Triangular UFO with NOISE, in space! (during SpaceX Dragon Craft launch to ISS.)

originally posted by: eNaR
a reply to: peacefulpete

I don't know if anyone said this but you can't hear sounds in outer space so... And if you can't but the headline mentions 'noise', it makes some go 'hmmm.....'

Can You Hear Sound in Space? - with an answer from CalTech

Right, I think it's very mysterious that the object seems to make that wooshing noise, when it appears.

Some folks have suggested that the noise comes from some kind of electromagnetic interference to the camera. But even THAT would be strange, that there'd be any audio coming from the camera, in any form.

And then the mundane debunking explanation would be that the studio just had a wooshing noise, at that one moment, as a total coincidence, and as a totally out-of-place noise in their studio lol. I don't think there is such a noise at any other point of the 3.5 hours vid (but I haven't watched every moment). There are more UFO's, in the 3.5 hrs, which don't seem to make noise.

Even the most mundane explanation (as studio noise) still leaves it as a very strange noise, in a studio, and a huge coincidence that it happens when the UFO appears. It would seem nearly impossible for it to just be coincidence... And even then, what would have made such a strange noise in their studio?

a reply to: peacefulpete

Try to learn something from everything that has been written. Education is a good thing.

"I don't understand it, so it can't be true." is not a good excuse. There are many things in this world we do not understand until we educate ourselves.

I hope that Santa brings you some desire to sit down and learn this year.

Merry Christmas!

originally posted by: MrRCflying
a reply to: peacefulpete

Try to learn something from everything that has been written. Education is a good thing.

"I don't understand it, so it can't be true." is not a good excuse. There are many things in this world we do not understand until we educate ourselves.

I hope that Santa brings you some desire to sit down and learn this year.

Merry Christmas!

Man don't put words in my mouth, especially such stupid words that I wouldn't say... but that you are saying yourself, lol.

And I'm pretty sure that I understand the topic far better than you do.

What understanding do you think I'm lacking? I guess I better check your last couple posts:

...Well your last post was lamenting over spelling corrections.

And your post before that, was claiming that the obvious stars in the video, are not stars, because they don't move enough for them to be stars. (As if you or anyone can know exactly how stars are supposed to move, when filmed from a camera bolted to the International Space Station.)

Do you understand that the stars in the vid... are impossible to be dead pixels / hot pixels? Because they only appear when the camera's lens is obviously adjusted to receive more light, exactly as stars would be expected to show up?

Do you also understand that a camera pointed down at the Earth... would not look like stars?

I hope Santa brings you some better understanding, and some learning and education, in general. Maybe Santa can bring you a book about how to use the internet for education and learning, instead of just trolling strangers in forums lol.

a reply to: peacefulpete

Have a Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year! May we both get what we need, and maybe something we want.

originally posted by: peacefulpete

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: peacefulpete

Here a correctly exposed picture of the Moon one of mine notice the shutter speed and we have NO stars visible

1/400th of a second f8 iso 400, Sony SLT A37 with a 300mm lens (heavy crop)


Here are some pictures of STARS mine again notice the shutter speed 10 seconds.

All f3.5 10 secs iso 1600 one at 20mm the other 2 18mm focal length.

Pleiades & Taurus

Taurus the V shaped stars at top of picture and Orion below

Moon just about to rise the fat looking star above it is actually Jupiter and a couple of stars from Orion on the right Betelgeuse & Bellatrix.

Lets look at the other exposure details iso 400 for the Moon, iso 1600 for the STARS
Now the Aperture f8 for the Moon f3.5 for the STARS f3.5 that lets in more light than f8

If I had taken the Moon shot at f8 and iso 1600 the shutter speed would be reduced to 1/1600th of a second.
If I had shot the Moon at F3.5 and iso 400 the shutter speed would have been 1/2000th of a second
If I had shot the STARS at 1/400th of a second and f8 like the Moon the iso setting would be over 1.6 million iso

Here is a video of a Sony A7S one of the best low light cameras you can buy

f1.4 1/30th of a second but 256,000 iso

Now if that was shot at the same settings as my star images f3.5 iso 1600 the shutter speed would need to be 30 seconds.

The camera that filmed the Dragon X could NOT show the Dragon X correctly exposed and ALSO show stars it's that simple. If the camera used was digital then it's hot pixels .

In other words... "meaningless garbage."

FFS, shutter speed has nothing to do with showing stars. And there's no reason that a camera can't film the Dragon craft at the same time as stars.

And it's not "hot pixels" when the ISS' camera shows stars, regardless if it's digital.

Can you stop wasting my time now?

Really explain this to everyone then

Eclipse Shadow

f6.3 1/500th of a second iso 400 focal length 170mm NO STARS DHEAD

or this

Soyuz TMA-01M spacecraft

f8 1/1000th of a second iso 200 focal length 300mm NO STARS

So why are the stars not showing

a reply to: wmd_2008

I found no reason to try to explain things to him any further. Either he truly does not understand, has convinced himself that there is no other explanation, or is just a troll, I am not sure.

Either way, it sounds like he is steadfast in his belief, so the point of trying to show him otherwise is moot.

Sometimes it is just best to agree to disagree. Don't get your BP up over it.

a reply to: MrRCflying

I just like to show he is wrong so others don't by into his BS

a reply to: wmd_2008

I can understand that, but in the end it is not worth it. Sometimes people will believe in something, even when shown evidence to the contrary.

For the record, I totally agree with what you have said. I have been into astronomy since before I could walk. My mother has a picture of me in diapers, looking at a Sky and Telescope magazine. I have done some photography, but not as much as you I am sure.

If you don't mind, let me simplify it for those that may be interested, but confused.

Basically the dimmer something is, the longer the exposure has to be. So in the case of stars, to get a decent exposure the aperture of the camera needs to remain open longer, to collect the low light levels.

Your example of the moons shadow on the earth is a good one. There would be no way to get stars in that picture. In order to capture the stars, you would need a longer exposure. If you did that the light from the earth/clouds would overexpose the image, washing everything out. Either way, you end up with no stars seen.

Well the good thing is that intelligent readers can discern who is trolling, and who is talking about real things.

At the end of the day, I believe that SpaceX’s video is obviously showing stars, as it seems obvious enough.

originally posted by: peacefulpete
Well the good thing is that intelligent readers can discern who is trolling, and who is talking about real things.

At the end of the day, I believe that SpaceX’s video is obviously showing stars, as it seems obvious enough.

So no answer from you on how the pictures above don't show stars just proves you are the one that hasn't a clue last time it was contrast, now exposure settings.

Let's face it photography/video/digital imaging is NOT your subject

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: peacefulpete
Well the good thing is that intelligent readers can discern who is trolling, and who is talking about real things.

At the end of the day, I believe that SpaceX’s video is obviously showing stars, as it seems obvious enough.

So no answer from you on how the pictures above don't show stars just proves you are the one that hasn't a clue last time it was contrast, now exposure settings.

Let's face it photography/video/digital imaging is NOT your subject

What the heck answer would you want? There are photos that don’t show stars, and there are photos that do.

Posting photos that don’t show stars... has nothing to do with anything lol.

SpaceX vid still seems obvious that it’s showing stars.

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: peacefulpete
Well the good thing is that intelligent readers can discern who is trolling, and who is talking about real things.

At the end of the day, I believe that SpaceX’s video is obviously showing stars, as it seems obvious enough.

So no answer from you on how the pictures above don't show stars just proves you are the one that hasn't a clue last time it was contrast, now exposure settings.

Let's face it photography/video/digital imaging is NOT your subject

Also no, we were never talking about contrast. We were talking about increasing colors. Which is not the same thing.

People like this are just impossible to take seriously lol.

Thanks for the laugh though.

Just throwing out a comment so I can come back later... Don't have time to check it out at the moment, but I'll be back for a watch and read

a reply to: peacefulpete

What colour are your stars then

a reply to: dothedew

You don't need to comment all you do is use subscribe icon .

a reply to: peacefulpete

Dummy why do some show stars and others don't that's the point evasive reply in 10...9...8...7

a reply to: peacefulpete

Again I come back to this topic and find myself so very intrigued about this. For the first time, this is genuinely unedited, real raw video footage of something that is going to be very difficult for anyone to explain away as it looks like nothing you could attach it to and just say it's this or it's that. It is something after 10 years plus of reading various topics and subjects on ufo's, secret craft and natural anomalies have never seen. I am pretty sure most will think the same here and on YouTube where lots seem to be debating what this is too.

Humans aim more and more for smooth aerodynamics shapes, this is triangular, yes but its body does not look smooth nor aimed to allow air to pass is with ease. It looks bobbly and edged with weird areas that jot out. We would not aim to build something like this.

Nothing more than a TR3B saying "hello" Its ours not theirs.

Is it true feed was "cut"?

Why cut feed if its just flying over a city in Russia?

reply to: sylent6

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: peacefulpete

What colour are your stars then

No answer yet pete why is that?