Slashdot Mirror


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?

225 of 412 comments (clear)

  1. Alien Bastards by puddingebola · · Score: 5, Funny

    First they take my dish TV out last weekend during the playoffs, now they attack the space station.

    1. Re:Alien Bastards by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      Think of the potential for urban pacification :D

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

  2. Seems obvious by MAXOMENOS · · Score: 5, Funny

    Clearly it was a reflection off a window. (Collects check from alien conspiracy.)

    1. Re:Seems obvious by 110010001000 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I agree. (Paypal from Illuminati received)

    2. Re:Seems obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      It has all signs of a reflection, even the color split. Something bends the light and splits it into different wavelengths, just like a rainbow. It is red at the bottom (long waves) and blue on the top (short waves). What precisely causes this is a good question, but my guess is a curved lens/window getting hit by sunlight at a certain angle.

      I wouldn't be surprised if somebody insists the light is bend by a cloaking device though. Once people start to believe NASA stopped going to the moon because the aliens said they would attack earth if they did or talked about it, then I'm willing to believe people will claim anything to "prove" aliens exist.

    3. Re:Seems obvious by 110010001000 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I agree. The light is bent by a cloaking device. So we have double confirmation.

    4. Re: Seems obvious by D.McG. · · Score: 5, Funny

      The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

    5. Re:Seems obvious by Allasard · · Score: 1
      I think it's most likely the edge of some Aurora, based on the height off the earth and the changing appearance he showed.

      Just like this video: (Which is time lapsed, so much faster movement)

      Youtube
      or this pic:
      Pic

    6. Re:Seems obvious by Layzej · · Score: 4, Informative

      Neil Tyson talks about UFOs and the argument from ignorance "UFO. The U stands for unidentified. You can't say 'I don't know what it is, so it must be an alien from outerspace visiting from another planet.' If you don't know what it is... "- https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    7. Re:Seems obvious by Anon-Admin · · Score: 1

      I thought it looked like a Sprite

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      But Im at work and can not watch the video.

    8. Re:Seems obvious by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      This illusion appears to last far longer than a typical sprite.

    9. Re:Seems obvious by ryanmc1 · · Score: 5, Funny

      We have consensus. The science is now settled and anyone that says otherwise is a denier.

    10. Re:Seems obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There is no such thing as a cloaking device (Collects latinum from Romulan handlers)

    11. Re:Seems obvious by ripvlan · · Score: 1

      I was going with martian finger print on the glass. or spec of dust and/or sunlight hitting the lens.

    12. Re:Seems obvious by omnichad · · Score: 2

      my guess is a curved lens/window getting hit by sunlight at a certain angle.

      JJ Abrams already ruined Star Trek with too much lens flare. Now he's going after real space.

    13. Re:Seems obvious by mrbester · · Score: 2

      What rating denier? If you don't specify a number you'll get rights with the wrong opacity.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    14. Re:Seems obvious by Loadmaster · · Score: 1

      Triple confirmation.

      This looks cloaked

      I can tell from some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few cloaks in my time

    15. Re:Seems obvious by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2

      Burberry manufactures cloaks.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    16. Re:Seems obvious by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 2

      And I LIKED Pluto.

      Hey, you can still like Pluto, we won't think any less of you for it. What happens between two consenting adults or space-borne objects is nobody's business but your own.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    17. Re:Seems obvious by JoeMerchant · · Score: 2

      Also, if you ever try to watch the feed in question: http://www.ustream.tv/embed/17... it goes down about 25 times per hour, especially when approaching populated areas. There's nothing suspicious in the coincidence that the feed went down when this image appeared - I'd be more surprised if we got 5 minutes of continuous coverage, of anything, from the ISS feed.

    18. Re: Seems obvious by Coisiche · · Score: 1

      I meant in the context of them being in cahoots with any government on earth, as the conspiracy in the article alleges. I do absolutely believe that extraterrestrial life will exist but I also absolutely believe that it's never been anywhere near this planet.

    19. Re: Seems obvious by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      ...it goes down about 25 times per hour

      Damn, that's a lot of UFO's... ;)

    20. Re:Seems obvious by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      "the police's main job is to protect you" "I'm with tech support, I'm here to help" etc

    21. Re: Seems obvious by NotDrWho · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    22. Re:Seems obvious by xanadu113 · · Score: 1

      Clearly you are misled. The moon landing was faked. They couldn't POSSIBLY have flown to the moon, because it's a backdrop for the flat Earth... Also, man will NEVER fly.. it's one huge hoax.. =)

      --
      -Myke
    23. Re:Seems obvious by mindwhip · · Score: 1

      It could also just be a Soviet spy (or for that matter CIA) sat that got carelessly too close to the ISS...

      *checks bitcoin wallet*

      Yup! Absolutely was a spy sat

      --
      [The Universe] has gone offline.
    24. Re: Seems obvious by xanadu113 · · Score: 1

      You forgot about the implants. =)

      --
      -Myke
    25. Re:Seems obvious by mindwhip · · Score: 3, Funny

      Actually forget that... it's a ghost and part of the marketing campaign for the Ghostbusters reboot...

      *checks offshore account*

      what no payment? dam... maybe that was the actual truth :(

      --
      [The Universe] has gone offline.
    26. Re: Seems obvious by etinin · · Score: 1

      On Slashdot, even UFOs are M$'s fault!

      --
      "I decided I could write something better than everything out there in two weeks. And I was right." - Linus Torvalds
    27. Re: Seems obvious by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > 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.

      Actually you're the ignorant one to think that humans are boring.

      For one, Free Will doesn't exist on most planets, so we are _extremely interesting_ to most species as they study the evolution and development of Consciousness.

      i.e. Considering our advancement in a mere 200,000 years compared to most other species that have take 2,000,000 (million) years to reach the same level, yeah, the progression and outcome of The Earth Experiment is highly regarded as being important.

      Sorry that you don't feel your life is special by you. Carry on with your boring life.

      --
      First Contact is tentatively scheduled for ~2024. Are you ready for a new perspective?

    28. Re: Seems obvious by Mantrid42 · · Score: 1

      Haha, what?

    29. Re:Seems obvious by null+etc. · · Score: 1

      Considering your name is an anagram of "moon exams", I believe it.

    30. Re:Seems obvious by fsckinhippies · · Score: 1

      Your gender is whatever you want it to be at that moment, we can cover everyone that wants insurance without raising premiums, people that jump the border just want to obey our laws. The list is even longer on my side. What is your point?

    31. Re: Seems obvious by fsckinhippies · · Score: 1

      I* mean it in the context of you will say anything to make your point, back away when challenged, and pretend it never happened. Why did you pick those arguments to come here with? If you put your balls on the table, they may be smashed :)

    32. Re:Seems obvious by ventsyv · · Score: 1

      That's exactly what I thought. Coincidently, there have been very strong solar flares the last couple of days.

    33. Re:Seems obvious by Reziac · · Score: 1

      There's a lot of random space junk floating around up there. I think I'd have to eliminate that possibility before I looked for explanations further afield (even tho I don't think we're alone in the cosmos).

      I did wonder what the triangular one came from; it looks like part of a pressure latch.

      One problem with the footage is there's no real perspective. Is it a tiny object right next to the lens, or a big object far away?

      Another reason these strike me as random space junk is that the shapes look like parts of something else, not whole in themselves.

      As to the apparently-irregular movement, 3D rotation can be very deceptive.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    34. Re:Seems obvious by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Clearly it was a reflection off a window. (Collects check from alien conspiracy.)

      Swamp gas, looks to me.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    35. Re: Seems obvious by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      Those are not the highly advanced life forms that developed the intersteller drive. Those are their idiot relative tourists, and it's a wonder that they don't leave even more trash around!

    36. Re:Seems obvious by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I agree. (Paypal from Illuminati received)

      Of course! (wife kicks me in the ass)

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    37. Re:Seems obvious by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Maybe my eyes are going but it didn't look like it moved with respect to the camera, perhaps a small hair on the lens or floating between the lens and window? It looked like it was out of focus, like it was too close to the camera to be properly resolved.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  3. Hilarious by Sasayaki · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...)

    --
    Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
    1. Re:Hilarious by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Your arguments are solid except the first one. Censorship of such a thing (if it were real, ha ha) would be done by the military, not by NASA. Remember, the feds have taps into all long-haul internet links in the country, all email passing across the open internet is archived and data mined (at minimum headers, but since they admit that, I'm going to assume contents) and so on. It's not a stretch to believe that there could be someone with their finger on the button there... if you could believe in aliens, especially.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Great points.

      What kind of experience does someone need to get a job in the NASA Alien Coverup PR department? I've been looking to join in one of the great conspiracies of our age and this seems like a solid growth industry with every whack job posting their crazy opinions on YouTube. J/K, right?

    3. Re:Hilarious by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

      So...it's aliens then?

    4. Re:Hilarious by John+Allsup · · Score: 1

      NASA don't pay they guy hovering over the "SHUT IT ALL DOWN" button: the NSA and CIA do.

      As for the failure to hit the SHUT IT ALL DOWN button, in a hidden ex-employee processing centre on an unknown island, and ex-NSA operative is having his memory erased.

      They were smart enough, but they trusted NSA's conspiracy-with-aliens department when it said that there was no reason to worry. As mentioned above, the result is a few soon-to-be-ex-employees quickly moved to overseas assignments where their memories are erased, and reasons for dismissal injected, prior to formal disciplinary dismissal proceedings.

      If in doubt, ask a member of the NSA's conspiracy-with-aliens department, and remember to run away and hide before they erase your mind. ;-)

      --
      John_Chalisque
    5. Re:Hilarious by Surfer51 · · Score: 1
      --
      When you think that you are right. You could be wrong. When you think that you are wrong, you could be right. Don't jump
    6. Re:Hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      - 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".

      Vaguely recall that NASA instituted a FIVE minute delay on external camera feed from shuttle(?), but continued live feed from inside the craft. That was after a UFO flap several years ago. May be that is the same protocol that ISS also follows.

    7. Re:Hilarious by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      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

      ...

      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...)

      Unless it's government mandated and NASA want the secret to get out! How else to explain how they could fuck up such a trivial job so often......mind.....blown (I wish I could insert that picture of bill and ted whoah face)

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    8. Re:Hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      None of those things are required. This has happened about 4-5 dozen times over the years and each time you had a blurry object come into focus, the moment it does the feed cuts out. All it takes is a very low quality piece of image recognition software and a map saying "this part of the image is safe" with a filter saying "don't blank the screen if it's the Earth." Both the ISS and the Earth would be exceptionally easy to pick out (Zoneminder could do it as the ISS is fixed whenever the camera stops.)

    9. Re:Hilarious by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 4, Funny

      The existence of aliens would drive demands for a HUGE boost to NASA's budget. So much for conspiracies.

      But let's pretend it's a UFO - "Build a dome and make them pay for it!"

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    10. Re:Hilarious by Thanshin · · Score: 1

      Space Debris

      /thread

    11. Re:Hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your assumptions are wrong (not saying that it's aliens, but it might be):

      Regarding your first 2 assumptions:
      Maybe the aliens are in contact with NASA/Government
      Hence NASA would know roughly when they'll need to block the feed,
      If they where a bit sloppy about it, some footage could easily have slipped through.
      (so instead of Schroeder's competence we now have sloppy enforcement, and hey that's not at all unlikely)

      Regarding the 3th assumption
      The aliens might just be humoring the governments they're in contact with, they have no reason to hide from us or fear us:
      - they are obviously more technologically advanced then we are (after all they managed to travel here)
      - we have no spacebased defensive/offensive capability AFAIK, and even if we did see the previous point
      - we likely don't know (for sure) where they are from, thus we have no ability to win a potential conflict as we can't take it to them

      Regarding the 4th assumption:
      Space is big, observers are few, and non-official observers are easily discredited if something slips through

      Regarding your 5th assumption
      The aliens might similarly be in contact with the other space-faring governments on the planet

    12. Re:Hilarious by Sasayaki · · Score: 1

      Interesting, since I just learned about this kind of thing...

      This is what's called the ad-hoc fallacy. The fallacy is where one party introduces new information for which there is no evidence at all, except that it fits a conclusion that party has already accepted.

      For example:

      Your neighbour Ted is your best friend, and an honest man. Ted would never steal from you. Yet you come home and find your house is burgled! You find muddy footprints that match Ted's unique shoe-print in your house, and you confide in your wife. "Maybe Ted stole from us..."

      "Or maybe," says your wife, "someone stole Ted's shoes."

      You peek out the window. Ted's shoes are by the door.

      "Maybe," says your wife, "the thief put them back when they were done."

      "Why would they do that?"

      "Maybe they wanted to frame Ted."

      "Why would they want to do *that*? Everyone loves Ted."

      "Maybe Ted owes the mafia a gambling debt from college."

      Etc etc. The problem is there's an infinite amount of bullshit in the world and only a finite amount of truth.

      --
      Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
    13. Re:Hilarious by Sasayaki · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh shit, I'm a fuckwit?

      Oh god.

      I... I never knew.

      --
      Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
    14. Re:Hilarious by Sasayaki · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >Maybe the aliens are in contact with NASA/Government

      If so, in't it much simpler for NASA to say to these aliens (who can travel between worlds easily), "Hey, don't fly in THIS specific spot during this specific time, by the way it's optical range for a shitty webcam on a fixed, predictable path, so like, it's really really tiny and SPACE IS BIG GUYS, just seriously avoid this tiny strip and you're fine."

      That's like them saying, "Hey aliens, when you're visiting Earth and wandering around totally undisguised, try to avoid the front door NASA headquarters because we are filming a press release there today."

      > The aliens might just be humoring the governments they're in contact with, they have no reason to hide from us or fear us

      So now they're... just trolling us?

      Space is big, so obviously, this is deliberate action. If they wanted to reveal themselves they wouldn't do so via a grainy image from the ISS; they could just appear over New York City and just hover for a while. If they wanted to hide, again, they could simply not be in this one specific spot at this one specific time.

      > Space is big, observers are few, and non-official observers are easily discredited if something slips through

      It's possible to discredit a few people, but with collaboration it becomes harder. I can concede an occasional independent voice may be silenced, but this kind of thing requires a competence that the US government has shown with literally no other part of its administration.

      > The aliens might similarly be in contact with the other space-faring governments on the planet

      That assumes that essentially the Chinese (current frenemies of the US), the EU (a group of many man disparate countries with plenty of quasi-rogue-state elements present), the Russians (traditional enemies of the US and relations are quite cold right now), the Indians (who are third-world aligned but lean toward Russia) would all agree to, under no circumstances, no matter how bad it got, no matter what, including things like the total collapse of the USSR which happened not all that long ago, or during heightened tensions such as Russia playing in the Syrian sandpit, or Russia invading Georgia, or Russia carving up the Ukraine, would never ever blab about this, ever.

      It's the same problem with fake moon landings. The Russians had roughly equal instruments pointing toward the moon and tracked every US launch made there, and put their best minds to work analyzing it (for military purposes). If the landing was fake, they would laud this over the corrupt capitalist pig-dogs for all eternity, but even they acknowledge the US was really there.

      --
      Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
    15. Re: Hilarious by zuckie13 · · Score: 2

      Except it's not a direct stream to the ground. ISS -> TDRS (Hands over to a new satellite three times every 90 minutes) -> Ground -> Streaming service where the guy recorded it.

    16. Re:Hilarious by RivenAleem · · Score: 2, Funny

      This is exactly the kind of misdirecting post someone at NASA would think up to deflect our attention from what they are REALLY trying to hide. How do you explain that the feed DID actually drop out after the reflection showed up?

      What if, the reflection, and the loss of feed are BOTH fabricated to distract us from something even bigger?

    17. Re:Hilarious by Sloppy · · Score: 2

      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.

      Yes, but every single one of those people are in on it! That is how diabolical this conspiracy is.

      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.

      Them too! If there's one thing we all know, it's that humans all over the world always agree to set aside their differences and cooperate for the greater good!

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    18. Re:Hilarious by Evtim · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Basically I have similar arguments when dealing with moon landing deniers. If you take into account the whole effort behind the Apollo program [20 000 companies and universities employed, more than 400 000 people only in US working on it, the constant live feed of the communications between the spacecraft and mission control [that you could listen to yourself with some decent gear], the amateur astronomers watching, the Russians watching etc. it is WAY, WAY more difficult [bordering on the impossible] to fake the landing than to simply go there! Especially in times when movie technology was so much simpler...I mean simulating zero-gravity back then? Not a chance...even today [Gravity] when they tried simulation rather than put the actors in the Vomit comet it is immediately obvious that it is a fake....

    19. Re:Hilarious by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      That is exactly what they want you to think.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    20. Re: Hilarious by Sloppy · · Score: 2

      Yep, because if I were going to have a classified satellite, I'd put it in orbit near the ISS, where lots of different governments can easily monitor it. That way, they could all cooperate on keeping it a secret from each other.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    21. Re:Hilarious by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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."

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    22. Re:Hilarious by Not-a-Neg · · Score: 1

      Your forgot the biggest assumption of all: that the alien UFO had pulled into a precision orbit going the same direction and velocity as the space station.

      --
      -==- Buy a Mac and leave me alone!
    23. Re:Hilarious by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Funny

      The NSA and CIA are too busy sorting through your emails, tweets and text messages to be doing this kind of shit, you terrorist.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    24. Re: Hilarious by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Most don't. ;)

    25. Re: Hilarious by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      I actually would have thought they'd be able to come up with better.

    26. Re: Hilarious by Type44Q · · Score: 3, Funny

      Why does no one ever consider the [admittedly remote] possibility that the moon landings were faked... on the moon? :)

    27. Re:Hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Right, because the military has the time, interest and competence to monitor all these various communications feeds and shut them down. They couldn't even stop a contractor from walking out the door of a secure facility with tons of sensitive documents.... Whenever I hear these conspiracy theories that involve the government engaging in huge multi-decade clandestine operations that are run perfectly with not a single person leaking information, my response is "I only wish my government were competent enough to actually do something like that"...

    28. Re:Hilarious by jittles · · Score: 1

      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...)

      Why would they static out the image when they could just have the MIB send out a light pulse and wipe everyone's memory? Kudos to Scott for looking away just in time to save his memory of the incident!

    29. Re:Hilarious by JonnyCalcutta · · Score: 1

      There's actually only 14 people left who aren't in on it. Ironic really that all but 2 of them read Slashdot.

    30. Re:Hilarious by kheldan · · Score: 1

      I may be an open-minded person when it comes to subjects like this, but come on, people, let's think things through. At best, what we saw there was some classified government satellite, and the NSA/CIA/whoever has an agreement with NASA to not show it to the public if it happens to be in line of sight of the ISS's cameras. Wouldn't even qualify as a 'conspiracy', just your garden-variety National Security decision.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    31. Re:Hilarious by careysub · · Score: 1

      Lets add to the story. The destruction of the Columbia on re-entry in 2003 was actually the activation of a destruct mode by NASA to silence the crew when one of the crewmen was heard saying "I've had enough of this lying. I am going to tell everyone about our meeting with the Alien!"

      And look at the list of Shuttle astronauts who have died of "accidents" and "natural causes! Ha I say! Clearly they were taken out to shut them up.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    32. Re: Hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Old joke-- It's true that NASA hired Stanley Kubrick to fake the moon landings. What's not as well known, however, is that to save money, he filmed on location. *rimshot*

    33. Re:Hilarious by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Maybe the aliens are in contact with NASA/Government

      Maybe aliens are NASA and the government.

      This is why it is important to vote so the wrong lizard alien does not get into office.

    34. Re:Hilarious by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      That's one way to get a strategic moon base :-)

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    35. Re:Hilarious by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      As to various governents not on the same side all not talking, that could easily be explained by: a) only being known at the highest levels and/or in some deep state black ops agency in each country b) the alien equivalent to trinkets the european explorers gave to the less advanced cultures they encountered that they don't want to share because it gives them an advantage

      It could also be that when a government does speak up, nobody listens anymore since it is just assumed to be a story told by whack-jobs. The Canadian Minister of Defense has come out and told everyone that governments are covering it up. There are plenty of high up US military personnel that have come out with stories also. But they end up on the alien conspiracy shows so everyone believes it must be fake.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    36. Re:Hilarious by meerling · · Score: 1

      Maybe it was just a reflection or some other false artifact.
      On the other hand, I wonder if it was some new kind of atmospheric or plasma based event that got recorded which we didn't know about before. (Like the Blue Sprites not so long ago.) That could open up some interesting science for certain fields.

      Aliens? LOL!!!! Not bloody likely. It's funny how so many people upon seeing something they don't immediately recognize jump on the alien excuse.
      If nothing else, and you do assume the alien thing, think about how they'd act.
      Hollywood wants us to think they'll conquer or exterminate us. Yeah, that's obviously not occurring.
      Lots of people think they'd want to make contact. Again, that doesn't fit with what we've seen anywhere.
      Other people think it's being kept a big secret. Other than the general incompetence of the governments of the world, you'd have to assume the aliens with interstellar level tech would be at least somewhat competent at hiding their end of the bargain, and that's obviously not happening.
      Of course, they might not care about us at all. In which case, this apparent incompetent attempts at hiding are also irrational, so that won't fly either.
      It has been suggested it's a big joke. Curse you damned drunken space frat boys! LoL!

      People should try exhausting all reasonable and potentially supportable possibilities before going off on the fantasy explanations of Aliens, Ghosts, Divine Intervention, etcetera.

    37. Re:Hilarious by Zeroko · · Score: 1

      A conspiracy theorist would likely say they fake their incompetence & release documents that do not reveal anything they want to keep secret...

    38. Re: Hilarious by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      It certainly isn't, nor would an anemic comeback like that - or, for that matter, other posts by the parent - have been modded-up under ordinary circumstances. In fact, the sheer volume of desperate shilling going on strongly suggests that this particular topic might be of actual interest (I for one am on the fence, as there's nowhere else to sit for a rational-yet-openminded skeptic)... but the shilling and the bullshit mods certainly make me wonder...

    39. Re: Hilarious by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Why does no one ever consider the [admittedly remote] possibility that the moon landings were faked... on the moon? :)

      No! They were clearly faked; it was a landing on the Sun, with the lens stopped way down!!!

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    40. Re:Hilarious by athenaprime · · Score: 1

      Right, because the military has the time, interest and competence to monitor all these various communications feeds and shut them down. They couldn't even stop a contractor from walking out the door of a secure facility with tons of sensitive documents.... Whenever I hear these conspiracy theories that involve the government engaging in huge multi-decade clandestine operations that are run perfectly with not a single person leaking information, my response is "I only wish my government were competent enough to actually do something like that"...

      Well, if they weren't so busy watching satellite feeds for the aliens...

    41. Re:Hilarious by LienRag · · Score: 1

      Non-native english speaker here: what does it mean?
      There is a chance that this word that you keep using actually means what I think it means, but I'd rather have confirmation...

    42. Re: Hilarious by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      If it were a satellite, it would likely be in focus. If you look at the video, the Earth, and parts of the ISS are in focus, while this object is out of focus. This likely means it is something close to the camera, a reflection off of the window (this camera isn't outside the pressurized area), or something moving between the camera and the window (like a hair or dust particle).

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    43. Re:Hilarious by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      Everyone, you can either be a conspirator or a theorist. They say the grass is always greener on the other side, but that isn't true at all. The theorists sometimes wish they were with us conspirators, but we conspirators never wish we were the theorists. We'll always have the advantage, so join us!

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  4. Blurry by JavaBear · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.**

    1. Re:Blurry by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      I don't see how the field of depth is infinity. The edge of the Earth is blurry in the video too. In fact the whole video is blurry.

    2. Re:Blurry by ledow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Blurry by butzwonker · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it be hilarious if alien space craft actually looked that blurry due to the way their warp drives operate? Oh shit, now that I've said that I realize that somebody will post this "theory" as a plain obvious "fact" somewhere ...

    4. Re:Blurry by butzwonker · · Score: 1

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

      But... couldn't we 'electronically enhance' it such that after 3 days slowly a picture of dickbutt emerges?

    5. Re:Blurry by medv4380 · · Score: 1

      It's convenient that it cuts out before it can go behind or in front of anything to prove your hypothesis. It's also sitting at the edge of the Earths horizon with no visible star field to again prove your hypothesis. Now what makes it seem like it's probably some light trick is that if it was at the horizon it would be huge, and visible from Earth. It also has an abrupt bounce in it at the 35 to 36 second mark that an object of that size wouldn't be able to do unless it was a trick of the light like a prim being jostled.

    6. Re:Blurry by ripvlan · · Score: 1

      it is designed to be blurry for a reason .... Plausible Deniability !!!!

      The guys in the lab have to adjust it to be just off-focus before launching. Duh - everyone knows that.

    7. Re:Blurry by ledow · · Score: 1

      No.

      An FO, by definition, is flying (not established here) and an object (also not established here).

      Optical effects are not classed as UFO's in any way, shape or form. Otherwise every rainbow would be a UFO, even lens flare, every glint of sun.

    8. Re:Blurry by ledow · · Score: 1

      Oh, God, the nutters really are out in force today.

      A pair of birds. Or possibly insects (dragonflies, etc.) Many such animals fly close in pairs, especially when mating. And they fly and move and are small enough to need zooming in and have a silhouette that changes constantly.

      Again, you tick ALL the boxes. Two small blurry dots, of indeterminate size, at indeterminate distances, comprising basically a handful of pixels on a CMOS camera element (no matter how much the optics zoom in) poorly recorded, at speed, in a compressed format, from an anonymous "source" (Does homeland security often allow people to copy their footage around?). Short of analysing JPEG artifacts, you're basically getting a full five-nutters-out-of-five there.

      And it's honestly, truly, really, an animal of some kind. Or possibly even insects. It's really that impossible to gauge size, distance, speed, that it could be anything that covers vaguely the same angular coverage and velocity. Draw a cone from the camera CCD. Stick an ant on the covering of the gimballed sphere that planes/helicopters with cameras use to film in 360, then extrapolate the full range of possible coverage back to the known background (houses etc.). Could be anything.

      If they're cloaked, they're cloaked badly.
      If they're cloaked badly, we'd see a lot more of them and a lot more suspicious things than this.
      If they're not cloaked, your argument is a nonsense.

      And this one isn't cloaked because you can see it. Presumably in IR but it's hard to tell the optical range on monochrome imagery, it could be IR, near-IR or some cheap webcam at night (which will pick up all kinds of things). And given that the background is white, and this thing is black, that probably means it's warm and/or visible. Like a bird.

      All the spectrum in the world doesn't explain why they're so crap at actually staying hidden while also never quite managing to be larger than a couple of pixels on any camera in the world, ever.

      Honestly, be scientific, play Devil's Advocate, think "how could I fake that if I wanted to". I can think of a thousand ways but probably the easiest is just film things a lot until something like that happens by chance. I could get a better hit-ratio just by random chance, so long as I remember to delete the things that obviously WEREN'T UFO's (like when the birds wings are clearly visible, etc.).

      I'll be honest... I'd probably lay money on a SINGLE bird of prey, with a camera as crap as that. Constantly moving at speed, over the top of a town, flies down to land/make home towards the end, while twisting and turning in the air drafts.

    9. Re:Blurry by Raenex · · Score: 1

      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.

      Where's your mathematical analysis, then, that resolves the Fermi paradox?

    10. Re:Blurry by hucker75 · · Score: 1

      You mean depth of field. Field of depth would be a big lake or something.

    11. Re:Blurry by ledow · · Score: 1

      Different estimates of variables plugged into the same equation.

      You still end up with "life out there". Just not life you're ever going to meet, by chance, in our lifetime.

      And we're talking probability. For the exact reason I say it's VIRTUALLY certain, I can't say it's certain. But to claim that out of billions of galaxies there's one tiny speck of a star for one tiny fraction of an era that produces one tiny planet on which starts life, and it can't happen again.

      Fermi and Drake are the same equations with different values plugged in for variables. I just don't "believe" in the most pessimistic values of the variables. And maths doesn't help you there.

    12. Re:Blurry by Raenex · · Score: 1

      So you aren't willing to demonstrate the actual mathematics behind your "mathematically virtually-guarantee" claim. But we should take your word for it as a self-claimed mathematician.

    13. Re:Blurry by ledow · · Score: 1

      I'm a mathematician. I have a degree from a London university in mathematical and computational sciences. That doesn't make me an astrophysicist or an expert. Never claimed that. In fact, it makes me really crap at arithmetic, spreadsheets and quite a lot of shit (like modern voting, which I refuse to partake in).

      As a mathematician, the maths is infallible. What you're mistaking is the assumptions you plug into the numbers that you put into the maths, their source, accuracy, reliability, variability, and that they reflect any kind of reality or that the equations will give you an answer that's useful. Welcome to maths.

      The Drake equation IS the maths. It's that simple. What's not simple is the numbers you plug into it.

      Drake says, if you plug in what are in my opinion reasonably accurate numbers from the observable universe, that there's life out there to a virtual certainty. But, actually, it also plops out of the equations that the chances of ever coinciding with them in a universe in our entire existence is incredibly miniscule.

      The Fermi paradox is really that if you plug in other numbers, you can get a conclusion that we should have ALREADY been visited and then jumps to a second conclusion that this can't be true (which is a bizarre thing to assume given the timescales that come out of such things).

      Both the same. Different assumptions. Produce differing results. That, through the haze of personal interpretation, can be taken to be anything from absolute bollocks to virtual certainty. But there's a reason that the Fermi "paradox" doesn't get quite as much press as simple Drake equations.

      Find your most reliable set of numbers from sources you believe. Plug them into Drake. See what you get out. Fermi lies almost at the extreme of estimates for the variables. And makes several other assumptions (i.e. that aliens haven't visited us ever since we turned up, which has varying definitions of "visited", "us" and "turned up").

      Hint: A mathematician doesn't dig out the equations and source data until he's dead certain. I'm not, as pointed out. But the maths is there for you to read and Fermi is basically "Ner, ner, we think you're wrong cos, look, we can fiddle the numbers to mean they should have knocked on the door last Wednesday". It doesn't mean that you can prove either wrong or right (proof is a HUGE word in mathematics), they're both mathematically-correct given the assumptions taken. Whether those assumptions are reasonable or bullshit is a matter of personal choice, but run the numbers yourself and convince yourself:

      http://www.classbrain.com/artm...

    14. Re:Blurry by Raenex · · Score: 1

      That's a lot of talking for somebody who "mathematically virtually-guarantee[d]" an outcome. Don't tell me to plug in the numbers, tell me what numbers you plugged in. My guess is you didn't plug any in, and were just talking out your ass.

  5. OT: wont, not want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... as people are wont to do

    1. Re:OT: wont, not want by Sasayaki · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm not a writer, I'm a typoist.

      --
      Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
    2. Re:OT: wont, not want by Eosi · · Score: 1

      I'm not a writer, I'm a typoist.

      Why are you on Slashdot? Go finish the next novel in the Lacuna saga. Been too long since the last one. :-) Oh, please and thank you. :-)

    3. Re: OT: wont, not want by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      I find it downright hilarious that this got down-modded; surely it would be less obvious just to let the "UFO nuts" spew their nonsense without feeling the need to send out the shills?? :)

    4. Re:OT: wont, not want by Sasayaki · · Score: 1

      Hahaha!

      Yeah, I'm still working on it. :D Thanks for reading though!

      --
      Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
    5. Re: OT: wont, not want by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Just kidding... I really ought to point out, however, that while you may be a writer, you're certainly not much of a thinker.

      I don't currently have mod points, but that line would have made me consider down modding it in some way. You are calling one of your fellow geeks and idiot, and you don't see anything wrong with that.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  6. Where? by imashination · · Score: 2

    Is it hiding behind the lens flare from the sunrise on the left?

  7. God by ledow · · Score: 4, Funny

    Dear God,

    I'd like to file a bug report.

    1. Re:God by jeffasselin · · Score: 1

      The zerg are not a bug, they're a feature.

      --
      The Xel'naga.

      --
      If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
    2. Re:God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Dear God,

      I'd like to file a bug report.

      Sure. Can you reproduce the problem?

      Sincerely,

      God

    3. Re:God by ledow · · Score: 1

      But I have a reproducible test case, and have tried many alternate idio - I mean humans.

      If you could at least consider not putting this tripe into the next release, due anywhere from 9 months from now to the next million years, I'd be really grateful.

  8. Plasma by Brethil · · Score: 1

    Looks like an aurora. Could it be the shock from an explosion?

    1. Re:Plasma by swb · · Score: 1

      It looks to me like some kind of plume.

      My question is telemetry -- do we know the orbital location of ISS when the video was taken and can that be used to approximate the location of the phenomena? What part of earth might be centered under that location?

    2. Re: Plasma by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Plumes aren't likely to rise above the atmosphere...

    3. Re: Plasma by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      The ISS is technically still inside Earth's atmosphere. It's only 220 miles up, which places it inside the thermosphere still.

  9. Maybe NASA is just the first to fall by Cyphase · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Maybe the aliens cut out the feed themselves. Maybe they're now in control of NASA. Maybe the invasion.. is beginning..

    --
    by Cyphase ( 907627 )
    1. Re:Maybe NASA is just the first to fall by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Maybe the aliens cut out the feed themselves. Maybe they're now in control of NASA. Maybe the invasion.. is beginning..

      Next time one gets back their movements will be...off and they'll seem a bit weird. We'll just say oh they've been in space then BAM giant bug monster eating everyone!

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  10. Re:Unconscionable by phishybongwaters · · Score: 2

    How exactly did this shutdown change your life for the worse? Did you even apply for the jobs you are complaining about? Do you realize that most jobs don't pay a relocation fee? Let me guess, you are also one of those people who thinks healthcare should be a paid for industry, and you'll be DAMNED before you put money into a fund that helps people other than yourself.

  11. UFO? I think not. by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Funny

    But it probably is a cover-up: this blob looks very much like some kind of flying grassy knoll.

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  12. Bored astronauts... by Junta · · Score: 1

    Easy, they got bored and decided to play horseshoes. How hard was that?

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  13. If it were aliens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re: If it were aliens by jovius · · Score: 1

      You have it backwards. Aliens and UFOs are government created distractions to hide the fact that people who work for NASA are aliens and of extraterrestrial origin.

      "It's like a finger pointing at the Moon. Do not concentrate on the finger, or you'll miss all of the heavenly glory", a great thinker once said. It basically means that the UFO exhaust flames are in other direction.

    2. Re: If it were aliens by nintendoeats · · Score: 2

      But...why would a race that has control over time and space want to run an under-funded government agency?...

    3. Re: If it were aliens by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Astronaut groupies.

      Once you realize they are kind of puritan* it makes sense. Do you realize how long it takes to go from planet to planet. They are horny as sailors. At least they aren't out anal probing or collecting cow uterus, like the pervert aliens.

      * Aliens keep their women back home, barefoot and pregnant.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    4. Re: If it were aliens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Same reason they run the DMV. On their home world, bureaucracy was the lowest and most reviled form of torture, apart from throwing an entire species to the Lizard pits of Zith and or dropping a clone bomb with the dial set to "Flying Sarlacs of Yendor". For species they really and truly despise, they prefer the slow sisyphean cannibalism of bureaucracy.

    5. Re:If it were aliens by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      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.

      Unless they themselves are the aliens...

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    6. Re: If it were aliens by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      They work in the CIA?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    7. Re:If it were aliens by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      Not really, NASA does employ foreign nationals. They're just like US citizens, only have different color on ID badge.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    8. Re: If it were aliens by athenaprime · · Score: 1

      "Gubmint Bureaucracy Simulator 5000! Download the first five levels FREE From Zaxxar's App Store Now! (In-app purchases may cost significant currency. Not responsible for addictive behavior.)"

    9. Re: If it were aliens by Keybounce · · Score: 1

      Oh, so they are sloths passing jokes in the office?

  14. Re:Now do you believe? by tripleevenfall · · Score: 1

    "Threatening me with eternal damnation won't get you in any faster."

  15. "Appears" by SB5407 · · Score: 2

    The video doesn't show it "appearing", the video starts with it there. And it doesn't move or do anything interesting. Disappointing.

    1. Re:"Appears" by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 2

      Yeah, alien spacecraft can hover. Big whoop...

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  16. It's a mic by tgibson · · Score: 5, Funny

    Its just a boom mic getting into the shot on the soundstage. You UFO-believers and your wacky theories *rolls eyes*

  17. Oh dear fucking god.... by Lumpy · · Score: 2

    Why dont we just change the name of slashdot to Gawker media?

    Really This is news? you guys are now grabbing crap from nutjob whack sites? I hears there is some great stuff out there on 4chan.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:Oh dear fucking god.... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      says the kid that is too chicken shit to post under his own account.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:Oh dear fucking god.... by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Wish I had mod points for ya. You and I don't agree on much, but I'm with you on this.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  18. Theme by IndigoZulu · · Score: 1

    Just listen to the music! It must be aliens.

  19. Good fucking Lord by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This kind of shit is just nuts. UFO sightings have gone down substantially with the invention of pocket high definition cameras. Because inventing magical explanations only works on blurry shit or something very conveniently out of frame. Usually when you see something that isn't blurry, it's been manipulated by digital magic. Captain Disillusion on Youtube is a master at spotting people's failures in digital manipulation. Honestly though, why would we waste any time giving the nutters the time of day? We know it's bullshit. Why do they deserve any notoriety for an overactive imagination? Why do they deserve a bullhorn and spotlight while thousands of scientists doing REAL WORK with INTEGRITY go unnoticed?

    1. Re: Good fucking Lord by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      Plus, with everyone walking around with their heads down in their screens, who is even going to notice something in the sky anymore!

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    2. Re: Good fucking Lord by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      You were saying?

  20. Space debris perhaps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Looks an awful lot like a very distant, slowly rotating, rectangular piece of mylar reflecting the sunlight. Maybe a thermal blanket from a satellite, or even one of those solar sails that was being tested. IKAROS was about that shape, although much too far away to be seen now.

  21. Re:UFO by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 1

    Come to think of it, it does look like Trump's toupee.

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  22. probably just a spider by dominux · · Score: 1

    happens to me all the time, bit of spider web over the lens. Little buggers get everywhere.

  23. Technically it can't be a UFO by clickety6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    --
    ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
    1. Re:Technically it can't be a UFO by hufter · · Score: 2

      Define flying.

    2. Re:Technically it can't be a UFO by Eloking · · Score: 1

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

      Funny comment that make me wonder, is there a technical term for unidentified space object? USO?

      --
      Elok
    3. Re:Technically it can't be a UFO by Tukz · · Score: 1

      Spaceflight is still flying.

      I quote Wikipedia: "Flight is the process by which an object moves, through an atmosphere (the air in the case of earth) or beyond it (as in the case of spaceflight) ..."

      --
      - Don't do what I do, it's probably not healthy nor safe. -
    4. Re:Technically it can't be a UFO by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      I doubt that flight requires an atmosphere.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    5. Re:Technically it can't be a UFO by bkr1_2k · · Score: 2

      Falling. With style.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    6. Re:Technically it can't be a UFO by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      I believe Douglas Adams defined it is "Falling on the ground and missing."

    7. Re:Technically it can't be a UFO by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Correct you can drive a boat or hovercraft.
      See
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      and
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    8. Re:Technically it can't be a UFO by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Define flying.

      "There is an art to flying, or rather a knack. Its knack lies in learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss. ... Clearly, it is this second part, the missing, that presents the difficulties."

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  24. Re:Aliens and ghosts dont exist by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    Tell that to Trump. He says there are 11 million of them among us :-)

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  25. Re:Aliens and ghosts dont exist by inasity_rules · · Score: 1

    My brother moved to the states. I'm pretty sure that makes him an alien, even if he is legal. He is an englishman, but does not currently reside in new york.

    --
    I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
  26. Re:Aliens and ghosts dont exist by ScentCone · · Score: 1

    Tell that to Trump. He says there are 11 million of them among us :-)

    Of course he's wrong. That number is low.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  27. Just a Communications Handover by zuckie13 · · Score: 5, Informative

    ISS does not have a magic WIFI connection to the ground to stream video 24x7 ISS transmits to the TDRS satellites in Geostationary Orbit which in turn transmit to the ground. It takes three satellites to maintain full voice communication all the way around (East, West, Gap). There are handovers of the communications three times every 90 minutes. Brief video outages are to be expected. NASA can't control when those happen. They just happen when the orbital mechanics say they will.

    1. Re:Just a Communications Handover by zuckie13 · · Score: 1

      Yes they can. Silly camera artifacts just are not that interesting.

  28. coffee break by bkmoore · · Score: 4, Funny

    I guess the UFO- detection worker was making a cup of coffee and smoking a Lucky when this UFO first appeared and was a little slow on the "chicken switch".

  29. It's not a UFO..... by tekrat · · Score: 1

    It's bigfoot.... in space!

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  30. As usual, DNA nails it... by jpellino · · Score: 1

    "On this particular Thursday, things were moving through the ionosphere many miles above the surface of the planet. Several huge yellow slab-like somethings, huge as office blocks, silent as birds, they hung in the air exactly the same way that bricks don't. The planet was almost totally oblivious of their presence. They went unnoticed at Goonhilly, they passed over Cape Canaveral without a blip, and Woomera and Jodrell Bank looked straight through them; which was a pity, because it was exactly the sort of thing they'd been looking for all these years."

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  31. Object is probably a classified satellite by JoeyRox · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  32. Re:Blue and White or Black and Gold?! by butzwonker · · Score: 1

    They are not really secret, though, only what they carry and the capabilities of the satellites are secret. The NRO mission patches are awesome, full of wizards, weird symbols and octopuses. However, it's true that the Brits have once or twice asked hobby satellite trackers to pull down their web pages and I've always wondered why. Perhaps they don't want the public to know where and when they change to a lower orbit (assuming they do)?

  33. Didn't this happen before??? by os-pc.com · · Score: 1

    Back in January 2015, there was a similar news story: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci... And now there's another. People are so dumb now a days that it doesn't even matter what is shown. Technology has also skyrocketed to unparalleled heights in sophistication that the public would simply dismiss it as science fiction. It's not very hard to trigger a shutdown when an anomaly is spotted. I mean come on, what do you think CCTV cameras do when they detect motion? RECORD! Just gotta laugh at some of these comments.

    1. Re: Didn't this happen before??? by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      The desperation evident in playing this down is extreme; some of the most illogical posts I've ever read on /. are modded +5...

    2. Re: Didn't this happen before??? by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      The comments are retarded to the point of insanity but the fact that they're being aggressively up-modded is... very interesting to say the least.

  34. UFO = Less funding. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So if this were an actual emergency the public would cut NASA's funding, and I suppose welcome our new overlords?

  35. Obvious by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    Clearly, there's no intelligent life here, so why would aliens care?

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
    1. Re:Obvious by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Clearly, there's no intelligent life here, so why would aliens care?

      Got a quota of rectums to probe before heading back to the mother ship.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  36. huge UFO by hagnat · · Score: 1

    given how little detail we can see from it, one can only wonder it - if its in fact a UFO - is miles away from the space station, and therefore it should be HUGE! bigger than the space station
    therefore, people would've been able to see it from the ground

    --
    "life is a joke, and someone is laughing at me"
  37. Pot Kettle Black by JohnStock · · Score: 1

    "Conspiracy theorists are having a field day" It seems the poster does too if he/she decided to make this an article on /. But keep pushing your blame onto conspiracy theorists instead of yourself.

  38. Re:Unconscionable by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    As a tax payer, you don't get to decide what your taxes are spent on, nor does any agency or government official owe you squat for an answer. They may even require you to file a FOIA request to get an answer. Government employees are responsible to those who oversee their agencies...hint: it's not you. You only get to put your $.02 in during elections.

    Yes, there's plenty wrong with the federal government, but your lack of understanding it isn't helping you.

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  39. Remember what the U in UFO stands for by sjbe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What do you think: is it an alien spaceship or something more likely such as a reflection from a station window?

    Have you forgotten what the "U" in UFO stands for? When you see a UFO you should stop right there. It's unidentified so you don't know what it is. You can make a list of possible explanations but until you have evidence to establish or refute any given explanation you shouldn't go further. If the "evidence" for the UFO is eye-witness testimony then you should examine the drinking habits of the observer.

    There is a saying that when you hear the sound of hoofs you should probably be thinking horses instead of zebras. Point is that there are innumerable explanations FAR more likely than an alien visitation. In fact alien visitation should be at the absolute bottom of any list of possible explanations of a UFO sighting. You might keep it on the list just because you cannot definitively rule it out but it doesn't move higher on the list unless you have some VERY compelling evidence. Some visual artifacts on film doesn't remotely qualify as very compelling.

    1. Re:Remember what the U in UFO stands for by Drethon · · Score: 1

      NO! It stands for saUcer Flying Object. As in flying saucer!

  40. Maybe science can help? by DrTomAustin · · Score: 1

    Actually looks more like an atmospheric phenomena called a blue jet. These are often times associated with a red sprite and are caused by lightning. The happen in the atmosphere at the upper part of the troposphere and nudging into the bottom-side of the ionosphere. Take a look at the wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... They are beautiful and until recently poorly understood but sorry guys not a UFO.

  41. Re:Aliens and ghosts dont exist by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    +5 Informative

    Sorry, no. You can't request your own mod up, and I'll never waste one on an AC anyway.

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  42. Simmer down, there's an easy explanation.. by modi123 · · Score: 1

    Clearly this is just a viral marketing campaign for the new Independence Day 2/ Independence Day: Resurgence movie.

    Clearly! :D

    1. Re:Simmer down, there's an easy explanation.. by aicrules · · Score: 1

      That is not a terrible explanation, nor is it a terrible idea...20th century fox can't let this go to waste

  43. What's with the vitriol? by sjbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:What's with the vitriol? by penandpaper · · Score: 4, Funny

      NdGT didn't blow it up with a cannon or anything.

      That's what the government wants you to think.

    2. Re:What's with the vitriol? by doggo · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure about Dunbal, but I'm pretty sure NdGT peed in my Cheerios. Somebody did! And who better to blame than that Pluto denier, Neil deGrasse Tyson. He'll pay when our Alien Overlords take their rightful place at the side of Earth Emperor Donald Trump! Confound it!

    3. Re:What's with the vitriol? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Assholes like Neil deGrasse Tyson are the reason why the Milgram experiments were so successful.

    4. Re:What's with the vitriol? by wonkavader · · Score: 1

      Are you not paying attention? It used to be a planet. Now it's too small to be a planet. They've blown 70% of the thing to bits. As space cannon is the only explanation.

      The question is, what are they doing with the bits? Making bitcoins?

    5. Re:What's with the vitriol? by xanadu113 · · Score: 1

      What's next..? We're building a wall around Earth to keep illegal aliens out...?

      --
      -Myke
    6. Re:What's with the vitriol? by BadBlood · · Score: 2

      And we're gonna make the Klingons pay for it.

      --


      Praying for the end of your wide-awake nightmare.
    7. Re:What's with the vitriol? by grcumb · · Score: 1

      What's next..? We're building a wall around Earth to keep illegal aliens out...?

      Overkill. We'll just pen them inside their compound when they land.

      (P.S. Don't smoke the hair. It'll kill ya.)

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    8. Re:What's with the vitriol? by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      Tyson seems to spend FAR more time criticizing other people than contributing anything positive. It reflects an overblown ego and narcissism and it gets old fast.

  44. Wow, so tyler is pushing his crap here too? by CaptnCrud · · Score: 1

    These guys are known hoaxers and peddlers of fudd, I would take anything from that channel very lightly. Just google secureteam hoaxers, they have been called out and proved to be hoaxers on numerous occasions, sort of surprised this even got press time, it's not the first video like this they have "found".

    Just looked at Scott Warings google++ wall....yep sounds like a credible source, nothing but wild proclamation video posts.....

    People like this are the reason UFO's are associated with nutbars.

  45. Pony up by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    I for one welcome our giant Equestrian Overlords.

  46. I cannot believe they still think this is a UFO by ramriot · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is a well known optical issue, where a point source or illumination outside the field of view (sun) scatters light off the diaphragm edges inside the lens (almost square when fully stopped down). The light then passes back out the lens to reflect a second time of the front elements inside surface. This results in multiple images of the point source appearing at a point in the frame that are out of focus and appear to drift and merge.

    Bet you anything you like, if the camera had been even slightly tilted during that clip the "UFO" would have shot across the frame at an integer multiple of the angular tilt.

    This effect in a slightly different manner for UFO believers is repeated often when they insist on seeing Diamond UFO's in video footage taken with a camcorder at full zoom with the iris and focus on auto. What they see with their eyes is an unfamiliar point source of light (planet, plane etc), what the camera see's is an out of focus point source vignetted by the iris to a diamond shape with often the light meter filter giving the bottom half a red or green hue.

    1. Re:I cannot believe they still think this is a UFO by Pikoro · · Score: 1

      There's even a photoshop filter to make these things. Lens flares are all the rage for your '90s webpage graphics :)

      --
      "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
    2. Re:I cannot believe they still think this is a UFO by atticus9 · · Score: 1

      Also if there were UFO's flying around and NASA wanted to cover it up, why would they stream a live feed from external cameras? They have any number of plausible excuses not to do it.

  47. IT IS ONLY A REFLECTION by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

    Yes, it is only a reflection. Pay absolutely no attention to the established fact that NASA cuts the feed every time there is one of these reflections. That is just an amazing coincidence.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re: IT IS ONLY A REFLECTION by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Well, obviously. They've got to play it down because, um... because if they don't cut the feed and discourage the whackjobs, um.. there'll be a massive load on NASA's servers... and as so eloquently pointed out above, they simply don't have the budget for that kind of nonsense.

  48. Re:Said this here before on /. ... apk by quonsar · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't they have just blocked us in their hosts file?

  49. It's just GOD by neo-mkrey · · Score: 1

    Generic Orbiting Device

  50. Surprised that Whittington did not submit this by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    THis is something that Mark Whittington or some other far right wing nut job, would normally submit and then claim that Obama had stopped the footage so that he could go cut backdoor deals with aliens.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  51. Re:Now do you believe? by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    God will not throw a horseshoe.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  52. Here's a nutty conspiracy theory by omnichad · · Score: 1

    If I was going to pick a crazy conspiracy, I'd say that North Korea was testing a nuclear bomb high in the atmosphere. The gamma rays from the blast created an outward flowing aurora when it hit the magnetosphere.

  53. Re: Now do you believe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    God does not play horseshoes with the universe.

  54. It's Obvious by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1

    It is clearly a loose wing nut.

    --
    Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
  55. X-37? by thefuz · · Score: 1

    Could this have been the X-37 (OTV 4 / USA 261)? No idea if their orbits intersect at all but I guess a rendezvous would have been discernible well ahead of time (and huge news).

    1. Re:X-37? by fullmetal55 · · Score: 1

      It certainly could be and considering the secrecy of that ship, it could have the feed shut down for secrecy reasons. That is about 1 million times more plausible than aliens.

  56. Most likely... by Topwiz · · Score: 1

    It is most likely a reflection off the end of one of the solar panels and the feed cut out on its own. If the feed was turned off on purpose, it would be more likely that a top secret spy satellite was passing nearby and they didn't want a close up to go out on the feed.

    1. Re:Most likely... by gweihir · · Score: 1

      My money is on spy satellite or the like doing maneuvering. The ISS is a big, juicy reference point.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  57. Look! Up in the Sky!... by magusxxx · · Score: 1

    Batman vs Superman II: The Return of the Phantom Zone Projector

    --
    Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
  58. Reflection, lens flare, etc. by Tribeca1248 · · Score: 1

    Doesn't look like a UFO to me, intelligent or otherwise. As the earth's surface moves beneath the ISS structures in the foreground, the "UFO" remains static in the video. Occam's Razor, anyone?

  59. Re:Now do you believe? by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

    "What does God need need with a " horseshoe shaped ufo?

  60. Bluejay 4 by cstacy · · Score: 1

    UFO is picking up speed and climbing. I'm going in closer. I can see it now. Whatever this is, it's big. Two cylindrical projections, or maybe a horseshoe. Purpose undetermined.

    Must have taken quite a bit to build a ship like this...

  61. Not a reflection. No way. by meadow · · Score: 1

    I disagree completely. I totally *does not* look like a reflection. It is moving in the far distance exactly with the surface of the troposphsere/atmosphere when is gradually moving from upper-left to lower-right on the screen as the ISS proceeds through its orbit.

    What it appears to be is some kind of gas/vapor plume which ejected out of the atmosphere for some reason. Perhaps volcanic or other activity.

  62. Hahahahahahaha by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Must have been some secret mission and they forgot the camera. Stupid on NASA's part, but even more stupid on the part of the people that think this is aliens.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  63. Peppy says: by the_almighty_gooby · · Score: 1

    Do a barrel roll!

  64. Its the Scientology Spacecraft by neoRUR · · Score: 1

    It's finally happened the Scientology spacecraft has come to take them all away..

  65. Re:I did ~40 yrs. ago... apk by Pikoro · · Score: 1

    Wow, you really are a loony. You touched on UFOs, religion, alien visitation, AND the "intergalactic zoo" theory, all in one post.

    --
    "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
  66. Just out of curiosity (pun intended) by SkyLeach · · Score: 1

    If they can stream video in visible wavelengths, why not a data stream that shows multiple wavelengths and allows people to break down and examine the data? We did fund this after all, and since it's an *international* space station none of the data should be capable of a national security classification for secrecy.

    Then there's the problem of the reflection arguments themselves. These pseudo-technical explanations are pure speculation. Either provide the optical physics showing where the reflection comes from, or you're just uttering meaningless possible explanations.

    Finally, since when does a reflection result in a feed being cut? This is the second time we've had a 'reflection' based unidentified visual artifact in a NASA feed, and the second time the feed was cut immediately after. I took a wait-and-see position on the first one, but this is becoming a pattern of behavior that is making me seriously start to question treasonous actions.

    There is no law in the United States that allows for data to be classified as secret from the people of the united states when that same data is already in the hands of other powers. You can't have a situation in which the target of secrecy is ultimately the people in a democratic republic without violating the entire foundation of the system of government itself. How can a people make informed decisions for the purposes of election when they are denied the information part of the equation?

    Bottom line, paired events like reflections and feed cuts are no longer the domain of conspiracy theorists. They are clearly deliberate and planned responses to circumstance. It's time to push for disclosure at this point.

    --
    My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so :-p
  67. It doesn't move, but the camera is, so nah. by dsmatthews9379 · · Score: 1

    The blob stays in the same part of the frame even though the camera is on the station travelling around a Earth at a very high speed. The only thing changing is the position of the sun relative to the cameras field of view through the window, which changes the lighting on the blob. So some astronaut flicked a booger onto the window glass, whoopee! i.e. Meh, space boogers, again.

  68. Re: Now do you believe? by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    Whoosh...

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  69. U F O by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    While many seem to be focusing on the "U" portion of the UFO, it just occurred to me that perhaps the "F" part may also not be very meaningful... It stands for flying right? Does something "fly" in space? Flight to me in the traditional sense would mean though an atmosphere using lift...

  70. Re:Aliens and ghosts dont exist by gzuckier · · Score: 1

    Tell that to Trump. He says there are 11 million of them among us :-)

    Actually, Trump says there are 34 million of them, and that's why he can't avoid hiring them. http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS...

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  71. Re:Unconscionable by gzuckier · · Score: 1

    I get really tired of my tax dollars paying for things that don't work or go down as the government sees fit. There's no excuse for NASA taking down this camera when it's convenient for them. My tax dollars paid for it. Likewise, when I comtact a government official, they owe it to me to reply. After all, I pay for their salary through my tax dollars. And government officials have no right to circumvent things like the requirement to allow the public to apply for jobs. It's fucking ridiculous when I see a research job at a federal laboratory posted for around $100k/yr, which is only open for applications for six days, and doesn't pay for relocation expenses. That position was written with the intent of giving it to a particular person with every intent of circumventing the requirement to conduct a fair hiring process. And my tax dollars pay for that. It's bullshit. Fuck NASA and the rest of the federal government.

    Oh Mr. Paul, relax, you can run for President next time.

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  72. Oh no! by gzuckier · · Score: 1

    ISIS has UFOs! We're doomed!

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  73. Stat Filler by Art+Challenor · · Score: 1

    “You end up with a machine which knows that by its mildest estimate it must have terrible enemies all around and within it, but it can't find them. It therefore deduces that they are well-concealed and expert, likely professional agitators and terrorists. Thus, more stringent and probing methods are called for. Those who transgress in the slightest, or of whom even small suspicions are harboured, must be treated as terrible foes. A lot of rather ordinary people will get repeatedly investigated with increasing severity until the Government Machine either finds enemies or someone very high up indeed personally turns the tide... And these people under the microscope are in fact just taking up space in the machine's numerical model. In short, innocent people are treated as hellish fiends of ingenuity and bile because there's a gap in the numbers.” Nick Harkaway, The Gone-Away World

  74. And you though Alien was a work of fiction... by mrkmpn · · Score: 1

    That's obviously the spacecraft of an Engineer.

    1. Re:And you though Alien was a work of fiction... by mrkmpn · · Score: 1

      *thought

  75. Re: Now do you believe? by salnikov · · Score: 1

    How do you know that the universe is not a horseshoe for a god?

  76. Creepy crawly by RatchetDriver · · Score: 1

    Looks like a little creature crawling across the glass very slowly

    --
    Nothing to see here. Move along.