UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Oct > Oct 5

Re: NASA Video Captures UFO In Orbit

From: Nick Balaskas <Nikolaos.nul>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 17:03:38 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Archived: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 08:05:06 -0400
Subject: Re: NASA Video Captures UFO In Orbit

>From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 15:53:51 +0100
>Subject: Re: NASA Video Captures UFO In Orbit

>>From: Nick Balaskas <Nikolaos.nul>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 17:32:30 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
>>Subject: Re: NASA Video Captures UFO In Orbit

>>>From: Joachim Koch <lists.nul>
>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 10:19:00 +0200
>>>Subject: NASA Video Captures UFO In Orbit


>>>The object is remarkable in itself but the most amazing thing to
>>>me is that it is pacing the booster rocket and one of the
>>>object's "antennae" appears to be always pointing directly at
>>>the object as if tracking it and taking telemetry.

>>This "object" is very likely an optical reflection. This is
>>supported by the fact that it appears only at the moment when
>>the tumbling Shuttle liquid fuel tank is no longer illuminated
>>by any sunlight and appears totally dark. The object would have
>>been dark too if it was solid and also in the vicinity of the
>>depleted fuel tank.

>This so-called reasoning is fallacious. First the tank is still
>illuminated. All that has happened is that the major axis of the
>tumbling cylinder, hitherto nearly transverse to the line of
>sight, has rotated to be more nearly longitudinal to the line of
>sight. The sunlit surface is momentarily hidden by the
>perspective, and reappears presently as the tank continues in
>its rotation

Hi Martin,

Yes, the fuel tank is continuously illuminated by light from the
Sun coming from the bottom in all the video frames. I just found
it interesting that the tumbling fuel tank, a real 3D object,
would go through different phases of illumination while the
rotating "object" did not exhibit this effect. The fact that the
"object" maintains a constant brightness when the fuel tank, in
the orientation its in when the "object" first appears, is no
longer reflecting sunlight suggests, to me at least, that the
"object" is not 3D and thus cannot be a solid object in the
immediate vicinity of the fuel tank.

Optical reflections do exhibit such properties so I don't
understand why you feel that my reasoning is fallacious.

>Secondly this local change in the orientation of one object
>bears no relation whatsoever to any possible illumination
>geometry of an independently-moving second object. The idea that
>the UAP ought to simultaneously become shadowed is preposterous.

Since your "independently-moving object" is also apparently
rotating in a vertical axis, its illumination geometry would be
changing. The "object" does not exhibit darker edges on its
sides away from the Sun as one would expect if it was a real
solid object.

>And the underlying assumption - that a genuine UAP would have to
>be an intrinsically "dark" "solid" "object" visible only by
>reflected sunlight - is a is a fanciful straw man in any case.

If this "object" is indeed a TRUFO or non-manmade craft, it may
have ethereal properties that are not exhibited by the nuts and
bolts objects that we are familiar with but as beings that rely
on our experiences and hindered by our physical limitations, my
"fanciful straw man" explanation is at least a rational one.
What would you suggest?

>>The reasoning that this object is a
>>reflection is confirmed by the observations that the "antennae"
>>is actually pointing towards the Sun and thus only appears to
>>be "tracking" the fuel tank.

>This claim is completely unintelligible. The inconsistent
>grammar of "the antennae is...  (etc)" can only confuse Listers,
>so I should explain for anyone who has not watched the video
>that there are three of these "antennae", not one, arranged
>roughly 120 degs apart. Also, the "antenna" which appears to be
>tracking the fuel tank is doing so from the side of the tank
>that is illuminated by the sun. So one might well wonder how it
>can be that it is simultanously "pointing towards the sun".
>Perhaps Nick means to say that it is pointing in a direction
>reciprocal to the sun? Or that whilst one antenna is tracking
>the tank another is pointing towards the sun?

The quotes I used in my reply were taken from the actual e-mail
sent to me by the same(?) friend that wrote to Joachim. It was
never my intention of confusing the Listers who I think are a
lot more intelligent and discerning than you apparently give
them credit for.

>It doesn't really matter because neither interpretation can be
>true except momentarily, and by chance. During the film the
>"tripod" rotates in plan by almost 80 degrees relative to the
>video frame of reference, which of course is locked onto the
>straight inertial trajectory of the tank falling away below. (The
>trajectory of the tank is obviously arbitrary in relation to the
>position of the sun.) This is obviously far too great to match
>any change of bearing to the sun. Neither the camera nor the
>Shuttle reference frame is rotating at all (the Shuttle is in a
>flattening trajectory near its final orbital altitude at this
>time and traveling nose-first at maybe 170,000mph), never mind
>spinning at a rate of 20deg/sec, and I know of no evidence of any
>recent solar miracle of Old Testament proportions.

Yes, one of the three "antennae" on this rotating "object" does
seem to be pointing towards the fuel tank as if it is keeping it
in its gunsight - but this reasoning is not only fallacious, it
is not even based on reality as those who have examined the
video clip will attest to.

>The "object" does in some respects resemble a reflection in
>glass, and I tend to agree that a secondary or tertiary
>reflection from internal Shuttle surfaces is probably what it
>would turn out to be, if we could re-run the event. But
>identifying it as such is not so easy and the arguments offered
>here are specious.

We are in agreement here Martin. One additional reason that I
think we are correct that this "object" is a reflection (my
guess is that the "object" is an optical reflection within the
camera itself rather from an internal Shuttle surface) is that
in a few video frames with both the fuel tank and the "object",
they both go slightly out-of-focus. This in itself would suggest
that the "object" must be real and about as far away as the fuel
tank since reflections within camera lenses would remain sharp
and in-focus but because the Earth behind also goes out-of-focus
this blurring must be attributed to camera motion which will
also blur the optical reflections within camera lenses.

Don't spend too much attention to this particular fuel tank UFO
sighting made by the STS-115 crew which is found on a NASA
website. Instead we should join the news media and continue to
ask questions about the real UFO - along with the few irregular
shaped small particles that were also present - that caught
NASA's attention and is also on video. This UFO has still not
adequately been explained but which may prove to be a Chinese
spy satellite or even an American spacecraft that belongs to the
parallel and still secret military/intelligence space program.


(Thanks to Paul Scott Anderson for bring this other NASA UFO
video to my attention).

Nick Balaskas

Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast



[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com