UFO Destroyed the Falcon-9 Rocket /SpaceX/Facebook & Israeli Aerospace Industries

a reply to: Chadwickus

Sorry I don't feel the need to convince you.
I see it, you don't.
I honestly don't see what we would discuss?

a reply to: Peeple

No, you don't see it. You're seeing what you want to see.

Big difference.

a reply to: Peeple

That's pretty high resolution, watch it on a big screen, frame by frame, it's there, it's fast, it's behind the towers, it's roundish, solid reflecting the sun light like a solid round object....

Let's think it through then

The Falcon is 70 metres tall which is 230 feet. By comparing its size to the towers, we can say they're approximately 80 metres or 262 feet.

These are rough guesstimates.

If the object passes behind the towers, we'd probably be talking about something on the order of a metre diameter and maybe a little more. I'm picturing a metre diameter ball on my floor as I type this and then trying to imagine what it would look like at 230 feet.

I think something that size would have been seen by everyone at the launchpad. Its motion as well as its size would caught people's attention. I also believe there are numerous cameras positioned all around both the general area as well as on the launchpad. They are a crucial part of the process and actually told NASA what went wrong with the Challenger disaster.

This leaves a couple of ways forward. We can say there's multiple footages of an intruding object and they're being kept secret (apart from this one). Or we can say the object was only visible on this one sight-line and that's because it was a bird going past in the near(ish) foreground.

a reply to: Kandinsky

Watch in original speed and it goes bye in less than a blink. A meter in diameter is totally good size for a drone of unknown tech.
It's really fast. I didn't see it first.
The only one who can tell is SpaceX. They have different angles. We not, we got NASA and Air Force between us and SpaceX.

But if I'd make military research, an almost undetectable, tiny drone with highspeed, capable of disturbing disrupt, whatever other devices, sounds like good invested money.

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

If you had ever seen one of these silver spheres in real life, there would be no doubt in your mind of what it was. Who's piloting it is another matter.

I'm with you on this one. I usually say these things are bugs or birds but this one is different somehow. Still not going to say I am sure what it is or if it had anything to do with the explosion.

I have seen a silver sphere in real life (two actually), not far away in distance from me and in daylight. It moved fast and weaved between trees in a very skilled way. It was the size of a beach ball, and pure metallic. defiantly was not floating with the breeze.

This was way before drones were public toys, and was a long way from any population.

Another time I witnessed one high in the sky, and it looked to travel for a short distance next to an airliner. I did photograph that one and even posted a thread on it many years ago.

To people saying it's a bird --it must be the biggest fastest #ing bird in the world, because that thing flew BEHIND the TOWER.

This site NEVER fails to astound me with the amount of people that don't understand that cameras work differently from your own vision.

Cameras have a property called depth of field which depends on a lot of factors such as sensor/film size, lens focal length, distance focused at and aperture used.

You will see a couple of simple images below to explain what happens.

First I have seen comments like it cant be a bird/bug/drone looks to big/fast in the video REALLY do you know what distance that object is from the camera ? Well for some on here is a short information video.



Now for the object in the image here are examples to show what happens to an object depending on focus,distance and aperture setting on the camera.

First I focused on the example object aperture f2.5 as you can see lots of detail in the object and it looks black.




Next I focused on the background at f2.5 the object is a blur no detail and colour is not definite.



Next f5.6 object is still a blur but not as much as previous shot colour could be blue/black



Next at f11 still cant make out same detail as first shot looks black again.



That's why a bird/bug even a drone could lose detail like wings/legs etc.

Now due to the blur and the lack of CONTRAST the object can appear to be behind the tower when it's not

Now as for the claims of the object being behind the towers depth of field has another property if you are focused on a distant object then objects behind that will look in focus, objects closer to the camera will look blurred. Below data for the lens I used for pictures above focused at 100 ft away at f11.



If I use the hyperfocal distance everything from 18.2 ft to infinity is in focus.

ALL of the above have appeared in films/tv shows on TV well those that pay real attention will have seen the above properties of optics.

a reply to: Peeple

When it broke on the UK news they said there was "an anomaly on the launchpad."

You can imagine the curiosity spike I had at that.

a reply to: Kandinsky

You really have to take a step back to appreciate it for what it seems to be.
An attack on US soil, on a project cooperation between US, China, Israel and France, Nicaragua.
Pretty confident, right?
Who would do that and who could have this piece of high-tech we might be seeing in action here?

I'm not saying the a.word, but ...

Actually screw it I say the a.word, Arabia, Arab Union? Tons of money, not exactly stupid people, probably thought they wouldn't get caught...
?
No way right? Better aliens.



And before someone mocks it for its round shape,
High maneuverability at high speed, requires high stability of the object. Think about that, what's the most throw-able object?
A ball.

If you watch this video at 1080hd you can see many birds and bugs close to the camera,
and they look like birds and bugs, and bugs and birds close to the camera.

The other thing in question while very hard to see at normal speed looks different. I don't know how to explain how it looks different, but it just does (to me). Again I am not suggesting it had anything to do with the explosion, and it could have been anything. I also know how cameras and Dof works very well.

Make sure you watch the full video with sound. Poor birds

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Pure oxygen (and liquid oxygen) are highly volatile - mixed with combustible substances (oil/grease) becomes
a high explosive

Early in 20th century was used for blasting - Liquid O2 was poured on porous combustible materials (charcoal) then set off by safety fuse

Was cheap and safe. If misfired would simply wait for O2 to evaporate - after 15 minutes was absolutely safe

All it takes is spark or static electricity to ignite. Even compression heating from a bend or sharp angle in the
plumbing is enough to ignite. Pure O2 atmosphere will cause metals to burn

That might technically be a UFO, but there is zero evidence that it "destroyed" anything. Complete nonsense.

a reply to: Blazemore2000

Sure two extraordinary events happening at the same time.
Because that would make it more likely?
Calculating probabilities.

Check your math.

You can see birds and bugs flying around and tell them right away with HDMI,that bigger object that is major major major fast coming in from the right of the screen is not the same and is much bigger.

That super fast thing is either a drone or bug,which means it is a UFO anyways....There are birds all over the place if you have HDMI you can see they are way slower.Appears to be bugs flying around also.

It might be alien technology who knows for sure.....I believe in the alien abductions but who knows what their purpose would be.

originally posted by: intrptr

Breaking news! Bird flies by as rocket explodes...

Are the two related? You decide.

I found a an up close video of the bird!! Case closed...erm

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Pure oxygen (and liquid oxygen) are highly volatile - mixed with combustible substances (oil/grease) becomes
a high explosive

All it takes is spark or static electricity to ignite. Even compression heating from a bend or sharp angle in the
plumbing is enough to ignite. Pure O2 atmosphere will cause metals to burn

There hasn't been a fuelling/re-fuelling accident since 1983 when a Soyuz rocket leaked its propellent all over the launch pad. There are also anti-static systems in place.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: Wolfenz


a Post fail move along ...

seen latest video ... HD shows in front of Towers its Bugs and Birds Close thread ! LOL,

but still fast little buggers ! and shows a Hawk flying around in a Circle ! too ..

edit on 02016SundayfAmerica/Chicago9247 by Wolfenz because: (no reason given)

but this is behind the towers , and was examined by the government & the Navy and Air force..

www.youtube.com...

edit on 02016SundayfAmerica/Chicago9247 by Wolfenz because: (no reason given)

a reply to: boncho
Just wanted to commend you on your excellent reporting. This # has gone mainstream thanks to your work and ats members spreading this information to key media.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: Peeple

When it broke on the UK news they said there was "an anomaly on the launchpad."

You can imagine the curiosity spike I had at that.

You said that because of this, right? "Anomaly" at :20

a reply to: boncho

That was freakydeeky. Now if we can just get them to autonomously pollinate flowers and make honey.