Implication of sabotage adds intrigue to SpaceX investigation, page 1

posted on Oct, 3 2016 @ 10:36 AM

link

So, we all know the conspiracy hurricane that has taken over the ATS a few weeks ago. For those who are not aware of, here it is.

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

The original video is clear enough. The object that flew over the rocket is extremely fast. It had a shadow (so it was NOT a bug).
If it's a drone, I don't know, but anyways...

The long-running feud between Elon Musk’s space company and its fierce competitor United Launch Alliance took a bizarre twist this month when a SpaceX employee visited its facilities at Cape Canaveral, Fla., and asked for access to the roof of one of ULA’s buildings.

Interesting.

About two weeks earlier, one of SpaceX’s rockets blew up on a launchpad while it was awaiting an engine test. As part of the investigation, SpaceX officials had come across something suspicious they wanted to check out, according to three industry officials with knowledge of the episode. SpaceX had still images from video that appeared to show an odd shadow, then a white spot on the roof of a nearby building belonging to ULA, a joint venture between Lockheed Martin and Boeing.

I'll post the Source and quote the more intrigate parts for those who's got no time

Elon Musk, SpaceX’s founder and chief executive, has called the failure “the most difficult and complex” the company has ever had. About a week after the explosion, he pleaded with the public to turn in video or audio of the blast and said the company has not ruled out sabotage as a factor.

“Particularly trying to understand the quieter bang sound a few seconds before the fireball goes off,” he wrote on Twitter. “May come from rocket or something else.”

DEFINITELY SOMETHING ELSE, Mr Musk!

Since then, SpaceX, which is leading the investigation with help from the Air Force, NASA and the Federal Aviation Administration, said it is narrowing down on the cause of the explosion, focusing on a breach in a second-stage helium system.

At a conference in Mexico earlier this week, Musk said that finding out what went wrong is the company’s “absolute top priority,” but he said what caused the explosion is still unknown.

So, there's all the greatest and brilliant minds in the world working on it and still got no answears... Mhmm, maybe what "went wrong" it's not from this planet?

“We’ve eliminated all of the obvious possibilities for what occurred there,” he said. “So what remains are the less probable answers.” He didn’t say what those might be.

I love this guy.

This week, 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.

Well, I know nothing about politicians and republicans but it's up to you guys to consideer what reasons they've to get involved in it.

The Washington Post

lordcomac

posted on Oct, 3 2016 @ 10:39 AM

link

I guess my big question is this- did anything show up on spacex radar?

I have a hard time believing they weren't watching radar.

Although I suppose if it didn't, it could tie into the whole mh370 disappearing of an entire engineering crew related to new stealth technology.

intrptr

posted on Oct, 3 2016 @ 10:44 AM

link

Yeah, the current theory is that it's an insect flying past the camera.

MamaJ

posted on Oct, 3 2016 @ 10:51 AM

link

a reply to: lordcomac

did anything show up on spacex radar?

This is what inquiring minds want to know!!

Zarniwoop

posted on Oct, 3 2016 @ 10:53 AM

link

a reply to: vinifalou

The original video is clear enough. The object that flew over the rocket is extremely fast. It had a shadow (so it was NOT a bug)

I wouldn't rule out sabotage, but I seriously doubt it was that little bug that delivered the big boom from 4km away. Additionally, small insects don't ty[pically have the sort of mass or weapons delivery systems needed to cause such a "fast burn".

Aliensun

posted on Oct, 3 2016 @ 10:54 AM

link

a reply to: vinifalou

Did the so-called evidence of a small ball, an apparent UFO type of drone, moving near the rocket at the time of the explosion ever get settled? Musk's raising himself of the possibility sabotage by a competitor is very interesting and allows that that object was genuine even if he didn't exactly mention it.

As for what may be evidence later offered to the contrary about the actual existence of that supposed drone, I would hold all such questionable. No one, Musk as much as anyone, would want to admit that was an actual object. And given that was not some tourist's shaky phone camera, the reality of that object, not to mention its operating parameters of its movements can be closely determined.

We know that it is not a faked video, and the interpretations that I read on ATS after the incident about the object being a bird or insect have no validity except to deny what the object appears to be. --An all too common response to the legitimacy of an object denied by government and science.

Mianeye

posted on Oct, 3 2016 @ 10:54 AM

link

a reply to: vinifalou

It had a shadow

No it didn't, that is just made up to debunk the bug.

Take a look at at Boncho's pic's per frame, no shadow to see anywhere.

Peeple

posted on Oct, 3 2016 @ 11:00 AM

link

a reply to: vinifalou

"...authority should be turned over to the federal government"?! No. It's SpaceX who should be in charge. Unless of course we assume a federal crime. Do we? Are they trying to take over to cover for ULA? Or are they positioning them to get scapegoated?

tweetie

posted on Oct, 3 2016 @ 11:02 AM

link

a reply to: vinifalou

That's an intriguing article! So, they're working on the less probable answers for the explosion because the obvious ones didn't pan out.

Those 10 Republican House members, if they said what they said to NASA, have cast a bit of suspicion upon themselves from my viewpoint and I don't mean they were behind the explosion. Turn the investigation over to the Federal government??? The truth tends to disappear when that happens.

Good post!

vinifalou

posted on Oct, 3 2016 @ 11:11 AM

link

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: vinifalou

It had a shadow

No it didn't, that is just made up to debunk the bug.

Take a look at at Boncho's pic's per frame, no shadow to see anywhere.

You saying this image is fake? Can I have a link or something that explains your point of view? Or just your opinion?

files.abovetopsecret.com...

vinifalou

posted on Oct, 3 2016 @ 11:15 AM

link

a reply to: Aliensun

Hey, there! Thanks for your comment. I don't think they would set an investigation named "Unidentified Flying Object that invaded airspace when SpaceX got blowed up". They need solid evidences, and maybe this ULA thing is their Alibi.

Zarniwoop

posted on Oct, 3 2016 @ 11:20 AM

link

a reply to: vinifalou

. It had a shadow (so it was NOT a bug).

Are you implying that this...

SpaceX had still images from video that appeared to show an odd shadow, then a white spot on the roof of a nearby building belonging to ULA, a joint venture between Lockheed Martin and Boeing.

“Particularly trying to understand the quieter bang sound a few seconds before the fireball goes off,” he wrote on Twitter. “May come from rocket or something else.”

Is somehow related to the object seen on video moving in front of the camera at about the same time as the explosion?

The article is stating that Spacex is investigating something on the roof of ULA a few seconds before the explosion. There is no reference to the object that flew in front of the camera.

Mianeye

posted on Oct, 3 2016 @ 11:20 AM

link

a reply to: vinifalou

It doesn't show any shadows, and that is my opinion...

vinifalou

posted on Oct, 3 2016 @ 11:35 AM

link

a reply to: Zarniwoop

No, this object with a shadow.

files.abovetopsecret.com...

If this zoom is real and not adultered, it proves the object was big (bigger than a bug).

edit on 3/10/2016 by vinifalou because: (no reason given)

vinifalou

posted on Oct, 3 2016 @ 11:38 AM

link

a reply to: Mianeye

Object with a shadow, Mianeye, Mianeye, object with a shadow.

Now you two know each other, be nice.

files.abovetopsecret.com...

Zarniwoop

posted on Oct, 3 2016 @ 11:45 AM

link

a reply to: vinifalou

That shadow, if it is a shadow, debunks the idea of the object being close to the rocket.

Not really a shadow we're talking about here, but rather the illumination of the top part of the object. If the top part is illuminated, then the light from the explosion must be coming from above, putting the object much lower than the rocket and much closer to the camera... like a bug or a bird.

The shadow theory kind of kills the drone/ufo theory.

edit on 10.3.2016 by Zarniwoop because: (no reason given)

Mianeye

posted on Oct, 3 2016 @ 11:50 AM

link

a reply to: vinifalou

I misunderstood as casting shadows, my bad.

There are several birds and bugs in the video with same type of shadows, light on the top dark at the bottom, so the shadow proves nothing..

Here is the video, slow it down and watch the bugs or birds...

edit on 3-10-2016 by Mianeye because: (no reason given)

vinifalou

posted on Oct, 3 2016 @ 11:56 AM

link

a reply to: Zarniwoop

Have you ever heard there's a star named sun that emits light?

I quit this conversation, you're not arguing, you're blindly defending what you belive it's true.

Just get out of your box and I'll talk to you.

With best regards...

vinifalou

posted on Oct, 3 2016 @ 11:56 AM

link

a reply to: Mianeye

Will do when I get home!

Thanks!

Zarniwoop

posted on Oct, 3 2016 @ 12:08 PM

link

a reply to: vinifalou

Have you ever heard there's a star named sun that emits light?

Yes. If you have some evidence of sunlight angle and object location that supports your stance, I'd love to see it. I may have missed that in the other thread.

I quit this conversation, you're not arguing, you're blindly defending what you belive it's true.

Quitting your discussion with me or anyone who disagrees with your opinion? I form opinions based on available evidence and you haven't added anything to the evidence pool. It seems that you are doing the blindly defending thing

There is no relation between the article in your OP and the object in the video... You are making a huge leap there, which is more than fine to do on a conspiracy site, but it certainly doesn't prove anything and you are not helping your situation by not debating facts and evidence.