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

originally posted by: Zarniwoop
It looks much less UFO-ish when you look at the zoomed screenshot from the original video.

There's no telling what a form a UFO may have. It's not always going to look like a saucer if that's what you're implying.

a reply to: TrueMessiah

But you can clearly see in the upper three pictures from the upper left of these 3, the ones in the op have better quality, that there is the object behind the tower.

a reply to: boncho

The bug theory is interesting, if it was not for what appears to me as the objects distance. The closer a bug fly’s past a camera lens, the bigger it would appear to be seen. IMO, if this was a bug… then it would have had to be smaller than a knat.

So… for more evaluation and critique, here is the source video by U.S. Launch Report that was used by national news organizations.

www.youtube.com...

If you watch it to its entirety…… you will see not only the speed of the object in question, but also bugs and birds…..the bugs seen flying by the camera looks to be much bigger since they are closer to the camera. The birds…well, they fly much slower and aimlessly.

I think the question here is really the distance the object is flying away from the camera lens and that its straight line flight path seems to be from behind the rocket.

As anything else, it’s subjective to the eye of the beholder.

a reply to: TrueMessiah

There's no telling what a form a UFO may have. It's not always going to look like a saucer if that's what you're implying.

No, that's not what I was implying. I was showing the difference between a potentially touched-up screen cap and the original video. However, I think it is from a different video that the one I was looking at, so I don't really know what the "original" video is.

Haha the express.

originally posted by: Blueracer
a reply to: Agit8dChop

I agree that it is probably a bird. Much more plausible than an alien craft or some weapon.

Yep, a big FAT shiny Bird!

A fat and shiny spherical bird sure is plausible!

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: Blueracer
a reply to: Agit8dChop

I agree that it is probably a bird. Much more plausible than an alien craft or some weapon.

Yep, a big FAT shiny Bird!

A fat and shiny spherical bird sure is plausible!

Or bug. Relatively close to the camera. Maybe a couple of feet from the camera.

Bugs can sometimes be reflective, and the shape would be indeterminate due to being relatively close to the camera and slightly out of focus -- i.e., A bug could appear as a blob. A shiny spherical blob of a bug.

a reply to: boncho

The explosion was so close to the feeding line that it was probably a static electricity spark te cause of the explosion, or, better saying, the cause was some defect in the feeding nozzle

The object passing by could be one of the drones they use to shoot the launches, but it seams to pass very fast what is unusual I think.

Please delete this.

There's plenty of videos of similar objects on Youtube. Some are maybe bugs flying close to the lens, it's pretty hard to tell what they actually are.

There's many airshow videos where you can find them.

Here's a few:

Fox news-report about them:
www.youtube.com...

Airshows:

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Plenty of what appear to be crows went flying by in that video and none looked the way the object in question does. The crows are black, this object wasn't black.

The object in question doesn't look or act like a bird, even a bird that has its wings folded in and is gliding. I've watched countless airborne birds over many decades. I know of no birds which can move that fast in a more horizontal than vertical flight pattern.

A peregrine falcon can do a vertical dive from way up and gain a speed up to 200 mph but that's not what this object did. Even a peregrine doing a vertical dive is not going to have a round shape.

The bug option doesn't add up in my mind either but no one's taking a poll.

Just my two copper pennies.

a reply to: boncho

Interesting, very confusing to say the least. We can assume there was just a fault with the rocket, however knowing that such fault do not normally occur with such disaster like this one, the object passing sure adds to the very abnormal moment of the explosion and its passing. I would personally say, only from skimming the topic as there is a lot to read and read into, it could be as you seem to be pointing out am method of sabotage by a competing company. With what would seem like very advanced drones.

originally posted by: tweetie

The bug option doesn't add up in my mind either but no one's taking a poll.

Just my two copper pennies.

What issues do you have with the idea that it could possibly be a bug?

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Sure, keep it. It's okay. You're right it could be a bug, or ALF, or Klingons, or Atlanteans, everything is possible. Whatever you like, you're entitled to have an opinion.

But I start to sound like you, because I keep repeating, it clearly flew behind the towers. Can we move on?

I found this video which has many more frames (13 compared to 3 or 4) showing the yet to be IFO than the one I was looking at yesterday...



and made this animation from it for further analysis...



A couple questions in my mind:

1) There appears to be a reflection on TOP of the object coinciding with the bright explosion in this frame...



"If" that is truly a reflection, that would put the object much lower than the blast and closer to the camera. Then you have to ask yourself if bugs can show a reflection from a blast.

2) In the last frame, is the object in front of or behind the left tower. I don't think we can determine that based on the image. It "looks" like it might be behind the tower, but I know from previous photo analysis discussion threads that it can look like that in certain instances and not be the case.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Sure, keep it. It's okay. You're right it could be a bug, or ALF, or Klingons, or Atlanteans, everything is possible. Whatever you like, you're entitled to have an opinion.

But I start to sound like you, because I keep repeating, it clearly flew behind the towers. Can we move on?

"Clearly flew behind the towers"? It sounds as if you are making that part up.

I'm not saying it positively "didn't" fly behind the towers. I'm not saying that because I cannot possibly tell if it did or not...and I'm not exactly sure how YOU can possibly tell if it did or not.

So I don't think you can just, with the wave of your hand, dismiss the idea that it could have been in front of the towers (say wayyyy in front, maybe only a couple of feet from the camera) and tell me to move on from that idea, and instead ONLY accept your idea that it was behind the towers.

Give me some evidence that it was behind the towers. The video is inconclusive on that.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

To me, the object doesn't appear as if it's close to the camera. That's just my take.

Also, as an aside we have HD wildlife cams (which are not the same quality as the camera involved, of course) and whenever bugs of all sorts are close enough to trip the camera they don't look like that going by.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

I already said that's okay. Now what's your opinion what happened?

originally posted by: tweetie
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

To me, the object doesn't appear as if it's close to the camera. That's just my take.

Also, as an aside we have HD wildlife cams (which are not the same quality as the camera involved, of course) and whenever bugs of all sorts are close enough to trip the camera they don't look like that going by.

That's because too many people jump to the "UFO" conclusion on similar bug videos, such as this one:

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

I already said that's okay. Now what's your opinion what happened?

I have already been discussing that in another thread.

I noted yesterday in that other thread that the explosion seemed to emanate from the upper stage, which I though was odd because it id the lower stage that one would think would be more volatile (i.e., more "primed" for a mishap") close to launch.

Another person informed me that SpaceX already had issues with the second stage in another pad failure. In that case, a strut holding supporting a tank in the second stage failed, causing a series of events that led to the explosive failure. SpaceX thought they fixed that issue, but maybe they didn't.

Someone else on that thread noted that it could have been a failure/static discharge of the hoses that were providing the fuel.

Here is that other thread in which we have been discussing to possible reasons for the failure:
www.abovetopsecret.com...