Space-Xplosion: No UFOs, Aliens or other Wierdness involved

AIR_UAV_X-47B_Desert_Illumination_Attack_lg

The Space-Xplosion

…by Ian Greenhalgh and Jeff Smith, VT Editors

A week has gone by since I published the article explaining how the Space-X rocket was destroyed. In that time, the internet has been rife with all kinds of far out theories of what happened, many of them involving UFOs and Aliens and a lot of esoteric crap. Well, there is absolutely no room in this narrative for any of that for the simple reason that we know what happened and it leaves no gaps for anything other-worldly, as Jeff explains:

Basically we know what happened who did it and why. No UFO’s. No magic fairy dust etc. Just good old cold war games. The only part that people refuse to believe is that 5th generation high tech weapons exist and work. However the Chinese and the Israelis do know this stuff and how it works. The general public would rather believe in UFO’s and vampires first. So it’s an up-hill battle to try and educate them because they refuse to believe in the truth. They still think that the earth is flat etc………

In our previous article, we pointed the finger at the on-board lithium batteries as being the likely material that underwent a fission-fusion event resulting in a small nuclear explosion. After taking time to study the design of the rocket however, we now think that it was the helium carried on board that produced the bang, as Jeff explained:

The part that went bang was full of helium pressurization tanks only. If you hit a pressure tank full of helium with enough x-rays and or neutrons…BANG! This section was made up of carbon fiber and thin aluminum. X-rays will go through that like a hot knife through butter.

So the hohlraum effect took place when the x-rays bombarded the tank of helium?

YES!. The Hohlraum Effect or rather it was a “Hohlraum Explosion” of either the Helium and or the Lithium in the on-board batteries. Single stage fission / fusion triggered by an external X-ray source / laser….Creating a small nuclear explosion in the helium tank / batteries. The bright white flash with the lens flare is it’s optical signature.

The blast is a plasma explosion of the Helium tanks / Lithium batteries in a section of the rocket that has no explosive material in it. The hot plasma spills out setting off a rocket fuel fire/explosion in the second stage fuel tank. So the only question is what ignited the Helium?. Only high power radiation can do that.

f9Helium

There was no overpressure or blow out of structural material in the first explosion it was all thermal radiation. The blast came later. The satellite then fell to the ground many seconds later proving that it still had structural support.

The lens flare proves that the source of radiation came from behind the camera producing standing waves that make the lens flare. Good old optics 101. How do you get rid of lens flare in a photo shoot? Move the camera’s position or change the lighting angle.

spaceufo2

The ‘Orb’

Everyone has seen the video now and the clearly visible round ‘orb’ that moves across the screen from right to left. The tinfoil hat people have been bombarding me with emails about this orb and my failure to identify it as an alien craft armed with strange beam weapons that defies the laws of physics or something similarly esoteric.

Sorry folks, it’s a drone, very terrestrial, very much made by humans, very much not ET or alien or anything weird, nor is it defying physics or flying at incredible speed, as Jeff explains:

The rocket is about 300 feet tall measure it with a ruler and turn it sideways to measure how far apart the towers are. These big dummies want to believe so they will cook up just about anything to prove it. Two falsie’s do not make a positive. The drone is a recon drone.

It’s moving at about 45 mph. 120 feet per second is about 60mph. The towers are about 300 feet apart. Count the seconds.

Drones

Various types of surveillance drone. These are all old photos, the latest drones are considerably more advanced.

Little Green Men from Mars or Space Invaders from Uranus?

Apart from the ‘Orb’, there really is nothing about this incident that could possibly give rise to thoughts of ET involvement, yet there are legions of people who are talking about exactly that – the involvement of ETs. I find it both amusing and a little perplexing, but Jeff has some insight into why this is:

Like I said people will believe anything but the truth because they can’t handle the truth. This is why everyone has their own version of reality that they carry with them. They are not crazy they just walk to a different beat.

So the Psyop people play this up big time. They are hiding the x-ray laser technology by claiming little green men from Mars did it. This is why the tinfoil hat shills attack what we say….

The French scientist Gustave Le Bon wrote the book on this tactic. Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini all used his tactics for mind control of the masses.

Jeff is correct, there are a number of websites and authors who are guilty of seeding the thoughts of ET in people’s minds, they are part of the Psyop, the cover to hide the existence and use of state of the art high-tech weapons.

We will cover the high tech weapon in question – the pulsed X-ray laser, in our next article. I will leave the last thought to Jeff:

Ian remember we are now dealing with 5th generation modern weapon systems. This is probably 3rd or 4th generation laser technology. Just like in 5th generation mini nukes we have had this technology for over 60 years. So back in 1945 when we detonated the 1st A-bomb nobody would believe it until we dropped one on Japan.

This more or less is the same event for laser weapons technology. Nobody will believe it until you show it off. Just like we did with the A-bomb and Stalin at Yalta. This time it was Obama at the G-20 summit in China. Timing is everything…..

____________

Related Posts:



The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT, VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians, or the Veterans Today Network and its assigns. LEGAL NOTICE - COMMENT POLICY

Posted by on September 9, 2016, With 18090 Reads Filed under WarZone. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

FaceBook Comments

44 Responses to "Space-Xplosion: No UFOs, Aliens or other Wierdness involved"

  1. drbhelthi  September 11, 2016 at 2:01 am

    Explained in VT´s previous 9-11 articles, the freon tanks beneath the WTC structures enabled the “Hohlraum” effect.
    Provided the “genuine schematic” of the rocket, several “respondees” could explain whether the rocket package contained the ingredients for a repeat of the Hohlraum effect. Major (Ret) Ed Dames´ graduate students, and individuals with the gift, could explain IF- perhaps HOW- the MOSSAD/CIA planned to use the nuke package. Former MOSSAD spy, Ari Ben-Menashe described the chief of the MOSSAD as, “He (Nachum Admoni) got the job because the man in line to take over the post, Gen. Yekutiel Adam, was assassinated by his own people.”(Profits of War – ,” p. 185) Which, reminds of the CIA´s Lee H. Oswald, the 3,000 and the “Jewish” constituency among the 3,000 outside Giuliani´s circle, more recently the CIA´s Chris Stevens, and numerous persons too “unimportant” to publish. Remote-viewer types might also explain IF the package were planned for an “unimportant” village in “Israel”, and IF, as the initial function of an “October Surprise of 2016.” As per usual, Iran or Putin – or both – would be blamed. “Remote viewer” types might reveal IF the MOSSAD/CIA event would be the “Reichtag Fire” for the MOSSAD/CIA to nuke additional MOSSAD/CIA targets, while publishing a threat toward Russia, attempting to prevent Russian intervention and delay WW3.
    Of course, these ideas are offered only as postulates, following Mr. Greenhalgh´s pattern.

  2. kaho  September 10, 2016 at 3:51 pm

    I went back to the USLaunchReport video I downloaded in order to get more accurate speed data.
    I now also chose the VLC app as viewer, and used the keyboard «E»-button for single-frame-forward. Thanks for the tip !
    I then used the screen-copy app to create tiffs of the VLC display windqw. And so I now have the five images that show the «blob» approaching the tip of the rocket, with A fairly large image size of 2560 by 1440 pixels. I then opened each image in the «GraphicConverter» app that comes with horizontal and vertical rulers. I also checked the position of the rocket’s tip in each image : It had the same position throughout ± 1 pixel. Here are the data I obtained with x and y being the horizontal and vertical pixel-coordinates, counting from the image’s upper left corner :

    Image | x | y |
    —————————
    1 | 2109 | 197 |
    2 | 1765 | 200 |
    3 | 1434 | 207 |
    4 | 1112 | 215 |
    5 | 794 | 212 |
    —————————
    Image 1 shows the blob in the frame’s upper right corner. Image 4 is the first image that shows the explosion and the tip of the rocket was positioned at x = 742 pix, y = 262 pix. So now everyone ought to be able to calculate the speed. Also note that the bottom of the rocket is at x=740, y=1310, and that the frame rate is 25 frames per second.

    • Peter Paul 1950  September 11, 2016 at 1:12 am

      Kaho, Great, but I might point out something else I just clarified for myself. I was just running thru this version for a complete copy of the sound track:

      SpaceX_Static_Fire_Anomaly_AMOS_6_09_01_2016_hd720.mp4
      Now that you mentioned that image 4 being the first image that shows the explosion that cannot be quite correct because you end up with a distorted result. You then have only 8 frames where the blob can be seen just the same as in the clip up above, where I used the # 1 super slomo version and got 16 frames with the blob moving from right to left. And here is the reason why.
      From the beginning of digital video there has always been a lack of speed for data transfer. So major developers used a sneaky way around reducing the amount of data needed to make a clip run as smooth as possible. Instead of forcing a constant flow of all 25 fps thru a slow running processor they use a method in their codecs called ‘dropping a frame’ or frame drop. By doing so you end up missing every ‘real’ second frame because they extend the duration of one frame by the factor of the frame rate and your looking at a film that only conserves the amount of data in a sequence that looks something like: 1,3,5,7,9 and so on.
      Handmade Walt Disney Productions go by a sequence that looks like this: 1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4, and so forth.
      Since the average human sees about 18 fps you hardly notice the difference that you are actually watching 12,5 fps. How is that for being fooled? Wysiwyg.

    • Peter Paul 1950  September 11, 2016 at 1:31 am

      Here is the link to USLaunchReport and their site including their message with the best quality sound effects available: 42000 Mhz stereo, but with the 8 frames version of the ‘phantom blob’:
      USLaunchReport
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BgJEXQkjNQ
      SpaceX_Static_Fire_Anomaly_AMOS_6_09_01_2016_hd720.mp4
      Published on Sep 1, 2016
      “To use this video in a commercial player or in broadcasts, please email [email protected] Thank You. We are a US disabled veteran run, non profit video production company who’s mission is to bring other disabled US Veterans to witness a launch, experience US Space History and become part of our report. Our nonprofit 501(c)(3) is 100% tax deductible, just go to our webpage http://www.USLaunchReport.com which is merged with http://www.VeteransSpaceReport.com and find our Donate button. You can help change the life of a US Veteran. Thank You”
      – They might even be able to get you a raw copy of the original live stream if they’ve been using the right equipment. Try them out.

  3. Pyotr  September 10, 2016 at 12:42 pm

    A very strange event. Hard to buy anything that I’ve heard so far. Watching the video in a normal media programme (VLC), At normal speed something moves very quickly across the bottom of the screen from right to left before the Drone(?) moves from the top right corner. The VLC plays at 29 FPS, and, using the “e” key the frames can be watched one by one. The Drone(?) crosses towards the rocket over three frames: That is 3/29ths of a second. The next frame, 1/29th sec, sees the rocket blow (in complete silence: No sound untill the rocket head collapses to the ground) and 3/29ths of a second after that a strangely square piece of debris leaves the rocket travelling skyward at about 45deg right. It nags you know. But there is more to this than told or guessed. I have wondered whether the drone fired a RF signal. But cannot as yet say anything makes sense.

    • Peter Paul 1950  September 11, 2016 at 2:04 am

      Pyotr, May I point out something about your calculation with VLC. It’s an allround media plaver that depends on so called codecs to even run clips. Every typ of video clip format like .mp4, .avi, .webm, .3gpp and so on have different algorithms they run by. One concerns the way the images are compressed and effects the frame rate, the other part for the quality of the sound. VLC identifies the format and selects the correct codec automatically. There are dozens of different codecs and VLC downloads and installs them on your equipment. You need a very good video editor to find out the true properties of the clip including it’s frame rate to be correct with your assumption. A good editor numbers each and every frame including the duration. When you insert a still image with a duration of 5 seconds you are not looking at a film like in the old days. The media player will stop running and pause for that length of time and start sending new frames to your screen after that time.

  4. Raptor  September 10, 2016 at 8:41 am

    The usual sources are trying to throw cold water all over this story, makes me sick. When will these media whores be slapped down for good? The fact that the owner of the company in question has no clue as to what actually happened, speaks volumes. He says they are interested in a ” quiet boom ” prior to the explosion. Would this be a means of cover by suggestion? Steering one away from hi-tech toward a missile or object seems ridiculous to me.

    Raptor

    • Raptor  September 11, 2016 at 4:33 am

      I go way back therefor, far too many to count. My favorite was the entity known as ” deep throat ” take it as you will my friend.

      Raptor

  5. kaho  September 10, 2016 at 4:37 am

    I agree that one cannot exclude possibilities, and I also believe man has a natural disposition to estimate likelihoods. Yes, even animals possess such disposition, since such abilities would tend to increase chances of survival. Which in its turn would tend to favor the propagation as well as the fine tuning of such dispositions down the phylogenetic tree. But I believe this makeup is also tied to a creature’s system of beliefs. Take for example the New Guinean «Cargo Cult», whose adherents evidently believed that airplanes were similar to birds, that they knew could be called down from the sky by placing decoy birds at various spots in the terrain, such as hilltops or open fields. But sorry to say, airplanes are not similar to birds in that respect, and so we see how false beliefs tend to warp one’s ability to estimate likelihoods.

  6. kaho  September 9, 2016 at 10:06 pm

    Strictly speaking you cannot know how far away the object is. However, the object’s existence is only of interest as a causal factor – as a trigger of the explosion. Such an assumption is based on the fact that the explosion occurs almost exactly – down to a small fraction of a second – the moment the object reaches its closest apparent distance from the capsule.
    Inspecting the footage in single frame mode, it becomes clear that it takes the object only three frame intervals to cover the distance from the rightmost tower to the capsule. At 25 frames per second it should then be easy to estimate its speed.

  7. kaho  September 9, 2016 at 9:08 pm

    I found a news clip from 2014 (spaceflight now com), that mentions a Falcon 9 helium tank. It has the purpose of keeping the liquid oxygen tanks under sufficient pressure. So that documents the presence of Helium.
    But we still lack information, or a proposal, of what kind of nuclear reaction powerful X-rays would lead to. The description of nuclear reaction is quite similar to the way ordinary chemical reactions are described. Viz. the reactants, an arrow, and then the products – like this : A B —> C D E. And then calculate the mass differences of course : To find out which way the reaction prefers to go !
    When estimating the speed of a possible drone, it is also important to distinguish between seconds and frames. There are 25 frames per second in the footage. And so it would be a fairly common error to get a speed estimate that is too small by a factor of 25.

    • Ian Greenhalgh  September 9, 2016 at 9:15 pm

      There’s no chemical reaction involved, it’s simply the Hohlraum effect. This is the basis of the second stage of a Teller-Ulam 2-stage hydrogen bomb. A metal container full of hydrogen is irradiated by the explosion of the primary stage and undergoes a fission-fusion event, greatly increasing the size of the explosion. Helium and lithium are two of several other substances that will go bang if irradiated. In this case, a metal tank of helium was irradiated by x-rays, the Hohlraum effect occurred and we get a small nuclear bang of around 0.1kt.

    • Peter Paul 1950  September 10, 2016 at 7:58 am

      I just edited a good 300 dpi copy of the clip concerning the orb or blob. It is clearly visible on 16 frames, minus 1 behind the logo! I layered them onto one single frame and to me it is obvious that the movement is not that of a flying object, because it doesn’t travel in a straight line nor at the same speed. Look for yourself.
      I uploaded it on photobucket for everyone to see and judge for themselves what it really could be.
      *ttp://s1044.photobucket.com/user/peter-paul-1950/library/

    • kaho  September 10, 2016 at 8:42 am

      No of course it is not a chemical reaction. What I meant to point out was that nuclear reactions are in many ways similar to chemical reactions, in as much as there are reactants and products, and that one writes down equations with the reactants on the left hand side, with the products on the right hand side of the equation. The subject is called «nuclear chemistry» and it can be studied in the major universities in most countries.
      The production of nuclear energy, whether in a nuclear reactor or in an explosive device, always involve nuclear reactions. That is the only possible way you can extract energy from atomic nuclei.

      So the point is that nuclear reactions are described by equations such as :
      ‘ ^6_3Li + ^2_1H → ^4_2He + ^4_2He
      Helium or alpha particles usually appear on the right hand side of the equation, as products, not as reactants. Hydrogen (or Deuterium) is an entirely different matter.

    • kaho  September 10, 2016 at 9:03 am

      Peter Paul : I looked at your image. Very nice !
      But where is the explosion? In the section of the footage that I have been referring to, the blob was located close to the position that you have marked with the number 10 in yellow. That is when the explosion occurred ! The fact that the explosion is absent from your image, indicates that you have worked with a different section of the footage than I have.
      I borrowed your image (hope you don’t mind), and opened it in Thorsten Lemke’s excellent «Graphic Converter». Your image is in 72 dpi and has a frame-size of 1024 by 590 pix. I believe the original was in the 16:9 format. Not that it matters much. BTW What site did you download the video from?

    • Peter Paul 1950  September 10, 2016 at 12:41 pm

      You can use it any time you like. Fair play.
      I suppose photobucket reformatted and resized it during uploading – I’ll have to find a differant provider that doesn’t do such nasty things. I’ll check out what happened. I uploaded a .bmp with 300 dpi and the size should be 1280×738 and 2,70 MB. But I can send it to you by eMail if you like just to make sure. I’ll make a second one and edit in the explosion. At the moment I’m trying to make an animated .gif of the orb.
      I don’t recall which site I got it from because I downloaded it with several others for my own private archive.
      Name: SpaceX_Static_Fire_Anomaly_1_250x_speed_hd720.mp4 – this one is a super slomo and it’s great to follow every detail. The clip is 73 MB and lasts about 21 minutes!
      The second ones name is: SpaceX_Static_Fire_Anomaly_slow_motion_hd720.mp4 and starts with the original real time lasting 1:14 followed by close up in slomo. In real time you hardly notice the blob because it’s less than a second flying from right to left.
      I left out the explosion my image because in this case I was only focusing on the blob itself, the up and down movement and the spacing from frame to frame. The initial explosion starts with frame # 8.
      Basically the pic is frame one and then cutting and pasting just the orb from each consecutive frame in it’s correct position.

    • Peter Paul 1950  September 10, 2016 at 2:50 pm

      Here is # 1 – it’s super slomo – best viewed with VLC to change speed and get snapshots in .jpg with 300 dpi – I then reformat to .bmp and edit each single frame. Original frame size is and stays 1280×738 300 dpi
      uncompressed. The difference is the file size: .jpeg = 119 KB whereas .bmp = 2.76 MB
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXqG-R8O39g
      SpaceX Static Fire Anomaly 1/250x speed
      orogenicman
      Published on Sep 1, 2016
      I slowed down the video of the Falcon 9 explosion that occurred today. It is obvious that the cause involved the second stage, which was being fueled at the time.

      (Available in differant sizes and formats so be sure to download the 74 MB hd720 version:
      SpaceX_Static_Fire_Anomaly_1_250x_speed_hd720.mp4)

      Here is # 2 -this one has first original speed – then he added closeup in slomo
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jr1ekitAtuY
      SpaceX Static Fire Anomaly slow motion
      dadcz
      Published on Sep 1, 2016

      (Also Available in differant sizes and formats so be sure to download the 16 MB hd720 version:
      SpaceX_Static_Fire_Anomaly_slow_motion_hd720.mp4)

  8. Peter Paul 1950  September 9, 2016 at 8:10 pm

    Ian, I don’t get it how you do the math. I can look up to the sky every day and watch jets flying by en route between Stuttgart and Zürich. They are only 8 000 meters away, that is 8 kilometers up, twice the distance between that camera and launch pad and yet they seem to be crawling across the sky. Yet I know as everyone else here can find out they are traveling up to 800 km/h.
    Even with clouds as a possible reference it is almost impossible to judge the speed on film because they are very rarely both at the same height. So where is the reference point needed to calculate the distance of the ‘blob’ in the first place? The rocket itself? The towers? How do you do the triangulation?

    • Ian Greenhalgh  September 9, 2016 at 9:10 pm

      I didn’t do any math, Jeff did. Personally, I haven’t spent any time looking at the orb because it’s perhaps the least significant aspect of this whole narrative.

  9. Peter Paul 1950  September 9, 2016 at 7:28 pm

    Steve K, I support you all the way concerning the distance of that ‘blob’. If it cannot even be identified for what it appears to some, so there is no means by calculating it’s distance from the camera in the first place. I’ve been filming almost all my life and have had many strange blobs speeding past my lenses. Mostly flies, bugs or bees and they were no more than a few feet away.
    You have to positively identify that object and that is to know it’s true size, or it’s just guessing and assuming. Due to the speedy movement you cannot even prove it to be behind the towers either. Not when it’s 4 kilometers away. I made a copy of the sound track and it’s almost exactly 12,4 sec between the first flash and arrival of the explosion. Multiply that by 333 meters per second, or just calculate 3 sec for 1 kilometer. That’s how I judge the distance of lightning during a thunderstorm.

  10. Larry Cox  September 9, 2016 at 6:43 pm

    You are talking down to us. I don’t think that’s necessary and it’s bad manners.
    It’s not like Jeff Smith is the only one on planet Earth who knows the score!
    And most who are trying to make sense of all this think the current scene is a product of ET-human interaction. The research I am familiar with says for sure that ET is in our past, and is more than likely in our present.
    You guys ARE being more level-headed than some of the “ET nuts” and other over-enthusiastic New Agers. But that’s probably not your main audience.
    If the whole “ET thing” is a psyop, could you please back that up with some data? As far as I know, J-rod really existed. The story being put out by Sean David Morton is somewhat suspect. Corey Goode, on the other hand, was there and believes what he is saying. So does Simon Parkes. So how are these guys all running psyops on us, and how can you demonstrate that’s true? What makes your data so much more trustworthy?

  11. kaho  September 9, 2016 at 4:59 pm

    I wonder why the rocket would carry a tank of Helium gas?
    But okay, let’s say there is a tank of Helium aboard the rocket.
    Then the first thought that comes to mind, is that Helium is an inert gas, that does not form chemical bonds with other atoms or molecules very easily. On the other hand, the Helium nucleus is often mentioned in connection with nuclear reactions, often as one of the end products of such reactions, where it is identical the the so called alpha-particle. It is also clear that an X-ray photon of sufficiently short wavelength will represent a sufficient amount of radiative energy to ionize a Helium atom and thus yield a free alpha-particle. But can two alpha-particles become joined in a nuclear fusion reaction? That is the crucial question.
    Okay, so they produce a Beryllium nucleus. And then if another alpha particle hits the Beryllium nucleus, Carbon can form, together with the production of a neutron. But hold your horses, that would be Be-9, and two alpha particles only give Beryllium-8. So we have a problem here, and it isn’t clear at all how this would work. Besides, fact is that explosions are always chain reactions. And it is not at all clear how X-ray photons would be able to start a chain reaction here.

    • Peter Paul 1950  September 9, 2016 at 9:00 pm

      kaho, I wonder even more than you why a rocket should be fueled with a substance known not to form any kind of chemical reaction or combustion what so ever. The only reason I would assume is for maneuvering and navigating the satellite into position once it’s in space. The most used propellant for rockets to my knowledge since I grew up with the space age have been liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen in relation of 2:1. The end product being plain water H2O.
      Other explosive devices on board are those needed for self-destruction just in case the launch threatens to go off course for one reason or the other.
      Then there could very well be lithium as a source for an explosion, but to get that started there is no need for x-rays, plain water will do. There are some nice demonstration clips on you tube where Na, K, Lithium and some other elements are presented that way. Enjoy.

  12. kaho  September 9, 2016 at 4:29 pm

    According to the SpaceX Falcon 9 website, where the rocket’s tech specs can be found, the height of the rocket is 229.6 ft ( 70 meters ), not 300 ft, as stated in the article. It is of course true that telescopes and cameras can only measure angular size and not absolute size. But if you in addition to the angular size also know the distance to the object, then you just multiply the angular width, measured in radians, by the distance, and the product will be the size. The same principle also holds for distances between objects, such at the in this case the distance between the towers. One commentator said that he had found the distance between the towers from the aerial photos in Google Earth. Another method is to just tip the rocket over, 90 degrees to a horizontal position, for example by using a pair of compasses. Another good way to do it, is by opening the video frame in a graphics app and then count the pixels in between, which is easy when the graphics app is equipped with rulers, as mine is. In my opinion the author of the article has treated numeric data of this kind in a sloppy fashion.

  13. guibus  September 9, 2016 at 1:55 pm

    Steve K, the distance is known as the sound of the explosion arrives 12 s after the flash, which means the scene is at least 12 * 340 m = 4 km. As the objects moves behind the rocket, it is farther than that.

    Dr Bhelthi, postulating is ok, but boasting and trying to discredit opposite views is not.

  14. gogh  September 9, 2016 at 12:07 pm

    mr. Greenhalgh is a photographer and likes constructing an electric bike in his spare time. However, that does not mean we should not believe him for what he has been told by others. In fact, at first I could not believe what Michael Shrimpton was writing on VT. But When Gordon Duff came out in solid defence of Mr. Shrimpton, and the Shrimpton London Nuke claim as supporting evidence of the 9/11 nukes (and the complete and proven hoax of the directed energy technology by Judy Wood playing a part in the 9/11 freefall) then I changed my mind and started believing anything Michael Shrimpton wrote. Gordon Duff corrected me on Hillary and Soros as well. And think we should vote for Hillary instead of Trump. Extrapolating from those personal course corrections, I am now convinced of the explanation that mr. Greenhalgh has given on SpaceX. And that it was brought down by a beam, although Judy Wood somehow is still wrong about her directed energy beam. Which is something I will still have to get me head around. But I will read VT more and faith will make up for a lot.

  15. Trakkath  September 9, 2016 at 11:36 am

    Harharhar

  16. Ian Greenhalgh, Managing Editor  September 9, 2016 at 11:26 am

    Jeff said I made a typo and it should have read 80, not 60, so you are correct.

  17. guitargirl  September 9, 2016 at 10:50 am

    I never ever believed in that alien crap. I would very much like to know who did it? and why? You say you know, please share??

    Regina

  18. drbhelthi  September 9, 2016 at 10:08 am

    Steve K, postulating is postulating, similar to the cause of the explosion, which is also postulated.

  19. drbhelthi  September 9, 2016 at 10:03 am

    The second go-around-article on the event is even more interesting than the first, to me, anyway.
    When the original, UFO article by Ben Rich and the Skunk Works appeared, perhaps 2008, the picture of the scientist underneath that of Ben Rich and the F-117 was not Don Phillips. The raytheon scientist stated approximately, ” – anything you saw in Buck Rogers comic books we already have.”
    It would be interesting to know the total of extraterrestrial vehicles that have been downed to earth by laser-beam technology. That such vehicles have been tracked by USAF radar since the 1950s is known by thousands of USAF radar operators, two older ones of which I have known for over 60 years. My first knowledge of such radar events occurred in Alaska, 1955, by the USAF tracking station on Fire Island, that usually tracked Russian Bears. However, Russian Bears do not accelerate from Hover at 2,000 feet to 3,000 mph at 10,000 ft. in one sweep of the radar.
    Will Ian and others make the 3rd go-around-article on the “detonation” event more interesting than the 2nd?

  20. Leno  September 9, 2016 at 7:35 am

    What’s Cooking? The Alarming Rise of US Bio-Defense Labs on Russia’s Borders

  21. Spiritual Warrior  September 9, 2016 at 7:00 am

    One issue that hasn’t been raised is the legality of it all. The President/military gets to blow up a civilian business on American soil and it’s not questioned? What’s next? What are the long term repercussions going to be?

  22. Dr. Abu-Bakr Susta  September 9, 2016 at 6:30 am

    Most if not all UFOs are man-made.

    Well done, Ian (and Jeff). Am looking forward to your follow-on article/s.

  23. Diesel Chadron  September 9, 2016 at 6:15 am

    That’s rich! The title of the original article hinted at UFO involvement and now Mr Greenhalgh is mocking people for their UFO theories. Unbelievable

    • Jim W. Dean, Managing Editor  September 9, 2016 at 2:00 pm

      Brer Diesel, That is no big deal. The first article was obviously done as a quick impression from the early images that we had. At that stage any mention of ET equipment includes government equipment as they have stuff the public would views as such. We have always considered this and stories like it “works in progress” and we adjust as we get new facts and input, the same process that well hell Intel agencies use.

  24. Spiritual Warrior  September 9, 2016 at 5:05 am

    What was the reason for this? What was the technology they wanted to keep out of the hands of the Chinese?

  25. Edward Dodge  September 9, 2016 at 4:53 am

    Actually, 60 mph is closer to 90 feet per second,…pretty sloppy calculation for a nuclear weapons expert.

  26. guibus  September 9, 2016 at 4:39 am

    All your fabricated BS is made on ONE false assumption : the speed of the supposed drone. Having watch many times the video, it’s obvious that the speed your calculate for the supposed drone is completely ridiculous. in this video ( http://www.snopes.com/unidentified-flying-object-seen-as-spacex-rocket-exploded/# ) it traverses the screen in less than a quarter of a second. As the falcon-9 rocket is 70m high, we can assume that the width of the scene is 150m wide, which mean that the unknown object flies at minimum 600 m/s of speed, or 2160 km/h. And there is no drone known flying that speed, except perhaps secret military ones. But even this could not explain the second and immediate venue of the ‘drone’ in opposite direction at 45 degrees, because with current technologie this would need a deceleration, a U-turn and an acceleration, which is absolutely not the case.
    And finally your way of boasting others’ point of view is just incompatible with journalism.

    • Jim W. Dean, Managing Editor  September 9, 2016 at 7:17 am

      This speed dispute is strange as how far back the object is is a key factor. The width of the scene is just one data point.

  27. Psychopath  September 9, 2016 at 3:55 am

    Some sense at last – about time we got away from the aliens and all that Psyop/ Psychosis/ Comfort Zone garbage that is the walking trade of Neurotypicals emotional systems.

  28. JohninMK  September 9, 2016 at 2:15 am

    If this was a public demo of the technology, why this time and why this target?

  29. volker-dee  September 9, 2016 at 2:12 am

    To get as personal as you Mr. Greenalgh:
    Hate seems to be important for your psyche Mr. Greenalgh. Whenever I have the mixed blessing to read your pouring out your contempt and dislikes in your own personal way, I know, I meet the prototype again. I am grateful to you for providing me the contrast to sharpen my senses for BS and intended abuse of the missing information that most readers sometimes do have.
    What I miss in your piece here for example is the explanation of the necessary amounts of energy needeed for gamma ray lasers. Power sources able to do that are not existing in your own words. Nothing exotic here to see people, walk by, nothing to be seen.
    To be clear on that – I don´t care if UFO or Angel or the devil or whatever it was – I was just joyful and thankful of the fact, that the average Israeli would not be connected to the crimes they wanted to commit with that crap.
    You know Mr. Greenalgh, I think that hatred turns against the hater. Allways. In every case. AND it poisons the heart of the hater. What you pour out upon all your favorably disliked subjects, is mostly hitting yourself.
    I like it that way. Keep on goin! Provide contrast, its a win win situation.

    • Ian Greenhalgh  September 9, 2016 at 2:49 am

      Oh dear, a lot of hyperbole and bitterness in your post. Where do I mention gamma rays? Where have I written anything about the power requirements? I wrote at the end of this article that there will be a follow-up article giving more details of the weapon used.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login


TOP 50 READ ARTICLES THIS MONTH
From Veterans Today Network