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

Falcon 9 SpaceX Rocket - Explosion shows anomalies potential CGI

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Bhadhidar

With the telemetry they have it is highly likely that the exact cause of the explosion will be determined. Preliminarily, it has been thought that it initiated in the second stage fuel supply or in the hydrazine fuel system for the satellite.
edit on 9/5/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 04:47 PM
link   
My point is that some material/system failure is most likely and SpaceX wants to find it to prevent future failures. Lots of money is riding on it.

Many rockets have been lost and 2 space shuttles to material failure. I think the conspiracies involving ETs and space weapons are in the probability range that approaches zero. Hopefully SpaceX will be able to use it's data that was collected to determine what went wrong. If it is determined it will be from more than just the video.



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Unable to replicate the effect even in adobe after effects with 16x timewarp. Not even close.



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: westernstar22

Can you post your attempt?

But again, where do you think those extra frames come from?
edit on 9/5/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 04:55 PM
link   
I encourage anyone else to try for themselves as there is a wealth of content online you can use for reference. Don't let my fanboys here discourage you



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage




A spacetimewarp


lol.. You don't need to go to space to initiate the spacetime warp and eat your bagels somewhere a couple of LY away laughing about all the discussion going on on FB...


edit on 0b39America/ChicagoMon, 05 Sep 2016 17:51:39 -0500vAmerica/ChicagoMon, 05 Sep 2016 17:51:39 -05001 by 0bserver1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage
I wish you the best luck. We´ve gone through this but he is resistant to the fact that it does not matter if the effects can be replicated or not. It simply does not compute.



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: westernstar22

Why does it matter to you if the frames can be replicated or not? What part of it do you not understand?
I´m seriously asking myself If you are trolling by intention or just not able to comprehend what we are trying to tell you.



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: verschickter

You don't understand. Exact replication is required, the principle is irrelevant.
Just gotta keep that door ajar.

Though, in this case, I'm not really sure what door that is, since the OP has said this:

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



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: verschickter

.
This whole discussion brings to mind an observation worth mentioning.

It is only in the last couple decades that so much digital technology has become available to the consumer: home computers, digital cameras and camcorders, image enhancement software.

I appreciate the fact that you nail the issue with respect to the video currently discussed: “It. Was. Generated. By. An. Algorithm !!! It does not show what happened in reality.”

I feel that a large percentage of the “anomalous” photos and videos on line are the result of using technology without completely understanding it.

“Enhancement” changes actual captured data into something new you and the computer algorithm have created. This can be useful, like when police take an image of a license plate and increase contrast, emphasize edges and essentially try to manufacture an image that is a better estimation of what the numbers read.

Artists can make a photo more pleasing.

This is different from, say, leaving data alone and using mathematics to look for significant correlations and such. You’re changing the data before you analyze it.

Scientifically, this can quickly lead to invalid results.

.



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage
I hope that´s very dry sarcasm. He said many things while we were discussing and most of it was spinned and twisted during it.

I just can´t see the relevance of that artifact, when it´s clearly not taken footage but -like we both explained several times- generated to fill in the "void" between the original frames, timewise.



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: verschickter
Yeah, sarcasm about "exact duplication."

But it did seem the OP understood. I guess he realized that it blew up in his face and changed his mind.



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



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: westernstar22

If you are really serious, you may consider this scenario, and try to answer the questions without sidetracking again, please. I still have hope you understand it.

The best example would be the orb(whatever it is, irrelevant now). Since the orb was so fast, and the cameras framerate relative low, we interpolate it up to 1000000fps. Now we see the orb traveling in a nice smooth line.
Only that it does not proof the orb was going straight in reality. It could be the thing was going zick-zack but the framerate was too low to capture the moments when it was jumping to a higher point.

Now, if you look at all those frames and see in some frames the object becomes green:

Was it green in reality?
A simple yes/no answer.



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: cimmerius
And that´s exactly what happened with the OPs video. The creators either know that this is BS, or they don´t know what they are doing, when they interpolate the frames into a slowmotion video, discovered it afterwards and were all amazed what they found.

Ignorance at the highest level.



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 06:58 PM
link   
So lets compare some of these. 4 videos using adobe effects timewarp that all show some minor artifacts


originally posted by: westernstar22


www.youtube.com... (a hummingbird in after effects)
www.youtube.com... (a dude jumping in slow motion)




Rocket explosion 1 slowed down:


Rocket explosion 2 slowed down:




annnnd finally...the SpaceX rocket for comparison.







Decide for yourselves. By the way, no explosion that we have checked at any rate of speed looks like the Amos-6 explosion. Others will eventually test for themselves



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: westernstar22




By the way, no explosion that we have checked at any rate of speed looks like the Amos-6 explosion.

Is that a Trumpian "we?"
A royal "we?"
edit on 9/5/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 07:05 PM
link   
nevermind...
edit on 5-9-2016 by verschickter because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: westernstar22
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.


Spacex has history with explosions on take off and landing - why is this one particularly different?

bgr.com...



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Please note that we do not allow "Spin Off" threads.

ABOUT ATS: All about repeat topics and what to do about them.

Please continue the discussion in the original thread:

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

This thread is closed.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join