UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Astrophotographer]

They are obviously two different videos (compare the clouds and compare the arrival of the UFO on the horizon…) but they show remarkably similar objects.

Maybe because water droplets/condensation on the windows happens often enough to be repeatable.

Are you looking at a completely different video than the two referenced above? The camera motion is relatively stable while the UFO moves considerably in comparison. How can you not see this? .

Wrong. Here is the evidence.


Note the earth's limb is higher in the second frame and not in the same position that it was in the first. You can also see MORE of the earth in the frame. Either the earth moved or the camera/shuttle did. It is most likely the camera moved.

I am perplexed that you could suggest the motion of the UFO is due to the motion of the camera… please try this … focus on the horizon and not the UFO (in both films) and then come back and tell me how much the camera moves in comparison to the UFO.

See above.

Then can I suggest you look at the clips I referenced above? These are the ones I am looking at. I can see (in the STS-37 clip) what looks like the top and bottom of the UFO alternating between having a slight blue tinge to completely grey throughout the entire video – but I suspect this has more to do with the digital imagery than the actual object.

More evidence:



The shading on the bottom side of the "sphere" changes as it moves below the earth's limb. This is the effect one would expect from a droplet refracting the darkness of space above it. If it were a distinct physical object outside the craft, it would not have a change in shading like this.

… and you expect a water droplet to move in such a manner?

Prove it is not the camera moving. In the two images I posted above, it is obvious the camera is moving.

… Two very good reasons:
1. Opacity
2. Movement characteristics

1. The "opacity" is not consistent with a physical object outside the craft. It has a changing illumination on the underside. This is the effect one would expect from a water droplet.

2. Movement characteristics can easily be explained by camera motion. Demonstrate the camera is not moving because I have presented evidence that it is.

 

[Jocce]

Please look at these websites on refraction (http://eo.ucar.edu/rainbows/) and (http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/refrn/u14l4b.cfm) and note the path the light takes and then refer that back to the video.(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTy0dQidPGM – from 10:37).

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and taste like a duck, there's a good chance that it is a duck. This is a drop of water and it's painfully obvious. You can even see the earth and black sky reflected/refracted on it.

Can you see any refraction or reflection of the WESTAR taking place.

No, not in this video in the sequence between 10:37 and 10:39 or so. Maybe just in the beginning but it's not really important since such a small object would be hard to see in a water droplet anyway.

 

[Jocce]

This is where you see the image of Westar:
http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii149/europa73/refletWestarfinal2.png

 

[Astrophotographer]

I think this video shows the events in question better. Notice how there is abrupt motion of the camera (thus confirming my claim that the camera was shifted in the original video) at time 0:25, which is when the appearance of the UFO from the upper left (the UFO is invisible until it nears the earth’s limb) and violent motion occurs. After that, the UFOs apparent violent motion settles down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmnukfsB5-U

In the enlarged version there are two specs (which are apparently on the window) that are present on the right side of the frame around time 1:12 near the earth's limb. They oscillate around just like the UFO eventually does. However, just before the UFO appears they dart off. This is also consistent with the camera shifting position and seeing a different part of the window, which is where the droplet appears to have been.

Interesting to see the part of the earth we see the shuttle passing over that would end up refracted/reflected near the top of the droplet. It is pretty brown, which would make an out of focus droplet appear opaque near the top.

Also, the UFO is invisible (you do not see it appear at the edge of the frame) until it magically appears out of the blackness and becomes more distinct as it nears the earth's limb. This is also consistent with a water droplet.

 

[wollery]

Please look at these websites on refraction (http://eo.ucar.edu/rainbows/) and (http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/refrn/u14l4b.cfm) and note the path the light takes and then refer that back to the video.(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTy0dQidPGM – from 10:37).

Okay, you need to go and do some more research. The angle of internal reflection is dependent on the size of the drop. The larger the drop, the larger the angle, and the less the path of the light is bent. Now rainbows are usually formed in relatively light rain, where the size of the water drops is usually about 1mm to 2mm. The largest possible drop size is 5mm, but that's for extremely heavy thunderstorms, which are very unlikely to form rainbows.

Now, in zero-G the forces on a water drop are different, and it's possible to form much larger drops, which would completely alter the light path, even allowing light to pass through without internally reflecting, in effect acting as a fisheye lens.
http://th.physik.uni-frankfurt.de/~hossi/Bilder/BR/bubble.jpg
http://www.maniacworld.com/Zero-Gravity-Water-Bubble.jpg

Then please take a close look at that video. Can you see any refraction or reflection of the WESTAR taking place. Either it is occurring or it is not. There is a tiny fraction of the video where the UFO "comes into being" where it is possible to interpret something like refraction, but as the UFO becomes "fully formed", then no such refraction or reflection is apparent. A very strange water droplet to exhibit refraction at one moment but never thereafter…

Unfortunately I can't view youtube videos, so I can't comment, but the picture you supplied show an inverted refracted image of the WESTAR extremely clearly.

And I am totally at a loss as to how you can discern any “upside down” image of the WESTAR 6 in that video UFO… please tell me where to look so that I may see it too.

Not in the video, in the photo. I can't see the video.

 

[Jocce]

1. Apollo 10: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DS131DdQwjo)
… the image has been reversed… in the documentary it is the other way round.

Original source missing.
Meteorites are pretty common so that would probably be a good starting point in your process of eliminating mundane causes.

2. STS-115 Atlantis – contention is some form of ice crystal but no ice crystal ever looked like that!
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrIe9NQf6G4&NR=1)
Original NASA video here: (http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery.../html/fd1.html)
(http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/...fd01_03_56.asf)

A reflection in the lense or window, ice crystal and dust would be good starting points in your elimination process.

3. Apollo 16 - has been explained as the EVA “floodlight boom” – but the “arm” of the boom extends back at a seemingly odd angle - nevertheless it definitely has similar features to the boom (http://www.nasa.gov/vision/space/tra...ce/no_ufo.html)

Yes, the boom seems to be a plausible explanation.

4. ZOND-3 (1965) “Tower of Babel”
Can’t see the video image in the actual ZOND-3 images
(http://www.mentallandscape.com/C_CatalogMoon.htm)

Seems fake since it's not in the original images (if in fact mentallandscape has the original images).

5. ISS-007-E06886 (12 June 2003):
“After the ISS attitude transition on 6/12, the crew noticed a small, shiny, free-floating metallic object about 30 m (100 ft) from the Lab nadir window, moving very slowly away from the ISS. The leading theory was that the object is a cable label. [A photo of a cable label, uplinked from the ground, was later examined by Ed Lu. He confirmed the possibility that the object he saw indeed could have been a cable label. Further identification of the object by ground teams is still underway. Limited tracking data the object on 6/12 showed it below the ISS and 1.7 km in front. Preliminary predictions indicated it was slowly separating, and the specialists did/do not believe it poses a re-contact hazard to the station.” (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=9514) NASA image here: (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/...S007E06886.jpg)

Since it's confirmed that it could be a cable label I guess this one can be left out of the UFO discussion here.

6. ISS013-E-69634 (20 Aug. 2006): The Aurora Borealis, also known as "northern lights", is featured in this photograph taken by an Expedition 13 crew member on the International Space Station.”(http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/...013e69634.html)

Scratch, smudge, some dirt seems very plausible.

7.

Original source missing.
Scratch, smudge, dirt, reflection seems very plausible.

8.

Original source missing.
Scratch, smudge, dirt, reflection seems very plausible.

9. Mission STS 51A WESTAR 6 satellite retrieval
Extended video here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTy0dQidPGM)
UFO can be seen appearing at 10:37. Notice the motion of the UFO as it appears.
Discussion of it as a “water droplet” here:
(http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....S-51A-Debunked)
…but the physics is wrong for a water droplet…

Original source missing.
Has been shown that a water droplet is very likely.

10. STS-114 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoeZ4ceAZes)
Okay…so we have clouds rolling in from space… must be set to rain… LOL.
The compilation video seems to be a sped up video. A real time video can be seen here (resolution not so hot though). (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyquGdCEJNg)

Original source missing.

11. STS-96 (May 1999)
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJGGzdruHso)

Original source missing.

12. Mir Space Station
Single clip from this extended NASA video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTjk7uuSScI) The extended clip is even more perplexing that the compiled edit!

Original source missing. Bad quality and I don't even know where the camera is pointing.

13.STS-110-E5912 (April 2002)
Original image here: (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/...s110e5912.html) The compilation pic has obviously undergone some “enhancement” of the UFO, but it is visible in the original image...

Scratches, smudges, dirt, reflection seems plausible. The video is seriously contrast enhanced and the "lights" show up where there is obvious glare from a light (which has been removed in the video) so best bet is probably reflections from lights within the ship.

14. STS-116-E05364: Original here (beautiful high res. image): (http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery...116e05364.html)
Seems to be more “junk” in this pic in the immediate area of the “triangle”as well…

Scratches, smudges, dirt seems plausible.

15. STS-100-E5220: Original here: (http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery...s100e5220.html)
Looks to me like some sort of reflection in the shuttle’s window (look at the bottom left corner of the high res. image).
Alternatively…what’s this guy working with? (http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery...0-342-010.html) Either way…

Scratches, smudges, dirt, reflection seems plausible.

 

[Correa Neto]

Okay, you need to go and do some more research. ...snip...

This thread in a nutshell...

Skeptics are doing the job Rramjet was supposed to do. Skeptics are the ones doing research, checking and processing the data.

UFO proponents' methodology at this thread has been to just present a pile of links, claim they represent evidence of "aliens from beyond the borders of what we call nature" and challenge skeptics to prove them wrong. UFO buffs (and many other fringe subject proponents as well ) quite often act like this.That's not how it works and anyone with real and good scientific background would know this fact.

Rramjet must bring the data processed through a good, bias-free methodology. So, the claim is that a certain piece of imagery shows aliens from beyond the borders of what we call nature? OK, for starters, tell us camera specs, how the image was taken, chain of custody and how the image was processed. "John Doe did it and no one proved it was a fraud" is not good enough.

The move on and explain how you came to the conclusion that "aliens from beyond the borders of what we call nature" is a valid explanation. Remember to use a good, bias-free methodology to reach this conclusion and do the adequate research.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Original source missing.
Meteorites are pretty common so that would probably be a good starting point in your process of eliminating mundane causes.

Meteoroids are not that common. I am more likely to consider debris inside the Lunar Module or something small coming off the craft during a thruster firing. The funny thing about this object is nobody during this mission proclaimed they just missed hitting something with their spacecraft. That makes me consider it to be something that was not a threat and a mundane source.

The same can be said for the water droplet on STS-51a EVA. If it were an actual physical object outside the craft of significant size, the astronaut filming it would have screamed for the astronaut to look out for the unknown craft/space debris that may have potentially injured him. Instead, everything continues business as usual. ho-hum.....

In both cases, these were films released by NASA and were screened before doing so (they were not live feeds). One would think that if NASA was hiding the truth about these UFOs (as the compilation implies), they would have simply wiped the films of any evidence of these UFOs. Their presence in the films indicates that NASA is not involved in a Cabal to hide the truth and the explanation for them lie in the mundane and not in the exotic.

Originally Posted by Rramjet
6. ISS013-E-69634 (20 Aug. 2006): The Aurora Borealis, also known as "northern lights", is featured in this photograph taken by an Expedition 13 crew member on the International Space Station.”(http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/...013e69634.html)
Scratch, smudge, some dirt seems very plausible.

This appears to be a lens flare. Something similar happened with another aurora picture (I have also seen other amateurs obtain similar flare effects during aurora). Read the comments section of this link for the experts opinion (Richard Berry is a long time astrophotographer/amateur).

http://news.discovery.com/space/norway-aurora-satellite-flare.html

The light source could be the bright center of the aurora or some other source of light to the lower right.

 

[Rramjet]

Maybe because water droplets/condensation on the windows happens often enough to be repeatable.

So if conditions inside the shuttle are such that water droplets “repeatedly” condense on the widows (a situation I find highly implausible unless the incompetence of the NASA engineers reached new lows on those missions), then why is this not apparent on any other of the hours and hours and hours… of shuttle footage?

Wrong. Here is the evidence.
movement4.JPG

Note the earth's limb is higher in the second frame and not in the same position that it was in the first. You can also see MORE of the earth in the frame. Either the earth moved or the camera/shuttle did. It is most likely the camera moved.

You simply did not do what I asked you to do… why not? It was a simple enough request. I asked you to compare the relative motion of the camera with the relative motion of the UFO in order to show that the camera moves relatively little in comparison to the relatively gross movement of the UFO.

Of course you did something else altogether… Nevertheless, despite your intention, your jpg image still proves my point. If the earth horizon moves upward in the frame, then the camera is tilting down and any water droplet on the window should also move upward… yet it actually moves down. The UFO also reverses its initial left to right motion to move right to left, then comes to a relatively stable halt in front of the camera (it still moves up and down slightly - over and above the camera movement - something one would most definitely not expect from a water droplet). The shuttle itself has not moved to cause such a radical departure from the laws of thermodynamics - because the horizon barely shifts up or down (and barely moves at all left to right). The focal length of the camera does not change at all – because the focus on the horizon does not change at all. So if it is a “water droplet”, then you must explain its departure from the laws of thermodynamics.

The shading on the bottom side of the "sphere" changes as it moves below the earth's limb. This is the effect one would expect from a droplet refracting the darkness of space above it. If it were a distinct physical object outside the craft, it would not have a change in shading like this.

You select a small number of frames that seem to prove your point - but simply leave out all the majority of frames that disprove your point. You even go so far as to obscure the relevant part of the image in one of your own frames with a inserted arrow…

I could pick a sequential series of images which show absolutely no such changes as the UFO moves above and below the horizon… and that proves that your contention is incorrect here because in that case, either the droplet changes reflective/refractive quality throughout the video while maintaining stability of shape and size (sometimes showing what you want it to show, sometimes completely opaque with no colour differential top to bottom as it moves above, below and through the horizon) or that the apparent colour changes are to do with artefacts in the digital imagery.

Prove it is not the camera moving. In the two images I posted above, it is obvious the camera is moving.

You discussed this above and I replied above… the camera moves relatively little in comparison to the UFO.

1. The "opacity" is not consistent with a physical object outside the craft.

This is simply an unfounded generalisation with no supporting evidence. Can I ask why you persist in making such unsupported claims when everyone following this thread would instantly know that my immediate reply would be to state that making such an unfounded assertion does not confer truth on that assertion. You must support with evidence, otherwise we are entitled to dismiss such empty claims from you.

It has a changing illumination on the underside. This is the effect one would expect from a water droplet.

As I pointed out above, I could pull individual sequential frames out of the video to show precisely that there is no “changing illumination” at all.

Then you finish with another unfounded generalisation… you have not demonstrated that your supposed “effect”, even if apparent, is what “one would expect from a water droplet”. Again, without supporting evidence, we are entitled to dismiss this as an entirely empty claim.

2. Movement characteristics can easily be explained by camera motion. Demonstrate the camera is not moving because I have presented evidence that it is.

You have not demonstrated that “Movement characteristics can easily be explained by camera motion”. I asked you to perform a simple experiment – to compare the relevant movement of the camera with the relevant movement of the UFO. If you had done so, it would be readily apparent to you that the movement of the UFO is over and above the movement of the camera. That is the UFO moves to a far greater extent than any movement of the camera can account for. This is entirely evident in the video.

That you then go on to imply that I have claimed that the camera “is not moving” is disingenuous and a straw man argument. I have never stated the camera does not move – all I claim is that the UFO moves to a proportionately greater extent than the camera does and thus the camera movement cannot account for the motion of the UFO.

 

[Rramjet]

In reference to
6. ISS013-E-69634 (20 Aug. 2006): The Aurora Borealis, also known as "northern lights", is featured in this photograph taken by an Expedition 13 crew member on the International Space Station.”(http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-13/html/iss013e69634.html)

This appears to be a lens flare. Something similar happened with another aurora picture (I have also seen other amateurs obtain similar flare effects during aurora). Read the comments section of this link for the experts opinion (Richard Berry is a long time astrophotographer/amateur).

http://news.discovery.com/space/norw...ite-flare.html

The light source could be the bright center of the aurora or some other source of light to the lower right.

But your own experts discount “lens flare”. For example: “Truls Lynne Hansen, lead scientist at the Tromsø Geophysical Observatory, he doubts that the mystery object can be explained by a technical fault. "Usually such aberrations appear when there is a small and intense source of light in the field of view, or at least so close that the light from it hits the lens," Hansen explained to me via email. "That seems not to be the case here." "Additionally the color of the 'phenomenon' is the same as the color in the aurora, the auroral green line from atomic oxygen," Hansen continued, "so the 'phenomenon' is either a genuine auroral feature or a reflection of auroral light somewhere in space." (http://news.discovery.com/space/aurora-mystery-solved.html)

Rather the object is explained as: "I agree with Pål Brekke [Senior Advisor at the Norwegian Space Centre] that a reflection from a satellite is a candidate," said Hansen. "It reminds of the so-called 'Iridium flares' -- reflections of sunlight from the regularly shaped Iridium satellites." Satellite flares are well known by astronomers. As a satellite passes overhead, the conditions may be right for the spacecraft's solar panels or antennae to reflect sunlight down to the ground. The result is a short-lived burst of light, known as a "flare." (http://news.discovery.com/space/aurora-mystery-solved.html)

But the author of the article isn’t so sure… “My personal concern about the satellite flare theory is the question about auroral light intensity. Is the light from a large aurora bright enough to bounce off a satellite and appear as an auroral satellite flare as a point? And in turn produce a parachute-shaped, lens flare-like projection in the photo? I couldn't imagine even an Iridium satellite amplifying auroral light that much (although a stonking-huge orbital solar power array of the future might do a better job).”

But what IS interesting, is that the photo found at your referenced site (http://news.discovery.com/space/norway-aurora-satellite-flare.html) – taken looking up from the earth - is being blamed on a reflection from a satellite, yet the NASA picture was taken from the vantage of a satellite…

No, something unknown is going on here, something alien to our common and (it seems) expert scientific conception of natural or technological processes. However, with only two known data points, research would be difficult.

This of course contrasts with our ability to research UFO encounters: For example here:

Westall Mass UFO Sighting (6 Apr 1966)
(http://www.westall66ufo.com.au/westall66ufo/)
(http://theozfiles.blogspot.com/2009/01/westall-ufo-black-swan.html)
(http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread447523/)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/Cases/CaseSubarticle.asp?ID=894)
(http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/10/01/1127804696941.html)
(http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Westallhighschoolufo/)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westall_UFO)

..and the associated study guide (http://www.westall66ufo.com.au/westall66ufo/#westall-66-study-guide) highlights precisely all the issues surrounding our ability to research such topics.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

You simply did not do what I asked you to do… why not? It was a simple enough request. I asked you to compare the relative motion of the camera with the relative motion of the UFO in order to show that the camera moves relatively little in comparison to the relatively gross movement of the UFO.

Of course you did something else altogether… Nevertheless, despite your intention, your jpg image still proves my point. If the earth horizon moves upward in the frame, then the camera is tilting down and any water droplet on the window should also move upward… yet it actually moves down. The UFO also reverses its initial left to right motion to move right to left, then comes to a relatively stable halt in front of the camera (it still moves up and down slightly - over and above the camera movement - something one would most definitely not expect from a water droplet). The shuttle itself has not moved to cause such a radical departure from the laws of thermodynamics - because the horizon barely shifts up or down (and barely moves at all left to right). The focal length of the camera does not change at all – because the focus on the horizon does not change at all. So if it is a “water droplet”, then you must explain its departure from the laws of thermodynamics.

I notice that the shot you are considering is preceded and followed by shots of crew members with cameras. You will note that they are handheld cameras.

Is it possible that you have simply failed to consider the possibility that the camera moves? You appear only to have considered the possibility of the camera zooming or panning. What if it simply moves up and to the left, while pointing in the same direction?

I was, I must admit, frankly astonished when I first looked at the footage. Astonished that it was the source of any contention whatsoever. Astonished that anyone could genuinely misinterpret what is so screamingly obviously mundane: a droplet on the window the photographer was looking through.

 

[Astrophotographer]

So if conditions inside the shuttle are such that water droplets “repeatedly” condense on the widows (a situation I find highly implausible unless the incompetence of the NASA engineers reached new lows on those missions), then why is this not apparent on any other of the hours and hours and hours… of shuttle footage?

Maybe they are. Have you checked? Maybe the condensation and water droplets are obvious in those frames and do not spark any UFO proponent's interest. Declaring a water droplet a result of "incompetence" is really going a bit far isn't it? Can you demonstrate that water never collects on the window of the shuttle? There is one report of condensation on the windows potentially ruining an IMAX film of the hubble repair mission. Obviously, it does happen.

You simply did not do what I asked you to do… why not? It was a simple enough request. I asked you to compare the relative motion of the camera with the relative motion of the UFO in order to show that the camera moves relatively little in comparison to the relatively gross movement of the UFO.

Sorry, I don't see it. Prove your point. Your original claim was that there was camera was "relatively stable". Now that it is obvious that this is not the case, you change your tune. The motion of the camera coincides with the violent motion of the "sphere". Is it coincidence or the cause? Prove it isn't.

Nevertheless, despite your intention, your jpg image still proves my point. If the earth horizon moves upward in the frame, then the camera is tilting down and any water droplet on the window should also move upward… yet it actually moves down. The UFO also reverses its initial left to right motion to move right to left, then comes to a relatively stable halt in front of the camera (it still moves up and down slightly - over and above the camera movement - something one would most definitely not expect from a water droplet).

You obviously did not look at the source video where the camera's actual motion is visible.

You select a small number of frames that seem to prove your point - but simply leave out all the majority of frames that disprove your point. You even go so far as to obscure the relevant part of the image in one of your own frames with a inserted arrow…

Actually my selection was essentially random. I chose those images from different sections to show the object at different points. If you can present images that disprove this, feel free to do so. However, I did not see any frames that showed no dark bottom when the sphere was below the earth's limb.

I could pick a sequential series of images which show absolutely no such changes as the UFO moves above and below the horizon… and that proves that your contention is incorrect here because in that case, either the droplet changes reflective/refractive quality throughout the video while maintaining stability of shape and size (sometimes showing what you want it to show, sometimes completely opaque with no colour differential top to bottom as it moves above, below and through the horizon) or that the apparent colour changes are to do with artefacts in the digital imagery.

Feel free to do so. You are a scientist after all. Feel free to prove your point.

You discussed this above and I replied above… the camera moves relatively little in comparison to the UFO.

You need to look at the source video, where the camera's motion is quite apparent. However, you also need to understand the issue with how close objects can change position relative to distant objects with just a small amount of motion.

This is simply an unfounded generalisation with no supporting evidence. Can I ask why you persist in making such unsupported claims when everyone following this thread would instantly know that my immediate reply would be to state that making such an unfounded assertion does not confer truth on that assertion. You must support with evidence, otherwise we are entitled to dismiss such empty claims from you..

I make the claim based on the change in lighting on a sphere. Why would it suddenly go dark on the bottom as it passes below the earth's limb? It can not be a shadow for a sphere because it would always be there no matter what frame you select. Therefore, it can not be a physical object outside the craft.

As I pointed out above, I could pull individual sequential frames out of the video to show precisely that there is no “changing illumination” at all.

Feel free to do so. Until you do so, I think the frames I have shown (and the video itself) shows quite well what I am describing.

Then you finish with another unfounded generalisation… you have not demonstrated that your supposed “effect”, even if apparent, is what “one would expect from a water droplet”. Again, without supporting evidence, we are entitled to dismiss this as an entirely empty claim..

A water droplet acts like a lens when one looks through it. You see the image upside down. In this case the earth side would be in the upper portion of the droplet and the dark sky would appear in the bottom. This is what one sees when the "sphere" approaches the earth's limb.

You have not demonstrated that “Movement characteristics can easily be explained by camera motion”. I asked you to perform a simple experiment – to compare the relevant movement of the camera with the relevant movement of the UFO. If you had done so, it would be readily apparent to you that the movement of the UFO is over and above the movement of the camera. That is the UFO moves to a far greater extent than any movement of the camera can account for. This is entirely evident in the video..

I suggest you take a photograph of an object on a pane of glass with a distant horizon. A small motion by the camera will make that object's displacement appear large relative to the horizon. Maybe I will do it for you tomorrow if I have time.

That you then go on to imply that I have claimed that the camera “is not moving” is disingenuous and a straw man argument. I have never stated the camera does not move – all I claim is that the UFO moves to a proportionately greater extent than the camera does and thus the camera movement cannot account for the motion of the UFO.

Sorry, "relatively stable" is your claim. However, we now know this is not the case based on the source video. The camera' movement was obvious during the sphere's transit into view.

 

[Astrophotographer]

But your own experts discount “lens flare”. For example: “Truls Lynne Hansen, lead scientist at the Tromsø Geophysical Observatory, he doubts that the mystery object can be explained by a technical fault. "Usually such aberrations appear when there is a small and intense source of light in the field of view, or at least so close that the light from it hits the lens," Hansen explained to me via email. "That seems not to be the case here." "Additionally the color of the 'phenomenon' is the same as the color in the aurora, the auroral green line from atomic oxygen," Hansen continued, "so the 'phenomenon' is either a genuine auroral feature or a reflection of auroral light somewhere in space." (http://news.discovery.com/space/aurora-mystery-solved.html)

Rather the object is explained as: "I agree with Pål Brekke [Senior Advisor at the Norwegian Space Centre] that a reflection from a satellite is a candidate," said Hansen. "It reminds of the so-called 'Iridium flares' -- reflections of sunlight from the regularly shaped Iridium satellites." Satellite flares are well known by astronomers. As a satellite passes overhead, the conditions may be right for the spacecraft's solar panels or antennae to reflect sunlight down to the ground. The result is a short-lived burst of light, known as a "flare." (http://news.discovery.com/space/aurora-mystery-solved.html)

But the author of the article isn’t so sure… “My personal concern about the satellite flare theory is the question about auroral light intensity. Is the light from a large aurora bright enough to bounce off a satellite and appear as an auroral satellite flare as a point? And in turn produce a parachute-shaped, lens flare-like projection in the photo? I couldn't imagine even an Iridium satellite amplifying auroral light that much (although a stonking-huge orbital solar power array of the future might do a better job).”

But what IS interesting, is that the photo found at your referenced site (http://news.discovery.com/space/norway-aurora-satellite-flare.html) – taken looking up from the earth - is being blamed on a reflection from a satellite, yet the NASA picture was taken from the vantage of a satellite…

No, something unknown is going on here, something alien to our common and (it seems) expert scientific conception of natural or technological processes. However, with only two known data points, research would be difficult.

I don't buy the Iridium flare explanation because there is a far more reasonable explanation. I was trying to direct you towards the comments section. See the comments by Richard Berry, who is quite knowledgable on astronomy and astrophotography. He stated the following:

That sure looks like a camera lens flare to me. It is diametrically opposite across the center of the image from the bright porch light on the house in the foreground.

Then somebody posted an image on how the lens flare lined up with the light. To me there is nothing to consider this image is anything more than a lens flare.

I also would like to point towards Jerry Lodriguss's website where he has an aurora photograph with a flare that takes on the color of the aurora.

http://www.astropix.com/HTML/G_SUN/AURORAS.HTM

Go to the bottom image.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. There is a light source and the flare is opposite to it. Pretty convincing evidence that it is a lens flare IMO.

In the ISS image, I can see no reason to dismiss the possibility of a lens flare from the bright source on the lower right. However, this was also taken through a window, which means it could be some lights behind the photographer being reflected. In either case, those possibilities are far greater than some new phenomena that everyone is ignoring. Where you see something "alien", most people see more mundane possibilities. If you want to believe these are "alien" in nature, go right ahead. However, you seem to have problems convincing others outside the UFO community.

 

[Stray Cat]

I don't buy the Iridium flare explanation because there is a far more reasonable explanation. I was trying to direct you towards the comments section. See the comments by Richard Berry, who is quite knowledgable on astronomy and astrophotography. He stated the following:

That sure looks like a camera lens flare to me. It is diametrically opposite across the center of the image from the bright porch light on the house in the foreground.

Then somebody posted an image on how the lens flare lined up with the light. To me there is nothing to consider this image is anything more than a lens flare.

I studied this event too... Here is the thread I started:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=166113&highlight=satellite

Yup, it's lens flare.

Keep up the good work, I still read this thread even though I don't contribute anymore*.

*Except for this post obviously

 

[Jocce]

So if conditions inside the shuttle are such that water droplets “repeatedly” condense on the widows (a situation I find highly implausible unless the incompetence of the NASA engineers reached new lows on those missions), then why is this not apparent on any other of the hours and hours and hours… of shuttle footage?

I don't know why I even bother to respond since you seem to ignore me lately but have you really checked all the hours and hours of shuttle footage so you can support this claim?

You simply did not do what I asked you to do… why not? It was a simple enough request. I asked you to compare the relative motion of the camera with the relative motion of the UFO in order to show that the camera moves relatively little in comparison to the relatively gross movement of the UFO.

Me, and others have also pointed out that drops of water would behave differently in a zero gravity environment. I still haven't seen a response from you on this.

 

[Jocce]

But what IS interesting, is that the photo found at your referenced site (http://news.discovery.com/space/norway-aurora-satellite-flare.html) – taken looking up from the earth - is being blamed on a reflection from a satellite, yet the NASA picture was taken from the vantage of a satellite…

And that would make reflections from other satellites impossible?

 

[Astrophotographer]

Well, now we have another video, which is about as close to the source as we can go for STS-37. Go to 16:30 in the video. It is interesting to note the speaker says the video is sped up to 4x normal speed (See 15:46 in the video). It is much clearer than the other videos previously posted.

http://www.nss.org/resources/library/shuttlevideos/shuttle39.htm

 

[carlitos]

I suspect that Mr. Rramjet has watched / is watching the special on the Westfall 1966 UFO sighting, as it's airing on Aussie television (SyFi?). A bunch of hype.

Here is an excellent podcast that discusses this event. What was 3 or 4 kids seeing something "unidentified" has turned into hundreds of people seeing spaceships and the army showing up at the school 10 minutes later.

 

[Frying Dutchmen]

I suspect that Mr. Rramjet has watched / is watching the special on the Westfall 1966 UFO sighting, as it's airing on Aussie television (SyFi?). A bunch of hype.

Here is an excellent podcast that discusses this event. What was 3 or 4 kids seeing something "unidentified" has turned into hundreds of people seeing spaceships and the army showing up at the school 10 minutes later.

Rramjet is right to bring up Westall 66 UFO sighting as evidence of the methods that Ufologists use. I'm not just talking about the documentary but it's a good start point since it took five years to get all the evidence and the show up and running.

Basically the documentary was just eye witness testimony, alot of it was contradictory with lead in questioning and the good old Ad hominem on the principal.

 

[Rramjet]

1. Apollo 10: (http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery/video/apollo/apollo10/html/lunar_activities.html)

Original source missing.
Meteorites are pretty common so that would probably be a good starting point in your process of eliminating mundane causes.

Meteorites are pretty common, but they are also pretty fast (eg: http://www2.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=2109) and this one seems pretty regular… I would need better evidence to call it a meteorite at this point.

2. STS-115 Atlantis (http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery/video/shuttle/sts-115/html/fd1.html)

A reflection in the lense or window, ice crystal and dust would be good starting points in your elimination process.

I would say that “ice crystal” come closest as a plausible explanation for this one… still, the shape is rather odd… too regular…

Here is another example: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoxja0zoUWU&feature=related) Ice?

3. Apollo 16 - has been explained as the EVA “floodlight boom”

4. ZOND-3 (1965) “Tower of Babel”

Seems fake since it's not in the original images (if in fact mentallandscape has the original images).

Good point.

5. ISS-007-E06886 (12 June 2003): (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/images/ISS007E06886.jpg) “Cable label”

Since it's confirmed that it could be a cable label I guess this one can be left out of the UFO discussion here.

I would not say “confirmed”… interesting language you use too… “…confirmed that it could be…” ? And no wonder there is so much “junk” up there… if NASA can let items of inventory “escape” like this… “Ooops, just dropped my hammer…watch out below!”

6. ISS013-E-69634 (20 Aug. 2006): (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-13/html/iss013e69634.html)
“Lens flare” is the closest to a plausible explanation here. Astrophotographer pointed to another example or two, but this one seems particularly complex and structured – unlike the other examples he provided. Still not convinced that lens flare IS the explanation… but also not convinced it is anything other than “mundane”.

7. & 8. Unlabelled and originals missing yes (but no reason to suppose they’re not legit. footage) and your “ Scratch, smudge, dirt, reflection seems very plausible.” is not “explaining” anything at this point… it is a mere unfounded generalisation that does not match what is seen.

9. Mission STS 51A WESTAR 6 satellite retrieval (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTy0dQidPGM)

Original source missing.
Has been shown that a water droplet is very likely.

I understand why you keep citing “Original source missing” but I think we can take it that the footage here is legit. As a skeptic I am asking myself “Could it be a water droplet”? (as with STS 37 which shows something remarkably similar (http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=4596316621098045120#)
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmnukfsB5-U)). I think your “very likely” simply goes too far. I am not ruling out water droplet, just that I need more information…better confirmation/evidence of the theory.

10. STS-114 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyquGdCEJNg)

Original source missing.

No, that’s not enough. What’s going on in this video? What is the “mist”? How does it affect the object to reverse the objects direction?

11. STS-96 (May 1999) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJGGzdruHso)

Original source missing.

Again, not good enough.

RE: 12. Mir Space Station (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTjk7uuSScI)

Original source missing. Bad quality and I don't even know where the camera is pointing.

Yeah, can’t find the original - but NASA is using old video formats which seem to require either a Voxware Codec which seems to have bugs in it and not recommended for download/installation or a RealPlayer subscription service which requires credit card details in order to download! No thanks to both…

However…the video in question has been doing the rounds for some time and I am pretty sure it is not hoaxed… but the real question I have is if there is so much space junk up there that they can lose a whole space station among it (!), then why don’t we see it all in any of the later hi res. images? Come to think of it, we don’t get many stars in the hi res images either and there should be plenty of them too…

Another thing…how come some of this “space junk” exhibits independent movement characteristics. That is, some of the bits move and then stop moving and others change direction, some just appear out of nowhere, etc… and what about all those “meteorites”? If I was a shuttle pilot up there and there were all those meteorites flashing past in all directions I would begin to think I was in some sort of shooting gallery… and not only that, they seem to be coming from all sorts of different directions too… discussion of this aspect can be found here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJyuQVIFdKo&feature=related) plus a discussion of STS 80 footage… How do the debunkers explain STS 80 - I’d really like to know.

I am sure someone has reasonable answers to these questions, but how come the video has been around for so long yet no-one (including NASA) has bothered to explain everything that is going on in that field of view?

The same thing with the “Tether Incident” (STS-75) (eg: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2DVeil21gc&annotation_id=annotation_537620&feature=iv) Can someone please explain the independence of movement of the so called “space junk”? I mean, supposedly free floating objects that curve around all over the place independently of each other? What gives? It is also interesting to note that NASA does not put the full tether incident footage on its website…

… but ever wonder how all that “junk” gets there? How about they just “throw things overboard” that they don’t want… (eg: http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery/video/shuttle/sts-119/qtime/sts119_fdh05_03.mov) huh!

13.STS-110-E5912 (April 2002) (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/assembly/html/s110e5912.html)

Scratches, smudges, dirt, reflection seems plausible. The video is seriously contrast enhanced and the "lights" show up where there is obvious glare from a light (which has been removed in the video) so best bet is probably reflections from lights within the ship.

Please stop grasping at straws and providing generalised assertions as stock standard answers. That is neither scientific nor sceptical (actually the two terms are one and the same). I actually agree with you that it is probably a reflection of lights from within the shuttle.

14. STS-116-E05364: (http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-116/html/s116e05364.html)

Scratches, smudges, dirt seems plausible.

Please… you have put no thought into this at all and are just “parroting” answers without any analysis. I think this could be internal reflections given that one of the “triangles” (the lower one) exhibits a distinctly ephemeral nature and if you look up near the top of the boom, there are most definitely reflections of the same colour showing the internal structure of the shuttle…

15. STS-100-E5220: (http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery...s100e5220.html)

Scratches, smudges, dirt, reflection seems plausible.

So I give you two possible plausible mundane explanations and you just parrot the same old line without even considering my mundane explanations? How can I take you seriously?

Now…moving on with the rest of the compilation…

16. ISS-01-376-004
(mislabelled? Can’t find it…)

17. Voiceover interview with Edgar Mitchell: No doubt the real deal talking about the fact that he believes aliens are real and that cover-ups exist. He’s not the only former astronaut to speak out similarly but in the end one man’s opinion… Google “Edgar Mitchell aliens” to find plenty more of his opinions on the subject.

18. Apollo 15 TV footage: “Mysterious shadow is filmed by the crew as it tracks across the lunar surface below.”

19. ASTP (1975) – Soviet ‘Soyuz’ filmed from Apollo

20. AS17-135-20680 Apollo 17: claimed to be “lunar surface (sunstruck/overexposed)” Original here: (http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-135-20680HR.jpg) (from index site here: http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/images17.html#MagH) Other photos in the sequence are actually all of the LRV! So there is no reason to suppose they suddenly took a photo of the lunar surface (as claimed) then went back to the LRV… this most definitely is not the “lunar surface”… it is an overexposed picture of the LRV (in other words a manmade angle on the LRV)!

21. SkyLab III, SL3-118-2140 UFO observed and photographed by crew over a 10 minute period 2138 (http://s276.photobucket.com/albums/...ction=view&current=SL3-118-2138-SkylabIII.jpg), 2139 (http://s276.photobucket.com/albums/...ction=view&current=SL3-118-2139-SkylabIII.jpg) and 2141 (http://s276.photobucket.com/albums/...ction=view&current=SL3-118-2141-SkylabIII.jpg). Interesting discussion including transcripts of astronauts talking about it (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread416549/pg1). (The following are extracts from posts by LunaCognita on that page)

“ …astronauts Alan Bean, Owen Garriott and Jack Lousma spotted what they described as a red "satellite", which they photographed and mentioned during a subsequent debriefing:

LOUSMA: "Did you tell him about that satellite we saw?
BEAN: Yes, we saw a great satellite. We didn't know if we told you about it.
LOUSMA: The closest and brightest one we've seen.
BEAN: Huge one.
LOUSMA: We've seen several. It was a red one.
CAPCOM: No, you may have told somebody, but it wasn't this team. I don't remember hearing about it.
LOUSMA: I guess we didn't report it. It was reflecting in red light and oscillating at, oh, counting it's period of brightest to dimmest, about ten seconds. It led us into sunset. That was about three revs ago, I think. Something like that, wasn't it Owen?”

(NOTE: Astronaut Owen does NOT respond to this question, and the topic of conversation abruptly changes. There is no information available regarding whether or not this sighting was brought to the attention of Mission Control prior to this radio contact 4.5 hours after the event).

Conversation during post-flight debrief, from “Skylab III Technical Crew Debriefing” (NASA doc JSC-08478)

GARRIOTT: Do you want to talk about that satellite?
LOUSMA: I saw a couple of satellites that appeared like a satellite would on earth. I saw one that was not like one you would see on earth, so why don't you mention it?
GARRIOTT: OK. About a week or 10 days before recovery and we were still waiting for information to be supplied to us about the identification. Jack first notices this rather large red star out the wardroom window. Upon close examination, it was much brighter than Jupiter or any of the other planets. It had a reddish hue to it, even though it was well above the horizon. The light from the Sun was not passing close to the Earth's limb at the time. We observed it for about 10 minutes prior to sunset. It was slowly rotating because it had a variation in brightness with a 10-seconds period. As I was saying, we observed it for about 10 minutes, until we went into darkness, and it also followed us into darkness about 5-seconds later. From the 5 to 10 second delay in it's disappearance we surmised that it was not more than 30 to 50 nautical miles [35 to 58 statute miles or 56 to 93 km] from our location. From its original position in the wardroom window, it did not move more than 10 or 20 degrees over the 10 minutes or so that we watched it. Its orbit was very close to that of our own. We never saw it on any earlier or succeeding orbits and we'd be quite interested in having its identification established.”

Note also that page 49 of the “SkyLab III Photographic Index and Scene Identification” document identifies this object as being a “Satellite - unmanned”.
(http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740007948_1974007948.pdf)

when I tried to dig up a direct transcript of this incident from the Skylab "Channel-A" internal tape recorder (basically like the DSE and DSEA "black box" recorders used during Apollo that recorded internal crew conversations), NASA says that the recorder was not active during this period of time (16:35 GMT to 16:45 GMT on Sept 20, 1973).

The reason the tape was not recording as it was supposed to be? According to NASA's official excuse, it was because the tape had run out and had not been replaced on time. Thus, no audio of the actual event in question as it is occurring exists for us to have a listen to (and if you are willing to buy that excuse from NASA, then I have some nice oceanfront property for sale just outside of Kandahar, Afghanistan you might be interested in too!)

The astronauts however were definitely under the impression that the Channel A tape had picked up this conversation, because astronaut Garriott actually references it during the post-mission debrief on October 4, 1973! Here is Garriott referring to this very event, telling the debriefers that they can go and use the Channel A tape to verify the timing and location data for the sighting of this object exactly. (Sorry, I should have included this quote in my earlier above post, as Garriott makes this comment immediately after mentioning how he and his crewmates were "quite interested in having its [the object] identification established."

GARRIOTT: It's all debriefed in terms of time on channel A, so the precise timing and location can be picked up from there." (page 20-2 of Skylab III Technical Crew Debriefing)

22. Skylab III Frame# SL3-118-2141 “UFO observed and photographed by crew over a 10 minute period” (see picture links above)

23. Shuttle Mission STS-29: “Houston, this is Discovery. We still have the alien spacecraft under observance…”

24. S115-E-07201 (19 Sept. 2006) --- This picture of unidentified possible small debris was recorded with a digital still camera by astronaut Daniel Burbank onboard the Space Shuttle Atlantis around 11 a.m. (CDT) today. Engineers do not believe this to be the same object seen in video taken by shuttle TV cameras earlier in the day. (http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-115/html/s115e07201.html)

25. Shuttle mission STS-123 – ‘Mission Control Houston (MCC-H), Internal Camera Feed’ Wide room shot, front screen shows black except white dot lower center, then full screen on dot moving left to right.

26. View of Endeavour port wing from aft camera, view of EE work platform with linear object drifting away (not referenced properly – could it be from 736101 (http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery/video/shuttle/sts-123/html/fd9.html)? – but that vid. is 10hrs long… so not going to watch the whole thing just on the off chance…

27. Story Musgrave speaking, ‘public is ready to know…’ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yguS0-WzEeI)

28. Gemini 4, UFO filmed during re-entry (dot moves across sky just prior to flame build-up) NASA had no video on its site of this… one would have thought re-entry to be a particularly interesting video to include…

29. Shuttle mission STS-123 sky full of moving dots (sunrise scene)
Can’t find the original but similar to other videos of “junk” moving all over the place… like the following from STS 48 at about 3:00 to 3:24 (see below).

30. Shuttle mission STS-75 [tether, notched disk]
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2DVeil21gc&annotation_id=annotation_537620&feature=iv)

31. Shuttle Mission STS-48
This is the classic “Star Wars” footage…
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiDvkB_rG-Q) of course NASA don’t have it on their site!

Proponent video here: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPc7Ys8-S1k)
The debunkers explain it here: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA5UrE9boW4)

32. Shuttle Mission STS-119 [bright disk crossing docking sight]
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRtuQNsnQpk)
Crosses between the “sight” and the camera…speck of dust?

33. Shuttle mission STS-48-D, “The Shape Shifter”
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Z-lHVB6Yuo&feature=related)

34. April 29, 2007 – object transiting lunar disc, Italy, telescope
Can’t seem to find the related video anywhere…

35. Shuttle mission STS-80:
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJyuQVIFdKo&feature=related)
NASA don’t have this on their site either…