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: 7
144
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: boncho
New Theory :

Aliens detect a flaw in the rocket and decide to go have a look knowing it will blow up.




posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: yorkshirelad

That's about the only theory involving a craft that makes any sense... Quick flyby for a close-up snapshot for alien Instagram.



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: StolidPanda

UFO though? Technology to destroy rocket silently and without visibly using a weapong. Not enough technology to be invisible to camera? Or accomplish same thing from space. UFO sure, but alien it is not.



What on earth (or in heaven) makes you think that aliens would bother to make themselves invisible before making a sneak attack?! You make a dodgy assumption in order to try to justify your vacuous denial that the object had an alien origin. I could equally ask: what human agency able to destroy a rocket from a distance would NOT first use cloaking technology to make the drone invisible, so as to create the illusion of an accident? As none of us knows what the object was, we have to resort to arguments to eliminate competing possibilities. The alien interpretation wins hands down on that score.



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 03:28 PM
link   
To everyone saying it's a bird, care to speculate what bird species it is? Specifically one that looks like a flying pufferfish?



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Well well if it was a ufo...God/ Satan was pissed off like the Sun was with Icarus.

Shame that such a monument was rejected. Must cost alot of money for all that security and engineering. Just to be brought down like a temple.
edit on 2-9-2016 by Specimen because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Man that is an excellent find! That is exactly the same type of UFO that i seen about 6 years ago, it just sat stationary in the sky, it may of been rotating but it was so high i couldnt really tell, it was either rotating or had some sort of "haze" round its outer circle, It sat there so long i actually got bored and went inside for a bit, when i came back out a few minutes later it was gone, whilst i was watching it i tried to record it but i was using an old iphone 4 and when i zoomed in (digital zoom) the pixels were so big it was impossible to make anything out. There's numerous picture online of the same thing.



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

A UFO can be anything unidentified and flying. Unidentified craft is another story.

Thanks for the video. In that example the object looks more "buggy."

The object being discussed in this thread doesn't look buggy... to me. It doesn't look like an organic critter. It looks crafted.



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: StolidPanda
UFO though? Technology to destroy rocket silently and without visibly using a weapong. Not enough technology to be invisible to camera? Or accomplish same thing from space. UFO sure, but alien it is not.

Agree. Real aliens would have been more discreet, like they were with the Space Shuttle Challenger.



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 03:55 PM
link   

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

To me, the object doesn't appear as if it's close to the camera. That's just my take.

Also, as an aside we have HD wildlife cams (which are not the same quality as the camera involved, of course) and whenever bugs of all sorts are close enough to trip the camera they don't look like that going by.



By the way, I know I already provided one example of a video with a similar object that could have been a bug, but here is another example.

In this example, 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 here, and should not be discussed on this thread because it would be off topic and unfair to the OP). 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:


Again, I'm not saying the object in the Falcon 9 video is 100% a bug; I'm just pointing out that it could be a bug to those who say "it doesn't look like a bug to me."

Here is a still image. The Arrow was added by me:

Click Here for full-size image.


edit on 2016-9-2 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 04:03 PM
link   
It was not a UFO, that was a spotting aircraft that records the launch.


But that rocket was destroyed by a Laser Weapons System.

Watch the Explosion frame by frame it has all the hallmarks of a laser impact.

i.ytimg.com...



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Zarniwoop

I was about to say the same thing about the reflection. It showed in the 5 images sequence also. After seeing the other video, it was clear the object had to be lower than what is perceived to reflect the explosion from that angle, nearly on top of it.



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Peeple

I originally got stuck on the use of the word anomaly when I first saw it yesterday morning in the statement made about the explosion.

From your link I just now looked at:


The theory has been further fueled by Space X referring to there being "an anomaly" on the launch pad in tweets - as this is a term used by governments instead of UFOs.


Does anyone in government care to verify that?


I had no clue a controversy had erupted about the explosion until I saw Boncho's post late last night. I knew about the explosion right away and watched the original video not long after that but my eyes were unable to pick up the object flying through because it was going so fast. I did search for anything unusual in the original video yesterday morning. I probably began to blink and missed it.



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 04:53 PM
link   
As I understand if the object was flying behind the towers then the tower pixel should not change and if it did fly in front of the tower the pixel should change and video analysis should show that. Or maybe not?



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 05:07 PM
link   
It's orbs again , its tempting to make a fantacist story too , they've been around at least 16 years - if they're man made .

Do not break the universal laws of morality because you will incur enforcement proceedures ...



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: tweetie
a reply to: Peeple

I originally got stuck on the use of the word anomaly when I first saw it yesterday morning in the statement made about the explosion.

From your link I just now looked at:

"The theory has been further fueled by Space X referring to there being "an anomaly" on the launch pad in tweets - as this is a term used by governments instead of UFOs.


I figured that the word "anomaly" was 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 explosion.

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

Article
ABC News Video Story



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krneki
As I understand if the object was flying behind the towers then the tower pixel should not change and if it did fly in front of the tower the pixel should change and video analysis should show that. Or maybe not?

ATS member/Moderator "Zarniwoop" posted a still frame image (the only still frame image?) of the object and tower together back on page 6 of this thread.

In that image, the object and tower are pretty much the same color and value. So the image is inconclusive one way or the other.



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Hmm so no other angles yet?

Oh well, not surprised really.

I was having a think about the timing that these alien beings chose to destroy this rocket, days before the actual launch, on the ground... Why not do it once the satellite is in orbit? No one to see it happen then.

I guess that makes just too much sense...



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: tweetie

So what are all the other objects flying about before the explosion?

Yep there are birds, but there is also objects exactly like the one that supposedly detroyed the rocket.



14 seconds in, bottom left corner
54 seconds in centre tower

And more..


edit on 2/9/16 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: boncho

if bird...not saying it was or wasn't. wouldn't it have changed direction a bit with the massive explosion right below it?



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Chadwickus

Dont bring logic into this.


Its more entertaining reading the comments from the beweeverz




top topics



 
144
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join