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

a reply to: peacefulpete

I recall a similar account with footage. Apollo/Gemini missions with pictures of objects in low earth orbit that appeared to be pulsating, like they were biological rather than synthetic. I had a look to see if I could find the footage or stills, but I've not had much joy yet. From memory, one was tube like and had similar characteristics to a creature swimming - only it was in orbit.

a reply to: peacefulpete

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.

were they?


All they suggested is that its the moon.

How you get they are suggesting it is Phobos is

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.

Those reasons don't fit reality.

Many have given reasons why it is.

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.

Phobos relevant?

So where is Mars then?

If Phobos is that big on screen then Mars should be rather large.


Phobos?

How big is the mars moon, Phobos?

How far away would it be from the car?

Are you seriously thinking that Phobos is a better candidate simply because you think its shape matches?


Yu would have a 10000 times more credibility if you said its proof of aliens that saying its Phobos.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: peacefulpete

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.

were they?


All they suggested is that its the moon.

How you get they are suggesting it is Phobos is

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.

Those reasons don't fit reality.

Many have given reasons why it is.

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.

Phobos relevant?

So where is Mars then?

If Phobos is that big on screen then Mars should be rather large.


Phobos?

How big is the mars moon, Phobos?

How far away would it be from the car?

Are you seriously thinking that Phobos is a better candidate simply because you think its shape matches?


Yu would have a 10000 times more credibility if you said its proof of aliens that saying its Phobos.

You know what, I looked back at page 1, and you're right that someone suggested our Moon before someone suggested Phobos. That's the problem with quickly glancing at a whole page like that.

OK so Phobos was the 2nd moon suggestion, on page 1 of the thread.

Still, my point stands, that on the first page, one of the first moon suggestions was for Phobos, which meant he was acknowledging the non-round appearance of the object. On the first page of this thread.

That was my point and it stands.

Whether I think the object is Phobos: No, actually, I don't think it's Phobos, but I think they share the non-round, lumpy shape.

Also the sighting with flashing objects shows that there are roughly half-moon shaped objects which are definitely not the moon, like this image of the half-moon shape, which suddenly shows a symmetry with its left section giving a quick light flash:



If the left-side compartment didn't light up, and if we only saw the half-moon shape on the right side, then I think you'd be arguing that it's 99.99% certain that it's the moon.

Obviously every object that is partially illuminated is not automatically the moon.

a reply to: peacefulpete

Still, my point stands, that on the first page, one of the first moon suggestions was for Phobos, which meant he was acknowledging the non-round appearance of the object. On the first page of this thread. That was my point and it stands.

Ahhhh

or


there are 2 posters that don't realize how stupid that suggestions is.

Please don't take offense, it is a stupid suggestion when there is a whole base of knowledge surrounding whats being discussed.

Just watch the video, you even acknowledge how large the earth is when the car rotates and you see it.

You use that faulty logic to suggest it cant be our moon because of proportion but fail to realize the distance or think it doesn't matter.

the earth being that big in the video means the car is still quite close to earth in the video.

Perfect so when it rotates our moon would look exactly as it does that you cannot accept being the moon because of shape, on a zoomed in video that will distort the image.

If that was Phobos then Mars should fairly large in that video as well, where is it?

Whether I think the object is Phobos: No, actually, I don't think it's Phobos, but I think they share the non-round, lumpy shape.

There is no thinking it could be Phobos if you have just basic knowledge how cameras operate and the distances of celestial objects and how perspective plays a major role in this.

This was initially why I posted because you show too many signs that you don't know what you are talking about.

It cannot be, If you were to see Phobos in that video then what I am suggesting is the moon would actually be a bit bigger than what earth would look like from that distance using the camera they are.

a reply to: InhaleExhale

Phobos is irrelevant to this thread, it really is. I find it difficult to comprehend how people can find it so difficult to see the resemblance between the moon in last quarter phase and the object we see in the video, numerous times.

However,

there's plenty of other interesting stuff in the video that remains open to debate. The moon subject is finished and I simply don't insist that the OP share my point of view on it when there are so many other things we can talk about instead.

Did you see the flexible material next to the thruster moving? Or the large anomalous light on 1 frame? It deserves discussion and I was hoping Jim Oberg would have a possible explanation or theory. But Nada so far :/

Here's to hoping.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: peacefulpete

Still, my point stands, that on the first page, one of the first moon suggestions was for Phobos, which meant he was acknowledging the non-round appearance of the object. On the first page of this thread. That was my point and it stands.

Ahhhh

or


there are 2 posters that don't realize how stupid that suggestions is.

Please don't take offense, it is a stupid suggestion when there is a whole base of knowledge surrounding whats being discussed.

Just watch the video, you even acknowledge how large the earth is when the car rotates and you see it.

You use that faulty logic to suggest it cant be our moon because of proportion but fail to realize the distance or think it doesn't matter.

the earth being that big in the video means the car is still quite close to earth in the video.

Perfect so when it rotates our moon would look exactly as it does that you cannot accept being the moon because of shape, on a zoomed in video that will distort the image.

If that was Phobos then Mars should fairly large in that video as well, where is it?

Whether I think the object is Phobos: No, actually, I don't think it's Phobos, but I think they share the non-round, lumpy shape.

There is no thinking it could be Phobos if you have just basic knowledge how cameras operate and the distances of celestial objects and how perspective plays a major role in this.

This was initially why I posted because you show too many signs that you don't know what you are talking about.

It cannot be, If you were to see Phobos in that video then what I am suggesting is the moon would actually be a bit bigger than what earth would look like from that distance using the camera they are.

See, I just said that I never thought the object was actually Phobos, and then you just wrote a monologue about why it can't be Phobos.

I never thought it was Phobos.

All I've been saying is that they share a lumpy, non-round shape.

...

I honestly don't believe InhaleExhale is a real person. At best, a disingenuous, real troll.

originally posted by: horatio321
a reply to: InhaleExhale

Phobos is irrelevant to this thread, it really is. I find it difficult to comprehend how people can find it so difficult to see the resemblance between the moon in last quarter phase and the object we see in the video, numerous times.

However,

there's plenty of other interesting stuff in the video that remains open to debate. The moon subject is finished and I simply don't insist that the OP share my point of view on it when there are so many other things we can talk about instead.

Did you see the flexible material next to the thruster moving? Or the large anomalous light on 1 frame? It deserves discussion and I was hoping Jim Oberg would have a possible explanation or theory. But Nada so far :/

Here's to hoping.

I appreciate the thoughtful responses.

Indeed, there is 4 hours of footage to view and discuss. The flexible material moving, the 1-frame UFO. The OP's 3rd sighting that shows 3 sequential flashing objects, including the symmetry of some object with 2 lighted sections. (I'll just post the pic again because it's so completely mysterious and unexplainable.)



^ I love it that the right side section resembles a half-moon, while the left-side flash shows that the object is not the moon. Yet without that flashing left-side, the right-side would be insisted (by some folks) that it was definitely, 99.9999% the moon. The sighting shows that many objects can look like a partial-moon shape, without actually being the moon.

And that's pretty much the whole moon-discussion right there. None of us are out in space to verify what objects are the moon, and what objects are not. All we have is the 4-hour video.

...

I can say that now that someone listed off the repeated appearance of a moon-like object, the repeating appearance does help that idea that it's the moon. So I've backed off my hard stance against it being the moon. It's possible, yet the visual appearance still doesn't match up, in my eyes, since the object in the vid often looks lumpy and not round. Maybe there is some crazy distortion effect. But at the end of the day, the object still looks misshapen. Camera distortion? I wouldn't have expected such dramatic distortion, but maybe. If that's the case, then I guess the next question would be why Elon Musk would go through so much trouble, for such an expensive project, just to attach crappy cameras that would make round objects look like they're not round? Maybe that's what it boils down to lol.

But still, the other anomalies are probably even more interesting. What's that object with 2 lighted sections, embedded above?

What's that snake or blur object in one frame?

The flashes are interesting, but I honestly don't think that the still that you're showing is one object - it's the moon with a random flash right next to it. The other flashes are not close to where the moon is in the frame - it was just time and chance I reckon. BUT - what are the flashes? On a clear night star gazing, you can see similar random flashes/points of light that look like camera flashes and their is a lot of discussion about it - there are threads about it here on ATS as well.

The 4:05.48 - 4:06.00 footage shows lens flares in the top right corner that vary in intensity as the car rotates, then 2 objects that are in motion (and at different rates) pass through the vicinity of the frame where the lens flares are in frame. The lens flares aren't really all that interesting, but the objects that move at different speeds have to be classed as unknowns.

Either way, the 4 hour video is rich pickings for the observant/patient! lol

originally posted by: horatio321
The flashes are interesting, but I honestly don't think that the still that you're showing is one object - it's the moon with a random flash right next to it. The other flashes are not close to where the moon is in the frame - it was just time and chance I reckon. BUT - what are the flashes? On a clear night star gazing, you can see similar random flashes/points of light that look like camera flashes and their is a lot of discussion about it - there are threads about it here on ATS as well.

The 4:05.48 - 4:06.00 footage shows lens flares in the top right corner that vary in intensity as the car rotates, then 2 objects that are in motion (and at different rates) pass through the vicinity of the frame where the lens flares are in frame. The lens flares aren't really all that interesting, but the objects that move at different speeds have to be classed as unknowns.

Either way, the 4 hour video is rich pickings for the observant/patient! lol

Thank you again for the thoughtful responses.

OK, regarding this pic that I keep posting, I will post it one more time lol just to refer to it:



Now, I was surprised that you actually think this is the moon too. I just looked back at the vid again, and I have to say that it seems to obviously be one object, which is unseen, but which has both lighted sections attached to it.

Here is the vid from the OP which shows it best. Go to 2:02, and play in slow-motion. The next second will show that mysterious flash, and both lighted sections keep perfect pace with each other, and perfect speed with each other, i.e. they give every sign of being attached and part of the same object. Mirror-symmetry, and matching speed, and same positioning while moving. (The flash lasts for several frames of the vid, which is why you can see that it keeps the same speed and position etc.)

Please do the slow-motion at 2:02, you can see that the two lighted sections must be attached:

The 4:05.48 - 4:06.00 footage shows lens flares in the top right corner that vary in intensity as the car rotates, then 2 objects that are in motion (and at different rates) pass through the vicinity of the frame where the lens flares are in frame. The lens flares aren't really all that interesting, but the objects that move at different speeds have to be classed as unknowns.

I agree that that part is probably lens flares. However, they do form some odd shapes; there were like 6 or 8 pancake shaped lens flares, if you can manage get your screen to show it.

And then when the 2 objects shoot up, one disappears at the same time that it hits one of the lens flare pancake shapes. Coincidence, probably, or maybe it's something much more interesting lol. A group of ships, with a couple objects shooting up to them.

Also, of those 2 objects, one is by itself, while the other object (if you look close) has a second smaller object rotating around it. Even if that's just nature, it's really wild.

a reply to: horatio321

Phobos is irrelevant to this thread, it really is.

exactly.

I find it difficult to comprehend how people can find it so difficult to see the resemblance between the moon in last quarter phase and the object we see in the video, numerous times.

same here.

However, there's plenty of other interesting stuff in the video that remains open to debate.

Yes to Space enthusiasts that may want to track and observe the environment.

Or to the guys keeping an eye on things to make sure the car doesn't crash into a Flying saucer

But to alien and UFO (as in intelligent or at least observed to be intelligent ufo's not lens flares, ice crystals or space junk from space videos) enthusiasts this video is looked over and seen as mundane.

Did you see the flexible material next to the thruster moving? Or the large anomalous light on 1 frame?

I saw numerous "UFOs" but to me its OK that they remain as that because unless ET is disguised as ice crystals or some other mundane object found in space that could be from a rocket or satellite.

Jim does say that these types of things especially around the space station are important to identify and I hope you get some response but when the OP is so closed to whats being said then where does beating a dead horse get you.

a reply to: InhaleExhale


After 8 pages of flogging I am surprised that there is anything left of this dead horse. I think it should be left to rest in peace (or pieces).

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: InhaleExhale


After 8 pages of flogging I am surprised that there is anything left of this dead horse. I think it should be left to rest in peace (or pieces).

Intelligent people sometimes can't see the wood for the trees. In this instance, a respected member, who I suspect had a lot more to give, left the thread because they (quite understandably) didn't want to point out the bleedin' obvious any more.

But the thing is - several people here haven't actually looked at what's being discussed - they got to the moon discussion and then left face-palming. Maybe people are premenstrual or something. Shame really - because actually, in the 4+ hours of footage, there was a lot more left to talk about than just the mundane.

Additional flashes, flexible material connected to the thrusters MOVING (despite allegedly being in space). Members here have been given the time stamps - but apparently it's far to arduous for people to look.

They simply won't look at anything else until 100% of the members agree that 1 of the objects is the moon.

Reply to InhaleExhale


So that's a no then. The material on the thrusters moved, more than once, even though it did not seem like they were firing. I had hoped that James Oberg would offer some explanation, but the whole 'it's the f#cking moon' thing meant that he lost the will The material on the thrusters moving about isn't really UFO related to be fair, but I find it bizarre that they should move about and can't think what would cause that to happen?

a reply to: peacefulpete

There are a series of flashes, 3 around the time stamp that you're talking about. One of them is near the moon in the frame. But there is no reason to think that the flash near the moon is actually part of the moon? Confusion.com

So what you're saying over and over is that that particular flash and the 'object' are part of the same thing - even though there are multiple other anomalous flashes that are clearly randomly distributed and nothing to do with the 'object'.

originally posted by: horatio321
a reply to: peacefulpete

There are a series of flashes, 3 around the time stamp that you're talking about. One of them is near the moon in the frame. But there is no reason to think that the flash near the moon is actually part of the moon? Confusion.com

So what you're saying over and over is that that particular flash and the 'object' are part of the same thing - even though there are multiple other anomalous flashes that are clearly randomly distributed and nothing to do with the 'object'.

Yeah, that's what I've been saying, and I figured it would be obvious if you checked the time-stamp I mentioned, in slow-motion. The "moon" shape and the flash on its left, spend several frames drifting together, but keeping the same exact position with each other, suggesting they're both attached as part of the same object.

So I believe it's a craft with 2 light sections. And it would have to be an alien craft, as opposed to a manmade craft, because people would really not think of designing a craft with 2 bulbous light sections like that.

The sequence of flashes (among 3 separate objects) shows them communicating and syncing up with each other, I believe.

Communication through light flashes, is very possible... Heck even insects (like fireflies) and some fish communicate with light flashes.

a reply to: horatio321


Musk keeps a lot of spacecraft systems features 'propriatary' and thruster operation telemetry and scheduling is not released. I'm concentrating on the witness reports of the fascinating Zuma misadventure earlier this year. Other SpaceX activity has contributed to UFO reports all around the world since 2010.

Zuma unknown Jan 8, 2018

satobs.org...

Norway deorbit Feb 19, 2018

satobs.org...

FH [falcon heavy] escape Feb 06, 2018

satobs.org...

Persian Gulf deorbit Feb 19, 2017

satobs.org...

Indian Ocean fuel dump sphere Sep 29, 2013

satobs.org...

Australia fuel vent spiral June 4, 2010

satobs.org...

a reply to: JimOberg

Thanks for the links! I had a look through one of your 122 page reports earlier in the week, it makes for some very interesting reading.

I appreciate that the Musk thrusters and their operational details are off limits, but Musk had no issue with people having access to the video footage, thankfully, which I think is very gracious.

Do you see the flexing of the plastic on the following time stamps? In your experience, what do you think could cause such a disturbance to the material? Was it something the thruster was doing or does it look like something external causing the flexing? Please let your Mk I eyeball be the judge - it would be much appreciated!

3:24.28

3:31.26

Live Views Of Starman

a reply to: horatio321

Right now I'm concentrating on exposing the ""Cooper's Treasure" nonsense -- is there a specific site at ATS for that silly non-UFO program?

a reply to: JimOberg

What? I thought they already didn't find anything.
www.abovetopsecret.com...