UFO: AirpScrlane-shape, Flashing Lights, Reflections (SpaceX Dragon launch)

a reply to: SacredLore

Good for establishing that the camera is most likely pointed at earth. This helps in understanding the video. I watched it several times and after a while it dawned on me: From the shape and the blinking lights this looks just like a regular airliner. Give it a try: The tail of the airplane just does not show well and that is why it looks unusual. The "hot pixels" would indeed by lights on earth, the object seems to obscure them when passing over them. But one problem remains: Why would the airplane appear so BIG? Do you have any data at what altitude the camera is? Google tells me that passenger airplanes would not fly higher than about 12800 meters (42,000 feet).

The camera is attached to the International Space Station, and the Dragon craft (which is the main object in the camera) is floating very close-by, to the ISS. (Before later, attaching to the ISS with the ISS' huge arm locking onto it.)

I just looked up the height of the ISS above the Earth, in general, it's about 400 km above Earth, i.e. about 250 miles above Earth.

I also looked up the size of the Dragon, to get a better sense of the size of the UFO that passes by.

The Dragon craft:

HEIGHT WITH TRUNK
7.2m... (i.e. 23.6 ft)

...And so if the Dragon craft is about 25 feet long, then that gives us the rough sense of the UFO's size. Which seems like it's probably around the same size of the Dragon, if not slightly bigger than the Dragon.

The UFO probably isn't HUGE though, because it seems close to the Dragon, and looks around the same size as the Dragon...

And while I agree that the UFO does look very much like an airplane:

It wouldn't make sense, for an airplane to be near the ISS' location in space lol, 250 miles above Earth...!

ALSO, while the craft seems to have a plane shape, the craft's lights seem arranged in a very irregular, and non-human way, lol. The left wing has a cluster of lights on it, for example...

a reply to: peacefulpete

I am no expert, but I don't think all of the the bright spots on the UFO are lights. I think some/all are reflections. It could be space junk like the gold foil they use on satellites and other spacecraft.

If it is space junk the ISS should have a record of it. Pretty sure it is not a jet, unless it is a black project aircraft that can access space.

There is no way to determine the size of the UFO because distances can be deceptive. The "stars" could be dust or something on the camera lens or bad pixels on the sensor of the camera. They could be getting averaged out by the neighboring pixels when the UFO passes.

I looked at the daylight part of the video again and the UFO seems to be moving the same speed the Earth is moving. That is hard to determine by just watching the video so I could be wrong.

Whatever it is you did a great job with the video and without hard proof of what the UFO is, it is a true mystery.

originally posted by: peacefulpete

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: peacefulpete

There is no such thing as a pure vacuum even in space. Hydrogen molecules for example. But not enough to transmit heat or vibration like in our atmosphere.

Do you know where the camera is located? Inside or outside?

Hmm I thought the normal teaching was that space IS a pure vacuum. ...Is that not the normal teaching / belief, anymore?

And the camera, I believe, is mounted to the outside of the ISS.

No, never been a pure vacuum - it's a hard vacuum, not a pure one.

a reply to: peacefulpete

Thanks for clearing this up!
400 km / 250 miles above Earth ... I am withdrawing my airplane theory in shame :-)

a reply to: oldcarpy
Correct, There’s several types of Vacuum, Outer Space vacuum is one step away from Perfect Vacuum. Perfect Vacuum has zero anything in it. If it only has one molecule in one hundred cubic miles it’s not a Perfect Vacuum.

originally posted by: oldcarpy

originally posted by: peacefulpete

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: peacefulpete

There is no such thing as a pure vacuum even in space. Hydrogen molecules for example. But not enough to transmit heat or vibration like in our atmosphere.

Do you know where the camera is located? Inside or outside?

Hmm I thought the normal teaching was that space IS a pure vacuum. ...Is that not the normal teaching / belief, anymore?

And the camera, I believe, is mounted to the outside of the ISS.

No, never been a pure vacuum - it's a hard vacuum, not a pure one.

OK well can u please point out where this has been taught? I've been out of school for some years but I thought I was always taught that space is a pure vacuum?

Who / where has been teaching that it's NOT a pure vacuum? (I came to that conclusion on my own, so it's cool to hear that it's been taught, but now I'm really curious to know who and where, was teaching that?)

For all I know, the teaching may have changed since I've been out of school...? (I graduated highschool nearly 20 yrs ago...)

originally posted by: 38181
a reply to: oldcarpy
Correct, There’s several types of Vacuum, Outer Space vacuum is one step away from Perfect Vacuum. Perfect Vacuum has zero anything in it. If it only has one molecule in one hundred cubic miles it’s not a Perfect Vacuum.

^Sure but this seems more like splitting hairs over semantics, though.

Obviously outer space contains stars, planets, galaxies, etc. etc. etc.

But also, I thought the standard teaching was that it's a pure vacuum, aside from the obvious things that exist scattered throughout it...

rn I'm trying to figure out when / where it has been taught that space is not a pure vacuum, because I thought that was always the standard teaching...?

a reply to: peacefulpete

A simple Google is all you needed to do:

Wiki: Vacuum

In 1912, astronomer Henry Pickering commented: "While the interstellar absorbing medium may be simply the ether, [it] is characteristic of a gas, and free gaseous molecules are certainly there".[2

So, since well before our time.

originally posted by: peacefulpete

originally posted by: oldcarpy
As the camera is pointing down at Earth where it is night the logical answer is that this is city lights or, at the risk of the OP blowing a fuse (again), - squid fishing boats.

I'm going to pour over the footage some more, but I see no reason to think that the camera is pointing down at Earth.

It seems exceedingly clear & obvious that we're seeing stars in the background.

It also seems very clear & obvious that the object REFLECTS light, as a solid object, passing by the Dragon.

I wouldn't say that I've "blown a fuse" in the past, and certainly not about fishing boats, but the thread about huge lights glowing IN THE WATER, really did get ridiculous, with people arguing fishing boats (for underwater huge circles of light), people attacking the 25-yr airline pilot as being incompetent, etc. So if I "blew a fuse" in that thread, it's because the trolling was just ridiculous.

Here, I don't think there's such a chance for trolling lol.

You guys can argue that it's Earth's lights, meanwhile the background is obviously showing stars in space, not the Earth, and the UFO is obviously reflecting light from the Dragon craft (showing that the UFO is a solid object, passing closely to the Dragon craft).

You seem to think that anyone who disagrees with you is "trolling" you. There was no trolling of your thread, just people pointing out that you were mistaken, showing you pictures of commercial fishing boat lights taken from the ISS for example.

You called various posters "trolls", called me "Oldcrappy" (hilarious), told people to stop posting on your threads and called another poster a very rude name, shouted in capitals, called me and others "illiterate" and generally spat your dummy and threw your toys out the pram. Basically, how most of your threads tend to pan out in the end.

So, you accept that the camera is pointing down at Earth and that it is not stars that we are seeing in the background?

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: peacefulpete

A simple Google is all you needed to do:

Wiki: Vacuum

In 1912, astronomer Henry Pickering commented: "While the interstellar absorbing medium may be simply the ether, [it] is characteristic of a gas, and free gaseous molecules are certainly there".[2

So, since well before our time.

Maybe u didn't understand the question, I was asking about how long has it been common teaching & common knowledge... Because I still don't think it's common knowledge to most people... But whatever, maybe they just teach about space better, in other countries, or something...

a reply to: peacefulpete

Did you not read the Wiki entry? That should have answered your question quite fully.

May I suggest that if you believe that this teaching/knowledge has somehow recently changed that you do some basic research yourself rather than ask others to spoon feed you?

Man has been to space since the 1960's, after all.

originally posted by: oldcarpy

originally posted by: peacefulpete

originally posted by: oldcarpy
As the camera is pointing down at Earth where it is night the logical answer is that this is city lights or, at the risk of the OP blowing a fuse (again), - squid fishing boats.

I'm going to pour over the footage some more, but I see no reason to think that the camera is pointing down at Earth.

It seems exceedingly clear & obvious that we're seeing stars in the background.

It also seems very clear & obvious that the object REFLECTS light, as a solid object, passing by the Dragon.

I wouldn't say that I've "blown a fuse" in the past, and certainly not about fishing boats, but the thread about huge lights glowing IN THE WATER, really did get ridiculous, with people arguing fishing boats (for underwater huge circles of light), people attacking the 25-yr airline pilot as being incompetent, etc. So if I "blew a fuse" in that thread, it's because the trolling was just ridiculous.

Here, I don't think there's such a chance for trolling lol.

You guys can argue that it's Earth's lights, meanwhile the background is obviously showing stars in space, not the Earth, and the UFO is obviously reflecting light from the Dragon craft (showing that the UFO is a solid object, passing closely to the Dragon craft).

You seem to think that anyone who disagrees with you is "trolling" you. There was no trolling of your thread, just people pointing out that you were mistaken, showing you pictures of commercial fishing boat lights taken from the ISS for example.

You called various posters "trolls", called me "Oldcrappy" (hilarious), told people to stop posting on your threads and called another poster a very rude name, shouted in capitals, called me and others "illiterate" and generally spat your dummy and threw your toys out the pram. Basically, how most of your threads tend to pan out in the end.

So, you accept that the camera is pointing down at Earth and that it is not stars that we are seeing in the background?

I don't believe that you really think that there's no trolling happening in these forums lol.

The thread about underwater circles of light... was certainly not fishing boats... And the 25-yr pilot deserves credit for being familiar with how things look from his plane. Whoever was insulting his intelligence, was just wrong, as the pilot is a total stranger, and an accomplished pilot & photographer, that doesn't deserve his mind insulted by strangers.

It was also HIS photos and HIS impressions that the thread was about anyway, so it wasn't about ME being right or wrong anyway.

I called people "illiterate" for pretending to have semantical disagreements that were totally meaningless lol. Just to argue about nothing lol.

Re: This video: Based on reviewing the 3.5 hr footage, yes I accept that the camera is pointed at Earth the whole time, apparently. Of course, I already said that, lol.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: peacefulpete

Did you not read the Wiki entry? That should have answered your question quite fully.

May I suggest that if you believe that this teaching/knowledge has somehow recently changed that you do some basic research yourself rather than ask others to spoon feed you?

Man has been to space since the 1960's, after all.

And u just said ur not trolling.

I was asking if people were taught that in school? Or what? Because I thought I was taught that it was a vacuum, without further nuance...

And I was asking, don't most people think space is a pure vacuum?

Well, nevermind.

a reply to: peacefulpete

No, you insisted that the pilot was in the middle of the ocean in the middle of nowhere despite it being pointed out to you that he gave his precise position on his website, with maps, etc. Hardly semantics, just factual.

Yes, trolling happens on these boards but anyone who disagrees with you is not automatically a troll, although you seem to be convinced otherwise.

And please, stop shouting. I am not deaf.

a reply to: peacefulpete

I can see that this thread seems to be going the same way as your other threads.....

I have no idea what you were taught at school and of course I have no clue as to what level, if any, you studied any particular science subjects so neither I or anyone else for that matter can comment about what you were or were not taught at school.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: peacefulpete

No, you insisted that the pilot was in the middle of the ocean in the middle of nowhere despite it being pointed out to you that he gave his precise position on his website, with maps, etc. Hardly semantics, just factual.

Look, it's pure semantics. Just factual.

And you're either completely misunderstanding the semantics, or you're simply trolling about the same semantics.

And the semantics in question, is the phrase, "in the middle of something." You really can't understand that it's a very general, nonspecific phrase?

I don't believe you, that you have a real misunderstanding about that.

"I'm in the middle of drinking this cup of coffee," for example, is not referring to exact measurements of coffee.

But you know that.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: peacefulpete
And please, stop shouting. I am not deaf.

Shouting, what? I don't even know what you're talking about.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: peacefulpete

I can see that this thread seems to be going the same way as your other threads.....

I have no idea what you were taught at school and of course I have no clue as to what level, if any, you studied any particular science subjects so neither I or anyone else for that matter can comment about what you were or were not taught at school.

I obviously didn't ask you about my own school.

a reply to: peacefulpete

I'm the one arguing semantics?

You don't do irony, do you?