[snarks_when_bored]

Here are two consecutive (enlarged) frames from the video. The first is 8 frames after the object starts its leftward squirt; the second is the 9th frame thereafter. It's quite clear that the 9th frame shows a bit of the object, whereas the 8th frame doesn't. No subsequent frame has any trace of the object in it. It's also worth noting that the little glint of sunlight off the edge of the building on the far left is present in both frames, and the object is clearly situated behind that glint in the 9th frame, as it ought to be if it's really moving from behind the building towards the left.

 

8th frame after the object's leftward move begins (the object is still entirely behind the building)

 

9th frame after the object's leftward move begins (the object emerges from behind the building)

 

I'm not guessing what's going on in this video; I'm just saying that it's entertaining, whatever it is.

[JoeProBono]

Good eye!

[Quix]

Thanks.

So nice to have observant reason demonstrated on these threads.

[snarks_when_bored]

Here are the same two frames that I posted in post #24, but they're from the higher-resolution version of the video at the link posted by nuconvert in post #29:

 

 

 

As an aside, I point out that this video is shot at 25 frames per second, and the object takes 9 frames to go from a stationary start to appearing at the left of the building. By the 10th frame, it has completely disappeared from the video. So it took it about four-tenths of a second to go from a stationary start somewhat to the right of the building to disappearing from view at the left of the building. That's a fairly brisk pace, particularly considering that it was stationary to start with. And, of course, we don't know how far behind the building the object was, and how big it was, so the pace might be even more impressive than we might think.

Or it might just be very clever video manipulation...