Claim: NASA cuts ISS livestream after "Millennium Falcon UFO" enters the frame

[ParanoidSkeptic2]

Between 2015 and 2017 (I can't find the exact date of the livestream, the sources keep mentioning different dates so it's hard to pin point) an ISS livestream encountered an oval shaped object that seemed to flown in the opposite direction. Many dub this a "Millennium Falcon UFO" because of it's shape and metallic look.

Source: https://www.mirror.co.uk/science/millennium-falcon-type-ufo-spotted-7706263

Video, lasts for 41 seconds, the first 13 seconds are the original, the other 28 seconds are slow-mo, frame-by-frame

Many tabloids and news paper covered it, I'll post a link to the video, you can see the object move into frame from the bottom of the earth then appears to flaw away and disappear.

A ufologist has stated that it reminds him of the millennium Falcon and, apparently after the UFO was filmed, NASA cut the livestream which is seen as "suspicious"

Article:

He said: "I was watching the live stream on my iPhone on Tuesday night and I popped away to see my neighbours and came back an hour later – I had left the stream on on my phone.

"I looked and realised there was a metal object above the earth. It had a blue glow to it and it stayed there for about two minutes.

"It was a metallic object, it looks like a Millennium Falcon from Star Wars or something from Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

"I thought it was all very strange."

Source: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/en...UktVYxQVd-sGfn82AVJF2Ln77qmfEqN71VB3bZSPWuvwC

Article:

Jadon Beeson was watching a stream of the International Space Station on his iPhone on Tuesday when a strange object appeared in the background.

The 20-year-old Brit said NASA "cut the live feed for an hour" after it showed up.

Source: https://www.9news.com.au/world/nasa...ive-feed/8f86e89f-44c4-4171-a48f-5c586a2e22ce

As stated in one of the articles above, I'm fairly certain that this is space debris of some sort (or Space Dandruff as James Oberg calls it) which explains the metallic texture. However, what seems odd about it is the size and the way it manoeuvres away from the frame, and the alleged "cutting of the livestream" (which doesn't make sense to me as they cut it after the alleged UFO went out of frame so why would they cut it for an hour after it came out of frame? I read somewhere that the cameras cut if the signal is out of range so I think that may have been the case but believers are quick to point at how this is an alleged "cover up")

The only thing that seems odd to me, like I stated, is the size and movement of it as I thought space debris is really small whilst this seems quite large, what do guys think?

 

[AmberRobot]

After watching the video it looks like it could be a optical glint or internal camera ghost. Just the way that it comes into view, appearing from a small spot growing to a finite size, slowly moving upwards, and then fading out in the same way it appeared.

one might be able to test this by checking the movement speed and correlating it with the angular movement of the Sun, which undoubtedly would be the source of the light.

 

[AmberRobot]

Just watched it again and noticed a couple of ghosts in the lower right whose movement correlates well with the object as well as the shadows on the ISS.

Also if you look at the object itself it seems to traverse a fixed dark spot as it moves upward. Easy to see if you hold the slider on the video and move it back and forth. some kind of shadow of a speck of something on the camera causing the glint?

 

[deirdre]

Between 2015 and 2017

if all the articles are in april of 2016 then it couldnt be 2017.

it was April 5, 2016

According to the YouTube UFO hunter UFOvni2012, while observing the live ISS stream on April 5, 2016, he spotted at about 1:21 p.m. central European time a glaring anomaly,

heres a youtube link for people sick of waiting for the Mirror article to boot up

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5DUxO6D9G0

 

[deirdre]

also one of the articles mentions that @ufoofinterest has videos explaining the lens reflections that often show up in ISS feeds, although his blog is taking too long to load for me.

they also mention a similar "ufo" that is called the horseshoe ufo. (must be the horseshoe crab as it doesnt look like an actual horse's shoe)

Source: https://twitter.com/ufoofinterest/status/722368434055561216

 

[Ravi]

Agreed. What is overlooked by our alien loving friends here on Earth, is that the sun is extremely bright, when viewed from outside of our atmosphere. Thus lenses and metal parts will reflect much more and also more obviously, as it is dark in space.

 

[ParanoidSkeptic2]

Ah so it's a lens reflection, that makes a lot of sense, in my research I saw a lot of these ISS "UFOs" and they all look the same just at different times, lens reflection does make sense.

Agreed. What is overlooked by our alien loving friends here on Earth, is that the sun is extremely bright, when viewed from outside of our atmosphere. Thus lenses and metal parts will reflect much more and also more obviously, as it is dark in space.

I didn't know that, huh, that's actually a good thing to remember when tackling these ISS claims

they also mention a similar "ufo" that is called the horseshoe ufo. (must be the horseshoe crab as it doesnt look like an actual horse's shoe)

These claims seem (or at least used to be) so common, all because of optical illusions

 

[deirdre]

These claims seem (or at least used to be) so common, all because of optical illusions

it happens with some "ufos" here on earth too. lens reflections or lens flares or other weird stuff cameras do.

i still remember the turtle in a jetpack on mars (they claimed giant bird, but it was a turtle in a jetpack)... was a piece of dirt on the camera lens that was there even before they left earth. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...ht-in-nasa-billion-pixel-view.3103/post-89482

 

[JMartJr]

Can anyone speak to the other side of the claim -- that NASA cut the feed when something seemed to be flying by? "And then they cut the feed!" seems to be a frequent part of these claims. I have found that saying "that is a reflection" is often countered by "then why do they always cut the feed?" I don't know the answer to that -- I don't know if they "cut the feed" more often after something that looks like an object "flies" by, or not. I know how I'd bet if forced to guesss, but I do not KNOW, and I am not sure how to figure it out.

 

[deirdre]

Can anyone speak to the other side of the claim -- that NASA cut the feed when something seemed to be flying by? "And then they cut the feed!" seems to be a frequent part of these claims. I have found that saying "that is a reflection" is often countered by "then why do they always cut the feed?" I don't know the answer to that -- I don't know if they "cut the feed" more often after something that looks like an object "flies" by, or not. I know how I'd bet if forced to guesss, but I do not KNOW, and I am not sure how to figure it out.

in this case they did not cut the feed. we see the thing appear, hang out and fade away.

in other instances NASA says they don't control ever when the feed cuts out. (although that's from NASA so i doubt the CTers would believe NASA)

ex:

Article:

But NASA says there's a fairly mundane explanation for why the feed was interrupted.

"The video is from our High Definition Earth Viewing (HDEV) experiment aboard the ISS, which is mounted externally on the ISS," NASA spokesperson Daniel Huot told CNET via e-mail. "This experiment includes several commercial HD video cameras aimed at the Earth, which are enclosed in a pressurized and temperature-controlled housing. The experiment is on automatic controls to cycle through the various cameras."

Huot continued: "The station regularly passes out of range of the Tracking and Data Relay Satellites (TDRS) used to send and receive video, voice and telemetry from the station," he said. "For video, whenever we lose signal (video comes down on our higher bandwidth, called KU) the cameras will show a blue screen (indicating no signal) or a preset video slate."

Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nasa-accused-of-cutting-live-feed-of-mysterious-ufo/

Article:

In other words, there's no one actually at the controls of HDEV, which launched back in 2014, monitoring the feed to quickly cut it when UFOs show up in the frame. In fact, there's a much more mundane technical explanation for the feed apparently freezing before cutting to a "technical difficulties" card.

....
You can actually see this happen pretty frequently for yourself. Spend enough hours watching the live feed on any of NASA's apps, UStream channels or other platforms and you'll certainly see it drop out.

Source: https://www.cnet.com/news/why-nasas-video-feed-cut-away-from-that-ufo/

 

[FatPhil]

Can anyone speak to the other side of the claim -- that NASA cut the feed when something seemed to be flying by?

I'd say don't even use the phrase "something seemed to be flying by", even when debunking. No-one who knows anything about optical devices would view something becoming occluded apparently by nothing whilst apparently within the field of view as anyting apart from an internal reflection (of something either within or without the field of view, which it is is the only matter for debate), in particular if it displays exceptional amounts of chromatic aberration for that position within the frame. Nothing seemed to be flying by, it was what's colloqually known, to fans and haters of the movies of JJ Abrams and Michael Bay alike, as "lens flare". "Why did NASA cut the feed when there was lens flare?" is a much more mundane question, and one that's adequately answered by NASA via dierdre above.

 

[Inti]

As I understand the thinking behind such claims, NASA is very anxious to conceal evidence of alien craft, so much so that they have people constantly monitoring the feed, and cut it when a lens reflection (sorry, usually) appears.

Yet NASA is so technically incompetent that they have never heard of the common practice in broadcasting of having a short delay in live broadcast to cut out unexpected swearing etc?

 

[Mendel]

Hypothesis:

Maybe the camera was looking at a sunrise or sunset -- I'm guessing we're seeing one in the OP because Earth is only lit at the edge; and obviously something bright must cause the lens reflection, which can happen by the sunlight entering the lens at an oblique angle.

So then it's possible that in some of these situations, shortly after the lens reflection appears, the camera would be looking straight into the sun. The sun would overwhelm the sensor, and then someone or something (if it's automated) would cut the feed; and if you're looking at a recording , or if the broadcast is on a short delay, you wouldn't see why it was cut.

Mind you, I haven't looked at any actual broadcasts that were cut this way, so perhaps my guess is completely off.

 

[deirdre]

something becoming occluded apparently by nothing whilst apparently within the field of view

does this mean when the blob faded away?

exceptional amounts of chromatic aberration for that position within the frame.

does this mean it was colored like a rainbow (like the other lens flares in the lower left of the camera shot?)

note: i'm assuming you mean these things, but another tip for debunking is to use words normal (average) readers would understand.

 

[FatPhil]

does this mean when the blob faded away?

Kinda. Less light was coming in, so it looked dimmer, and it shrank, so superficially the effect was as if it was fading as it shot into the distance, say.

However, to my eyes, I saw a moving cross-section through an out-of-focus thing that vaguely resembled the shape of a red-blood-vessel or ring doughnut. Freeze-frame through its apparition and disappearance, and you should see the effect too. (I'm thinking of the youtube vid here, it's the only one I've seen).

It starts as a very thin sliver of something lenticular, specifically plano-convex, plane side up. The plane side gradually moves upwards (bottom curved side remaining stationary), thickening the lenticular shape. At some point, the convex side starts to get cut off too as the slice moves upwards. As it approaches maximum width it dims towards the middle - see the top photo in post #1 - but that doesn't last long and it goes back to a solid strip again. The top of the slice starts to narrow, and it becomes lenticular again, this time convex-side-up. That narrows, and eventually disappears entirely. At every step of the process, it looks like a blurred slice through a front-facing ring doughnut shape. Something to do with the geometry of the lens construction makes it impossible for the whole of the doughnut to appear at once, I presume something is preventing the light paths above and below, and those are moving relative to the light source.

I *guess* this could be simulated by finding a torch that produces a beam that dims towards the centre (some can be focussed to achieve this effect), and cutting a slit in some paper that's a fair bit smaller than the beam, and shining the torch through the beam slit onto a wall, moving the slit perpendicularly through the beam - initally you'll get just a bright edge visible, it will expand, then you'll start to see the dimmer middle, that will go and you'll be back to a bright band again, and finally that will dim to a sliver.

does this mean it was colored like a rainbow (like the other lens flares in the lower left of the camera shot?)

note: i'm assuming you mean these things, but another tip for debunking is to use words normal (average) readers would understand.

Yup, when white light passes through a single lens, as through a prism, the red and and the blue get refracted by different amounts. To correct for that, optics manufacturers pass the light through multiple lenses that equalise the total amount of bending across all frequencies. However, that design presumes that the light is coming in at the front and heading towards the back and not doing anything dodgy. If you get an internal reflection between elements causing the light path to bounce forwards and backwards, or start sending rays in from spurious angles at the side that catch something to reflect off and still end up at the back where the sensor is, all bets are off regarding this colour spread correction, and typically there'll be a kind of rainbow effect at high-contrast edges.

Both the chromatic aberation and the doughnut-shape can be seen in one of the lens-flares here: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/01/Firework_with_lens_flare.jpg

(edit - just s/beam/slit/ as marked up)

 

[JMartJr]

I'd say don't even use the phrase "something seemed to be flying by", even when debunking

....

it was what's colloqually known, to fans and haters of the movies of JJ Abrams and Michael Bay alike, as "lens flare". "Why did NASA cut the feed when there was lens flare?" is a much more mundane question, and one that's adequately answered by NASA via dierdre above.

Yeah, I was trying to find a way to include what they think they are seeing without saying it is what I am seeing. "Seemed" may ave been the wrong choice, perhaps "something appears on the screen that might give the appearance of something flying by." And of course, in some cases that's lens flare, in other cases it's a piece of debris lost from the station. Conceivably in one case, someday, it might be aliens, I suppose.

JJ Abrams reference noted with appreciation. Always needs more lens flare, along with more cowbell.

in this case they did not cut the feed. we see the thing appear, hang out and fade away.

in other instances NASA says they don't control ever when the feed cuts out. (although that's from NASA so i doubt the CTers would believe NASA)

...

Yeah, that makes sense, and it makes sense that it will not seem compelling to somebody who holds a contrary opinion! Perhaps one day I'll sit down and watch the feed for hours and hours and hours, and collect data on how often lens flares or debris shows up on the screen, and how often the feed cuts out, and how often those events are more or less simultaneous.

 

[Ravi]

I *guess* this could be simulated by finding a torch that produces a beam that dims towards the centre (some can be focussed to achieve this effect), and cutting a slit in some paper that's a fair bit smaller than the beam, and shining the torch through the beam slit onto a wall, moving the slit perpendicularly through the beam - initally you'll get just a bright edge visible, it will expand, then you'll start to see the dimmer middle, that will go and you'll be back to a bright band again, and finally that will dim to a sliver.

Can also be modelled by ray tracing. For instance, using the industry standard software OpticStudio (Zemax in the past). But, you have to be damn sure what lenses, type, material, curvatures and other mechanical parts you introduce though. So unless you have the complete opto mechanical objective design (as built), it is still tricky.