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.
originally posted by: StolidPanda
UFO though? Technology to destroy rocket silently and without visibly using a weapong. Not enough technology to be invisible to camera? Or accomplish same thing from space. UFO sure, but alien it is not.
originally posted by: StolidPanda
UFO though? Technology to destroy rocket silently and without visibly using a weapong. Not enough technology to be invisible to camera? Or accomplish same thing from space. UFO sure, but alien it is not.
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.
The theory has been further fueled by Space X referring to there being "an anomaly" on the launch pad in tweets - as this is a term used by governments instead of UFOs.
originally posted by: tweetie
a reply to: Peeple
I originally got stuck on the use of the word anomaly when I first saw it yesterday morning in the statement made about the explosion.
From your link I just now looked at:
"The theory has been further fueled by Space X referring to there being "an anomaly" on the launch pad in tweets - as this is a term used by governments instead of UFOs.
originally posted by: Krneki
As I understand if the object was flying behind the towers then the tower pixel should not change and if it did fly in front of the tower the pixel should change and video analysis should show that. Or maybe not?