NASA Feed 'Goes Down As Horseshoe UFO Appears On ISS Live Cam' (mirror.co.uk)

schwit1 quotes a report from Mirror Online: NASA has been accused of an alien cover up after a live International Space Station feed appearing to show a horseshoe UFO suddenly went down. Conspiracy theorists are having a field day over the sighting of the strange U-shaped object hovering on the horizon of the the ISS. They claim NASA 'cut the live feed' after the glowing blue object flew too close to the space station. Some have even gone as far to say NASA's funding should be cut over their 'great alien deception.' Scott Waring of UFO Sightings Daily first discovered the UFO. He passed the footage on to Tyler Glockner who uploaded the video to his YouTube channel secureteam10. What do you think: is it an alien spaceship or something more likely such as a reflection from a station window?

Comments

Hilarious

[Sasayaki]

All of this assumes:

- NASA has enough money to pay someone to watch the feed, their hand hovering over a giant "SHUT IT ALL DOWN" button. They don't.
- NASA knows they might have something to hide, so DOESN'T delay the live stream by one minute in case "Hey, aliens wandered into the frame, let's just static out those seconds and go oops, technical difficulties".
- The aliens are smart enough to travel between worlds but aren't smart enough to hide from a camera that NASA could have told them, in advance, that they were pointing in this one place (space is VERY big).
- None of the other observation devices pointed randomly at the sky (including people observing the ISS through their amateur telescopes and stuff, as people are want to do) saw this.
- The EU, Russians, Chinese and Indians with all their hardware and observation technology (none of whom save possibly the EU have any incentive to cooperate with the US and would, in fact, leap at the chance to discredit and shame them) didn't see it either.

The worst part is the Schroeder's competence that has to take place here. NASA have to be crazy-dedicated and funded in order to successfully cover up something as obvious as alien spacecraft whizzing around within visual range of the ISS, but also dumb enough to let it get exposed so trivially and easily as a public camera with the world watching.

When you start to think about it even a little bit the likelihood that it's real, live, true alien visitors and not just some kind of weird light reflection, space debris, or whatever is vanishingly small.

(...which is exactly what they WOULD say, isn't it...)

Re:Hilarious

[Jason Levine]

The worst part is the Schroeder's competence that has to take place here. NASA have to be crazy-dedicated and funded in order to successfully cover up something as obvious as alien spacecraft whizzing around within visual range of the ISS, but also dumb enough to let it get exposed so trivially and easily as a public camera with the world watching.

I love that term: Schroeder's competence. That's pretty standard in any conspiracy theory. The Conspiracy is a vast network with near-infinite resources and the ability to stage/cover up a complex scheme. At the same time, they are so incompetent that The Hero (usually some guy in his basement posting to YouTube) can easily expose everything they do. It's a power fantasy. "I feel completely helpless in my life so I'll imagine there's a uber-competent group controlling X and then will expose them, making myself smarter than this powerful group and all the 'sheeple' who fell for their ploy."

Blurry

[JavaBear]

As usual for anything "identified as UFO's" the object is blurry, suggesting the "object" was outside the field of depth, which does seem to be pretty deep as it includes infinity as well as a good amount of the station outside the window.

Could it be that whatever it is, is very near the lens? **gasp, I used logic, I must be part of the conspiracy then.**

Re:Blurry

[ledow]

It has all the classic hallmarks

- It's blurry.

- It's impossible to gauge distance to any accuracy (but your logic is quite good to narrow the range down quite considerably).

- It does nothing. In fact, technically, to be "an object" there it would have to be in a partnered orbit, which would mean it would have to have GOT THERE. Are we suggesting cloaking devices too?

- Incomplete footage. It doesn't appear out of nowhere, it's just there when the footage starts DESPITE it probably being quite easy for whoever captured it to include 30 seconds more at the beginning (where you'll see that reflection / lens flare quite obviously start to come in).

- It's indeterminate in size, shape. Thus it's probably not an object. And the only thing it doesn't have indeterminate (but which is because of the above) is "speed", which is actually more working against it being anything interesting .

- It's then zoomed into to "see more detail". Please, please, stop doing this. We're not in Bladerunner.

Honestly, guys, I would love to witness such a thing. I firmly believe in the Drake equation. I virtually guarantee you there's "something" out there. I also mathematically virtually-guarantee you (I'm a mathematician, certainty is a big word) that we'll never be in the same time/space/evolution that we'd ever be able to communicate usefully.

I would love to see such a thing in my lifetime. That's a truly ground-breaking thing to be witness to (Where were you when Kennedy was shot, who cares? Where were you when we found out about the aliens? Much more interesting to tell your grandchildren).

But this sort of shite just makes me shake my head, and I've never seen anything EXCEPT this sort of shite. And so my above beliefs label me - by proxy - as some kind of nutter if expressed poorly.

Would love to see an alien. This isn't it. It's precisely what all the others are. An unidentified "something" (I can't even call it an object, I think it's lens flare thus an optical effect). And the vast, vast, vast, vast balance of probability is that I could set up a camera and replicate this effect almost perfectly in minutes with an innocent setup (e.g. lens flare, object behind the camera and glass window in front, etc.).

Nutters, the lot of you.

If it were aliens

[Anonymous Coward]

Aliens would be the biggest thing to happen to NASA ever. It would mean an unlimited budget and hiding any alien encounter would be against their best interests.

Technically it can't be a UFO

[clickety6]

Technically it can't be a UFO because if it's that high above the atmosphere, it can't be flying :)

Object is probably a classified satellite

[JoeyRox]

Most likely the kind used by governments to spy on their people.

What's with the vitriol?

[sjbe]

Neil Tyson needs to stfu and recognize the fact that no matter how hard he tries he will never be Carl Sagan.

Does this anger of yours towards NdGT have a point? Did he pee in your cereal bowl or something?

And I LIKED Pluto.

And what is stopping you from continuing to like Pluto? NdGT didn't blow it up with a cannon or anything. Last I checked it's still there, same as it ever was. Even has a heart on it to make it extra lovable.

Re: Seems obvious

[NotDrWho]

Do you really believe that in 100 billion visible galaxies there isn't one speck of life?

Oh, there is life out there. You can bet on it. But the UFO nutters aren't just saying "there is life out there," they're saying something VERY different, namely:

1) That this life is intelligent enough to have perfected interstellar travel
2) That it is exists coincidentally with us
3) That it feels the need to come to this backward shithole and probe our redneck's asses.

Yes, it's pretty arrogant to think that we're the only life in the universe. But it's even more arrogant to think that a species so incredibly advanced as to have developed a way to travel across the almost unimaginably vast distances of interstellar space would give a flying fuck about a primitive species that only recent developed simple chemical rockets.

We wouldn't probably wouldn't even qualify as a child's ant farm to a species that advanced.