Did NASA Really Capture an Image of a UFO?

This story will be directly tied to the image that has been uploaded alongside it.

This image, taken as a still from NASA's Live feed of planet Earth (which if you don't know, NASA has a High Definition feed of our home, transmitting from the International Space Station (ISS) 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.

View Here.

This was not a recent feed that was criticized for being cut shortly after the object in question was spotted, it happened a few years ago. When trying to find a concise date from the article I first read earlier this week, Google has been overrun by media selling this story now, so that date, while definitely online somewhere, was simply beyond my search commitment.

The question remains however, what is this object that is absolutely present in the live feed? Moreover, why did NASA cut the stream when it was beginning to garner attention? Scientists at NASA have gone on record to state that the cameras are always picking up space debris, and that what is generally caught on camera are small particles that our eyes can't comprehend the size of, due to the nature of the background image (Planet Earth).

That, for me is an excellent explanation of why we see objects that tend to confuse the theorists. But then again, they don't cut the feed for every "little object" they see in the live feed. So what makes this particular object an exception? Given that the imagery is quite poor, it's fairly easy for this object to be dismissed as space junk or particle waste, unless you constructively criticize its unique shape.

When I first viewed this image, I came into the story with curiosity and low expectations for what I was going to see and read, and when I saw the image I was not disappointed. The low quality of the picture which is a direct cause of having to zoom in on the still image with a fairly poor editor had me kind of skeptical, until the construction of the object started to resemble the Sputnik satellites from the Soviet Union.

While this is a slightly more developed design of those sputnik space craft, it definitely has the uniqueness that came with the design, which tells me that it's probably not something that is naturally occurring in the space environment (But hey, what do I know about that environment in the first place, anyhow).

Personally, I believe it's extremely naive to think that we're alone in the cosmic universe. The math simply doesn't support it, and the way we have grown as a species has been way too convenient for me to believe that "Aliens" didn't intervene in our development throughout the ages.

I won't get into the details on my beliefs about that topic in this post, but to summarize it, I just don't believe that we got to where we are biologically OR technologically on our own. There's too many "where's the biological link" and "Why in the hell would they think of that" for those two areas for me to believe there was not some kind of outside coercion going on.

Back to the space object though. The shape seems too convenient for me to believe that it's random, however, snowflakes make some pretty awesome shapes naturally too. So in my skepticism I must ask myself why a species that has done so well at never really being captured on film suddenly getting captured in an area where there was so much to lose and nothing to gain. I mean really, the ISS? What could they possibly want or learn from there? Unless of course they use it as a rendezvous point before entering Earth's atmosphere, but that's a silly long shot.

All in all, I think there's a reasonable explanation for this object that was captured on film, perhaps it's a satellite that has a very convenient angling against the sun, and it's antennae's are illuminated to look much larger than they are, and the poor quality of the photo editing software just simply couldn't render that properly.

Are aliens among us? Probably, at least I believe so, I just wish they'd use their influence a little more in solving some of our Earthly, man-made social issues that don't have to be existent.