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

a reply to: Speotyto

Can you take a screenshot of the orb, because I didn't see it at all.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: Speotyto

Can you take a screenshot of the orb, because I didn't see it at all.

Hi,

Please watch the second video on the 1:30 mark, it's there, looks metallic, reflects the sun the same way as the airplane. I saw better video analysis on the internet but am at work now and can't find them right now.
Thanks for watching (watch the second video I just added, at 1:30).

Cheers,

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
SpaceX is known to use hexacopter drones and others to film their launches and landings. A good possibility it's a drone circling and filming the launch.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
^I think we hit reply a few seconds apart^

Except it wasn't a launch. It was a system test. The launch was scheduled for the following day.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: daerath

No. And I don't know what makes you think blowing up 16 mill for the build and 61 for the launch is a casualty? Not to mention the 200 mill payload...
It is not a normal occurence, it just happens a lot to spacex. Incompetence? Maybe but definitely not business as usual.

And it's no bird.

2 failures out of 29 starts is actually pretty decent for a new rocket.

The first time it was an overpressure event in the upper stage oxygen tank. This time the explosion originated around upper stage oxygen tank during propellant filling. Coincidence?

a reply to: boncho

Like I said---

It was a directed energy weapons test---Space based gyro-tron(orb) platform or electronic hack. SDi was never scrapped just compartmentalized and went dark. No mystery.

I never took a security oath or signed a non-disclosure agreement---I got cheeky LLC status if you want to play the corporate game with some medical and law enforcement exemptions tacked on.

a reply to: moebius

Sure why not, question remains what is the thing flying bye?

And yes I see now I was wrong because of the landing crashs. Which is understandable I guess. I mean the fact that fails a couple of times, seems like quite the task.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: daerath

No. And I don't know what makes you think blowing up 16 mill for the build and 61 for the launch is a casualty? Not to mention the 200 mill payload...
It is not a normal occurence, it just happens a lot to spacex. Incompetence? Maybe but definitely not business as usual.

And it's no bird.

What, you're saying that launch vehicles never explode on accident? They are extremely complex systems that must operate with near perfect behavior to avoid failure.

Happens a lot? Sure, on their attempts to land a booster at sea, except that they've done that now several times. They've had more success putting down on land, but the true goal has always been water landings. They've also only lost *one* other customer payload (June 2015). Two failures in 15 months to put a paying customer's satellites into orbit may be high when compared with the decades of shuttle launches without incident, but that also ignores that NASA and SpaceX have entirely different vehicles, crews, policies on how and when to launch, pre-flight checklists, etc.

But, lets say you're right. It was a UFO. That means it was either a human craft or an alien craft.

Please point out the flash of light, puff of smoke, dark streak / streak of light that travels from the UFO to the launch vehicle that causes it to explode. And before you go down the energy weapon/hypervelocity weapon route, consider that in such a case (since we're off in "wild speculation" land) you probably wouldn't even need to fly into the camera's field of view.

a reply to: daerath

I always included "hacked" while a large object flys bye in the background far away and crazy fast. What would you see then? Probably a spark from overloading a little helper you installed.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: daerath

I always included "hacked" while a large object flys bye in the background far away and crazy fast. What would you see then? Probably a spark from overloading a little helper you installed.

Ok, we will assume for a moment that you're correct and that a device was planted inside the launch vehicle or a component was modified/damaged intentionally to act as a detonator.

In that case, why would you even have to fly past the launch vehicle to trigger an explosion? It would be completely unnecessary. You could detonate remotely from a position on the ground, or via a remote transmission, or whoever planted the device (presumably a SpaceX employee) could do it from ground control, or using a simple timer. SpaceX doesn't jam all electronic communication during a launch / launch test as that would interfere with their own instruments.

So if the dot IS a UFO then you have to eliminate the presence of a planted device as the cause as it makes no sense to plant a device, fly into the field of view of a camera that you know will be recording the booster test and will capture your vehicle on video only to remotely detonate a device. The only logical reason for a flyby would be if you had to be relatively near the vehicle. Even then, given the relatively small field of view of the camera you could still stay off camera and be within range, so I'll ask again. Where is the flash, puff of smoke, streak of light, etc.

It was an accident. Pure and simple.

I find it interesting that around the 49,50,51 second mark when the top exhaust shoots out, it appears to glitch for a second. Almost like the video feed was interrupted. I watched this video several times and I can't find that happening at any other time.

So UFO's are still Nazi or
anti Semitic at the very least ?
I'm sure Israel was putting something
up that was for the betterment of all mankind.

Sure it could be a weapon , UFO or a Mandela Effect ( i figured its been at least 5 mins since someone made reference to a ME) or more likely its the fact that when you mix something highly volatile with a complex machine + the human element you sometimes get catastrophic failures. If additional information comes out to say,"this was an attack " then great but I personally jump to a conspiracy every time something happens..

As for the REDDIT poster, without credentials or any proof of employment, I could go make a claim it was just a bird and have it be just as valid..

originally posted by: zmonski1161
I find it interesting that around the 49,50,51 second mark when the top exhaust shoots out, it appears to glitch for a second. Almost like the video feed was interrupted. I watched this video several times

and I can't find that happening at any other time.

I see that same situation. It looks like a few frames are missing at the exact moment of the initial explosion. So, where are the other camera views? Even though it was not a launch, surely other cameras were in operation as part of the test.

a reply to: Mianeye

I beg to differ, you can see it whizzing past at about 1:09/1:10!!!

You are on target moebius.

Now, wait for the lawsuits.
Considering the law firms that are already squaring off a each other, this about nothing but money and competition.

And what does a pyramid on the roof of the High Court of Justice building in Jerusalem, Israel have to do with a UFO allegedly blowing up a rocket that's being fueled for launch in Florida ??

Another Bath Salts moment no doubt.

Buck

a reply to: daerath

You're talking about explosives I talk about electric overcharge. The helper in my case is a fuse that blew under attack from the thing that flew bye. Rocket fuel is really explosive, dangerous and sensitive stuff!

There wouldn't be a flash, puff of smoke streak of light.
If it was an accident then what is the thing zipping bye behind it?

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: daerath

You're talking about explosives I talk about electric overcharge. The helper in my case is a fuse that blew under attack from the thing that flew bye. Rocket fuel is really explosive, dangerous and sensitive stuff!

There wouldn't be a flash, puff of smoke streak of light.
If it was an accident then what is the thing zipping bye behind it?

Ok, fine, a planted or tampered device that causes an electrical overcharge. Same point. If you have a physical device in the launch vehicle then you can trigger the failure remotely without need to fly past.

You keep saying the dot IS a UFO. Please explain why it had to fly past if a device on board the launch vehicle caused the failure?

a reply to: StolidPanda

Technology to destroy rocket silently and without visibly using a weapong

Microwave emitter.

It looks much less UFO-ish when you look at the zoomed screenshot from the original video.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
SpaceX is known to use hexacopter drones and others to film their launches and landings. A good possibility it's a drone circling and filming the launch.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
^I think we hit reply a few seconds apart^

However, this wasn't due to launch at the time so why film it? (T minus 48 hours i believe when it exploded)

Dunno