mystery ufo near ISS

a reply to: IAMTAT

That makes sense , answers a couple of questions re what was filming the ISS.

a reply to: tanka418
I have no idea why you would see any problem with this video being taken before 2010, what's wrong with that?

There are slight differences in the angle of the solar panels but as you pointed out not all the modules are installed so do they even need power from all those panels without the rest of the modules?

What makes you think it's photographed from "several miles"? Looks like the shadow of what could be part of the space shuttle on one of the solar panels is too sharp and large to be several miles away.

Lighting is overexposed on the ISS because the ground is so much darker, but doesn't seem to be "all wrong" other than that, whatever "all wrong" means.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
My understanding is that the CGI part was the image of the ISS being overlay-ed on the video of the earth...probably taken from the ISS or Landsat.

How did you get that understanding?

When I read "i think Rick Ray made the rounded figure to illustrate a lake or something, I knew this was a CGI...", that to me suggests it is the rounded figure that was "made".

a reply to: Arbitrageur

When I read "i think Rick Ray made the rounded figure to illustrate a lake or something, I knew this was a CGI...", that to me suggests it is the rounded figure that was "made".

That was the belief of free_spirit and as much as I respect his opinions there is no evidence provided for it.
I've watched the video many times now and it does look like the station is CGI and as IAMTAT says overlaid on top of footage of the Earth .... of course that's just my opinion.


There is a Richard D. Ray at NASA but that may just be a coincidence.

a reply to: gortex

a couple of points against the station being cgi are the overexposure, and the shadow on the solar panels - presumably from the shuttle

a reply to: aynock

You may well be right , the footage is reported as circa 2010 so the shuttle could be the camera platform.

originally posted by: laurentius
It is the sun reflecting on lake Elton between city Zhanibek and city Zaikhin.

In the distance you see the river Volga.

49.142447, 46.671110

Good work. I was wondering what that could be. Surely played a trick on my own eyes because it appears as though it is floating in the air, not a lake on the surface.

originally posted by: elevenaugust


Lake Elton from GE:

originally posted by: aynock
a reply to: gortex

a couple of points against the station being cgi are the overexposure, and the shadow on the solar panels - presumably from the shuttle

Of course it's possible to do amazing CGI these days, and you see good stuff in hollywood productions, but if this was just an animation for illustration purposes, it wouldn't be done with this much detail, at least I doubt it. One thing that is even more convincing it's not CGI is what happens in the shadow you mention. There are irregularities in the flatness of the solar panel causing uneven reflections from other parts of the ISS that briefly appear in the shadowed part of the solar panel. I don't think a CGI artist would be bothering with that kind of detail for a TV animation, and even if they did, the "irregularities" would still probably be more uniform than they are. Look at the reflections in the shadow area on the solar panel; doesn't look like any CGI algorithm I've ever seen:

a reply to: Arbitrageur

it's such beautiful footage i was hopping it was real

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: tanka418
I have no idea why you would see any problem with this video being taken before 2010, what's wrong with that?

Only that this is purported to be a current event...i.e. Jan. 2015

Its incredible; you seem to have decided something on this using absolutely no data. You don't know when the event took place. You don't know the configuration of ISS.

Do you know the spacecraft where the camera was?

They are just a very few things you must know to make any decision on this.

When I look at this I see what looks for all the world like a poorly assembled 3D model, with way too much defuse lighting.

But, maybe, that's just me...

What makes you think it's photographed from "several miles"? Looks like the shadow of what could be part of the space shuttle on one of the solar panels is too sharp and large to be several miles away.

Scale. The amount of ISS visible, and it size vs the Earth behind.

Oh, and yes, the shadow. Yes it does kind of look like a part f the shuttle...except it is no longer flying.

So best case you have an authentic, albeit bad, photograph of ISS taken prior to Feb. 2010 being used to represent a current event.

a reply to: tanka418

So best case you have an authentic, albeit bad, photograph of ISS taken prior to Feb. 2010 being used to represent a current event.

I don't recall anyone using this stock footage to "represent" a current event.

originally posted by: tanka418
Only that this is purported to be a current event...i.e. Jan. 2015

Its incredible; you seem to have decided something on this using absolutely no data. You don't know when the event took place. You don't know the configuration of ISS.

What do you mean I don't know the configuration of the ISS? The configuration can be seen in the video. I think you misread the article the OP linked to:

Footage of the UFO was shown on the news channel CBS, sparking furious debate among online conspiracy nuts. It is not clear whether the film was stock footage, or taken from NASA's live feed.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
I don't recall anyone using this stock footage to "represent" a current event.

This guy gets it.

I see nothing in the story to say it's not from 2010 or earlier, which is what "stock footage" means to me. Sure the story makes deceptive implications about when it might have happened (they mention the evacuation of the space station...but we know the space station didn't look like this when it was evacuated...heck you're the one who pointed that out) so based on your own statement you should be able to conclude it's not recent.

Hi, glad to be back. I see this thread is still alive with some
good points about this ISS footage and the lake identified.
I have more information and it seems it's not an animation
as I thought by Rick Ray from shutterstock because I have
another source wich is no other than NASA Gov. showing
the footage credited as:
From space shuttle Endeavour after undocking on May 30,
2011. STS-134

However they only show the part of the footage where the
UFO shaped lake appears while the shutterstock footage
is longer and shows more of Earth, strange should I say but
anyway this is the NASA official footage as second source.
The lake appears at second 0:27


I still have question in my mind. Is this a real footage by
NASA or just an animation too? If this is a NASA footage
why Rick Ray has the copyrights? Anyway the important
fact is that the lake was identified proving it's not a UFO
subject of this debate. Let me know your opinions.

originally posted by: free_spirit
I still have question in my mind. Is this a real footage by NASA or just an animation too? If this is a NASA footage why Rick Ray has the copyrights? Anyway the important fact is that the lake was identified proving it's not a UFO subject of this debate. Let me know your opinions.

Thanks for additional details. The one you call "Rick Ray" video is real as far as I can tell.
The video you posted looks real, but the part from 12s-25s I'm not sure about...it's kind of a confusing splice so it's not continuous "footage". I suspect it's all real, and there's nothing in the comments by NASA to suggest it isn't.

Rick Ray, if that's who runs the website you posted, doesn't claim any copyright. The licensing fee was zero. The fee charged was called a "handling fee" and there are no restrictions on what you do with it after you pay him the handling fee because he says it's in the public domain.

I found a discrepancy watching the original STS-134 Endeavour undocking
footage in comparison with the footage we are discussing and I think that
maybe after all it may be an animation as originally suspected.

In the original transmission by NASA the undocking sequence where the
ISS is shown it looked like this.


Because the camera from Endeavour shows the circle since the undocking
beguins and continues transmitting with the same camera getting far from
the ISS. These camera views happen all the time in the undocking process.
Now this presents a problem with the footage shown by CBS, shutterstock
and NASA gov Youtube channel, all of them show a complete view of the ISS
and the planet Earth below in HD and wide size, do you get my point?

Here is a video of the original STS-134 Endeavour undocking from the ISS
as it was transmitted by NASA, check at minute 8:47 to see what I mean.


I checked other videos of the same STS-134 undocking and all of them show
the same circle at center so what is going to be: Animation or not?

Of course maybe there is a part of the undocking that I missed or could
not find that matches the discussed footage, if you find it share the
link. Just be sure it's from the original transmission.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

You said: "Rick Ray, if that's who runs the website you posted, doesn't claim any copyright."
You are wrong my friend or maybe went to another webpage. Here, the copyright statement
for the footage by Rick Ray. As I understand royalties go to him, what about NASA?

originally posted by: free_spirit
a reply to: Arbitrageur

You said: "Rick Ray, if that's who runs the website you posted, doesn't claim any copyright."
You are wrong my friend or maybe went to another webpage. Here, the copyright statement
for the footage by Rick Ray. As I understand royalties go to him, what about NASA?

This is his site, DVarchive.com:
www.stockfootageonline.com...

See the contact info? Rick Ray.

www.dvarchive.com...

Note the Public Domain status, and the license fee.

About the Public Domain Copyright

DVarchive has taken reasonable steps to verify the copyright status of this work or clip and has determined that it is most likely in the public domain, and can be freely used and re-used in projects at your discretion. Even though this clip is believed to be created by the U.S. Government or by another party that has released it into the public domain, please note that DVarchive cannot absolutely guarantee the exact copyright status of the clip or offer written assurance that every or any aspect of this clip is completely cleared for all usages. Responsibility for making an independent legal assessment of a clip and securing any necessary permissions ultimately rests with persons desiring to use the clip.

Maybe NASA doesn't want their video used for advertising or promotional purposes, (I don't know, Jim Oberg do you know anything about that?). But he's obviously saying it's a public domain video, right? And it clearly shows the licensing fee is zero, right?

originally posted by: free_spirit
I checked other videos of the same STS-134 undocking and all of them show
the same circle at center so what is going to be: Animation or not?

I'm pretty sure it's not animation. Are you assuming they only have one camera, or that they can't move the camera around to photograph from different locations and in different directions? Are those valid assumptions?

If I'm reading this mission timeline right, looks like on day 15, STS-134 had 43 minutes scheduled for a fly-around of the ISS, from 15:27-16:10. That's enough time to shoot the actual footage we see, from different angles, right?

www.spaceflight101.com...

Here's the actual video shot during that 43 minutes, time lapsed down to 3m38s (the lake appears at 0:52), and it's less confusing than the video you posted earlier as it doesn't have the splice:

[STS-134] Flyaround of International Space Station in HD (Timelapse)

This should be in the HOAX bin then surely? No point in this thread gaining more interest from ATS's main page if the case has been solved?

Let's not riddle the UFO forum with more BS?

I see no other plausible answers regarding to the footage, the case should be closed.

a reply to: skyblueworld
Hynek's UFO stats in The Hynek UFO Report were ~1% hoax, and a little over 5% couldn't be explained. The rest were not hoaxes, but UFOs that could be explained. I think this falls into the latter category, mostly, though there was either some deception or confusion on the origin of the video, but there is some confusion in almost every single UFO case, with people misinterpreting size, distance, and so on, usually without any intent of deception.

I think we need a little reminder once in a while that human perception is far less accurate than we would like to think it is, as this UFO case illustrates and as Von Braun pointed out:

www.jamesoberg.com...

a lifetime spent with testing of guided missiles has taught me to be extremely careful with eye-witness accounts on rocket firings running into some in-flight trouble. Of three experienced observers questioned after a typical mishap, one swore that he clearly saw a part coming off before the rocket faltered; a second hotly denied this but claimed that the missile oscillated violently before it veered off the course; while the third trained observer saw neither a part coming off, nor an oscillation, nor anything veering off course but insisted that the rocket was flying perfectly steadily until it was abruptly ripped apart by an internal explosion.

Such contradictions in the eyewitness accounts of old rocket men are by no means an exception; we are almost invariably confronted with this situation. Yet we are dealing here with experienced observers who not only had seen many firings, but who had the great advantage of being mentally prepared for the imminent test.

For this reason I am highly skeptical about the objective of any 'sighting' report of a fleeting, mysterious object in the sky submitted by an equally surprised and unexperienced observer.

If we required every space UFO video to have a proper date/time provided for the video, which more often than not would help "solve" the video as it did here, then I think 998 out of 1000 space UFO videos on youtube would not be allowed here because that seems to be about the ratio that's lacking provenance.

The video is genuine and not a hoax and it shows that sometimes things that look like UFOs to us, really aren't, which is something to keep in mind. Lakes probably don't account for many UFO sightings, but astronomical objects like Venus account for quite a few sincere UFO reports and they aren't really "flying objects" either, so I think you have to be careful how you define "hoax". Hynek didn't classify UFO reports that turned out to be Venus as hoaxes, but rather "misidentifications". I think you could call this a "misidentification" case also.

Looks like an ET type of craft to me. . . .

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

I'm sure it does but it's just the ISS. Pretty sure it's one of ours.