ISS Cosmonaut Ivan Vagner captures video of UFO or multiple UFO.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
for sure A LOT of UFOs are explainable...........

But im bewildered by the fact that literally in the last month or so the gov has told us they have "acquired" craft that they have admitted werent from this planet...........and theres almost NO talk about it...

If "the gov" told us that I'll be needing a source please. But I suspect you're talking about the New York Times article which showed an altered version of this slide that Hal Puthoff showed back in 2018:


The doctored version of that slide posted by the NYT had the word "possibly" removed, making it sound more dramatic than what the original slide implied, especially since we know that Puthoff has been talking about "Arts Parts" which he says he doesn't know what they are or where they are from, could be industrial slag he says, or possibly not of earthly origin. Well if he doesn't know the origin, I guess he can't rule out "off-world", but what about the unsolved murders in New York City? If they are unsolved, we can't rule out that they were committed by extraterrestrials, but do you really think investigators have that on their list of possible suspects? I doubt it.

What else they might have besides "arts parts" is anybody's guess since we haven't been given specifics, but Puthoff is a shady character and so is Eric Davis, the source the New York times has been bragging about for their stories, so I find it hard to take what either one of them says too seriously. I'm usually trying to figure out what kind of psy-op they're running and why, and changing the wording on that slide seems like a bit of a psy-op too, since it sounds more dramatic if that word is removed. The whole story behind "Arts Parts" is kind of silly, and it got sillier when TTSA bought them for $35,000 and apparently got the army involved which if they really were alien tech, would end up doing the opposite of the disclosure TTSA has been touting, the army would classify the tech. But they've already been examined and it seems very unlikely they are from off-world, the "industrial slag" Puthoff mentioned might be a better guess.

The UFOs in the video from the ISS do have sort of a starlink satellites look to them, but if the astronaut didn't note or share the time of the recording, I don't see how you could check that. Starlink satellites have apparently generated large numbers of UFO reports from ground observers, I believe it was one of the MUFON investigators who mentioned that. I've also seen some UFO threads here on ATS that were starlink satellites.

People Keep Mistaking SpaceX’s Satellites for Alien Spacecraft

The guy in the OP video is seeing what he wants to see. He completely misses the fact that the timelapse covers almost a minute, not the few seconds it apparently shows.

He also misses the large bright object apparently moving top to bottom in the top-left - Jupiter?

It could easily be lights reflected in the window and the cosmonaut has his tongue in his cheek.

originally posted by: Ophiuchus 13

Maybe I'm looking at it wrong, but why are there stars visible through the Earth?

The stars are visible because planet EA*RTH is actually below the aurora borealis boundary you are seeing.
That boundary appears more transparent allowing for stars to be seen through it.



a reply to: Kreeate

This or these objects are high up in Space.
I wonder if they are behind or in front of the ISS?


a reply to: Kreeate

a reply to: Kreeate

originally posted by: Ophiuchus 13
This or these objects are high up in Space.
I wonder if they are behind or in front of the ISS?


a reply to: Kreeate

I don't know. From the screen below it seems the yellow/orange line is the Earth horizon line.

a reply to: Kreeate

it's just her Mother EA*RTH aura.
The planet is below the yellow/orange line/arc.

THREAD BONUS-







Probably just a drone🤔😶

a reply to: Ophiuchus 13

If that's a drone how many props are we seeing there? Five? Eight? Damn that thing is... busy!

originally posted by: ChayOphan
a reply to: Ophiuchus 13

If that's a drone how many props are we seeing there? Five? Eight? Damn that thing is... busy!

It has not been confirmed as a drone yet.
Does look very busy

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Ophiuchus 13

Define "in the vicinity."
I can see a satellite (ISS) that is 250 miles away.

I can see a satellite 250,000 miles away.
(Moon)

a reply to: Arbitrageur

nope different articleNo t made on this earth

popular mechanics

although im a bit disappointed you couldnt "get the source" yourself off google

a reply to: Chefspicy

I could be wrong but I thought Starlink is a row of more than 4 satellites.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Ophiuchus 13

Swamp gas doesn't work in orbit.
But a formation of satellites does.

The people that filmed these satellite formations show the craft moving single file in a straight line...

a reply to: Iscool

That is what starlink satellites do.

originally posted by: 11SK1180
a reply to: Chefspicy

I could be wrong but I thought Starlink is a row of more than 4 satellites.

Whether or not they would be visible would depend on how many were in sunlight.

Knowing the date and time of the video would be helpful in ruling out Starlink.

a reply to: Ophiuchus 13


That video was so short and I wonder why the stills then a video? Where did you find this and when was it taken?

My first thoughts Balloon...

a reply to: abeverage



I have no Idea why Ivan withheld the date and time information. Perhaps too sensitive of information to share outside Russian space intelligence.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: Arbitrageur

nope different articleNo t made on this earth

popular mechanics

although im a bit disappointed you couldnt "get the source" yourself off google

Your own source debunks your claim of "the gov has told us they have "acquired" craft that they have admitted werent from this planet", in this statement from retired Senator Harry Reid in the popular mechanics article:

I have no knowledge—and I have never suggested—the federal government or any entity has unidentified flying objects or debris from other worlds. I have consistently said we must stick to science, not fairy tales about little green men. t.co...
— Senator Harry Reid "

The other source also refers back to the New York Times article, which had to post corrections like that clarification from Reid. So I was right, it's all referring to the New York Times article which posted an altered version of this slide presented by Hal Puthoff in 2018, which removed the word "possibly".


The New York times even lied about this and said it's the same slide Puthoff showed previously, but it's not. The New York times version removed the word "possibly" and that got some people excited, but Senator Reid's clarification should shed some light on that discrepancy, he's the representative of the government (retired). Do his comments clarify for you that the government is not saying what you said they were saying, from your source?