Aliens

[Touring Mars]

It could easily be the same object, either rotating, being shot from a different angle/position or probably both. With no additional information, however, it's not possible to verify. It could also be different objects, but again, since we have no timeline for these shots, that would not be possible to verify either.

The idea that it is the same object and that it is changing shape, however - shape-shifting no less, is an extraordinary claim that cannot be supported by the images alone. We'd need alot more information before that idea could even remotely be taken seriously. A video would be a good start, but even that could be potentially misleading. Without accurate information on the location of the camera, an accurate timeline and sequence, and a decent reference frame, it's all just wild speculation. i.e. if you showed me two images taken seconds apart and shot from precisely the same angle (or at a point where the change in position between the two shots could be accurately estimated/known) and the object suddenly looked completely different, or the change in structure/shape of the object didn't resemble the same object at all, then perhaps I'd start to take the idea of it as a shape-shifting craft a bit more seriously.

You could verify that a single object of static shape could generate all of those images, however - which atleast would disprove the hypothesis of it being a shape-shifter. I bet with modern software, it would not be hard to russle up a 3D model (in Sketchup of something) that could be used to test the idea that the object isn't changing shape, and the difference in appearance in the various shots is simply due to the motion of the object and the location of the camera. Throw in some global lighting effects, and different surface reflectivities and textures, and I bet you could recreate those lights as well!

 

[Dotini]

- shape-shifting no less,

In nature, many animals change shape, size and color, perhaps to attract a mate or escape a predator. Think of the peacock, which does all three. We don't commonly call the peacock a shapeshifter, do we?

What is your opinion on the question of the lights? Did you review the video?

So far, no one is jumping to any wild conclusions, except maybe you! ()

The object, if is one object as the wide view shots suggest, does seem to be changing shape. That is a legit question, as is the question of lights. Perhaps it is a glow discharge, or St. Elmo's fire, from a lost NASA metallic dielectric blanket trapped in the ionosphere?

Respectfully,
Steve

 

[Touring Mars]

In nature, many animals change shape, size and color, perhaps to attract a mate or escape a predator. Think of the peacock, which does all three. We don't commonly call the peacock a shapeshifter, do we?

You just don't see that many of them in orbit.

What is your opinion on the question of the lights? Did you review the video?

The Earth is clearly bright in these shots, is it glowing too? No. It's facing the Sun, and that means that the object is also on the side of the Earth facing the Sun as well. Unless it is completely non-reflective, I'd be surprised not to see some reflection.

So far, no one is making wild claims or wild speculations, except you! ()

Nope, I'm not making any claims at all. I'm just saying that you cannot hope to use these still images to support the claim that the object is changing shape - not unless you can provide accurate information pertaining to exactly where and when the pictures were taken, particularly in relation to each other. The video is nothing but a collection of panning views of the same still images, so it's no more use than the still images are.

The object, if is one object as the wide view shots suggest, does seem to be changing shape. That is a legit question, as is the question of lights. Perhaps it is a glow discharge, or St. Elmo's fire, from a lost NASA metallic dielectric blanket trapped in the ionosphere?

Looking different at two different time intervals from two different angles =/ changing shape!

 

[Badger-X-]

What struck me most about the photos was not the contention that the object might be changing shape (I would agree that without more data we're just speculating) but the regularity and apparent symmetry of it's finer details - ie: ridges/reflective surfaces. After digging around a bit I found out that particular shuttle mission had apparently lost a thermal blanket two days earlier and this could be that same blanket passing them again in orbit. The jury's still out, though, and the thermal blanket theory has as much evidence backing it up as most "weather balloon" explanations. In any case the object looks a lot more intriguing than your average space rock!

 

[Dotini]

http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/newsletter/RedSeaReefs.htm
A NASA article explaining how sunglint works.

http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/SSE...atcb=on&showlatcb=on&showloncb=on&collection=
A NASA file containing our subject debris frames, plus others.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

Edit: http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/sseop/photo.pl?mission=STS088&roll=724&frame=65
More info on this file, including the data on the camera and film.

Images
Tips for Viewing Images Conditions for Use of Images >>
Image Transformation Tutorial >> Saving, Color Adjusting, and Printing Images >>
Images to View on Your Computer Now
File Name File Size (bytes) Width Height Annotated Cropped Purpose Comments
View STS088-724-65.JPG 42769 516 512 No No From ISD PhotoCDs
Large Images to Request for Downloading
File Name File Size (bytes) Width Height Annotated Cropped Purpose Comments
Request STS088-724-65.JPG 139540 1030 1024 No No From ISD PhotoCDs
Request STS088-724-65_2.JPG 461541 2051 2048 No No From ISD PhotoCDs
Request STS088-724-65_3.JPG 1531711 4103 4096 No No From ISD PhotoCDs
Download a Keyhole Markup Language (KML) file for use in Google Earth.
Electronic Image Data
Camera files only apply to electronic still cameras.
No sound file available.
Identification
Mission: STS088 Roll: 724 Frame: 65 Mission ID on the Film or image: STS88
Country or Geographic Name: OCEAN
Features: PAN-SNGLNT., SPACE DEBRIS
Center Point Latitude: Center Point Longitude: (Negative numbers indicate south for latitude and west for longitude)
Stereo: No (Yes indicates there is an adjacent picture of the same area)
ONC Map ID: M-05 JNC Map ID: 51
Camera
Camera Tilt: High Oblique
Camera Focal Length: 250mm
Camera: HB: Hasselblad
Film: 5069 : Kodak Elite 100S, E6 Reversal, Replaces Lumiere, Warmer in tone vs. Lumiere.
Quality
Film Exposure: Over Exposed
Percentage of Cloud Cover: 90 (76-100)
Nadir
Date: 19981211 (YYYYMMDD)GMT Time: 201641 (HHMMSS)
Nadir Point Latitude: -29.3, Longitude: 8.3 (Negative numbers indicate south for latitude and west for longitude)
Nadir to Photo Center Direction: North
Sun Azimuth: 225 (Clockwise angle in degrees from north to the sun measured at the nadir point)
Spacecraft Altitude: 213 nautical miles (394 km)
Sun Elevation Angle: -22 (Angle in degrees between the horizon and the sun, measured at the nadir point)
Orbit Number: 118

 

[niky]

From the pictures, it looks like a deformed sheet of something with a lump on one side rotating and in different orientations.

It most resembles a bit of cardboard box (down to the flaps) that's been thrown out the airlock.

Whatever you may think an alien craft may look like, it looks more like a piece of something than a whole ship.

 

[Dotini]

From the pictures, it looks like a deformed sheet of something with a lump on one side rotating and in different orientations.

It most resembles a bit of cardboard box (down to the flaps) that's been thrown out the airlock.

Whatever you may think an alien craft may look like, it looks more like a piece of something than a whole ship.

I say it's nearly 100% impossible for it to be an alien ship. Even though aliens might exist light years away, it would be almost impossible for aliens to travel here due to unreasonable amounts of energy and time it would take to travel through light years of space. So let's rule out aliens, and not mention them again. There's not a scrap of acceptable evidence for that hypothesis.

The immediate fact is that the thing in some images resembles something organic like a bird or bat with triangular wings, a rounded portion and curious appendages. But in other images it looks like a box kite with flat portions and rectilinear edges like Niky's cardboard box, or a tattered and wrinkled blanket. In the final image, we see something like a meteorological or electrical cloud with ball lightning or glow discharges. It's unlikely so many simultaneous lights of different colors and placements would all be reflections of the solar disk off an inert cardboard box or lost insulation blanket. So it does not agree with anything we are familiar or comfortable with. We are not able to explain it, except to say it was an interesting thing that we are grateful NASA took the time and investment to photograph and post up for us to think about. I am grateful to NASA, and accept the thing as unknown "debris", as they are wont to say, until shown otherwise.

There are some things in life that are going to have to remain ambiguous and without satisfactory resolution. We'll just have to get over it and move on to another problem that's easier to solve.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

Edit: It's possible the object is in fact a lost toolbag, containing large power tools with batteries, lamps, and circuitry for articulating features. This could account for its curious appearance and lighting effects.

 

[Exorcet]

The immediate fact is that the thing in some images resembles something organic like a bird or bat with triangular wings, a rounded portion and curious appendages.

I suppose you could say that, but I think it's the same as saying that a cloud looks like a bird. It just happens to have such a shape when viewed from such an angle.

It's unlikely so many simultaneous lights of different colors and placements would all be reflections of the solar disk off an inert cardboard box or lost insulation blanket.

Why? I don't think so. Bright spots are angled to reflect light, dark spots aren't. If it's something like a blanket, then you could very easily have a crumpled surface that reflects lights in a bunch of different directions. It it's solid, the bright spots could be dents/nicks or some other form of indentation or damage that creates angles that would reflect light.

We are not able to explain it

You're right, but that doesn't mean it's anything out of the ordinary.

 

[Dotini]

UFO sightings are nothing out of the ordinary, having been reported for centuries if not millennia. Here are a couple of recent articles by Leslie Keen, author of the NY Times best seller, "UFO's: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record".

The articles cover the recent El Bosque incident in Chile, and include video and photos. At an air show in Chile, 7 different videographers at different locations and distances captured images of the objects. A large scale study is currently underway by Chilean authorities.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leslie-kean/update-on-chilean-ufo-vid_b_1424008.html?ref=weird-news

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lesli...ufo-sig_b_1342585.html?ref=science&ir=Science

I've personally seen UFOs up fairly close, have been researching them for decades, and I've been in personal communication with some military and science professionals who are involved. I'm totally convinced its natural, electromagnetic phenomena, and NOT aliens.

When accepting and confronting fun but difficult problems, whether mountain climbing, car racing, chess, or UFOs, part of the challenge is to stay calm and avoid hysteria.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[TankAss95]

When accepting and confronting fun but difficult problems, whether mountain climbing, car racing, chess, or UFOs, part of the challenge is to stay calm and avoid hysteria.

I can personally relate to subsequent, self-induced hysteria over an evening game of chess. It is important to evaluate these particular situation(s) analytically, with the attention, supervision, and reassuring comfort of other persons if possible.

Stay safe and rational, my friends. Peace.

 

[Dotini]

A few more provocative vids from the "weird" files:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/12/ufo-aircraft-safety-hazards_n_1422206.html?ref=weird-news

 

[Dotini]

http://m24digital.com/en/2012/05/12/incredible-video-of-five-ufos-landing-on-the-moon/ <--See the video for yourself.

Two University of Arizona astronomers, Paul Davies and Robert Wagner, reportedly identified 5 UFO's on the Moon. They think the Moon would be a likely place to harbor signs of alien technology, if any.

In my opinion, the video provided does not confer evidence for anything other that unusual activity, a.k.a. transient lunar events, occur at the limb of the Moon. Build-up of electric charges, outgassing, and thermal disturbances could produce tornado-like dust clouds which might account for the odd images seen.

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/02files/Clementine_Moon_Glow.htm
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1969Moon....1....7S
https://www.google.com/#hl=en&gs_nf...f.,cf.osb&fp=5ae2e4ca6d7da5a&biw=1024&bih=557

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[CodeRedR51]

#5 pointed out in the video looks to go around the edge for a second, but if you actually follow in the direction it's headed, it reappears as a dark object in front of the moon and then disappears.

 

[PeterJB]

I seriously doubt those are UFO's. If they were they would several miles across. They're probably just meteors.

 

[theotherspongey]

They don't look like UFOs but they're definitely not meteors.

 

[Sam48]

I seriously doubt those are UFO's.

They don't look like UFOs but they're definitely not meteors.

Due to the fact that we cannot identify them, we classify them as UFOs (Unidentified flying objects). That doesn't mean we believe they're alien space craft.

If they were they would several miles across. They're probably just meteors.

That would be a massive meteor, but judging by the moon's surface, I wouldn't be surprised. However, what's odd is the angle at which they fly towards, or across, the moon.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Due to the fact that we cannot identify them, we classify them as UFOs (Unidentified flying objects). That doesn't mean we believe they're alien space craft.

Yeah the public doesn't seem to understand that. You say the term "UFO" and people automatically think you're talking about aliens.

 

[Sam48]

Yeah the public doesn't seem to understand that. You say the term "UFO" and people automatically think you're talking about aliens.

I gotta blame sci-fi TV and the media in general for that one.

 

[Badger-X-]

Thought I'd share this recent documentary on a few of the most compelling multiple witness sightings: HERE
Enjoy

 

[Exorcet]

I made it through the first hour. It was like most other documentaries in that nothing was proven.

I liked the one over the airport that supposedly cut a hole in the cloud at high speed without making noise. Up until that point I guess you could claim that UFO's have some sort of zero drag device and silent propulsion that makes them quiet (which is impossible anyway), but if that was so, you're not going to be cutting holes in a cloud. Making the hole means you put energy into the air in one form or another, and that would mean you generated sound. Probably a lot of sound if you're going really fast.

It's also amusing how UFO's that are supposed to be intelligently designed and controlled ships are designed terribly for just about everything. Unless the aliens have a source of free energy that weighs almost nothing, why wouldn't you take advantage of the air to help you fly? If you're going to dispatch probes, why come down so low to the ground in the first place? Why are there lights everywhere? And if they don't care about being seen, why don't they walk around major cities in person? Why don't they attend large public gatherings? There just isn't much sense to any of it.

 

[Roger the Horse]

We haven't discovered any extraterrestrial life, but it's highly likely that ET's



we just haven't found them yet, quite possibly because they're in another galaxy in another super cluster somewhere far away in the universe. If you've ever seen a computer generated image mapping the entire universe, you'll get a sense of how big this is!

 

[Jubby]

I hear you but is that also because of our human perspective? Our own history is filled with atrocities. We are still petty savages fighting amongst ourselves, governed by fallible and corrupt institutions, and perpetuating an archaic monetary system that creates division and imbalance. "They" may not only be technologically advanced but also politically, socially, spiritually, etc.
If so, and their mission was not an aggressive one, they might be reluctant to even deal with us until we've grown up a little.

Sorry for the delay.

I don't think of our "uncooperative" history and current situation to be a gauge. It's a factor, sure.

In the grand scheme of things, why would you or I travel to Africa to examine a tree? Putting it in perspective of the universe, and our current/potential technology we would be travelling by foot in this analogy.

What would be the point? If it's exploration, we'd have to be seriously bored. If it's for resources, it'd have to be good. If it's because the tree is a threat... well, we'd blow it up/tear it down (you choose the method). What other reason would there be?

If it's the resources, as I said, it would have to be good, and we'd stop at nothing to get it.

I do recognize that we have not yet learned or understand if other methods of travel in the universe are practical (near light speed, wormholes, bending space). It's possible they have the means, but the above reasons would stand. And your final point is very valid, Badger, we're too "young" as a species.

 

[TankAss95]

Do we have any idea yet the probability of life forming (abiogenesis)?

The complexity of life put me off the possibility of any extraterrestrial life.

 

[BobK]

Do we have any idea yet the probability of life forming (abiogenesis)?

The complexity of life put me off the possibility of any extraterrestrial life.

Depends on who you ask. It ranges from 0 (Bible thumpers etc) to 1 (most biologists, paleontologists, etc).

 

[TankAss95]

Depends on who you ask. It ranges from 0 (Bible thumpers etc) to 1 (most biologists, paleontologists, etc).

The universe is a big place, sure, but the apparent improbability of abiogenesis is astounding.

I've heard some microbiologists say that it's as improbable as pouring a bag of sugar into a bathtub and expecting the solution to form a sugar cube capable of producing more sugar cubes.

That's why I am enthusiastic about some sort of intelligent interaction. It doesn't have to be a deity, it could be something like a Boltzmann-brain or something.

 

[BobK]

Why do you feel it's astoundingly improbable? Looking at the conditions on early Earth, I think it was pretty much inevitable. So given another similar planet, I'd think it pretty likely that life would develop there as well.

Now, the odds of another planet developing recognizable mammals for instance, yeah, I would think the probability of that would be pretty darn close to 0.

 

[Emptyone]

Depends what you define as life really. If you count bacteria (which science does) and even viruses (which is debatable) then you would expect something to exist, given recent estimates of possible planet number just in this galaxy (How many planets) so the odds seem to be in favour of life.

The tricky bit is whether life capable of what we would measure as success is out there, and if we could prove its existence. At this point consider douglas adams, and the possibility of Huvaloo, a super-intelligent shade of blue Anything could be out there

 

[Dotini]

At this point consider douglas adams, and the possibility of Huvaloo, a super-intelligent shade of blue Anything could be out there

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mn4I-f34cTI
The Pauli exclusion principle and Brian Cox tell us that everything in the universe is connected to everything else.

Since we do not fully understand consciousness and memory, perhaps they too are not confined exclusively to the individual, but pervade time and space, are universal and connected in nature?

A clock's internal mechanism systematically marks seconds into minutes and hours. But the mechanism does not create or represent time. There is a similar problem with memory and the brain.

For memory to exist in the brain, there must be a way to represent information. The general theory is that patterns of synaptic connections create memory. However, all parts of the brain's bio-machinery (neurons, synapses, dendrites, etc.) are continually changing. Though neuroscientists have been studying memory for many decades, there is no integrated theory. Some of them doubt memory exists in the brain.

Heisenberg said, "...what we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning". Godel's incompleteness theorem showed that nothing is certain concerning the universe. The rational mind may never know the ultimate truth.

So it may turn out there is cosmic "intelligent interaction", to quote TankAss. It may be that Huvaloo, VALIS, God, the Sandman or Santa Claus is at this very moment monitoring our thoughts and emotions - and even occasionally intervening in our world!

It's only a harmless idea,
Uncle Steve

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Now, the odds of another planet developing recognizable mammals for instance, yeah, I would think the probability of that would be pretty darn close to 0.

Where I would say that the above is statistically the most sensible approach, I was amazed with the next figure:

These are very similar animals that have completely different ways of reproducing (placenta or not placenta based).

It seems that scientist do expect a relation between the both and some kind of special evolution due to geographical determined conditions.

I would say that going from evolution theory, different species will develop (supporting what I quoted above) and then will evolve, where the most adapted will become successful and prosper and the least adapted will parish.
So if the conditions are similar, the winning strategy will be similar and given sufficient time the "functional" layout that is most adapted will be similar. So on a similar planet we will find similar species, even if they were never in contact with each other.
Now coming back to the chance of similar conditions and similar times of evolution, etc... there will always be quite some differences, but there could be so many... who knows?

 

[FoolKiller]

So on a similar planet we will find similar species, even if they were never in contact with each other.

But the creatures you just showed have had ancestral similarities, which we know from fossil and genetic evidence. Short of the seeds of life throughout the universe being the same, marsupials and placental mammals are a poor example to go by for trying to determine if multicellular aliens will appear recognizable.

In fact, it is near impossible to use any Earth creature as a test for this because of similar genetic ancestry at some point. The best we can do in comparing creatures on Earth is determine the adaptability to extreme conditions of what we will recognize as life. It is why we know a frozen ice planet can be very alive so long as it has tectonic activity possible of creating geothermal energy.