UFOs

[Highway Man]

At the very least it must be classed as interesting and worthy of further investigation. None of us on here are qualified to deny that this is not a UFO.

 

[aveatry]

CAN have, but there are many types.

Are you in the lens flare camp or the plum camp then

 

[aveatry]

At the very least it must be classed as interesting and worthy of further investigation. None of us on here are qualified to deny that this is not a UFO.

If you watch it on your new massive tv in high def you will see that it is angular and has structure and appears to be partly in its own shadow making it look massive in the distance. So although a plume could be an explanation the separation plume is basically a big explosion of gasses and not angular

 

[Highway Man]

If you watch it on your new massive tv in high def you will see that it is angular and has structure and appears to be partly in its own shadow making it look massive in the distance. So although a plume could be an explanation the separation plume is basically a big explosion of gasses and not angular

It definately has an angular shape which is an unatural shape in physics.

 

[IT Minion]

The problem is that he has pinned his life on lens flare and can not let it go regardless of how wrong he is.
If he had said separation plume then - yes that could be an explanation.

That would be the most stupid explanation possible. Even less likely than a blue glowing invisible UFO. You've got to be completely ignorant of orbital mechanics to think that would be loitering in frame.

 

[aveatry]

That would be the most stupid explanation possible. Even less likely than a blue glowing invisible UFO. You've got to be completely ignorant of orbital mechanics to think that would be loitering in frame.

So you dont think its the separation plume then. ( neither did I ) I just put it out there as a possibility.

 

[IT Minion]

So you dont think its the separation plume then. ( neither did I ) I just put it out there as a possibility.

Of course not, it's lens flare.

What do you think it is.

 

[aveatry]

Of course not, it's lens flare.

Then how do you explain it still being there in the same position to earth some minutes later only now smaller as starship has travelled away from it

What do you think it is.

An object in a geostationary orbit.
And on a list of other things it could be I would put the Epstein files in front of lens flare

 

[IT Minion]

Then how do you explain it still being there in the same position to earth some minutes later only now smaller as starship has travelled away from it
View attachment 419338

The lens flare moved as the angle the light hits the lens changed. Of course it did, thats what lens flare does.

Then when the ship turned back to the same orientation the same lens flare returned, because of course it would. The angle was slightly different as the ship was further around it's orbit and not exactly the same orientation which is why it wasn't identical.

There is more than one type of lens flare, this is the same blue light lens flare we saw on the moon in the last idiocy thread. The usual gullible idiots were frothing about the blue lights in the sky and ignoring the blue lights on the ground.

Its pretty obvious if you think it through.

An object in a geostationary orbit.

And on a list of other things it could be I would put the Epstein files in front of lens flare

That's even more stupid than plumes. Geostationary orbit is 36,000km above the earth. You've gone back to thousands rather than hundreds of Km after all and we're back to (invisible) objects the size of a moon.

Its not the death star is it?

 

[aveatry]

Its pretty obvious if you think it through.

That's even more stupid than plumes. Geostationary orbit is 36,000km above the earth. You've gone back to thousands rather than hundreds of Km after all and we're back to (invisible) objects the size of a moon.

Geostationary orbit can be what ever distance you want it to be if you have a spaceship

Its not the death star is it?

 

[IT Minion]

Geostationary orbit can be what ever distance you want it to be if you have a spaceship

That is not how it works.

 

[aveatry]

That is not how it works.

I see that Justin has not come back with a reply to me question - flare or plume.
The more you reply with obvious disregard to the evidence in front of you that it can not be lens flare the more I wonder if you are paid by the intergalactic federation to deny and deny - surprised you haven’t suggested planet Venus or swamp gas.
You clearly wont admit that you are wrong so I give up on you and I will leave you to it and add you to the Ignore the trolls week thread

​

 

[IT Minion]

I see that Justin has not come back with a reply to me question - flare or plume.
The more you reply with obvious disregard to the evidence in front of you that it can not be lens flare the more I wonder if you are paid by the intergalactic federation to deny and deny - surprised you haven’t suggested planet Venus or swamp gas.
You clearly wont admit that you are wrong so I give up on you and I will leave you to it and add you to the Ignore the trolls week thread

For everyone else in the thread:

Geostationary orbit is when you are high enough above the earth and moving at just the right speed that your orbit keeps you over the same spot on the equator. It has to be 36,000 Km as any other height would mean that you would be orbiting faster or slower than the ground. The height and speed of Orbital are directly linked. Any combination that ignores that link would mean you aren't in orbit, you're either crashing or flying off into space.

Aveatry is putting me on ignore because he doesn't understand space terminology and used Orbit rather than 'keeping station' or 'hovering'. There isn't really a technical term for that sort of behaviour as it essentially never happens. No one wastes fuel to do that.

But this does sum up Aveatry quite well, painfully ignorant of the topic but absolutely certain that he knows everything he needs to know.

 

[aveatry]

For everyone else in the thread:
Geostationary orbit is when you are high enough above the earth and moving at just the right speed that your orbit keeps you over the same spot on the equator. It has to be 36,000 Km as any other height would mean that you would be orbiting faster or slower than the ground.

You are forgetting about a UFOs capability. Which is what the object looks like it could be.

Aveatry is putting me on ignore because he doesn't understand space terminology and used Orbit rather than 'keeping station' or 'hovering'. There isn't really a technical term for that sort of behaviour as it essentially never happens. No one wastes fuel to do that.

But this does sum up Aveatry quite well, painfully ignorant of the topic but absolutely certain that he knows everything he needs to know.

You are not on ignore - I am just (trying to ignore you ) but just like I said in the ignore the trolls thread here ------

Count me in. But a warning - watch how they will increase their insults in an attempt to get a responce

And you go straight ahead with your insults, as if on a mission to prove me right in the above post. In fact almost every one of your posts on this starship subject has included an insult. All without - I might add, a reciprocal responce from myself. So with your added insults your posts look nothing more than trolling.