UFO's filmed from Elon Musk's car, floating in space

originally posted by: horatio321
a reply to: JimOberg

It looks like the moon in it's last quarter. The lighting seems consistent.

Too bad the shape is not consistent lol.

Our moon is round, unfortunately, while the "moon" UFO has an obvious non-round shape, which is angular, and at best is an elongated oval shape.

The first person to suggest the moon idea, was actually suggesting Mars' moon Phobos, which is not round, and it's small, and angular, etc.

Phobos at least matches the visual characteristics of the object, much better than our bigger, round moon.

...

Again, here is the closest possible enlargement of the object, at about 50 seconds. (I've tried zooming in closer but it rather loses its general appearance when it gets much bigger than this.)

originally posted by: Jubei42
a reply to: peacefulpete

So whats your argument that these 2 seperate lighted sections are part of the same object? Why couldn't they be 2 seperate objects that just happen to be next to each other that one time when the left object gets lit up?

Um, I don't know why you sound angry about it lol, but the reason that I believe the 2 lighted sections are part of one object, is because there is every indication of that:

The two lighted sections are perfectly next to each other, almost touching, and they seem mirror-images of each other. Symmetry.

(I know that they look slightly different, but I'm assuming that's because the object is slightly curved, and slightly turned. So I'm still assuming that the 2 lighted sections actually ARE perfectly symmetrical.)

Really what's the alternative interpretation? Do you think the 2 lighted sections are not attached / part of the same object?

originally posted by: horatio321
a reply to: peacefulpete

The 'separate lit sections' is a still you took from one of the 3 flashes. I think it's near on impossible to prove categorically what the flashes are, but obviously they are nothing to do with the moon. Towards the end of stage 2, you can clearly see particles being ejected from the craft, in the vicinity of the Elon Musk car - the view looking at the front of the car facing towards the camera clearly shows this. Presumably these are tiny ice crystals from a thruster? Either way, they are tiny but reflect light.

Short of having any feasible way of proving what they are, obviously people can claim whatever they like - outrageous or mundane. Occam's Razor surmises 'the simplest explanation is usually the correct explanation'. Used by analysts, it can be a useful tool in filling in the blanks when you need to get a job done.

Based on this, the crescent shaped object is almost certainly the moon - 99.9999%. The flashing lights - 75% likely to be tiny ice crystals catching the sun light - 25% other satellite.

I appreciate the input. I agree that the flashing lights will be inevitably categorized as ice crystals, spinning debris, etc. For people of such a mindset, there is nothing that will persuade them otherwise, even the extreme flashing of the object, with the pattern of an airplane's strobe lights.

...


The "moon" object, I'm getting tired of saying, is just 100% impossible to be the moon, for the half-dozen reasons I've been repeating.

The biggest reason being that everyone is free to spend 30 seconds skipping around Elon Musk's 4-hour uncut footage. You will see that the moon is NOT part of the footage.

The celestial bodies in the video -- i.e. the Earth and the sun -- are a constant, repeating presence in the 4-hours. They reappear every few seconds, as the car spins.

You have 4-hours of 360-degree spinning footage lol. You can see that the moon is not there.

Any object's 20-second appearance is not possible to be the moon, in that context that I just described. It's a passing object, plain and simple.

I really don't even see what anyone finds appealing or interesting about insisting that the object is the moon, which it's obviously not. Everyone can see that it's not our moon. Why keep insisting something that we can all see clearly is not the case? What's the point? I said all along that it can be a strange rock. Why not just insist that it's a rock?

..

By the way, here is a photo of Phobos. The FIRST moon-suggestion in this thread. A tiny, angular, non-round object, which the poster was acknowledging just by suggesting Phobos:

a reply to: peacefulpete

People are suggesting it is the moon, not to antagonize you or because they find it more or less interesting than a passing rock hypothesis, but because from the video, the known phase of the moon on February 6th, it really does look like the moon on wide angle video cameras.

I don't know what member was wittering on about Phobos, but it's irrelevant. We're looking at planet earth, Elon Musk's car and Starman - what has Phobos got to do with it?

I watched the video and contrary to your claim that the moon isn't seen throughout any of the 4 hour footage, I see it on the following time stamps:

2:17.16 - 2:18.19
2:30.34 - 2:31.49
3:24.26 - 3:24.35
3:38.11 - 3:38.24

note the moon's near perfect little hemisphere light/dark. A bit blurry - too few pixels to get a perfect sphere, but clear enough to make out as the moon in last quarter.


Debris/Dandruff

2:18.21 - 2:19.23
3:22.39 - 3:23.11
3:35.28 - 3:36.55

Flash

2:33.35, 2:33.40, 2:33.45,

Thruster flexible sheet seems to flap in a breeze?!?

3:24.28
3:31.26

Anomalous shape

3:29.21 1 frame only. This is interesting - I have no idea what this is! Surprised you weren't all over it!!!

To analyse this video properly, frame by frame, would take many hours with a jog dial and decent monitor.

originally posted by: horatio321
a reply to: peacefulpete

People are suggesting it is the moon, not to antagonize you or because they find it more or less interesting than a passing rock hypothesis, but because from the video, the known phase of the moon on February 6th, it really does look like the moon on wide angle video cameras.

I don't know what member was wittering on about Phobos, but it's irrelevant. We're looking at planet earth, Elon Musk's car and Starman - what has Phobos got to do with it?

I watched the video and contrary to your claim that the moon isn't seen throughout any of the 4 hour footage, I see it on the following time stamps:

2:17.16 - 2:18.19
2:30.34 - 2:31.49
3:24.26 - 3:24.35
3:38.11 - 3:38.24

note the moon's near perfect little hemisphere light/dark. A bit blurry - too few pixels to get a perfect sphere, but clear enough to make out as the moon in last quarter.


Debris/Dandruff

2:18.21 - 2:19.23
3:22.39 - 3:23.11
3:35.28 - 3:36.55

Flash

2:33.35, 2:33.40, 2:33.45,

Thruster flexible sheet seems to flap in a breeze?!?

3:24.28
3:31.26

Anomalous shape

3:29.21 1 frame only. This is interesting - I have no idea what this is! Surprised you weren't all over it!!!

To analyse this video properly, frame by frame, would take many hours with a jog dial and decent monitor.

I appreciate that you're looking through the original footage. I will check the time-stamps you mentioned, to see if I can see our moon at those times.

The reason Phobos is RELEVANT is because it matches the appearance of the "moon" object, as both Phobos and the object are lumpy, non-round, angular, roughly oval-shaped rocks. Their characteristics match, and that's why it's relevant.

It's also relevant that the first moon suggestion (on page 1 of this thread) was about Mars' moon Phobos, instead of our moon, because the poster was acknowledging the small, angular, non-round shape of the mystery object. You know, before everyone decided to call it round lol.

I agree that proper analysis of the 4-hour vid would require frame-by-frame study, over many hours, with good equipment. Ideally it would be a team of people.

However, there is no such team of people, so it falls on the general public to study it. Thankfully some of us have a good computer or Mac to study it.

But still, it's definitely true that no one person can catch everything in the 4-hour video, it's just too many frames, too many hours, too many UFO's, etc.

I just watched the object at 2:17:16. Nice catch.

While it does look like the object in OP's vid... This object still looks angular and non-round... And I think the object is showing something new in this clip:

The shape seems lumpy and seems to change, which might be from a strong shimmering sunlight effect. Although I don't recall its shape morphing or shimmering in the OP's vid.

One thing we can say for sure is that its shape shimmers or changes too much to see clearly the object's actual shape.

2:30:34 -- Yes it looks like the same object.

3:24:26 -- Yes, it's possibly the same thing, more vague from a different camera.

3:38:11 -- The least clear shot of all, it's only maybe the same thing.

...


Interestingly, 3:38:11 is the same perspective, and looks somewhat similar, to that large flashing UFO that I screen-shot above:



^And that sure isn't the moon lol. That sighting includes 3 separate objects appearing to flash in sequence. In the pic, the right light is glowing the whole time, while the left light just flashes briefly.

So that sighting shows there are definitely glowing objects of roughly a half-moon shape which are definitely NOT the moon.

As for the repeated sightings that you listed, overall:
I find it inconclusive, as per my descriptions above.

However, the seemingly repeated appearance of the same object DOES lend credibility to the interpretation that it might be the moon.



However, that appearance of being angular and non-round still bothers me lol.

Good finds, and I still have to look at the other time-stamps you pointed out, for that other phenomena.

There is practically an endless amount of content still to be discovered in the 4-hr video.

Just imagine if we had more raw videos of space. (NASA was unhappy with him for doing this surprise project, by the way lol. Probably because they did not get to edit it before release to the public.)

Around 4:04:30, there is an interesting cluster of shapes appearing in the top-right of the screen. There are maybe half a dozen of those shapes that eventually appear.

Interestingly I can't really see it on my nice iMac screen. I actually noticed it on the screen of a small, cheap laptop, which happens to have a brighter display or something.

Around 4:05:47 -- There are 2 bright small lights, which shoot up toward that area. One of the lights vanishes when it hits one of the shapes, as if maybe it hit the shape, or went into it.

Also, one of those lights seems to be a double-light, with one dot circling around the other dot. This is pretty small so some folks might not be able to see it. It's also possibly natural, but still, very cool to see a tiny object circling around another small object.

Flash 2:33.35, 2:33.40, 2:33.45,

I wasn't able to see the flashes. Maybe my screen is too dark or something.

Thruster flexible sheet seems to flap in a breeze?!? 3:24.28 3:31.26

^Very interesting. What would make it do that? One explanation could be that the thing was getting hit by a small rock or debris, yet we don't see anything hitting it.

It doesn't really look like wind either though.

It looks like it hit by a quick pulse of wind or energy.

Very interesting especially in context that space is not supposed to have any type of "air" which would be required for there to be wind.

I noticed something else very interesting, when looking at the wind-like effect that Horatio pointed out.

And this ties into the "moon-hunting" that has dominated a large part of this thread lol.

OK so check out 3:31:20. There is a small glowing object floating by, in the bottom-left. It's drifting to the left, and it roughly resembles the half-moon shape.



KEEP WATCHING! A few seconds later, the view jumps to a different camera on the car:

3:31:25. Now we see a similar half-moon, ABOVE the car's thruster (or whatever that part is called). IT'S MOVING TO THE RIGHT, SO IT'S DEFINITELY NOT THE SAME OBJECT.




The significance is that those are 2 separate objects, and both share the rough resemblance of the half-moon.

Yet they are definitely two different objects.

If you guys saw either one, on its own, you might claim it's 99.99% certain that it's the moon. Yet they both can't be the moon, because they're definitely 2 different objects.

The first object is moving toward the left, while the 2nd object is drifting to the right.

The camera-switch is instantaneous, meaning that both objects were there at the same time, even though each camera only caught one of the objects per camera.

It also shows that practically any rock or object can roughly resemble the half-moon if it is partially illuminated.

Anomalous shape 3:29.21 1 frame only. This is interesting - I have no idea what this is! Surprised you weren't all over it!!!

Nice catch!!



It's definitely something flying by the camera. I would guess a critter, a space animal, just flying by quickly.









Or, maybe, it's the blur of a craft shooting by.

a reply to: peacefulpete

There was so much interesting stuff on the 4 hour video, just the view of the earth, the Sun, the fragments and the uninterrupted rawness of it was fascinating - so I had a good look through it in detail last night til about 1.30am. I saw your responses today and wanted to reply, but I was working and have a couple more days left of a 7 day stint.

There was much to ponder and I'm really glad you had a look at the peculiar parts of the video. I literally have no idea what that flexible material is doing flapping in and out like that - very odd. I was hoping someone here might know what the hell is going on there. I'm quite surprised that Jim Oberg didn't explain it - perhaps it's so bizarre and people don't want to speculate. At first I wondered if the thrusters were firing very briefly - but I'm not so sure. It's random as hell!! As you point out - there isn't supposed to be any gas/air there to move the flexible sheet. Controversial! lol.

The 3 flashes I caught were in the dark part of the earth - who knows what they could be? They're quite tricky to freeze frame - I had to put the video on .25 speed and use the pause to try and get frame by frame.

The long streak of light @ 3:29.21 is only there for 1 frame and is anomalous. It could be blurring like you suggested. Likely a small particle close to the camera passing quickly by. If it is a more distant object, then it really is open to debate what it is.

You did a good job grabbing the images and embedding them. I have real trouble with that because I can't upload images etc due to my adblocking software. By browser is intolerable without it though. Never-mind.

a reply to: peacefulpete

Regards the object moving from left to right on one camera, then right to left on the other - I think those cameras near the motors/thrusters are oriented 180 degrees from each other - upside down if you like. So the same object will move the opposite way in each FOV. In the trade, it's called breaking the line, where the cameras filming the scene cross over the 180 degree line and consequently confuse the viewer due to disorientation.

I've seen those before on the beach near vandenberg and in northern california

originally posted by: horatio321
a reply to: peacefulpete

Regards the object moving from left to right on one camera, then right to left on the other - I think those cameras near the motors/thrusters are oriented 180 degrees from each other - upside down if you like. So the same object will move the opposite way in each FOV. In the trade, it's called breaking the line, where the cameras filming the scene cross over the 180 degree line and consequently confuse the viewer due to disorientation.

Ah OK this might be the case. I thought the 2 cameras were showing the same general view, but you made me look back and realize that they don't have the same general view.

Yeah, I guess the 2 cameras are opposite sides of the thruster-thing. And probably upside-down to each other.

Just wasn't expecting anything like that... Surprise, one camera is upside-down lol.

double-post

originally posted by: horatio321
a reply to: peacefulpete

There was so much interesting stuff on the 4 hour video, just the view of the earth, the Sun, the fragments and the uninterrupted rawness of it was fascinating - so I had a good look through it in detail last night til about 1.30am. I saw your responses today and wanted to reply, but I was working and have a couple more days left of a 7 day stint.

There was much to ponder and I'm really glad you had a look at the peculiar parts of the video. I literally have no idea what that flexible material is doing flapping in and out like that - very odd. I was hoping someone here might know what the hell is going on there. I'm quite surprised that Jim Oberg didn't explain it - perhaps it's so bizarre and people don't want to speculate. At first I wondered if the thrusters were firing very briefly - but I'm not so sure. It's random as hell!! As you point out - there isn't supposed to be any gas/air there to move the flexible sheet. Controversial! lol.

The 3 flashes I caught were in the dark part of the earth - who knows what they could be? They're quite tricky to freeze frame - I had to put the video on .25 speed and use the pause to try and get frame by frame.

The long streak of light @ 3:29.21 is only there for 1 frame and is anomalous. It could be blurring like you suggested. Likely a small particle close to the camera passing quickly by. If it is a more distant object, then it really is open to debate what it is.

You did a good job grabbing the images and embedding them. I have real trouble with that because I can't upload images etc due to my adblocking software. By browser is intolerable without it though. Never-mind.

Thanks, I appreciate your thoughtful response, and thoughtful consideration of this fascinating raw video of space. Like I said earlier, NASA was reportedly unhappy that Elon Musk did this surprise-project. They complained of his car being space-junk, but that's really hard to believe that NASA would care about a car, that way. I think NASA was unhappy because with their own footage, they get to edit out all the anomalies before public release. Here Elon Musk grabbed raw footage with no editing, and it just happens to be full of crazy anomalies.

And this is just a 4-hr clip, from February, and we're still actively finding things.

Just imagine how much we could find if there was a 4-hr video taken more often lol. Or how about actual raw, live 24-hr video feed of space. I think the ISS has something like that, but even though it's live, NASA gets to edit it by changing cameras (or just turning off the cameras altogether) if the anomalies get too crazy. Elon Musk's car vid is completely raw. I really love it that he did this. I bet he wanted to see how much mysterious stuff he could capture by doing this lol.

The wind-like effect might be explained away as a blast of heat or something? I don't know, I'm just imagining what the mundane explanation might be.

It does resemble wind though, and I wouldn't think there'd be anything resembling wind, if space was a pure vacuum.

However, I don't believe space is a pure vacuum. I think there must be some kind of gases, however weak. Many of the "critters" that have been captured on camera, resemble simple sea creatures swimming through the void of space. So I'm convinced there is at least the presence of gases throughout the so-called vacuum of space. Gases are needed for any creatures to survive out there.

By the way, I vaguely remember one of the astronauts describing a snake-like critter that was "swimming" after their rocket or their space module. This was years ago so I don't have a link or anything. But the mental image always stuck with me, they could see a snake swimming along with them, out their window.

Hmm maybe that is the same thing that they saw.

What we weren't shown.

a reply to: BotheLumberJack

What do you mean?