UFOs

[IT Minion]

Thousands - hundreds, whatever I was just making a distinction between "above" the earth and some distance away - in the background as it were. As for size - difficult to say. You mean no one else on earth looking up into the sky didn’t see it from the ground - no they would not be able to see it from the ground

People see starlink satellites from the ground with the naked eye and they're 11m across at the same altitude as Starship.

Then again maybe the glowing blue object was more subtle than a satellite designed to have low reflectivity.

Even making basic estimates for speed and the change in size the object was not beyond the planet, it roughly halved in scale after only ~700km. That would mean it is only 700km or so away to start with. Since you're clearly weak on scale that's less than 1/10 th the diameter of the earth, not enough to be behind the planet. Did they set down in Roswell again?

Lens flare does not appear from behind something like this object does

Of course it can, lens flare is a product of light bouncing around the lens in a way it shouldn't. If you have light coming in from just the right angle to produce the classic blue lens flare we see here, and then move it gradually out of the perfect angle it'll move out of shot and disappear.

Watch more JJ Abrams movies, they are both more realistic than your current watch list and also will show you the full range of lens flare options available.

 

[aveatry]

People see starlink satellites from the ground with the naked eye and they're 11m across at the same altitude as Starship.

Angles of sun relative to the observer and the satellites solar panels angle to the sun just like iridium flares used to be

Then again maybe the glowing blue object was more subtle than a satellite designed to have low reflectivity.

Even making basic estimates for speed and the change in size the object was not beyond the planet, it roughly halved in scale after only ~700km. That would mean it is only 700km or so away to start with. Since you're clearly weak on scale that's less than 1/10 th the diameter of the earth, not enough to be behind the planet. Did they set down in Roswell again?

Of course it can, lens flare is a product of light bouncing around the lens in a way it shouldn't. If you have light coming in from just the right angle to produce the classic blue lens flare we see here, and then move it gradually out of the perfect angle it'll move out of shot and disappear.

Watch more JJ Abrams movies, they are both more realistic than your current watch list and also will show you the full range of lens flare options available.

If you are still saying its lens flare then I dont believe you have watched the video section in question.
The object moved out of shot as the starship turned. There is lens flare visible that is a classic lens flare which moves as lens flare. Also the object can still be seen a few mins later in the same position relative to earth as it was when first seen - not lens flare.
If you had chosen the hill of separation plume to die on you may have an argument, but it is not lens flare.

 

[noseall]

it is not lens flare.

What do you think it is Kemosabe?

 

[IT Minion]

If you are still saying its lens flare then I dont believe you have watched the video section in question.
The object moved out of shot as the starship turned. There is lens flare visible that is a classic lens flare which moves as lens flare. Also the object can still be seen a few mins later in the same position relative to earth as it was when first seen - not lens flare.
If you had chosen the hill of separation plume to die on you may have an argument, but it is not lens flare.

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.

 

[IT Minion]

What do you think it is Kemosabe?

He just asks questions. He has no opinions of his own.

 

[aveatry]

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

Go and watch the vid
Lets start again - here is the vid
Fast forward to 2:12:23 full vid time which is 00:07:20 on the spacex T+ time
Look on a good quality screen and you will see the object clearly appears from behind the starship.

 

[Highway Man]

Go and watch the vid
Lets start again - here is the vid
Fast forward to 2:12:23 full vid time which is 00:07:20 on the spacex T+ time
Look on a good quality screen and you will see the object clearly appears from behind the starship.

100% that is not lens flare, the lens flare happens after the first sighting. To me that is definately a UFO.

 

[aveatry]

And this screen shot from later as the starship gridfin slowly turns and brings it back into view and now further away as as the starship has travelled away from it - not lens flare

 

[Justin Passing]

I suppose I own a coupla hundred camera type lenses , and a similar number of microscope lenses.
Lens effects do look like that sometimes.
Also too as well, we say bits flying around when the booster separated; they shot through the frame but were clearly enough bits of flat stuff.

This thing is so clearly an escaped clanger deck chair though, I can't see why anyone is doubting it.

 

[aveatry]

100% that is not lens flare, the lens flare happens after the first sighting. To me that is definately a UFO.

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.

 

[Highway Man]

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.

The whole problem with these who insist that it isn't a UFO are not actually open to even the suggestion or the possibility of it, you can have clear photographic evidence such as this to investigate as to what it is, a fool simply dismisses it.

 

[aveatry]

I suppose I own a coupla hundred camera type lenses , and a similar number of microscope lenses.
Lens effects do look like that sometimes.

Maybe but we actually have lens flare in the vid telling us what characteristic the flare has the big reddish circles that are there through out the sequence.

Also too as well, we say bits flying around when the booster separated; they shot through the frame but were clearly enough bits of flat stuff.

Yes loads of bits fliying around moving and spinning after being hurled away by the massive force of the engines. But this object is stationary

This thing is so clearly an escaped clanger deck chair though, I can't see why anyone is doubting it.

 

[Justin Passing]

And you missed this one:

I reckon it's an escaped baked bean.

 

[aveatry]

And you missed this one:
View attachment 419335
I reckon it's an escaped baked bean.

No that is light reflecting on the end of the main flaps - you can still see it when the ship moves and the earth is behind it - then without the blackness of space you can see the whole flap
Here you can now see the whole flap and the highlight on the end

 

[Justin Passing]

what characteristic the flare has

CAN have, but there are many types.