It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 15
144
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2016 @ 01:47 PM
link   

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.


As I mentioned before, I think the use of the word "anomaly" is being used by SpaceX to describe the explosion itself -- not the object.

That word has been used in the past to describe launch failures. They often say an "Anomaly" or "anomalous event" was the cause of a rocket failure prior to actually knowing what that anomaly was. The use of the word is common, and is not necessarily directed at the object, but rather the unknown nature of the explosion.

Here is an example of a launch in 2014 where the word "anomaly" was used to describe the explosion of a rocket being launched by Orbital Sciences Corporation on a re-supply mission to the ISS:

Article
ABC News Video Story

In this example from Orbital Sciences, just like this latest event from SpaceX, the explosion is the anomaly, and or whatever caused the explosion -- a spark while refueling, a collapsed strut supporting a tank (the cause of a similar past Falcon 9 failure) -- they are all anomalies. Don't read too much into that word.


edit on 2016/9/4 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 4 2016 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Box of Rain

Whoa there fella. I said my curiosity spiked; I didn't go on to say it was an alien probe.


That was all the info they supplied as it was live. Could have been a bomb or a bag of sandwiches. I was curious.



posted on Sep, 4 2016 @ 01:54 PM
link   
If these are semi high-tech drones for public consumption whether real or conceptual (search wording ORB Shaped Drone in Google Images)… then imagine the higher tech that Orb/Ball shaped drones may have already evolved into by military and or high tech companies. BTW, the first pic is from Nokia.







edit on 4-9-2016 by Ophiuchus1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2016 @ 02:49 PM
link   
The payload, not the rocket exploded. An x-ray assisted laser from a Project Excalibur satellite heated the lithium batteries and caused a small nuclear explosion. Now, who would do that and why?

en.wikipedia.org...
www.livescience.com...



posted on Sep, 4 2016 @ 03:19 PM
link   
One thing to note from op is that advantage this would have given regular ground infantry units was major league step up in battle field communications. Live feed good quality vid for example.......who knows what else.



posted on Sep, 4 2016 @ 03:52 PM
link   
15 pages and only a handful of people (I think first Chadwickus) pointed out the quite similar looking flying objects (more clearly bugs to me) throughout of the video. I'm failing to see why the UFO in question is any more remarkable than the other objects, other than the timing?

Only a few seconds before, at 1:01:







And at 1:09:




The last photo clearly demonstrates a very similar looking flying object as OP, in front of the rocket, which lends credence to the bug theory.

Also by the way, I'm totally not fun at parties.



posted on Sep, 4 2016 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: lakenheath24

The explosion began in the second stage LOX tank well below the payload.

The rocket exploded, then the payload exploded after it fell and hit the ground.



posted on Sep, 4 2016 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: tmpxvx
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.


It's amazing that some people still don't understand line of sight and perspective , prove it flew behind the tower

edit on 4-9-2016 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2016 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: lakenheath24

Explosion started in second stage, extending to the first stage. Payload fairing detached and fell away

Solid fueled "kick stage" used top raise apogee to 22,000 miles then ignited from the fire

So what video were you watching...??


edit on 4-9-2016 by firerescue because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2016 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: solarjetman

Nice screenshots.

I only had my iPad to do it with



posted on Sep, 4 2016 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: solarjetman


The last photo clearly demonstrates a very similar looking flying object as OP, in front of the rocket, which lends credence to the bug theory.


Impossible to be a bug. The video was shot approximately 3-4 Kilometres away. The camera has a telephoto lens, Im guessing 200mm or higher. That means the depth of field/field of view, would not allow any bugs to appear on screen.

If it did, according to physics, we'd all be blind. (you don't see dust on a telescope, on a camera lens, or on your eyes for that matter, that is depth of field at work--what appears like 'bugs' are birds. Impossible to be bugs. Also means the likelihood of it being a bird with how fast it was moving is low)

There were other people who suggested the same object you've pointed out is the object in question, which only adds to the hypothesis, does not detract from it. I have to check and go over it again.

There are definitely birds in the video, whether or not the object in question is a bird has yet to be determined.



posted on Sep, 4 2016 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: solarjetman

Nice screenshots.

I only had my iPad to do it with


If you presume that is the same object as what passes over during the explosion, that isn't the object seen right after also the same one (following the same logic), which then passes behind the explosion??? This one

I never made such a bold assumption, I said "its possible" this is the same object as the one that passed over. But you seem to have concluded the one before it is the same....(rhetorical questions aren't actual questions, they are statements)




Also, what are the other, identically sized, equally fast objects flying around there? Some are clearly in front of everything....


Strange.




a bug close to the camera will look like it moves really fast, but its not.


Three words: Depth of field. There are no bugs on the video. Only birds. It's a telephoto lens from 3-4Kms away. Your post with a wide-angle lens showing bugs fly by is not only a straw man argument, but its severely lacking in the physics & camera-science-stuff 101 department.



posted on Sep, 4 2016 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008
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.

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.


You were on to something until you started posting wide-angle lens examples like Chadwickus did. This is a telephoto lens which more than likely has a fixed aperture.

Since telephoto lenses have fixed apertures, since it is focused to infinity on something 3-4 Kms away, it's a very, very simple case to predict what is/isn't happening, and in fact it does compare with your eye quite a bit (in this case at least).

Now, do you see any dust in your eye?

You posted this

When you should've posted something more like this:



or this:



So now the question is: Did you make a novice mistake, or were you being intellectually dishonest?

edit on 4-9-2016 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2016 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: boncho

Here is something interesting that was observed. It is truly a bizzare situation.

Slow frames reveals the explosion as bizzare. Almost as if it was multidimensional.


edit on th2016000000Sundayth000000Sun, 04 Sep 2016 17:43:37 -0500fAmerica/ChicagoSun, 04 Sep 2016 17:43:37 -0500 by SoulSurfer because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2016 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: SoulSurfer

Super extra crazy video



posted on Sep, 4 2016 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: boncho




Since telephoto lenses have fixed apertures

What nonsense is this? Just as a wide angle lens has a range of f stops, so does a telephoto lens.

That 2.8 you are using may be the maximum aperture (which is the way lenses of all sorts are specified) but it certainly is not the minimum. You'd be sort of out of luck under bright lighting conditions if it were.

Telephoto lens. With f stops.
upload.wikimedia.org...

edit on 9/4/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2016 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: boncho

you dont even have to have a phd in phisics to know its just a bird



posted on Sep, 4 2016 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: boncho

originally posted by: wmd_2008
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.

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.


You were on to something until you started posting wide-angle lens examples like Chadwickus did. This is a telephoto lens which more than likely has a fixed aperture.

Since telephoto lenses have fixed apertures, since it is focused to infinity on something 3-4 Kms away, it's a very, very simple case to predict what is/isn't happening, and in fact it does compare with your eye quite a bit (in this case at least).

Now, do you see any dust in your eye?

You posted this

When you should've posted something more like this:



or this:



So now the question is: Did you make a novice mistake, or were you being intellectually dishonest?


Telephoto lenses DON'T have a fixed aperture unless they are mirror lenses (catadioptric) BASIC mistake on your part.

I STATED that the data was for the EXAMPLES I posted for the lens I used


I DOUBT very much it was a 200 mm lens or used at f2.4 most large telephoto lenses in that range start at f2.8


Also your example is a Canon 7D an aps-c sensor camera they would be more like to use a FULL FRAME camera like the 5D MK3 a 200mm lens on that is about 4x magnification so they would more likely use something bigger say 4-500 mm they would be more likely f4/5.6 aperture so lets try that.

Oh 3km is 9842 feet




Still doesn't change the fact the BIRDS are closer than the towers.

If you want other lessons on equipment just ask



posted on Sep, 4 2016 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


What nonsense is this? Just as a wide angle lens has a range of f stops, so does a telephoto lens.


Umm....



Telephoto lens. With f stops.
upload.wikimedia.org...


Wiki Link

You posted:


"of non-telephoto design"

of non-telephoto design

of non-telephoto design

----

Anyway, no point in niggling these matters, I sent an email to the people that filmed it, to find out exactly what kind of glass they were using. And even if you post different version, sorry, my wording was bad, the most common or most popular are fixed f-stops or very low variation. That work better for you?

Both of you are picking on a irrelevant detail. My point was that Chadwickus and WND were using wide-angle lenses as examples, and they are irrelevant as a comparison because the lens in the video is a telephoto lens.

A 50mm is not the same as a 400mm lens, capisce?
edit on 4-9-2016 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2016 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: boncho
A 500mm lens cannot be considered anything but telephoto.
I would offer that the wiki author meant a "non-zoom" design. Not relevant, as "most common or most popular" zoom lenses also have variable apertures.



the most common or most popular are fixed f-stops. That work better for you?
No. Because it is false.


edit on 9/4/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
144
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join