Undeniable STS-37 Ufo (debunk this!)

A water droplet? Water in space doesnt move like the droplets that comes on your windshield on the highway, popek.

These droplets are clearly not in focus imo. The water droplet is formed on the inside of the window by condensation. The window is closest to the cold outside, so this more likely where they will gather. Water or liquids can also adhere to surfaces in zero gravity, if they are in a small enough quantity. The droplet appears to come out of nowhere because the cameraman/woman is reajusting his/her position and thus the droplet becomes reflected by the earths radiant light as it is no longer has the blackness of space behind it.

[edit on 10-10-2006 by Xeros]

This is not water 100 %. Just look at it closely. It is something and it is SPINNING

video

Originally posted by Xeros
These droplets are clearly not in focus imo.

Needing Glasses are we?

JK. The spheres are in as sharp focus as the background images. The videos are NOT crystal clear and no objects appearing in them are sharper than the sphere objects. The quality is typical of a low quality reproduction of a VHS type of videotape.

Originally posted by Xeros
The water droplet is formed on the inside of the window by condensation. The window is closest to the cold outside, so this more likely where they will gather...

This is a good explanation of how a water droplet COULD form on the surface of a window but it does not address the focus problem if that were the case.

I think we will all admit. The UFO does look like a big water droplet floating out in space. You have to ask yourself, though, is the reason you believe this is a water droplet because this object does not fit your preconceived view of what an alien spaceship or probe should look like? What do you suppose a craft that projects a spherical forcefield around itself that bends light would look like? I'm guessing a lot like our "droplet UFO"" we're discussing.

i dont really have a preconcieved view of a ufo in the slightest
the fact its a water drop is pretty evident
if people really feel like wasting time on this its not a good indication of the frames of mind of some members on here

it seems some people are just desperate to believe

Popek. The simple fact that the Earth, the satellite and it's clouds are as sharp as the ball refutes the idea that it could be a droplet. A droplet would be so out of focus that it would appear as a blur.

Put your finger right in front of your eye, and look at an object on the wall. Of course your finger will be a lot less sharp than the object on the wall, because that's what you are focusing on, and with a camera that effect is much more noticeable.


For now I'm sticking with my explanation that it was a NASA satellite, untill somebody can debunk that.

You have to ask yourself, though, is the reason you believe this is a water droplet because this object does not fit your preconceived view of what an alien spaceship or probe should look like?

No, but it does fit my preconceived view of what a water droplet looks like. If you can't see that, then it's fine and you can keep clinging to this flimsy 'evidence' if you like, because real ufologists are going to be moving on in the subject. I've clearly pointed out what it is and why. If you would like to see a water droplet in focus just do a search in yahoo images or something.

This is not in focus!



[edit on 10-10-2006 by Xeros]

Then the discussion is mute, because we can't agree on whether the object is in focus or not...

Examples (with water drops mainly in focus):











[edit on 10-10-2006 by TheBandit795]

Originally posted by TheBandit795
Then the discussion is mute, because we can't agree on whether the object is in focus or not...

Examples (with water drops mainly in focus):











[edit on 10-10-2006 by TheBandit795]

Wait a sec, I just tested with my digital camera on a pane of glass inside my house with the droplet really close. It is exactly as we see in the shuttle photo. I beleive I can proove my theory, I'll have to wait until it's light so my auto flash doesn't trigger. I'll take a picture out the window, of my garden, with the droplet up close on the window.

Bandit the droplets on the glass you showed are in too great a number and cover too great an area for the camera to be able to focus on the background.

I will post some pics when it get's light over here (it's 4:20 at the moment)

[edit on 10-10-2006 by Xeros]

Okay Xeros, I'll wait on them. I might try it as well in the weekend.

Okay,
I've had a go at captuting a droplet on a window with my digital camera. This is may first attempt. I know that you need:-

a) No flash as this can reflect and shift the focus (you can see mine reflecting as I can't disable it, so I had to improvise by trying to block it with some cardboard.)

b) No other objects in the foreground/on the window to distract the focus (a clean window too).

c) It to be as dark as possible behind you and the camera so that there are no reflections in the window to distract the focus. (I had difficulty with this as there are only blinds in my house and no curtains.

I then tried to dismantle the camera to stop the flash, but had to make do. The camera was no more than 5 cms from the window. The window pane is part of a door in my kitchen. The droplet is in the center of the image. The stuff to the left is the flash.



comparison:-




[edit on 11-10-2006 by Xeros]

xeros play fair
its our theory!

Let's see the movement because your theory fails otherwise. I want to see the movement towards the camera then away again without the camera moving at all. I think you guys don't understand what a probe is and you are confusing it with a disk shaped saucer.

if you read the posts you will see i have already said i dont have a preconcieved view of what a probe/ship would look like

it doesnt move towards the camera
your talking rubbish

I've studied the videos and I'm convinced that they are all water droplets. There are a couple of reasons for this conclusion.

First, my original post about optics. If you'll recall, only an extremely wide angle lens can focus close and distant objects. Well, wide angle is relative. The angle actually depends on the film or image sensor size. The smaller the sensor or film size the more depth of field you will gain. A modern video camera has an extremely small (in comparison to a 35mm film frame) sensor size. A 16mm lens would be an extreme wide angle lens for 35mm photography but for a modern video camera it is more of a normal to slightly telephoto lens. This combined with the small aperture the camera would be using (the smaller the aperture the more depth of field you will get) since the video is taken in direct sunlight and the camera would likely stop down to the smallest aperture available giving the most depth of field. A cheap digital camera will give the same effect (by cheap I really mean one with a small image sensor).

Second, this is the one that really convinced me first. The droplet object always tracks the motion of the camera exactly (in direction not speed). The speed of the droplet is faster than the background since it is much closer to the camera. A very slight movement of the camera will create a large movement to close objects and only a slight movement to distant objects. But the direction is really what you have to look for, it matches exactly.

There are some good NASA videos of UFO's or possible AC (Alien Craft) but the ones in this thread are not them.

Well The only thing I can find on video that's related to the AERCAM is this from the NASA website:

NASA animation of the AERCAM Remote controlled camera (STS 87)

Here's a link on what camera's NASA brings into space. This likely only applies to the very latest missions, though.

NASA Shuttle Camera's

I only see 1 video camera listed. I doubt the footage we've been reviewing has been from this camera though, seeing how it is hi-def: Sony HDW-700 High-definition Television Camera

Mod Edit: Link wasn't working

[edit on 11-10-2006 by TheBandit795]

Originally posted by TheBandit795
Well The only thing I can find on video that's related to the AERCAM is this from the NASA website:

NASA animation of the AERCAM Remote controlled camera (STS 87)

You know I thought the same thing about it maybe being the AERCAM until i saw actual space footage of the AERCAM which is right here.

vesuvius.jsc.nasa.gov...

Also this is how long the AERCAM lasted.

"The AERCam Sprint free-flyer:

Is a small, unobtrusive, free-flying camera platform for use outside a spacecraft.
Has a self-contained propulsion system, with the capability to be maneuvered insix degrees of freedom.
Has an automatic attitude hold capability.
Is a spherical vehicle that moves slowly (~0.25 fps) and is covered with a soft, cushioned material to prevent damage in the event of an impact.
Is controlled from inside the cabin via UHF radio link by an operator using a small control station.

Sprint was deployed (and retrieved) early in the morning of December 3, 1997 by Astronaut Winston Scott during STS-87's second EVA. For about an hour and fifteen minutes, the free-flying robot conducted a series of maneuvers and observations designed to evaluate the utility of mobile robotic cameras. The free flight occurred within the forward section of the orbiter's payload bay and up to 40 feet above it.

Flown by pilot Steve Lindsey, the system demonstrated a new capability for on-orbit collection and transmission of video of Orbiter or ISS operations. Following recovery, Lindsey reported that the system "flew better than expected" and "deserved a Level 1" Cooper-Harper rating (the highest possible evaluation)."

So unfortunately it cant be that.

I'm convinced, its water. Logic wins again.
Condensation forming on the 'inside' of the craft and moving via an air vent or by the inertia of the craft itself. How does it appear out of nowhere? The very nature of condensation defines this: "the transformation of matter from 'gas' to 'liquid' by a difference in temperature". Space is cold, inside of craft is warm.

It looks big and moves fast, but the camera is probably zoomed in quite a bit to give this illusion. Also the drop 'IS' blurry, so this supports the zoomed theory even more.

You can't compare the cameras they take on nasa missions with commercial cameras in terms of focus ability. Expensive cameras tend to have a better 'focus range' than cheaper commercial ones.

Water it is then...

Yeah the evidence for it being water and not a NASA satellite/camera is looking more logical now.