Here's a better way of looking at it. Notice at time code, 0:42, the object approaches the shuttle from a distance slows down as it nears the shuttle and then maneuvers to the right. That clearly indicates the object is not a water droplet on the window.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f-nB8Ait-M

Here's a better way of looking at it. Notice at time code, 0:42, the object approaches the shuttle from a distance slows down as it nears the shuttle and then maneuvers to the right. That clearly indicates the object is not a water droplet on the window.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f-nB8Ait-M

That video shows a number of ufos in space. Do you know anything about the ufo by the moon( 44 secs into the movie ) Is this real nasa footage, or just a fake?

Hi morrison1976,

That clip is from Apollo 16. The object is the EVA floodlight boom attached to the service module. There's a really good explanation of the film clip here: (link).

what kind of proof you looking for...you need bush to tell you dont you....

.... someones beleif .....

Yes I deleted a lot, because I just wanted to address this point: BELIEF.

What kind of "belief" does one have and why in - "Alien and ET's"?

Ya - let's get to the basic question - What kind of "belief" are we talking about?

What is the foundation of this belief?
..... What is it based on?
..... What do you want it to be based on?
..... Are you looking for "An" - answer? Being this is what you WANT to hear
..... Are you looking for "The" - answer? Based on facts, proof and evidence.

Then finally I guess I would like to ask:
..... When and Why did this become a "belief"?? "Believers -vs- Non-believers"

There was a time this was a serious investigative field where FACTS, PROOF, EVIDENCE were looked for and actually sought after. If "reasonable doubt" was created on a given report/claim - it was shelved awaiting further information to deside which direction that specific 'report/claim' went.

See for me, right up front. It's not about belief or lack of. It's about evidence, facts, proof. About "court room" evidence, "court room" proof and "court room" facts. IF "reasonable doubt" is raised, they have to be listened to and acknowledged. They cannot just be 'ignored' because they do not fit the "belief".

As I have said a few times now. In this field:
One canNOT allow themselves to see what they believe.
One canNOT allow themselves to believe what they see.
... One must stay objective as is possible and know the difference between FACTS and Opinions, Hear-say, Conjecture, assumptions and so on.
One cannot let their beliefs guide them, but the facts and only the facts.

Believe it or not - this is not a 'religion' - or has it become one?

Ok, but what evidence do you have that the object is approaching from a distance?

Looking at stills captured from the video, it’s clear that the object’s diameter does not noticeably change during the sequence.

Actually, the diameter does change and the path of the object changes as well without any outside interference. You will notice the the major light source is not the Earth but of the sun and the light source is reflected on the top of the object unlike a drop of water. The water droplet you posted in your earlier link shows the droplet's lighter surface on the bottom rather than on top as is the case with the object in the video.

Water droplet on a window


Space Shuttle Object

The water droplet on the window is darker at the top because it is showing an UPSIDE-DOWN refracted image of the scene behind it.

And, that is why I posted these images to show major differences between a drop of water on the window and the object in the video. There are other major differences as well. Can you spot them?

Sure, there are several differences between the two photos.

You shouldl note the object in the video is not characteristic of a liquid in a space environment.

How so? My claim is that the object is a droplet of water on the inside of an orbiter flight deck window.

If his "numerous claims" all fall through, and he has no credibility, then why are you still asking him anything?

I don't give a flying... Just get back on being serious and please just quit with the cheese whiz "questions" and the posts to "commander whoever." Jeez.

"Fluid physics is the study of the basic behavior of liquids and gases. On Earth, we say that liquids take the shape of their containers. Water in a glass, for instance, takes the shape of the glass. In microgravity, liquids enter a new realm. Free from the effects of Earth's gravity, surface tension can take over...free water forms into a sphere."

"...a drop of water "forms a distorted and changing spherical shape." Surface tension is not great enough to keep a true spherical shape and also, the viscosity of the water is not large enough to damp out the disturbances" yet the object holds its shape unlike a drop of water."

Huh? A drop of water in microgravity would hold its shape when stuck on a window like that; aswell, he's not claiming its a spherical shape at all... it is not if it is stuck to the window! You seem to be ignoring his posts and redefining what they say for your own benifit!

For one thing, the object is manevuering and not static and its shape does in fact increase as it approaches the space shuttle to where it then maneuvers to the right without any external interference. To further add, the solid object in the video is not indicative of a liquid.

Fluid Physics
"Fluid physics is the study of the basic behavior of liquids and gases. On Earth, we say that liquids take the shape of their containers. Water in a glass, for instance, takes the shape of the glass. In microgravity, liquids enter a new realm. Free from the effects of Earth's gravity, surface tension can take over...free water forms into a sphere."

"...a drop of water "forms a distorted and changing spherical shape." Surface tension is not great enough to keep a true spherical shape and also, the viscosity of the water is not large enough to damp out the disturbances" yet the object holds its shape unlike a drop of water." And, once again, the object is not a drop of water on the window.

Three of the five spacecraft windows fogged because of improperly cured sealant compound (a condition that could not be fixed until Apollo 9). Visibility from the spacecraft windows ranged from poor to good, during the mission. Shortly after the launch escape tower jettisoned, two of the windows had soot deposits and two others had water condensation. Two days later, however, Cunningham reported that most of the windows were in fairly good shape, although moisture was collecting between the inner panes of one window. On the seventh day, Schirra described essentially the same conditions.

Thankes for the link. Yep! that makes perfect sense!

I'm not sure what you're implying with that quote, but it is certainly possible for water droplets to form on a window in microgravity. Apollo 13 had a major problem with this once the command module was powered down. Here's another example from Apollo 7 (link):
And here are photos of one of the Apollo 7 command module windows:

AS07-3-1557 (Entire image reduced in size for forum display)

AS07-3-1557 (Zoomed in on condensation droplets)

now im not saying "they are this" and "they are that" im just saying without empirical data theres no way to say what they are. And by documents I mean journals, or any kind of scientific examination....

With UFOs you have no evidence other than videos, pictures, and eye witnesses--and as far as evidence goes thats bupkis.

eye witnesses are bupkis as evidence? My, my...whatever shall we do with our court of law.

As for the original video ...While it is interesting it is certainly not proof of anything! I would like to know a little more information about this video!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hXtmq6iG9k...ted&search=

While I don't believe a single word of it I would still be interested to know where on earth it came from. And why someone of obvious high rank (lower ranks wouldn't have access to photos and files like that let alone be TOLD about the proof of ETs) in NASA is videotaping a discussion about these photographs when a man of obvious intelligence knows that whatever you video tape will get out to the public somehow!!

The object is not a drop of water on the window

The reason I posted the water droplet on the window and the object in the video was to point out some major differences.

Eyewitness misidentifications are a common cause of wrongful convictions, perhaps the most common cause.

Several studies have tried to estimate the error rate, but it appears to jump all over the place. An early study by Borchard (1932) reported that eyewitness error contributed to 45% of the wrongful convictions in his sample. Buckhout (1974) regarded it as the most common cause of wrongful conviction. Rattner (1983) reported that more than 52% of the wrongful convictions he studied involved eyewitness error. For capital cases only, Bedau and Radelet (1987) found a 16% error rate. In the process of making an identification from photographic lineups, Loftus (1979) found that 29% were erroneously chosen. Huff, Rattner & Sagarin's (1996) more recent survey of judges and attorneys found that 60% of judges and 84% of attorneys ranked "accidental eyewitness misidentification" as the most frequent cause of wrongful conviction. In 1999, the APA's Div. 41 (American Psychology-Law Society) reviewed a number of cases that were later overturned, and found an eyewitness error rate of an astonishing 90%.

LINK-> EYEWITNESS ERROR AS A CAUSE OF WRONGFUL CONVICTION

eyewitness accounts are not reliable, and definitely not evidence of UFO's being ET... IMO

As a footnote to what you wrote, I wonder what percentage of those "misidentifications" were race-related. Anyone ever do a study on that? Someone must have.

In any event, here's my problem with this: When I was in 8th grade, driving to Vermont from Massachusetts with my mother and sister, we saw a self-luminescent green oval or round-shaped object hovering in the sky. It had porthole windows running down the middle, red/blue blinking lights. Its top half was spinning counter to its bottom half--and it just hung in the sky, tilted on its axis rotating like this. Now, through time, I've lost the memory of how these lights were blinking and where they're located. That is an example of faulty memory where UFOs are concerned. But the porthole windows down the center, the hovering/rotating and the internal consistency between my mother's and my memory (my sister was reading in the passenger seat and couldn't be bothered to look!) remains intact.

So knowing that, I wonder what it means to say that UFO eyewitness testimony isn't good enough. From personal experience I'm saying that, yeah, through time, some of the finer details get lost in the shuffle, but the main unexplainable object remains.

What causes you to say that?
Like what?

I've seen close to 50 UFO's ..it's nice knowing for yourself at least that they are real....

Because the object is seen approaching the space shuttle and maneuvers to the right as it close the distance. It's properties are not indicative of the behavior properties of a water droplet in microgravity. And, this wasn't the only time such an object was seen by shuttle astronauts either.

Great video...why dont you believe a word of it???

*sigh*
Did you not read the mans post? He's not talking about water droplets floating in the air!

Yes, I did. I know the object wasn't on the window because it wasn't there inititally. Check it out.

http://www.alienvideo.net/video-shuttle-di...-sts-51-ufo.php

It wasn't there initially? The video begins without the droplet in the FOV, but the camera then moves(like others have stated, the camera is hand-held) to include the droplet in the FOV. The droplet is much closer to the camera so when the camera changes it's position, the much furtheraway background doesn't appear to move(it doesn't appear to move to you at least. I have noticed in the video that it does appear that the camera has moved, and in the right direction to produce the observed phenomenon).

The object is not indicative of a water droplet nor does it exhibit the properties of a water droplet in a microgravity envioronment and if you noticed, the videos are from two different shuttle flights, not one.

The same goes for the others. There is a water droplet on the window. When the hand-held camera moves, the much closer water droplet appears to move and the far away background doesn't seem to move much at all. Notice in the last video that the UFO only moves when the camera for one reason or another moves very drastically. When the camera is stationary, so is the UFO. This suggests even more that these are only water droplets, not ET piloted craft.

Nope and if you noticed, the camera has nothing to do with the movement of the object and once again, the object is not indicative of a water droplet.

Believe what you wish, even if it is delusional. And this post makes you sound very arrogant.

OBERG SEES STS-37 UFO
by Donald Ratsch

On April 5, 1991, space shuttle mission STS-37 was launched from the Cape in Florida and landed on April 11, 1991. During the mission, as the Orbiter was approaching the west coast of South America, a dramatic event occurred. As the video camera was rolling and aimed at the viewing window recording the daylight side of the colored earth below, suddenly the orbiter rocked and wobbled as a round UFO appeared outside the viewing window. When the slightly ovoid object first came into view, it traveled from the left to right very fast, changed course to the left and then stopped and hovered.

In September 1994, a gentleman named Marc Whiteford from Arlington, Virginia was attending and speaking at the Wyoming UFO Conference where certain scientists were giving presentations. Mr. Whiteford knew I had in my possession the original video recording from NASA Select of the Starwars UFO event known as STS-48, previously shown on TV shows such as Hard Copy, Encounters, The Larry King Show, etc. Upon his request I agreed to send him a good copy of the STS-48 event, as well as video recordings of other events from other missions. I included the STS-37 UFO footage.

In the audience was Paul Davids, Executive Producer of the Showtime movie, "Roswell". He seemed impressed so the NASA footage was turned over to him. The STS-48 and STS-37 footage was included at the very end of his two videos called, "The UFO Coverup Continues...Volume 1 & 2. When Mr. Davids was making his movie, "Roswell", he already had poorer copies of STS-48 and STS-37, which he included in his "Roswell" movie at the very beginning of the film.

The STS-37 UFO is seen moving dramatically into view from left to right as (former Air Force Intelligence head) General John Samford is video dubbed in on the right side of the screen stating, "We can say that the recent sightings are in no way connected with any secret developments by any agencies of the United States." Then as the closeup is shown of the STS-37's movements, another military man on the right side of the screen is heard saying "...there is nothing to hide at all". Unfortunately the close-up STS-37 UFO is seen traveling from the other direction through technological manipulation. At any rate, the viewer can see the round ovoid shape when watching the film.

Where does Mr. Oberg fit into this? Remember that the STS-37 UFO comes into view as the shuttle is on the daylight side of the earth. Well, believe it or not, Mr. Oberg, while in the Mission Control Center, had watched that UFO make its appearance yet another time, when the shuttle was on the night side of the earth. In 1992, Mr. Oberg and I exchanged snail mail and in one of his snail mails dated July 14, 1992 he states:

"Last but not least is a page from my personal log written during the STS-37 mission last April, when I was in the Mission Control Center for the deploy of the GRO science satellite. While watching a long stretch of NIGHTSIDE video I saw a bright ovoid image cross the screen from left to right. Although I was sure there was a rational explanation, it was an impressive apparition. I personally never thought it was an alien spacecraft but you are welcome to follow up on it. And I'm presuming you have been taping the NASA Select video since STS-48."

I put the above article in the newsgroup alt.paranet.ufo, and it wasn't long before Mr. Oberg replied. It was apparent that he was beginning to back pedal and now said that what he saw on the big screen at Mission Control was a lighted city passing by the screen. Well, that explanation doesn't wash! During a typical shuttle, Mr. Oberg sees hundreds of lights from cities as they slowly appear to move across the screen due to the rotation of the Earth and the orbiting of the shuttle, nothing out of the ordinary, just routine. But he obviously observed something that startled him, for he used the words, "...While watching a long stretch of nightside video I saw a bright ovoid image cross the screen from left to right"..."it was an impressive apparition."

To prove his case, Mr. Oberg ought to tell me which city on Earth, when lit up at night, looks egg shaped as seen from an orbiting shuttle and moves across the screen faster than the revolving Earth. Mr. Oberg really does not want anyone to be left with the impression that the STS-37 was twice visited by a UFO.

Believe what you wish, even if it is delusional. And this post makes you sound very arrogant.

OBERG SEES STS-37 UFO
by Donald Ratsch

On April 5, 1991, space shuttle mission STS-37 was launched from the Cape in Florida and landed on April 11, 1991. During the mission, as the Orbiter was approaching the west coast of South America, a dramatic event occurred. As the video camera was rolling and aimed at the viewing window recording the daylight side of the colored earth below, suddenly the orbiter rocked and wobbled as a round UFO appeared outside the viewing window. When the slightly ovoid object first came into view, it traveled from the left to right very fast, changed course to the left and then stopped and hovered.

In September 1994, a gentleman named Marc Whiteford from Arlington, Virginia was attending and speaking at the Wyoming UFO Conference where certain scientists were giving presentations. Mr. Whiteford knew I had in my possession the original video recording from NASA Select of the Starwars UFO event known as STS-48, previously shown on TV shows such as Hard Copy, Encounters, The Larry King Show, etc. Upon his request I agreed to send him a good copy of the STS-48 event, as well as video recordings of other events from other missions. I included the STS-37 UFO footage.

In the audience was Paul Davids, Executive Producer of the Showtime movie, "Roswell". He seemed impressed so the NASA footage was turned over to him. The STS-48 and STS-37 footage was included at the very end of his two videos called, "The UFO Coverup Continues...Volume 1 & 2. When Mr. Davids was making his movie, "Roswell", he already had poorer copies of STS-48 and STS-37, which he included in his "Roswell" movie at the very beginning of the film.

The STS-37 UFO is seen moving dramatically into view from left to right as (former Air Force Intelligence head) General John Samford is video dubbed in on the right side of the screen stating, "We can say that the recent sightings are in no way connected with any secret developments by any agencies of the United States." Then as the closeup is shown of the STS-37's movements, another military man on the right side of the screen is heard saying "...there is nothing to hide at all". Unfortunately the close-up STS-37 UFO is seen traveling from the other direction through technological manipulation. At any rate, the viewer can see the round ovoid shape when watching the film.

Where does Mr. Oberg fit into this? Remember that the STS-37 UFO comes into view as the shuttle is on the daylight side of the earth. Well, believe it or not, Mr. Oberg, while in the Mission Control Center, had watched that UFO make its appearance yet another time, when the shuttle was on the night side of the earth. In 1992, Mr. Oberg and I exchanged snail mail and in one of his snail mails dated July 14, 1992 he states:

"Last but not least is a page from my personal log written during the STS-37 mission last April, when I was in the Mission Control Center for the deploy of the GRO science satellite. While watching a long stretch of NIGHTSIDE video I saw a bright ovoid image cross the screen from left to right. Although I was sure there was a rational explanation, it was an impressive apparition. I personally never thought it was an alien spacecraft but you are welcome to follow up on it. And I'm presuming you have been taping the NASA Select video since STS-48."

I put the above article in the newsgroup alt.paranet.ufo, and it wasn't long before Mr. Oberg replied. It was apparent that he was beginning to back pedal and now said that what he saw on the big screen at Mission Control was a lighted city passing by the screen. Well, that explanation doesn't wash! During a typical shuttle, Mr. Oberg sees hundreds of lights from cities as they slowly appear to move across the screen due to the rotation of the Earth and the orbiting of the shuttle, nothing out of the ordinary, just routine. But he obviously observed something that startled him, for he used the words, "...While watching a long stretch of nightside video I saw a bright ovoid image cross the screen from left to right"..."it was an impressive apparition."

To prove his case, Mr. Oberg ought to tell me which city on Earth, when lit up at night, looks egg shaped as seen from an orbiting shuttle and moves across the screen faster than the revolving Earth. Mr. Oberg really does not want anyone to be left with the impression that the STS-37 was twice visited by a UFO.

One thing sky is not, is arrogant. I have seem people on here insult him about his views, but you will find that sky always gives decent answers, even to people who dont hold the same views. What you just said i find arrogant, just because he does not agree with your views. I think i speak for many people on here who find sky a decent speaker, and one who does not need insults to make his point!

Actually I find what he said arrogant because he just said "No. That is not right." w/o giving me any reason as to why. I never implied that he was always an arrogant person. Delusional IMHO.

Well, its the same as you refusing to believe what he is saying, but he has not turned around and called you arrogant. And he has not just said no! he has given his opinions, and given them well. Its not like he has just said no, and not backed it up, like some believers on here and skeptics on here.

There are alot of people out there, who damage the ufo phenomena . He is one of them, in my opinion. You could say that he is the king of the hardcore de-bunkers, and has really come out with some stupid explanations for some cases, that are a huge insult to some of the ufo witnesess. If you ever see him on this site, then you will see how arrogant he really is, i have seen it first hand. But be careful, as most hardcore de-bunkers take his every word, and dont like bad stuff said about him!

1. I just said that Sky made an arrogant statement, not that he was overall an arrogant person.

I have carefully examined the UFO phenomenon. Hell, I used to be a believer, but now I do not see ant verifiable evidence for ET visitation and still have not ruled out the possibility that UFO can be ET piloted craft. I'm not just refusing to believe him.

And answerd that with the coment above on why he is not arrogant in what he has said in this thread.
I did not question if if were a believer or a skeptic, and i dont really care. I just questioned you saying her was arrogant, in this thread, when clearly he is not. Thats all

Nope and if you noticed, the camera has nothing to do with the movement of the object and once again, the object is not indicative of a water droplet.

He just brushed off what I said with no reason as to why. I see this as arrogant, but again, I do not think that Sky is an overall arrogant person, just that this certain remark was some what arrogant.

Well, to tell you the truth, i have looked at the footage many times now, and i still dont know what it is. But i feel the camera movement has nothing to do with the movement of the object, thats just the way i see it. Im not saying that it is not water, but if it is, and its the camera that makes it move like that, then i simply cant see it. But thats my opinion at the moment, and skys opinion, just like its some peoples opinion its water. I dont mind a skeptic, or a believer who can actually back up what they are saying with decent, new coments, but when you get the believer and the skeptic, who know little about the subject, then that bothers me a great deal, and there are many of these peole on here. Thats why i have enjoyed listening to skys and pericynthion, because i believe the disscussion between them has been very respectful, with no arrogance at all in the disscussion.

There are alot of people out there, who damage the ufo phenomena . He is one of them, in my opinion. You could say that he is the king of the hardcore de-bunkers, and has really come out with some stupid explanations for some cases, that are a huge insult to some of the ufo witnesess. If you ever see him on this site, then you will see how arrogant he really is, i have seen it first hand. But be careful, as most hardcore de-bunkers take his every word, and dont like bad stuff said about him!