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: 17
144
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2016 @ 11:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

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.




I agree with you on this.
I worked as a photographer on a military training base for four years, using top end equipment. Most of the time I had to use a long zoom as I had to keep a distance, you could see (sometimes) hundreds of flies around the soldiers and sometimes out of focus blobs (bugs) somewhere in the distance between me and the subject. I would sometimes photoshop these blobs out if it was a good shot. They would look similar to a dirty image sensor at a high aperture

I am thinking this seems different than a bug (to me) as it looks almost in focus and far away, and my gut feeling would be that if it was a bug a few 100 foot away, it would be a lot softer (almost transparent) and at that relative speed of it moving across the frame would make it not as visible. But again this is my gut feeling from years of taking thousands of photos a week. And as I didn't do much videography this is a slightly different scenario. In saying that, I do see what looks like a couple of bugs throughout the footage at real speed, but the object in question is undiscernible in real time, which would lead me to think that if it is a bug, it would have to be very close to the lens (because of the speed), thus making it no where near as in focus if at all, as the frames it appears in. Hope that makes some sense.

Saying this, if I had to put money on it, I would put it on a bug as a ridgie didge UFO is a lot less common than bugs.




posted on Sep, 4 2016 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: boncho

i think i'm seeing the same object - posted in a separate thread days ago: here

yes, there are several other "dots" moving around in different areas that appear to be birds and bees.

no, this rounded object does not appear organic. i analyze digital scans for a living, but am a lowly MD, and not as technical as some >ahem< here, nor did I have much time. Elsewhere on ATS, others have observed the same object to be only on 3 frames, implying a fast moving object with a very linear path. But that was deemed bug like too by others.

fun topic though.
edit on 9/4/2016 by drphilxr because: wrong link fixed



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 01:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
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?


YOU CAN SEE AN OBJECT COMING UP BEHIND THE EXPLOSION?? - There's a giant arrow pointing to it...

So Im not taken out of context, Ill note that I never stated the object coming up is the same as the object that passes but others decided that because a bird was seen in other frames, ergo, the UFO is automatically a bird too.

I don't like that kind of reasoning, I never opened with it, I never wanted to embrace it, but if people are going to say "verified bird at 0:45, UFO (@1:09) is obviously a bird!" than Im going to use the same reasoning and say the UFO is for sure seen, passing and returning from the same direction.

I only ever had a suspicion prior, and I only ever claimed 'maybe' prior, but if we are making ASSumptions, Ill join in.

On that note, it actually made me review the video again (a few more dozen times), and I think now there's an argument to be made about the object being verifiably different from the birds seen, and it may appear a total of 3 times. Im working on mapping the exact location, direction & waiting on the camera specs, and Ill have a new presentation for you and others to make irrelevant comments about.

Cheers.



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 01:53 AM
link   
a reply to: boncho




YOU CAN SEE AN OBJECT COMING UP BEHIND THE EXPLOSION?? - There's a giant arrow pointing to it...

Oh. A giant arrow. That's different.

But no, I don't see an object behind the explosion.

But your all caps is really convincing.


edit on 9/5/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 01:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


Oh. A giant arrow. That's different.
But no, I don't see an object behind the explosion.
But your all caps is really convincing.


Yes your dismissive, irrelevant comments are just as convincing, of ________.
I typed in caps because apparently a giant arrow is not a obvious, seemingly small letters wouldn't be either. Do you see the object pass from the left to the right, diagonally, off the screen top right? You do not see it in front of the explosion. Because it's behind the explosion.



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 02:01 AM
link   
a reply to: boncho

You do not see it in front of the explosion. Because it's behind the explosion.
No. I don't see it in front of the explosion because there is no frame which shows it there. Just as there is no frame which shows it behind the explosion.

Show me three frames; 1) with the object to the right of the explosion, 2) no object, 3) object to the left of the explosion.

I might then have something to consider.

Oh. I see what you mean. You assume it's the same object? You don't think that the brightness of the explosion might saturate the sensor, disallowing visibility of foreground objects? Overexposure tends to do that, you know. Is the top of the post behind the light?
pre15.deviantart.net...

The rooftop and tree behind the Sun?
uglyhousephotos.com...

edit on 9/5/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 02:27 AM
link   
To prove this was an object we need radar or another video or picture from a different angle. It'll probably stay a bug otherwise.

That bug is famous now. Just doesn't konw it. ATS reporting!
edit on 9/5/2016 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 02:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

It's really fast. Less than a second for the entire panorama. The light wouldn't reach it.



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 02:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Peeple




The light wouldn't reach it.

The light wouldn't reach what?

Heh. Good one.
Light travels 186,000 miles in a second. Maybe I'm missing your point. Are you saying that the light from the object reaches the camera after the light from the explosion? Seriously? How far away do you think the object was in comparison to the rocket?

edit on 9/5/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 02:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

The point is, if it were that far away, as I think it is and as fast through the panorama as it is, the light wouldn't reach it. I stand by my statement and I know your toenails are aching, because of that. Sorry, not sorry.



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 02:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Peeple

What light wouldn't reach what? The camera? The object?
I have no idea what you mean.

edit on 9/5/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 03:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Had to go back to page 5


originally posted by: vinifalou
LOL a bird? A drone?

"If between the left tower and right tower there is at least a quarter mile and the so called bug beamed from one end to the other in 1/4 second. That bug is at least going 3,600mph minimum."


Link on the www.express.co.uk


It's funny how people try to find an easy answear for these things we know NOTHING about (yet).


That's mach 6 plane stuff. A rounded up 5800kmh.
edit on 5-9-2016 by Peeple because: Ex


You may also take that as bug report. It's not showing up if there is ex, or quote in the post I quote from my tablet.
Keep up the good work.

edit on 5-9-2016 by Peeple because: Add



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 03:32 AM
link   
Here are more pics of the object (IF it is the same object) caught during the explosion fire ball progression to consider for evaluation and critique. The source (host) of the pic with Headline is Reuters, and then the following pics are my zoom-ins of the object.

Note that there does seem to appear in this particular series of pics, the reflection of the explosion underneath/underneath-side?? of the object. This may or may not reconcile some distancing questions of the object-to-camera referencing.

Also, note perhaps for some other correlation or triangulation considerations, the cylindrical top portions of the 3 of 4 towers in the picture framed…..you can see the amount of explosion lighting and shadowing on them. Whether it’s relevant for the sake of distancing the object, I’m not sure. I’m just stating it as an element in the pic, nothing more.






edit on 5-9-2016 by Ophiuchus1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-9-2016 by Ophiuchus1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-9-2016 by Ophiuchus1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 03:59 AM
link   
Fill m in if I'm wrong or completely off track.
Maybe we are all being distracted by the object or bug/bird thing, and maybe what I am about to raise is not even close and should be on another thread.

This falcon 9 was to carry the Amos 6 satellite into orbit?
The Amos 6 is an Israel owned satellite and Facebooks first satellite?
The Amos 6 was destined to open up sub-Saharan Africa to direct internet?
This project cost was around $200 million?

Am I in the ball park so far? is there more to this? a lot more?

Does the sub-Saharan Africa continents want facebook or would clean water, food, agriculture, schools, roofs etc.. be $200 mil better spent in this area?

I'm sorry if I am way off or ignorant to todays geography and status.



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 04:11 AM
link   
Cont.
Could there be some rare Pokémon's in sub-Saharan Africa?



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 04:20 AM
link   
Uhhhhhm OK WHILE THESE TWO GUYS FLOOD UP THE DISCUSSION WITH ARGUMENTS ABOUT LENSES

I am going to repost something no one seems to have noticed a few pages back...

Anyone mind telling me what the # is going on in this video?!?!

www.youtube.com...


please repost if it gets buried in their little argument again



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 04:36 AM
link   
Forget the argument about the drone/bug/pterodactyl and look at the EXPLOSION.

it's right in your faces.

www.youtube.com...



please explain what you are seeing here and forget the little dancing object in the background.

Communications satellite my ass!



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 04:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: westernstar22
Forget the argument about the drone/bug/pterodactyl and look at the EXPLOSION.

it's right in your faces.

www.youtube.com...



please explain what you are seeing here and forget the little dancing object in the background.

Communications satellite my ass!


Thanks for bumping that video.
Almost looks like cgi



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 04:51 AM
link   
a reply to: kangawoo

This is not a joke guys wake up



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 04:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: westernstar22
a reply to: kangawoo

This is not a joke guys wake up

I didn't mean it as a joke, I think it's very interesting, and it looks like cgi. I didn't mean that I think it's cgi.

It looks like a transition in frames.

I am looking forward to what others have to say about that video




top topics



 
144
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join