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

a reply to: Phage

No. Because it is false.

You mean like the photo you posted and said was a telephoto lens, but it said "NON-TELEPHOTO LENS" underneath?. Like that kind of false?

I went back and edited to express what I was saying better, try again. Also try to stay on topic.

Thanks

a reply to: wmd_2008

Still doesn't change the fact the BIRDS are closer than the towers. If you want other lessons on equipment just ask

blah, blah, blah - doesn't change the fact you tried to pawn off a 50mm lens and claim the same thing was happening with this one.

Yes, the birds are. There is a bird in the video, people mistook it for bugs, like you would see with a 50mm lens.

The object in question isn't a bird. Its out of focus because its in motion, not because of the depth of field. Also if the object is the same one seen immediately after the explosion, it's behind the explosion.

How does it end up behind the explosion but in front of the towers. Also, the passing object in question, is seen behind the tower in the original pass. So Im not sure what you are even on about.

There is a bird in the video, its not the object in question.

a reply to: boncho

Like that kind of false?

No.
A 500mm lens is a telephoto lens. Or were you being overly pedantic?

Long-focal-length lenses are often informally referred to as telephoto lenses although this is technically incorrect: a telephoto lens specifically incorporates the telephoto group

en.wikipedia.org...

Please provide examples of "most common or most popular " lenses with fixed apertures.

a reply to: boncho

How does it end up behind the explosion but in front of the towers.

In which frame is it behind the explosion?

SpaceX reviewing 3,000 channels of data to find cause of accident

Company also updates status of its alternative launch pads in Florida and California.

The company said it has begun a full investigation of Thursday morning's explosion, which involved the loss of its Falcon 9 rocket and AMOS-6 satellite payload during preparations for a static fire test. SpaceX's "Accident Investigation Team," along with oversight from the Federal Aviation Administration and assistance from NASA and the US Air Force, is in the "early" stages of reviewing 3,000 channels of telemetry and video data covering a brief time period of 35 to 55 milliseconds.

Link

a reply to: Chadwickus

Dude, I could only watch that for like a minute!! Whoa!! Intense!

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: boncho

How does it end up behind the explosion but in front of the towers.

In which frame is it behind the explosion?

It was behind the explosion in none of the frames.

In fact, in the frames in which the rocket was exploding, you'd think that the brightness of the explosion would be lighting the bottom of the "orb". However, the top of the alleged spherical orb stays brighter than the bottom, even during the explosion when you would think the opposite would be true.

There are also no conclusive frames that show it to be behind the towers -- or any conclusive frames that show it to be in front of the towers, for that matter.

Has anyone mentioned anything about the "supposed" giant bird ball orb having any reaction to the explosion next to it. It doesn't seem to alter it's path. It would wouldn't you think if it were a bird?

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

It was behind the explosion in none of the frames.

Are you sure? Because Boncho said it is. Let's just wait for him to show a frame, from a sequence of three, when the explosion is visible but the object is not. Ok?

originally posted by: CaptainBeno
Has anyone mentioned anything about the "supposed" giant bird ball orb having any reaction to the explosion next to it. It doesn't seem to alter it's path. It would wouldn't you think if it were a bird?

It's moving too fast through the frame to be anywhere near the rocket. It may be only a few feet from the camera, far from the explosion. And in that case, it would more likely be a bug, not a bird.

A bug passing through the field of view of the camera and was only a few feet from the lens would pass through that field of view in a quick instant, which is what we saw -- i.e., an object go through the camera's field of view in the blink of an eye.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

It's an Orb shaped UFO in it's truest sense.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

It was behind the explosion in none of the frames.

Are you sure? Because Boncho said it is. Let's just wait for him to show a frame, from a sequence of three, when the explosion is visible but the object is not. Ok?

I already posted it. People were positing the 'bird' seen before was in front of the towers (clearly) so it must be the same object as the UFO which passes over, which that logic than surely this object is the same object (UFO)

In fact, that was suggested (as a possibility not a presumptive conclusion as some are making) much earlier than any of the people in here have made their claims.

ALSO, there's another frame, from the original pass. The main pass in question when the explosion happens, and you can see the object behind the towers.

Please provide examples of "most common or most popular " lenses with fixed apertures.

No, I won't, because we are staying on topic remember? The point being made had nothing to do with the specifics of the camera/lens markets. It had to do with two people arguing a 50mm or wide-angled lens behaves the same as a telephoto lens.

Do you agree with their assertions or can we stay on topic? Stop bringing up straw man arguments.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

It may be only a few feet from the camera, far from the explosion. And in that case, it would more likely be a bug, not a bird.

Can't be. Its impossible. The camera is 3-4 kilometres away, anything like that simply wouldn't show up in the field of view. In fact, any "bugs" you see are birds. One bird does not make every object a bird however.

a reply to: boncho

The main pass in question when the explosion happens, and you can see the object behind the towers.

No, I can't. But you said it was behind the explosion. Didn't you?

originally posted by: boncho

It seems as if you and I have different definitions of "clearly".

That image shows nothing "clearly". I cannot tell whether the object is in front of the tower or if it is behind the tower. The layering is indeterminate from that image.

Can't be. Its impossible. The camera is 3-4 kilometres away, anything like that simply wouldn't show up in the field of view. In fact, any "bugs" you see are birds. One bird does not make every object a bird however.

It certainly is possible for a camera to show things sharply both a few km away and things in the relatively near foreground; cameras do it all of the time. This "depth of field" sharpness can be done with a zoom lens zooming in on rocket the far away background while a still resolvable object (like a bug) could be in relative focus just several yards from the camera.

Plus, the object I'm saying was a bug was not even as sharply in focus as these examples. The focus in a depth of field image can vary depending on the camera set-up; both foreground and background could be sharp, or the foreground only, or the background only. But it would be totally incorrect to say it is "impossible" to resolve something in the foreground in an image in which there is a sharp background. It's done all the time. Just because you claim it is impossible does not make it so.

Here are some examples of images that achieved depth of field, with thinks very close and other thinks very far away:





And the image I posted a few days ago of the example of a similar bug on a video also had depth of field and sharpness. I'm talking about this image, where I showed a still frame of a bug (pointed out by an arrow) from a video that I posted:


Click Here for full-size image.


Here again is that video. As I said before about this video, I am NOT talking about the white object pointed out by the YouTube uploader that was visible at the :25 mark. I don't know what that was, but that's is fodder for another discussion (it's not relevant to what's being discussed on this thread, so discuss that white object elsewhere). The object I'm talking about is visible in the next scene showing the white pickup truck. That object I'm talking about is a dark object that zips across the screen starting at about the :32 mark. Blink and you miss it.

That object -- which seems to me to most likely be a bug, and could be seen to be between the camera and the trees -- is similar to the Falcon 9 explosion object.

Video here:

originally posted by: boncho

ALSO, there's another frame, from the original pass. The main pass in question when the explosion happens, and you can see the object behind the towers.

I thought it was supposed to be an orb?

To photograph a scene to which you want all field of view in focus as much as possible, you want to use a small aperture right? something like f24 or more/or infinity. Thus scenic photographs are taken (usually) with a reasonably wide angle lens set with a high or infinity aperture. Like the photos above.

But in shooting an image, or in this case a video from km's away, the photographer would use a lens with a long zoom, or a long fixed zoom lens, and would not necessarily use a small aperture setting, but something faster and (imo) an aperture that would give the best picture (usually around f4.5 depending on lens) this would make bugs close to the camera next to impossible to see. This would be like the photographer zooming into the mountains (in the above scenic photos) in such an image this would then most defiantly change the depth of field and make the objects closer out of focus, or invisible.

But without the details of camera/lens settings this is all inconclusive. I hope the poster who sent an email does get a reply with the settings so we can get a better idea.

originally posted by: kangawoo
....But in shooting an image, or in this case a video from km's away, the photographer would use a lens with a long zoom, or a long fixed zoom lens, and would not necessarily use a small aperture setting, but something faster and (imo) an aperture that would give the best picture (usually around f4.5 depending on lens) this would make bugs close to the camera next to impossible to see. This would be like the photographer zooming into the mountains (in the above scenic photos) in such an image this would then most defiantly change the depth of field and make the objects closer out of focus, or invisible.
...

If the video camera was using a powerful telephoto to view the rocket, then the bugs could have been 100 to 200 feet or more (a few hundred feet?) from the camera and still been able to zip across the relatively short right-to-left field of view of the video frame. At that distance from the camera, the bugs would be visible, but would act as if they were closer due to the telephoto.

a reply to: Mianeye

If you tap and pause within seconds right before it gets to the 1:13 you can see those flying orbs. I was doing it from my phone and you can see them if you pause the video at the right moments.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Yeah, true.
Guess we can never really be sure unless we get another angle, or a definite frame where the "thing" goes behind something.

Would seem most likely to just be a random bug or bird instead of a et craft but I still would not say 100% sure either way.

It just seems different than the usual bug/bird to me in some way. I cant put a finger on why.
I believe in ufo's I have seen enough with my own eyes, but I am always the first to say it's just a bug or bird.

originally posted by: kangawoo
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Would seem most likely to just be a random bug or bird instead of a et craft

but I still would not say 100% sure either way.

It just seems different than the usual bug/bird to me in some way. I cant put a finger on why.
I believe in ufo's I have seen enough with my own eyes, but I am always the first to say it's just a bug or bird.

Oh -- I agree that I cannot say that it is 100% a bug. I have said that on this thread already that I can't say for certain that I know what it is.

I'm simply trying to point out to the people who seem so 100% sure that it CANNOT possibly be a bug that it certainly CAN be a bug. Maybe it isn't a bug, but there is no good reason why it couldn't be, or any good evidence that it isn't.