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: 8
143
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
my guess is a bug close to the camera. prove me wrong.


Just looking at it closely it can be clearly identified as NOT a bug. The object is round and shiny and spherical or oval. Bugs have legs and wings and appendages.

There.. Proven WRONG.




posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chadwickus
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...



I doubt aliens give a hoot about human value systems, and their own value systems don't include caring about doing things the same way humans would.



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 06:40 PM
link   
there are quite a few 'things' zipping about real quick in the clip. this one is at about 3:45;

files.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 06:49 PM
link   
I will go out on limb, without any scientific and or technical expertise or proof, and say, If it is a manufactured object, I will theorize that the object in its state of mechanical kinetic energy due to its high speed, also had built up from its high speed, enough of an unusual electrical field (envelop, bubble) … and that the extended field (envelop, bubble) itself, passed right into, through, or in proximity to the rocket as the object approached and passed by, which in turn affected anything that can be affected by strong electrical fields and susceptible to damage and destruction. Which would mean that one or more safeguards that may have been in place for static electrical control of the launch pad and or rocket failed against such a high electrical field.

Also, I am aware of the towers use for lightning strikes. I believe it’s a 4 tower launch pad… and the vid only shows 3 towers because of the perspective fixed angle of the fixed camera. The object could just as well be passing from behind, in front, or diagonal to the rocket and or towers.

P.S. The picture is from google images....just to show the towers, not the particular model of SpaceX rocket.

Just throwing that out there…





edit on 2-9-2016 by Ophiuchus1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-9-2016 by Ophiuchus1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-9-2016 by Ophiuchus1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 06:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
my guess is a bug close to the camera. prove me wrong.


Just looking at it closely it can be clearly identified as NOT a bug. The object is round and shiny and spherical or oval. Bugs have legs and wings and appendages.

There.. Proven WRONG.

That's not true. The fact is that if it WERE a bug, it would be close to the camera, causing it to be slightly out of focus, obscuring its wings and any details of its shape...and the object in the video is a slightly out-of-focus blob with no details of its shape. As for being "shiny", I think it looks like part of it is reflecting light -- and bugs can do that.



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 06:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: SargonThrall
Why on earth did the top portion explode, as though it were carrying a warhead? I could understand the fuel tank erupting or something...

Bizarre. It seems more like a ballistic missile defense test. Or perhaps even corporate sabotage.


That was the one thing that seemed most important to me. It is where it exploded.
Almost all eruptions of fire in failed launches seem to come from the lower section,
where the fuel and gasses are mixed into the main engine chambers.

This thing blew up directly below the payload, totally destroying it.
Hate coincidence, especially with it's owners, mission and the speculative, but interesting, UFO's
edit on 2-9-2016 by charlyv because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: boncho

Its definately not a bird or a bug ,during WW2 there was a sighting of an object that flew past Liberator bombers causing one of them to come apart and did not use guns to do it .There are already shills here claiming it was just an ''accident'' ,September 11 there were unidentified objects seen and on film ,and they were not planes ,birds or bugs, as usual just ignore the evidence an go along with the [sheeple] Official blurb ..........



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 07:11 PM
link   
I think the real question we should be asking is..

What's so scary about the Ka band, to cause them to show this kind of force (WE SAY NO)

Regardless of who "they" are.. that's the real mystery here IMO.



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: UnderKingsPeak

Better report the UFO to the ADL



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: charlyv

This wasn't a launch. It was a static test to check the systems before launch. The launch was scheduled for tomorrow. They were filling the LOX tank in the upper stage when it detonated.



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Just adding this...
Does anyone know if this vehicle is equipped with an emergency jettison, in case of a "handle-able"
malfunction?

Obviously in this case, it would not have been much use. Perhaps only for a manned mission, but possibly for value of the payload as well.



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 07:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: charlyv

This wasn't a launch. It was a static test to check the systems before launch. The launch was scheduled for tomorrow. They were filling the LOX tank in the upper stage when it detonated.


Thanks Zaph, that kind of puts it in perspective.



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: boncho

Wow great frame by frame pictures.



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Hmm where have i seen this before ? minus the explosion of course!!!!


Seem like Alien crafts Like going around Power Towers .. & Radio Towers


Thinking thinking ....


Ohh Here it is !

The Story
Mariana UFO incident
en.wikipedia.org...

The Video
www.youtube.com...


1950 montana & 1952 Utah UFO Film (Extended Analysis)
www.youtube.com...


Boy... 65 years Later and still floating around ...

just Swamp GAS !!



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Rocket & Towers in focus object not so most likely closer to the camera so more than likely to be a bird bug or drone.

reply to: boncho



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

I feel like the relative speed with which it flies next to the relative size is too high. Therefore, not a bird or a bug. If you watch it that thing flies so fast, and is so small. Yes I understand if it's closer to the camera there is less distance to cover, but that makes it bigger, this thing is super super tiny and hauls serious ass.

I bet if someone comes up with a line of size versus speed across the field of view they'll find it flies faster than a known bug of that size at any distance.
edit on 2-9-2016 by WhateverYouSay because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xarian6
I think the real question we should be asking is..

What's so scary about the Ka band, to cause them to show this kind of force (WE SAY NO)

Regardless of who "they" are.. that's the real mystery here IMO.


Not a bad question since it has been stated by whistle blowers back in the day that RADAR bands are what specifically interfere with propulsion on those saucer type craft. Whether or not it's true isn't proven, but circumstances and older testimony do support that.



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

If that was a bug, and I can't decide, it would have to have been very close to the camera going by it's relation to the sizes of other objects in the foreground of that video. Do you agree or disagree with what I wrote?



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: JBRiddle

I hope you don't mind me noting you sound very confident in your assessment.



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Box of Rain

Good response.

Just posted. An update on anomaly from SpaceX. I haven't even read it yet.

Link

Edited to Add: (Wow!)


We are currently in the early process of reviewing approximately 3000 channels of telemetry and video data covering a time period of just 35-55 milliseconds.

edit on 2-9-2016 by tweetie because: added text.



new topics

top topics



 
143
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join