Triangular UFO with NOISE, in space! (during SpaceX Dragon Craft launch to ISS.)

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: peacefulpete

originally posted by: Jay-morris
Could it be the earth below, and we are seeing city lights? Apart from that, I have no other explanations.

That seems to be the most popular mundane explanation for it.

However, I believe that we're seeing stars in the background the whole time (not the Earth).

Plus, the UFO really seems to make its own blasting sound, as it passes by the camera! Which would be a hell of a coincidence if the sound was unrelated to the sighting at that one specific moment lol.

It is also the correct explanation.

The initial elliptical orbit of the capsule is 204 by 357 Kilometers. The capsule fires its own thruster reaching an orbit of 352 by 359 Kilometers. Two additional firings bring it closer to the Space Station’s 403 by 406-Kilometer orbit.
Rendezvous is started with the capsule 2.5 km below the station. Another burn reduces the vertical distance to 1.4 km. Approach is initiated by moving the capsule 350 m directly below the station. From there the capsule climbs vertically towards the station reaching the capture point.

So the camera is looking down onto capsule and earth below.

The camera signal does not include any audio. So it is certainly not coming from them.

For all the words in the above paragraph, none of it amounts to a reason to assume that the ISS camera was pointed downwards, at the Earth (as opposed to being pointed into empty space, which it obviously looks like).

I was just reviewing the original footage again.

I can say with nearly 100% certainty that the dots of light, are stars.

They can't be dead pixels because most of the dots are not visible, for the first few minutes... until the camera's lens is obviously adjusted, to suddenly receive more light, at about 3:45 of the original vid from SpaceX.

www.youtube.com...

^Dead pixels would have been there the whole time, and they wouldn't change depending on camera settings.

After the lens is adjusted (about 3:45), and the stars suddenly appear, they also twinkle in a very recognizable way, as stars. (Plus you can even see different colors of different stars, as they twinkle, there's red, blue, & yellow stars. So we can't blame the stars as Earth's surface lights, which look nothing like that.)

Re: Audio: I'm not sure what to think. There's an obvious woosh noise when the UFO appears (about 4:19). I know there's supposed to be no sound waves in space... And I wouldn't expect microphones recording audio in space...

However, there it is. An ISS camera filming a UFO, with a faint wooshing noise, at that same moment.

a reply to: peacefulpete

You seem to be flogging a dead horse, again.

Embrace flat Earth and events such as this with all make sense. Remember that men who have spent years learning science are likely to have much less understanding of these events that youtube posters.

Simple explanations are too simple. Go with exotic.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: peacefulpete

You seem to be flogging a dead horse, again.

Really? I just explained why the dots of light... are not possibly dead pixels. It's literally the first time someone explained it, in the entire thread lol.

Which leaves the dots of light as... stars, which they obviously look like.

And which makes the UFO an object flying through space.

a reply to: peacefulpete

If your opinion is an explanation (reality) then everyone else in the thread has also "explained" what is going on. Too bad all explanations don't match.

originally posted by: roadgravel
Embrace flat Earth and events such as this with all make sense. Remember that men who have spent years learning science are likely to have much less understanding of these events that youtube posters.

Simple explanations are too simple. Go with exotic.

I mean, the original video is showing craft, with lights, flying through space.

To you, that brings up flat-earth? There's not a reason to assume that scientists are uninterested or unimpressed, with unknown craft filmed flying through space lol.

Plus I wouldn't think there's much simple explanation for... craft with lights, filmed, flying in outer space...

Actually the most SIMPLE explanation would be that it's a government craft. It would be a better explanation than claiming that the video is showing a spot on Earth... which is obviously not the case, when we can see the stars in the background.

a reply to: peacefulpete

You keep on flogging this dead horse if you like. But it's not going to get up any time soon.

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: peacefulpete

If your opinion is an explanation (reality) then everyone else in the thread has also "explained" what is going on. Too bad all explanations don't match.

Too bad the stars can't be explained away as dead-pixels, because mechanically, it doesn't make sense. I just explained why: dead-pixels would be present the whole time, which they're not. They only appear when the lens is adjusted to be more light-sensitive, and boom, the stars appear. Exactly as we'd expect the stars to appear when the lens is adjusted.

Even if the stars are not stars, even then, they can't be dead pixels, either lol.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: peacefulpete

You keep on flogging this dead horse if you like. But it's not going to get up any time soon.

I guess I'll just laugh that you think discussing new ideas... is "flogging a dead horse."

Actually the most SIMPLE explanation would be that it's a government craft. It would be a better explanation than claiming that the video is showing a spot on Earth... which is obviously not the case, when we can see the stars in the background.

Obviously? Your opinion versus others.

Why don't you investigate the audio more, maybe you will hear a person or aliens's name mentioned and work that angle.

a reply to: peacefulpete

Didn't a poster say hot pixels, not dead pixels. Are you changing that fit your version.

a reply to: peacefulpete

You do have quite a bit of form for this.

a reply to: peacefulpete

Simple look at the exposure details to capture stars in the timelapse, a timelapse is a series of still images made into a video it's NOT realtime video. Some of the exposures on that to show stars are taken like I said using a Nikon D4 24MM f1.4 at 8000 iso for 3 seconds.

The video you have in the OP cant show stars the exposure setting wouldn't let the stars be exposed.

Do you know how exposure works

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: peacefulpete

Didn't a poster say hot pixels, not dead pixels. Are you changing that fit your version.

"Hot pixels" vs. "dead pixels?" ...That's your contribution to the conversation? lol

Do you even have a point, besides pointing out that someone used different phrasing?

originally posted by: roadgravel

Actually the most SIMPLE explanation would be that it's a government craft. It would be a better explanation than claiming that the video is showing a spot on Earth... which is obviously not the case, when we can see the stars in the background.

Obviously? Your opinion versus others.

Why don't you investigate the audio more, maybe you will hear a person or aliens's name mentioned and work that angle.

Well, where do YOU think the audio wooshing sound comes from, at the same moment, that the craft appears?

a reply to: peacefulpete


You kneed to do more research re cameras/digital images/exposure.

If the Dragon craft is correctly exposed stars WONT show ie like no stars on Apollo images.

As for hot pixels you haven't got a clue about those either.

Unlike stuck pixels, hot pixels only show up when the camera sensor gets hot during long exposures or when the ISO is cranked up above 400-800. Hot pixels are very normal and they will show up even on brand new cameras

Is that simple enough for you to understand.

Some of us on here are into photography many like me for a long long time.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: peacefulpete

Simple look at the exposure details to capture stars in the timelapse, a timelapse is a series of still images made into a video it's NOT realtime video. Some of the exposures on that to show stars are taken like I said using a Nikon D4 24MM f1.4 at 8000 iso for 3 seconds.

The video you have in the OP cant show stars the exposure setting wouldn't let the stars be exposed.

Do you know how exposure works

I think you're just writing a bunch of jargon. What exposure details should we look at? What timelapse are you talking about? The SpaceX vid is real-time live video.

Why are you insisting that the vid can't show stars? Even though it seems to be clearly showing stars?

The dots of light are definitely not dead pixels (or "hot pixels") because there's an obvious adjustment of the lens, which makes the stars appear, exactly as we'd expect stars to appear on an adjusted lens.

They can't be problematic pixels... which would have been visible the whole time.

originally posted by: peacefulpete

originally posted by: roadgravel

Actually the most SIMPLE explanation would be that it's a government craft. It would be a better explanation than claiming that the video is showing a spot on Earth... which is obviously not the case, when we can see the stars in the background.

Obviously? Your opinion versus others.

Why don't you investigate the audio more, maybe you will hear a person or aliens's name mentioned and work that angle.

Well, where do YOU think the audio wooshing sound comes from, at the same moment, that the craft appears?

Irrelevant, as I and others have already shown that we are looking down at the earth. It is lights on earth as the ships pass overhead.

If those are stars, as you maintain. Please explain how they do not move over a large amount of time? The ISS and Dragon are orbiting at 17,500mph. the view of the sky, if looking up, would change. A noticeable change in position of the stars, not small. There is no change at all.

They are not stars. The camera is looking down, as the Dragon comes up to meet the ISS. What part of that do you not understand? If we are looking down on the dark side of the earth, the most rational explanation is we are seeing city lights on earth.

I would LOVE to see real video of some kind of ET craft, but the evidence here is solid.

a reply to: MrRCflying

Quite right. The camera is looking down. At the Earth. What is so hard to understand about that?

Why is this thread still going?

Given the OP's form in this regard I predict that this argument will rumble on with insults beginning to fly and posters being accused of being trolls etc. Probably around page 94....

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: peacefulpete


You kneed to do more research re cameras/digital images/exposure.

If the Dragon craft is correctly exposed stars WONT show ie like no stars on Apollo images.

As for hot pixels you haven't got a clue about those either.

Unlike stuck pixels, hot pixels only show up when the camera sensor gets hot during long exposures or when the ISO is cranked up above 400-800. Hot pixels are very normal and they will show up even on brand new cameras

Is that simple enough for you to understand.

Some of us on here are into photography many like me for a long long time.

"kneed" ...

If the Dragon craft is correctly exposed stars WONT show ie like no stars on Apollo images.

Hmm ok, except there are other space photos & videos that do show the stars, too.

Hot pixels don't work as an explanation, because the stars appear when the lens is obviously being adjusted. So there's a specific, obvious reason that the stars appear (i.e. it's not just a random appearance of pixels for no reason).

Some of us on here are into photography many like me for a long long time.

...What a question lol.