NASA UFO video from 2006

a reply to: Arbitrageur

NASA sort of putting UFO on the video at NASA.gov could be an attempt at poking fun but keeping there since 2006 puts the conspiracy responsibility on NASA, IMHO.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

In order to presume that shows a climb, we would need to know the orientation of the camera relative to the horizon. Do we know that? You seem to be assuming the bottom of the frame is level with the ground, but I don't know that it is (or that it isn't). I really don't know.

I thought of that before making the post.

The observatory was filming lunar impacts over a period of time covering May 06 to April 07. The orientation remained, broadly, the same in the footage and the dark feature looks, to me, like Mare Imbrium. If so, this would suggest that the film has true orientation. If not, maybe our astronomers could ID the feature and the orientation would then be more certain.

I guess if we wanted to get all Scooby Doo, someone could see where the Moon was on the night of December 23rd 2006 and see what airfields follow along the line of sight. No time-stamp, but there might be an obvious airfield/airport along the general line of direction and close enough to observatory for the aircraft to have that angular diameter.

Finish the job...

Incidentally, did anyone notice this?



It didn't go to the Moon. It was a test vehicle that went into LEO and iirc is in a heliocentric orbit. It caught my attention because I was going to post a thread on that flight several years ago and couldn't flesh out the OP enough. Shame the wmv file is so poor quality/low resolution to see if poor old AC2 is winging past in there. ;0

All possibilities being open, how does space debris account for the flash/landing/Nav lights in the images?

a reply to: Kandinsky
I see Mare Humorum, Mare Cognitum, and Grimaldi Crater, as pointed out here with a USGS photo of the moon on the left and a rotated shot of the airplane on the right:



Here's the link to the USGS image, which has better contrast so it's easier to recognize features:
nineplanets.org...

Of course I don't think it's in a steep dive either as that image suggests.

I think the reason they rotate the camera is that they're trying to photograph in the shadow area, which means they might angle the camera to get the widest part of the camera view across the widest part of the shadow. So, I think the plane is just as likely to be in level flight, or maybe a modest ascent or descent rather than any steep ascent or descent.

I looked up what the moon should have looked like on Dec 23 2006 according to this calculator.

www.calsky.com...

I then sized and rotated the NASA image to match (and brightened the moon image so I could see the features). Here's how it turned out:



I didn't notice that about the AC2, good catch.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Good work

How in Gods name can no one see that it's an aeroplane ... Even without the screen shot, the video clearly shows a plane

Come On ATS you can do better than this

originally posted by: ThePeaceMaker
Come On ATS you can do better than this

You mean NASA can do better than this? NASA's the one who called it a UFO, not me. I said it looks like an airplane. Someone suggested NASA might be joking with us by calling it a "UFO". If that's the case, I suppose you didn't get the joke. And if that's not the case, one has to wonder why they had difficulty recognizing an airplane.

a reply to: Kandinsky
Thanks!

It is a plane. Clearly.