if that is an out of focus Moon moving through the frame is to get the flight data and orbital position and shuttle orientation in relation to where the Moon is and that would put that to rest.


Cheers!!!!

reply to post by RFBurns


Yes, well....RFBurns....

That's why we have checklists.

Discipline, as well.....

And almost constant contact....well, really...CONSTANT contact while in LEO. Everything is heard, and monitored....and recorded.

reply to post by RFBurns


RF, I thought about that, and looked it up....sad to say, it seems that from our perspective the Moon is in 3rd quarter Phase....

So, not sure if that image is appropriate, or not....

Still....thinking the camera is not focused to infinity.....well....if you know how cameras work, and if you realize that the Shuttle must maneuver slowly, to orient for docking....

edit was for typos....

[edit on 3/18/0909 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker


Heh, actually I do know a considerable amount of how the shuttle operates and how a camera functions.

Since the flight data and orientation of the shuttle and Moon position is known, that pretty much rules out the blob being an out of focus Moon.

Could be a tiny dust particle...but I doubt it. Maybe a dust or debris particle further away from the camera, but I posted images that dont show any particle in the FOV of the camera looking at the entire docking ring assembly.

So it must be further away, outside of the FOV of the camera looking at the docking ring assembly.

A tiny debris particle is not going to show up so big like that, at those distances much less be so out of focus as if it were right up against the docking ring camera lens.

And..if there was a dust or tiny debris particle that close to the docking ring camera, the spotlight would not be lighting it up so brightly due to the fact that the spotlight beam is not shining inside the docking ring assembly, its shining forward. The rim of the docking ring assembly in of itself is blocking out much of that spotlight beam.

That object floating in that video is brightly lit up.


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 18-3-2009 by RFBurns]

reply to post by RFBurns


Yeah....you're probably right....it is some object, debris perhaps....not in focus. Bright enough to reflect the Sunlight...and confuse the average viewer....

Point I was making is, it seemed static, as the Shuttle moved about its axes.....or one axis....whatever is needed to allign for docking.

EDIT....I did look up the phase of the Moon now....so, rules the Moon out....

[edit on 3/18/0909 by weedwhacker]

EDIT again....of course, a 'saucer'....full on, not edge on....just hovering....as complete an explanation as any other, just to get the folks riled up!

[edit on 3/18/0909 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker


Can you not see how this white curves around the metal?

I give up.. ignore the facts.

reply to post by NephraTari


So its a reflection of a UFO........or is that not good enough.

[edit on 18-3-2009 by stewartw2]

This is the same reflective phenomenon we have seen time and time again.
You call this news?

Trust me I'm hungry for the alien proof,but this is just disappointing.

reply to post by NephraTari


Nephra....I am not ignoring, just wondering.

There is a consideration, an actuall occurence, known as 'blooming'.

This means that, depending on aperature and frame-rate....an object can appear closer than it really is....especially if it is very bright, compared to the background.

This effect is especially prevalent in ccd cameras.

I see it very often, in MY camera...and I have a cheap (well, $400) digital camera. I haven't had the opportunity to take it into space, of course....