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.

 

Implication of sabotage adds intrigue to SpaceX investigation

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2016 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Bugs can have shadows too.

Anything that is made of solid matter and is opaque will have a shadow.

A flying insect with the sun above it, will have a sun lit region on top, and a dark region under it (where the sun isn't shinning on it).

Now....if it had been CASTING a shadow on say, a structure below, that certainly would lend value to the idea that it was a much bigger object that was far away.

So yah: having a shadow only proves one thing: that light was hitting the top and not hitting the bottom, but it will in no way disprove that it was a bug.




posted on Oct, 3 2016 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: vinifalou

From www.evawaseerst.be...

You just need some common sense to understand ...

' .... Don’t believe that a moon landing costs -let's say- a hundred of billions of dollars. That is simply a lie. Why else private investigators now planning moon trips for a fraction of what NASA has made us believe a moon landing costs? Richard Bransom, Elon Musk etcetera ... if they would have been allowed to go their own way by the real rulers they already would have walked on the moon. They are great men but ho so tiny bunnies compared to the real powerful men. Bransom and others have plans to explore space, make tourist tours in space, build hotels, and yes they plan to visit the moon. But be sure they will encounter lots of 'misfortune' on their way ... '



posted on Oct, 3 2016 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: eriktheawful
Bugs can have shadows too.

Anything that is made of solid matter and is opaque will have a shadow.

A flying insect with the sun above it, will have a sun lit region on top, and a dark region under it (where the sun isn't shinning on it).

Now....if it had been CASTING a shadow on say, a structure below, that certainly would lend value to the idea that it was a much bigger object that was far away.

So yah: having a shadow only proves one thing: that light was hitting the top and not hitting the bottom, but it will in no way disprove that it was a bug.


Transparent objects cast shadows, too. There is no known material (on Earth) that can transfer light without at least minuscule loss. This loss is what generates a shadow.
edit on 1032016 by seattlerat because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2016 @ 09:08 PM
link   
a reply to: zandra


You think that these guys are playing it straight? As I've said elsewhere, they are playing a game to get the keys to the super technology of the (almost) secret triangles. If they look smart and innovative and with cash to burn they will probably get their hands on the first commercial triangles--which you may not want to believe--are also space capable.


The rush is on to commercialize space be it the Moon, Mars or asteroids. Getting their foot in the door of commercial space interests are exactly what they guys are about. Their equipment, to a man, is not up to the challenge of making space viable. Space needs very cheap, dependable cargo carriers, not puny rockets that can launch and land with miniscule loads or special launches, retrievals stages, etc. We've seen already that dependability is not a hallmark of these attempts.

The word "amateur" applies to the efforts we've seen from all to date. Some are imaginative, but lacking in meaning in the real job they are vying for. But that is secondary, they each want to be first in line to order a brand new triangle. Or the ships may be military surplus by that time.

Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop and GE are probably the builders of the triangles, and the government will have their share for defense, but the best deal for the manufacturers is to have them out in the commercial area to return a cargo for profit. At this time, even that would be chancy, but the triangles are not just a new A380 or 747. They are meant, if not originally from, for travel to another world.



posted on Oct, 3 2016 @ 09:14 PM
link   
How the destroy or set back SpaceX



10 Republican House members, many friendly to ULA, told NASA that SpaceX should not be leading the investigation and that authority should be turned over to the federal government.


Perfect, let the government screw something else up.

edit:

Bets are these Congressmen are invested in the competition.
edit on 10/3/2016 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 03:40 AM
link   
a reply to: vinifalou

Also a pretty article about it.



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 04:28 AM
link   
is SPACE X real or just is a fraud; a big scheme to steal billions of dollars from investors. How do we know it's not all CGI?

I mean some vidoes look real, other's like this one look totally faked:



Why? Because you can't go from space to earth in all of 15 seconds. It would take at least 10 minute or more. Plus it looks so fake.


edit on 5-10-2016 by bigpatato because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 08:50 AM
link   
a reply to: bigpatato

Make another thread in Skunk Works, this one has nothing to do with your fake theory and is not the right place for it at all.

And if you make another thread be warned that the last ones were thrown in the HOAX bin/Ludicrous Online Lies (LOL).

On to the topic, that is likely a bug on the lens and it is in no way casting a shadow on the building, but as the OP of that argument has quit because he couldn't handle debate of evidence I guess it is a nil point now.
edit on 5-10-2016 by MuonToGluon because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join