It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
FAQ 35 Q: How much of it is “space junk”?
A: Very, very little, actually – if you use the standard definition of “space junk” to mean other satellites and pieces off of them, which constitute an impact hazard to human space missions and automated satellites as well. Because all orbiting objects are moving at tremendous speeds in different directions, when they do pass closely to each other, they zip past at several miles per second. Thus they are extremely difficult to detect visually. Anything that was seen over a period of time longer than a few seconds would have to have been something closely following the observer, and thus associated with the vehicle from which the observation was being made. Now, that's unless it was somebody else’s vehicle deliberately keeping pace, of course. But "space junk" as we commonly use the term? Hardly ever, maybe never.
Originally posted by JimOberg
In my "99 FAQs" [www.jamesoberg.com...] I explain
why I don't think any of those strange dots or objecgts are other satellites
or space junk.
FAQ 35 Q: How much of it is “space junk”?
A: Very, very little, actually – if you use the standard definition of “space junk” to mean other satellites and pieces off of them, which constitute an impact hazard to human space missions and automated satellites as well. Because all orbiting objects are moving at tremendous speeds in different directions, when they do pass closely to each other, they zip past at several miles per second. Thus they are extremely difficult to detect visually. Anything that was seen over a period of time longer than a few seconds would have to have been something closely following the observer, and thus associated with the vehicle from which the observation was being made. Now, that's unless it was somebody else’s vehicle deliberately keeping pace, of course. But "space junk" as we commonly use the term? Hardly ever, maybe never.
Originally posted by loves a conspiricy
Filmed on a camcorder.....its something on the screen. Either drawn on or stuck on.
The "UFO" is far too sharp compared to the rest of the image....its a HOAX!!
edit: would also explain why it is sharper than the Earth in the background. Because it's probably relatively close to the camera, at a position where it would be more in focus.
Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
edit: would also explain why it is sharper than the Earth in the background. Because it's probably relatively close to the camera, at a position where it would be more in focus.
Yes, the object, if in orbit, would be closer to the focal point of the camera than the earth. But, the guy is filming from a camcorder from a screen. it's impossible for him to zoom in on his handycam and get MORE data from the video he's recording it from, as the earth pixelates, so should the object, as, he's not on the ISS filming it, he's videoing a screen displaying it.
It should still be a satellite, but the sharp detail on the zoom bothers me, quite a bit really. I'd prefer to look at the archive from NASA, but like most of these "UFO near ISS" videos, they conveniently forget to include that.