- Joined
- 7 Nov 2023
- Messages
- 21,976
- Reaction score
- 14,252
- Country

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.

Are you in the lens flare camp or the plum camp thenCAN have, but there are many types.
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 angularAt 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.

It definately has an angular shape which is an unatural shape in physics.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
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.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.
So you dont think its the separation plume then. ( neither did I ) I just put it out there as a possibility.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.
Of course not, it's lens flare.So you dont think its the separation plume then. ( neither did I ) I just put it out there as a possibility.
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 itOf course not, it's lens flare.
An object in a geostationary orbit.What do you think it is.
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
Its pretty obvious if you think it through.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.
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.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
Geostationary orbit can be what ever distance you want it to be if you have a spaceshipIts 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.
Its not the death star is it?
That is not how it works.Geostationary orbit can be what ever distance you want it to be if you have a spaceship
I see that Justin has not come back with a reply to me question - flare or plume.That is not how it works.