Falcon 9 SpaceX Rocket - Explosion shows anomalies potential CGI

I felt it deserved it's own thread. Heres to hoping that someone with a little more video knowledge than I can provide examples of other slowed down explosions that look similar to what we are seeing in the spaceX video.

Videos have started surfacing all over youtube of the slowed down explosion:

www.youtube.com...

and with adjustments:
www.youtube.com...


Debunkers in the main thread are claiming that this is just a commonly seen effect that happens when you slow down a video recorded to certain specifications.

After hours of arguing they were only able to dig up the following two examples of this "common artifact" as proof:
www.youtube.com... (a hummingbird in after effects)
www.youtube.com... (a dude jumping in slow motion)


After that they declared case closed / victory.

What do you guys think? Do you agree that we should be able to slow down footage of any of the countless explosions on youtube and observe something similar? Does the video of the hummingbird or the video of the person jumping look like what you see in the spaceX video?

I think it warrants closer analysis.

a reply to: westernstar22
If a video is recorded at 60 fps. Then rendered at "1,200" fps.
Where do the extra 1,140 frames come from? The computer makes them up by blending the actual frames. The actual frames show no such "anomaly." The process invents it.

I've watched the videos and what exactly are we supposed to be seeing?

Cool, never was called a "debunker" because I used logic.
It was also not your idea, I asked you to make a thread because of your refusal to accept you are wrong and calling me a shill!

Debunkers in the main thread are claiming that this is just a commonly seen effect that happens when you slow down a video recorded to certain specifications.

That´s an outrageous lie again, people can observate the discussion here:
Link where the discussion starts


a reply to: Phage
And for that I need 4 pages to explain, he still does not get it.

Its a result of the type of compression used in the file i cant remember the name of it, but the poster above is correct, the "blanks" are filled in, And it is only noticed when something moves quickly, it also explains the reptilian crap that pollutes youtube

Edit, I found the video that explains it www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Misterlondon

This. A spacetimewarp.

originally posted by: Misterlondon
I've watched the videos and what exactly are we supposed to be seeing?

The slowed down video of the explosion shows something very strange that doesn't appear in other slowed down videos of explosions, unfortunately.

s11.postimg.org...


Some people are saying CGI, some people are saying its some kind of unknown weapon, others are saying its just a common video artifact.



Another issue with the explosion that a lot of people notice occurs in the regular speed version. The nose of the rocket seems to stay stationary until conveniently getting engulfed by the "flames".




The drone / bug that seems to absorb the majority of the attention only adds to the confusion since It also doesn't seem to have a good explanation yet

Personally I don't deny that we are seeing some kind of 'artifact', the entire explosion looked funny to me from the start.

a reply to: westernstar22

The slowed down video of the explosion shows something very strange that doesn't appear in other slowed down videos of explosions, unfortunately.
s11.postimg.org...

Because. It. Was. Generated. By. An. Algorithm !!! It does not show what happened in reality. But go on, take it as proof for any sinister reason you can come up with.

a reply to: verschickter
No worries.
He figured it out.

Some other interesting bits of information that may make you question the video itself:


Youtube was flooded with dummy accounts immediately after the event showing news covereage of the video clip with the flying object edited out.

There is also a complete lack of any other footage available for this 200 million dollar rocket launch. We are left with one shady video and a lot of stuff that does not add up.

a reply to: westernstar22

There is also a complete lack of any other footage available for this 200 million dollar rocket launch.

It was not a launch. Attempted or otherwise.
It was a static test.

So the theory is that after the explosion, SpaceX does CGI on the video to make it looks like ETs or such blew up the rocket but still state they are researching an Earthly malfunction?

Oddly enough I and others have used a variety of programs slowing down other videos of explosions. Have definitely seen some artifacts, but no black holes.


Odd that the spaceX explosion is the only example like this.

originally posted by: roadgravel
So the theory is that after the explosion, SpaceX does CGI on the video to make it looks like ETs or such blew up the rocket but still state they are researching an Earthly malfunction?

??

Well you're welcome to draw those conclusions if you'd like. I'm more focused on the video itself and what we can actually figure out. Motive wise your guess is as good as any.

originally posted by: westernstar22

Oddly enough I and others have used a variety of programs slowing down other videos of explosions. Have definitely seen some artifacts, but no black holes.


Odd that the spaceX explosion is the only example like this.

Here is a side by side comparison:

a reply to: westernstar22
The example you posted is not rendered at a higher frame rate. It is using actual frames. That is why it does not demonstrate smooth motion.

I thought you understood. I guess I was mistaken.

a reply to: westernstar22

You posted this

Some people are saying CGI, some people are saying its some kind of unknown weapon, others are saying its just a common video artifact.

hence my reply.

a reply to: Phage

Phage, I'm certain that claims of "UFO's/Aliens did it" are complete bunk.

Sometimes things go wrong with tests; sometimes things go very wrong.

That's why we test.

I've seen, on a much smaller scale, a number of "terminal malfunctions".

My question is, what was located at the apparent locus of the explosion (which appears to have been just below the point at which the payload fairing joins the main airframe) to have caused the detonation?

I'm not familiar with the internals of the Falcon 9, so I don't know if there are liquid or gaseous storage tanks in that area. Or if the PAM on the Israeli Comsat might have gone off.

I do know that very often, knowing where a disaster started can give you a big clue as to what caused the disaster to happen.