NASA STS127 transmission 23.50 GMT 24th July, 2009.

I like how the little UFO's seen in tons of NASA videos make an appearance.
Cool video. Thanks for sharing!

The little ufos are the same as seen here on Planet Earth that we call ufo orbs. I love the way they show up in NASA stuff

Hello! If it looks like a duck, quack likes a duck, is a duck!
Where there is smoke there is fire! If you want to see ufos
get up early and you will see them in the morning sky when the stars
are at their brightest and clearest. I took astronomy at OSU in the 1980s,
we looked at planets and stars at the observatory on campus, the
professor calculated the least possible number of life on other planets
the last day of class on his calculator. That least possible number was unimmaginably enormous!!!!!!! I'd say something was looking at our primitive equipment. Wish people were more genuine and opened minded on our planet. We spend all our time on the nitty gritty business of living
to keep living, not nescessarily thinking.

reply to post by Phage


What the heck, Phage are you saying that after 40 years of distorted questionable NASA images our multi billion dollar agency couldn't even correct that flaw?
How can I get a rebate on the tax dollars I contributed to that flub?
Is this likely to happen with the lro just when they are passing the landing sites?
Just asking.

reply to post by Donny 4 million

It's not a flaw. It's the nature of a compound lens. When light strikes the lens at certain angles, a flare results. Nothing can be done about it.

LROC uses Cassegrain optics instead of a compound lens but because it has two mirrors it will be subject to the same effects. However, since it will always be pointed straight down it probably won't run into the problem very often.

reply to post by Phage


Thanks Phage
You are IMO a real decent guy. Well versed also.
Credit where credit is due.
My basic problem , problems are with an agency that hasn't really improved in forty years.
You defend this agency never the less by providing ply- able information that tends to prop it up instead of coaxing the readers here and NASA to do better
I know you know that better is do-able.
thanks again.
donny

reply to post by Donny 4 million

Originally posted by Donny 4 million

Some new member comes to the table with some data and wants to discuss it.

...

Thanks.

...
..
.

reply to post by Phage


...

Hi Phage.

Thanks for dropping by.

...

Regarding the image you posted,

Is it originally an image, or is it a screenshot
from film footage?

As what I have here is a video.

I'm not sure why you chose this particular
image, because there is only little resemblance with
the ring shape in my footage.

Most striking difference is that your ring
looks translucent, like a reflection often does,
while my ring looks rather solid,
not in any way translucent.

It was visible twice within three hours for several minutes.

...
..
.

...

To, warrenb, ufoorbhunter and frugal.

The more the merrier.

...
..
.

reply to post by Sol12

What I showed is a low quality scan from a still photograph. It demonstrates a semi-circular ring shaped lens flare effect. It is irrelevant whether it comes from a video or a still camera since both cameras use compound lenses.

To me, the flare in the ISS video appears to be "translucent". It fades into space and I can see the darkness of space through it. It moves synchronously with the movement of the "donut" flares and shadows on the structure of the ISS as the lighting angle changes. It fades as the lighting angle changes until it finally disappears.

I was watching and capturing during the 24th and that effect happened several times throughout the day. Here's a clip of it where they unzoom and pan the cam and you can see it's part of a big wavy line. The first few mins are sped up a lot and the last few are from the 26th where you can see the same effect appear while zoomed out.



[edit on 31-7-2009 by Soboro]

[edit on 31-7-2009 by Soboro]

...

RE: Bill from Alpha Centauri, 1947-2009.

...

Just in case someone made the effort to
calculate the actual $ figure in earlier post,
you may have noticed that the outcome was not quite right?

You see,

This is why ET is not making any agreements
with the present administration of Planet Earth.

They are lousy bookkeepers.

...

Actual figure:

= $10.947.000.000.000,- x 12.

...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7b3319180b97.jpg[/atsimg]

...
..
.

reply to post by Phage


...

Phage,

Originally posted by Phage
"What I showed is a low quality scan from a still photograph. It demonstrates a semi-circular ring shaped lens flare effect. It is irrelevant whether it comes from a video or a still camera since both cameras use compound lenses."

What I wanted to point out to, is that there is a difference,
in capturing an incidental flare on a still image,
or to film/videotape a 'flare' for several minutes.

Meanwhile, the 'donut' flares fade in/out while the ring
shape remains 'solid' and visible.

It appears to be caused, independently from what is causing the 'donuts'.

You are saying the donuts are caused by lens aperture,
and the ring is a reflection of a compound lens?

I still don't see a lot of resemblance between my
footage and your example.

...

Originally posted by Phage
"To me, the flare in the ISS video appears to be "translucent". It fades into space and I can see the darkness of space through it. It moves synchronously with the movement of the "donut" flares and shadows on the structure of the ISS as the lighting angle changes. It fades as the lighting angle changes until it finally disappears."

When watching the footage,
movement/shadow on ISS is noticeable.
(as yet unidentified)

As I wrote earlier,

The fact that both the 'donuts' and the 'ring' move,
does not necessarily mean they have the same/similar cause.

It only means their visibility is effected (somehow)
by the same movement of the ISS.

We can see the ring as if fading out as it curves backward,
but we can not really determine whether it is translucent.

As, there appear to be no solid objects behind it.

We can say, it appears rather 'solid', it appears rather
three dimensional and it appears rather dynamic.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e46d4e4932f6.jpg[/atsimg]

...
..
.

reply to post by Soboro


...

Soboro,

Thanks for posting this video.

I will also post another video.

...
..
.

...

Here is another segment of the NASA STS 127 footage.

It has been kindly provided,
again, by Streetcap.

It is the part where the ring suddenly appears.

...

"Exclusive: Ring UFO - The Missing Footage."

...



...
..
.

I would be more inclined to agree with Phage on this point. If you look closely, you can tell that the small rings that appear and disappear on the video seem to be closer to the camera then some components of the space station. This leads me to believe that they are simply reflections or flares.

As for the larger ring that appears in the video, you can clearly see this ring fade out towards it's two edges. This type of behaviour is often a result of some dense material being in the way (for example, when you can't see far on earth, it is a result of the humidity in the air) however this would not be the case in space, as the light has little to nothing to fade on before the ring, so if it were solid, we should be seeing much more of it.

I am by no means an expert, and I am not saying with difinity that this is not some alien craft or artifact, but from the facts that I have seen, I would conclude this to be a simple reflection.

reply to post by juggernautze


...

Juggernautze,

The smaller donuts are not so much the issue here.

The point is not whether the ring is 'solid'.

It appears as more 'solid', or rather more substantial,
than just an average 'flare'.

The point being that it is unusual, uncommon.

Hence, what is it?

...
..
.

Originally posted by Soboro

(click to open player in new window)

This movie end up things.

What we have here is an internal reflection inside the lens (or mirror, or protecting glass etc).

Here is an extracted animation from the Soboro's video:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3fd711c8da46.gif[/atsimg]


When camera pans away, the "ring" is moving in sincron with the camera movement. So, it is INSIDE the camera.
More, we have a sudden drop in general frame brightness (when actually the lens is entering in shadow - away from direct sunlight) EXACTLY when the ring dissapear...
Lens flare as a mundane explanation of apparently misterious things on NASA movies. This is what we have here.

I wonder if we didn't have this posibility of detecting a scene where is clear that the ring is an inside-of-lens reflection... what type of alien ship was there?

[edit on 1/8/09 by depthoffield]

I addressed that in my origional post as well, but perhaps I wasn't clear enough on what I meant.

To me, it does not seem to be a solid object because, as I previously stated, it fades around the edges which I believe wouldn't occur to an object in space in this particular way, leading me to believe that it is just a reflection.

[edit on 1-8-2009 by juggernautze]

[edit on 1-8-2009 by juggernautze]

Originally posted by juggernautze
I adressed that in my origional post as well, but perhaps I wasn't clear enough on what I meant.

To me, it does not seem to be a solid object because, as I previously stated, it fades around the edges which I believe wouldn't occur to an object in space in this particular way, leading me to believe that it is just a reflection.

[edit on 1-8-2009 by juggernautze]

...

The fact that it appears to fade around the edges
does not necessarily mean it is a reflection.

However, you are free to believe so.

...
..
.