3-Spoked UFO photographed by STS-115! The Smoking Gun?

reply to post by chunder


Satellites? Remote controlled planes?!!!

That's quite the remote controlled plane. I want one.

The or rather a smoking gun is the tether video where things are swimming in space and the crew comments on things swimming around. i think they were biological entities. I looked on you tube but keep finding video that have been removed by user. I am sure one of you has that video handy. It might not be the tether video but the objects do appear to be swimming.

Originally posted by _Mr.X_



I took this photo of a "craft" that was above NYC late last year. It looks kind of like the pic the OP posted. I found this on a webcam..

www.earthcam.com...

Dont you mean you took a picture of a fuzzy blob of light also it seems to be a crop from the photo you took its 370x300 pixels please post a link to the full picture.

reply to post by stikkinikki


Check it out here...www.abovetopsecret.com...

STS-80 and STS-75. Good discussion and vids.

Cheers!

reply to post by Phage


Great vid Phage. Much different than the standard release shots. Tons of fuel debris but I am trying to think of how the small points that become more prominent after 3:30 are passed over. They should be on relative trajectories and travel with the tank or the STS unless slung or blown, so I am trying to account for how the discrete particles are seeming to be at much greater distances (mile or more?) than the tank and are passed over.

Seeing the full resolution file would help (I hate YouTubeish formats for science observation.) But knowing how relative speeds are seen in a camera with focal stretching I can see how that ( could ) happen. But my intuition says to look closer. Some of these little "ice crystals" do not fit the assumed flight science. The ice object is pretty plain and odvious however.

One clue for these not being ice, is the astronauts comment on the overexposure answering from her headset and immediately stopping down the exposure to a useless image where it is too dark to see the "ice" but seeing only the otherwise overexposed side of the fuel tank. Pretty suspicious really.

I am actually watching NASA TV now as I do during missions. Last November I recorded (DVR) an hour of video telemetry where the camera was static on the manipulator arm. Later I FF> through the video, and sure enough a blinking (something) drifts into frame, fades and then brightens and continues to blink until out of frame. Not ice or junk. It's trajectory was tangent to the Shuttle.

There are many objects in videos since the first missions, and before the tons of space junk we tossed up there. Too much to be all discounted by fuel ice debris and satellite and post mission garbage.

We need to keep a keen eye and sharp mind on this stuff until NASA and the other managing agencies tell us whats REALLY going on up there.

I've seen too much to write off everything to camera, ice and garbage.

Thanks too Mike! Don't stop.

ZG

I usually refrain from commenting on the various STS ice particle videos as they are very vogue with the UFO crowd now-a-days, and continue to proliferate regardless of how often they have been explained time and time again. But I'll make an exception.

There's one aspect of these objects that always manages to be overlooked.

Why is it that the "doughnut" shapes of the particles (hole, notch and all) resemble the precise shape and description of the cameras aperture if they are not small, relatively nearby objects? Why would the reflection of the camera aperture be present in an image of an enormous object at a distance?

Anyone who knows how these videos were filmed (or who themselves regularly film things with a similar camera) couldn't possibly mistake small particulate matter for what it is.

Why is the most simple, straightforward solution always the one most swiftly dismissed?

Heck, they even move in accordance with stabilization emissions from the craft.

Originally posted by LogicalResponse


Why is it that the "doughnut" shapes of the particles (hole, notch and all) resemble the precise shape and description of the cameras aperture if they are not small, relatively nearby objects? Why would the reflection of the camera aperture be present in an image of an enormous object at a distance?

Anyone who knows how these videos were filmed (or who themselves regularly film things with a similar camera) couldn't possibly mistake small particulate matter for what it is.

Why is the most simple, straightforward solution always the one most swiftly dismissed?

Heck, they even move in accordance with stabilization emissions from the craft.

I just recorded a few minuets of video on the STS with the Shuttle in frame. with a smear of lens flairs. All over the image and in the flair are rings that are artifacts from light inside the lens assembly. Most I would say are from that, but maybe a few would I imagine not fit the criteria.

You might get a lense flair or focal effect from a UFO too! Why not??

ZG

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by _Mr.X_



I took this photo of a "craft" that was above NYC late last year. It looks kind of like the pic the OP posted. I found this on a webcam..

www.earthcam.com...

Dont you mean you took a picture of a fuzzy blob of light also it seems to be a crop from the photo you took its 370x300 pixels please post a link to the full picture.

It was a solid "blob" of light that i saw on the webcam. There was a black helicopter behind it, maybe chasing it idk. I captured the image off the cam and blew it up the best I could. I am sorry I do not have the original but if you want, watch the cams for yourself. You might see something yourself.

The Object has the exact same movement as the camera shake.
This makes it very hard to believe this thing is in actual space following the exact same movement as the camera shake.

Have a look and see if i am right, or wrong.

This would exclude ice particles to, they dont follow the exact camera shake.

What is that? It's like a rod,or just a camera trick?

reply to post by ZeroGhost

Some of the stuff we see comes loose when the tank is jettisoned. Some of it comes from the shuttle itself when the main engines are shut down and the OMS does its thing. It all gets pushed (bumped, kicked) in different directions and speeds so each follows a different trajectory, similar to, but different from the others.

I don't see anything pass under the ET (External Tank ). I see a couple of things sort of keeping pace with the ET but everything else seems to be between the tank and the shuttle.

One of the main reasons for filming the ET is to look for missing insulation (like that which damaged the wing of Columbia) and other damage. The reason the astronaut darkens the video is that in the bright sunlight the tank becomes too bright to see any detail. It is the ET which is the point of interest.


[edit on 3/25/2009 by Phage]

Hey! Some of the ice just made it to San Salvdor!

So this is not fuel-gas ice. What is it? No kidding, just fount this (actually it found me).

Spoked UFO near volcano in San Salvadore.

Very odd this showed up now.




Remember these beings can arrange such events. Even down to micromanaging our experiences and separated by time and space.

Quite curious. Only seeming connection is the shape. But why this odd shape now?

Synchronicity?

ZG


[edit on 3/25/2009 by ZeroGhost]

reply to post by Phage


I accounted for such. I am saying essentially that if there was such an actual UFO unrelated to all the assumed debris and ice, it would not be differentiated. We would need the original format sequence and lots of time to break it down.

Until then assumptions are all we have.

And remember if all you have is to ASSUME you can make an...

ASS out of U and ME



ZG

Originally posted by internos

All in all we have three unexplained cases: STS 115 was NOT a boring mission

Thanks for sharing Mike

Nice one Internos!

Here is a few more images of the same object/critter seen during the STS-115 mission ;-)
(Only the first one is different from the one you posted -at that angle, it reminds me of what is seen in the "alien donuts" thread/tether mission from STS-75)

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d79e8e9c778e.jpg[/atsimg]
*the above set contains two images, the third being a magnification of the second.


Edit: Here is an Image that appears to have not yet had the 'blackness of space' edited into it - The view is so beautiful.

If this is a real image, then it lends further corroboration of the hypothesis that NASA has been tampering with many images.

Is this even real?
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/14fd2af55093.jpg[/atsimg]

(I pretty sure that I found this picture at the Living Moon - Thanks Zorgon and Pegasus!)

[edit on 26-3-2009 by Exuberant1]

Originally posted by TrueBrit
reply to post by ziggystar60

 

Interesting aside... Theres a belief that one of those objects is something not too disimilar to a man hole cover.During an underground nuclear test (cant remember where in the world) a solid iron cover over a mineshaft was blown skyward at a rate which observers surmised could have allowed it to attain escape velocity lol... wierd crap up there eh ?

This is downright creepy that you mention this. I watched the movie Deep Impact yesterday, (In which the Messiah spacecraft used nuclear pulse detonation engines based on the Orion program) which led to me to Wiki Orion which led to reading about exactly the incident you are referring to. The mineshaft cap was traveling at 6 times escape velocity, but it's likely that it burnt up from atmospheric friction due to it's speed.

The three-pronged object in the video first posted in this thread is in fact a ufo.

I watched that fuel tank hurtling through the atmosphere on live television and that anomaly stuck out like a sore thumb. Very bizarre.

I would suggest that it is our own advanced tech., or an ET tech; but definitely not some sort of lens flare, or similar artifact.

Truthfully, the vehicle / object seemed translucent / transparent; almost crystalline. And the speed with which it moved was quite unnatural...I tend to think ET, but we just can't say...

Originally posted by LogicalResponse
I usually refrain from commenting on the various STS ice particle videos as they are very vogue with the UFO crowd now-a-days, and continue to proliferate regardless of how often they have been explained time and time again. But I'll make an exception.

There's one aspect of these objects that always manages to be overlooked.

Why is it that the "doughnut" shapes of the particles (hole, notch and all) resemble the precise shape and description of the cameras aperture if they are not small, relatively nearby objects? Why would the reflection of the camera aperture be present in an image of an enormous object at a distance?

Anyone who knows how these videos were filmed (or who themselves regularly film things with a similar camera) couldn't possibly mistake small particulate matter for what it is.

Why is the most simple, straightforward solution always the one most swiftly dismissed?

Heck, they even move in accordance with stabilization emissions from the craft.

Do you have an example pic or video of an enormous object at a distance and also how you know it is both enormous and at a distance.

Originally posted by atswheat
The three-pronged object in the video first posted in this thread is in fact a ufo.

I watched that fuel tank hurtling through the atmosphere on live television and that anomaly stuck out like a sore thumb. Very bizarre.

I would suggest that it is our own advanced tech., or an ET tech; but definitely not some sort of lens flare, or similar artifact.

Truthfully, the vehicle / object seemed translucent / transparent; almost crystalline. And the speed with which it moved was quite unnatural...I tend to think ET, but we just can't say...

Re underlined above a bit like ice then eh! With regards to the speed anything ejected from or falling from the shuttle will be moving at speed.


[edit on 26-3-2009 by wmd_2008]

[edit on 26-3-2009 by wmd_2008]

Originally posted by ZeroGhost

Remember these beings can arrange such events. Even down to micromanaging our experiences and separated by time and space.




[edit on 3/25/2009 by ZeroGhost]

Can you please explain how you can possibly make a statement like that.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Do you have an example pic or video of an enormous object at a distance and also how you know it is both enormous and at a distance.

Check out the 'alien donuts thread' for more information on that - the whole STS-75 tether incident has been discussed in great detail with images provided/links to images provided... some include images wherein the size of certain object can be extrapolated.

*RFBurns also explains the matter in great detail. I recommend you peruse that thread or do a keyword search in our archives.

I will try and find a object-size comparison from -STS75. But it will probably pop up on this thread eventually ;-)

(check out Trevor James Constable 1950's research into amoeboid bioforms/plasma lifeforms using IR photography - he often reports the size of the objects in his images)