• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

NASA's Alien Anomalies caught on film

Free episodes:

Nice, quite interesting. Any of those debunked? The STS-51-A really looks like a drop, but some of the other stuff looks good. Anyone know what is the the part on the module that is turning around in the first video?
 
NASA's Alien Anomalies caught on film

LOL! I am really glad you used that quote by Einstein in your signature file, because in this situation, anyone believing that any of this crap is anything more than space dust, particle material and rock really needs that "imagination" he places over "knowledge."

I take it that the word "alien" used in the title means "Foreign" as in "foreign matter" in this context and not "intelligent-extra terrestrial"...
 
It's a captivating collection by Luna Cognita. Unlike some people who post unsourced or unreferenced images from NASA/ESA/FSA, he doesn't tend to mislead by altering the catalogue numbers or 'enhancing' them beyond recognition. He also puts a lot of effort into finding his images.

Like anything in this field, it pays to double-check sources and get on the due diligence bus.

@1:29. The object is 'unidentified' although NASA explain...

ISS007-E-06886 (12 June 2003) --- This image was taken by Expedition 7 NASA ISS Science Officer Ed Lu from the U.S. Destiny Laboratory window. Lu noticed the object floating away from the Station and described it as a 5 centimeter long piece of metal. Station managers and flight controllers estimate that the mass of the object will cause it to de-orbit rapidly and will not cause damage to the Station. Engineers are analyzing the imagery to determine what the object is and where it might have originated. It is likely the object came from the Station because of its similar speed and orbit relative to the Station.
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-7/html/iss007e06886.html

@1:42. The image is genuine and available at hi-res. To me, it looks more like a lens flare, but who knows?....http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-13/hires/iss013e69634.jpg

@1:49. This image looks like a lens artefact. Before the close-up, the hexagonal flares follow the same line of sight that leads to the 'object.' Gene can probably explain it better than me.

@2:02. The image is hard to identify as its catalogue number is the same as the one at 1:42

@2:16. This is my favourite part; if it's for real, it's f**king awesome! A decent image from the satellite capture is available...http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap100111.html

My NASA-Fu must be weak right now. I can find several images from the sequence in the video, but can't find any with the sphere in them. I could be wrong in thinking it's from Martyn Stubbs' video footage. It's been a while since I watched his smoking gun film. His 'secretnasaman' YT account is...http://www.youtube.com/user/secretnasaman

The next few segments look like ice particles to me.

@3:16: http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-110/hires/s110e5912.jpg

Dunno. There's bokeh in the image; could it be lens reflection from points of light on the ISS?
 
LOL! I am really glad you used that quote by Einstein in your signature file, because in this situation, anyone believing that any of this crap is anything more than space dust, particle material and rock really needs that "imagination" he places over "knowledge.".....

Well I don't know. I imagine that not all of the various pieces of footage are of space dust, particle material and rocks. But if you say so , I bow to your obviously, superior knowledge in the area of photo and film analysis and I'll be sure to let Don Ecker know that the footage of STS-48 was just ice particles and that Jim Oberg was right.

Like anything in this field, it pays to double-check sources and get on the due diligence bus.

I have seen most of these before and while i agree that most are probably lens flare or other mundane explanations some are indeed anomalous.
I notice in your minute by minute , play by play that you still have some "might be's" and "looks like's" in there so obviously that unless there has been definitive proof or evidence as to what they really are:

@1:42. The image is genuine and available at hi-res. To me, it looks more like a lens flare, but who knows?
@2:16. This is my favourite part; if it's for real, it's f**king awesome! A decent image from the satellite capture is available


they too remain somewhat anomalous.
I haven't analysed the whole video but these three seem interesting to me:
@ 2.44. The object is travelling from bottom right to upper left when it makes an abrupt right hand turn.
@ 4.15. An object (shadow) is tracked along the surface of the moon.
@ 7.10. The STS-48 footage.
Kandinsky. Can you tell me if the footage @ 2.16 has been thoroughly debunked or not?
 
Whether you let Jim Oberg or Don Ecker or anyone know anything, it still does little to show any real evidence of anything more than simple space debris, frozen ice or a dozen other natural possibilities.

In your opinion. Luckily, for me, I have decided that your opinion is just that,"yours" and you are welcome to it. When you can prove to me successfully that every single piece of footage shown is , as you say, "simple space debris, frozen ice or a dozen other natural possibilities" then your opinion may sway me. Until then "spero vestri deus utor vestri vexillum"

Malo eternus vita. :)

meus vita est unus of plures ego expertus
 
Kandinsky. Can you tell me if the footage @ 2.16 has been thoroughly debunked or not?
I'll let you know when I know for sure. The sphere isn't in the catalogue shots, but it looks like video and the main source for 'NASA anomaly' footage is Martyn Stubbs. Using critical thinking, the absence of a sphere in photos combined with the 'balls-out' extraordinary footage makes me very doubtful that it's legit.

From my point of view, I'm disappointed after checking the sources for the video and images. One guy's lens flare is another guy's spaceship.

I've emailed someone who knows their way around the NASA archives more than I do.

ETA: The original video is here....http://www.nss.org/resources/library/shuttlevideos/shuttle14.htm

The object appears at 10:37

It could be argued that it's a water drop, but I'll leave it on the 'wtf' pile for now. More later.
 
In your opinion. Luckily, for me, I have decided that your opinion is just that,"yours" and you are welcome to it. When you can prove to me successfully that every single piece of footage shown is , as you say, "simple space debris, frozen ice or a dozen other natural possibilities" then your opinion may sway me. Until then "spero vestri deus utor vestri vexillum"

And I respect that....Both of our "opinions" lay within each person's preference. I just feel that instead of presenting this information with the confirmation that they are, "alien", it was necessary to expose the word usage as that of alien as in, "foreign" and not "intelligent extra-terrestrial", as neither of us have any confirmation to it being an intelligent extra-terrestrial in origin.

And my rejoinder....Ut senior does vobis

meus vita est unus of plures ego expertus

EGO mos voveo vos meus amicus
 
I just feel that instead of presenting this information with the confirmation that they are, "alien", it was necessary to expose the word usage as that of alien as in, "foreign" and not "intelligent extra-terrestrial", as neither of us have any confirmation to it being an intelligent extra-terrestrial in origin.

The title of thread was taken directly from the YouTube video title. People can make what they will of it. It's the same as UFO. Some take it to mean "Alien", when in fact it has nothing to do with that. In fact it would have been better to say that the compilation was of "NASA UFOs or Anomalies Caught on Film"
More important than the title is the actual content of the video compilation.
I found some of the footage to be curious and anomalous and not easily explained away by the simple space debris, frozen ice explanations. If in fact some of those same pieces of footage have been definitively debunked elsewhere then I accept that.
The footage may be a Martyn Stubbs collection but the footage was taken by NASA.
 
The footage may be a Martyn Stubbs collection but the footage was taken by NASA.

I was mistaken about the Martyn Stubbs suggestion and posted/edited a link to the original NASA footage a few hours ago.
 
Back
Top