Guest Posting

If you wish to write and/or publish an article on Operation Disclosure all you need to do is send your entry to applying these following rules.

The subject of your email entry should be: "Entry Post | (Title of your post) | Operation Disclosure"

- Must be in text format
- Proper Grammar
- No foul language
- Your signature/name/username at the top

Send your entry and speak out today!

Featured Post

Restored Republic via a GCR as of July 23, 2018

Restored Republic via a GCR: Update as of July 23, 2018 Compiled 23 July 12:01 am EST by Judy Byington, MSW, LCSW, ret. CEO, Child Abuse R...

Monday, July 3, 2017

Engineer Concludes that the 2016 SpaceX Rocket Explosion was Caused by a UAP (UFO)

Source: Stillness in the Storm | foreword by Justin

The following article was written by an engineer from France who analyzed the footage from the SpaceX rocket explosion last year. He concluded that the object is uncommon, likely of extraterrestrial origin, or possibly advanced military.

The article provides the raw data and math so that readers can judge for themselves. But even if you aren't a physicist, a 3D video depiction of the event that makes things easy to understand.

I have altered the original text to be more easily read by English speakers. But the original content of the article remains in tact.

- Justin

by Christophe C.,

On September 1st, 2016, during a routine test, two days before launch, the SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket exploded on launch pad 40 at Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral.

The accident was filmed in high definition by an association of US veterans, USLaunchReport, specialized in the recording of rocket launches at Cape Canaveral.

Here is the original footage of the incident, which was posted on the day of the launch.

The next day, Sept 2nd, Veterans Today published an article about the accident, suggesting that an unknown object was suspected of having destroyed the rocket.

UFO destroys Israeli weaponised satellite on the launch pad

By Ian Greenhalgh on September 2, 2016

...this time the "smoking gun" is a foo fighter and energy seems not everyone "out there" believes Greater Israel is a galaxy-wide proposition...

[Editor's note: The event depicted in the photographs below is not our conspiracy theory. The UFO destruction theory of the "facebook" satellite, now that's a conspiracy theory if I ever heard one, comes from NASA. From their notes:

B. Airborne Laser weapons test on third stage booster?
C. Small nuclear explosion caused by lithium ion batteries shorting out. Or other nuclear source in the third stage guidance unit.
D. Not a kerosene or hydrogen fuel fire as initial cause.

The satellite and its geosynchronous booster were intact until it is seen collapsing and producing a secondary explosion. Everything else is a kerosene fuel fire.

Either we have 3 UFO's in the photos or they are aircraft landing lights???(referring to last set at the bottom]

This is what they believe and, being who we are, they couldn't simply let it go without pulling the tail as it were. We agreed, as we are inclined to do, to aid them in this task. g]

Launchpad explosions of rockets is a fairly common thing, after all, a rocket is really a bomb waiting to go off and even with very careful handling, they do sometimes blow up due to technical issues.

The object passed quickly by the camera and is almost invisible at real-time playback speed. But slowed down, a clear image of an object moving from right to left can be seen.

There are three theories to consider:

the object was a bird passing by chance,
the footage was altered by a CGI artist who added the object after the fact, or
the object was some kind of spacecraft that was responsible for the explosion.

The CEO of SpaceX, Elon Musk himself called for help in investigating the incident. Musk was puzzled because the rocket's telemetry did not detect any anomalies that could have explained the explosion.

Finally, in November 2016, SpaceX announced their conclusion that the accident was due to the explosion of a helium tank (an inert gas!) and that they were authorized by the FAA to resume launches without significant modification of the Falcon 9 rocket.

Can we believe the official version?

The video published by USLaunchReport (shown above) is at normal playback speed, with a frame rate of 30 frames per second (fps). In this video, the sound of the explosion is delayed by 12 seconds with respect to the image, and knowing the speed of sound, it can be easily deduced that the USLaunchReport camera is placed 2.5 miles away. Thus, the scene of the launch was filmed with a telephoto lens. The zoom factor is estimated to be about 17 times normal. At that distance, the resolution of the image with such a magnification would be considered constant over the whole scene—which simply means the quality of the image is uniform.

In the video, the unknown object appears in a total of eight frames. On the same day of the incident, USLaunchReport published a second slow motion version video, in slow motion x 250, where the initial frame rate is doubled, ie 60 fps. In addition to the 8 previous frames, 7 new frames showing the object are available, and on another one, the object is hidden by USLaunchReport logo. This new video and these 15 frames will allow very precise measurements, beyond expectations!

The height of SpaceX rocket is about 70m or 522 pixels high, which then makes it easy to convert the coordinates of the unknown object from pixels to meters and then deduce its speed, assuming that its depth in the scene compared to the rocket is negligible compared to the distance of the camera (2.5 miles).

With this hypothesis, the first analysis shows that the apparent speed of the object is 2500 km/h when entering the scene on the right and 2000 km/h when exiting the scene on the left. This suggests a flight path is that has a curved trajectory. Its diameter can also be estimated to be about four feet.

But the study can go much further, with the hypothesis that its speed should be constant in the turn during the 0.25s of the scene. From this hypothesis, the trajectory can be determined in 3D using some mathematics as explained in this video and in the following text.

Let's note (vx ,vy , vz) the three components of the speed. Previous assumption means in fact:

𝑣²=,𝑣-π‘₯.²+,𝑣-𝑦.²+,𝑣-𝑧.²=π‘π‘œπ‘›π‘ π‘‘π‘Žπ‘›π‘‘

The speed components vx and vy are directly derived from the positions of the object in each image knowing that there is a delay of 1/60s between each frame, and knowing the conversion factor from pixels to meters thanks to SpaceX height.

Initial component vz (depth) is unknown so let's take arbitrarily an initial value of 1 m/s. The speed component vz in all other images can then be deduced from previous formula:

vz= √ (v²-vx²-vy²)

Then, it is easy to obtain the z-depth value in each image (n) using formula :

z(n) = z(n-1) + vz(n-1)*(1/60s)

Thus, it is possible to graphically display the trajectory of the object from right to left, firstly front view as seen in USLaunchReport video (blue line) and secondly, top view (red line).

In this chart, the position of SpaceX rocket as seen from above is represented by the light blue circle, while the green circle represents the position of the object when explosion begins.

Two parameters are still to be determined : initial vz and initial z-depth on the first frame.

Above chart shows that initial vz must be adjusted to 150 m/s in order to get a smooth trajectory on the right. Real speed is thus about 2800 km/h or1790 mph (Mach 2.3)!

Using the same mathematical technique, it is possible to determine initial z-depth with logical reasoning. Assuming the object has intelligent fire control, firing triggers in the best position, (i.e. when distance to the rocket is minimal). A consequence of a minimum distance when firing is also that the target is perpendicular to the trajectory.

SpaceX explosion should occur a few milliseconds later, and such reasoning leads to an initial z-depth value of 60m.

Previous chart can then be updated with vz equals 150 m/s. The blue line with the front view is no more useful since it is unchanged, but replaced by the distance (in black) between the unknown object and SpaceX.

The two hypothesis for initial z-depth are displayed, on the left with initial z set to 0m and on the right with initial z set to 60m compared to SpaceX z-depth.

This analysis leads to select initial values vz=150m/s, z=60m and thus obtain precise coordinates (x,y,z) of the object in the scene. We can see that the trajectory is smooth, suggesting the object is effectively "real," and not a bird, but evidences are not sufficiently strong to conclude definitively.

However, it can be concluded that the video is not a fake, since it is impossible for a hoaxer to make all this computation the day of the explosion, just before releasing these two videos on the net. A hoaxer would have to set a constant space between each frame.

The mathematical reasoning that allows estimate speed from object positions can also be applied again on other speeds in order to obtain the accelerations on the three axis x,y,z.

Results are unstable because of the accuracy of the measures in the images is limited to a pixel. A mathematical filter, explained in video above, solves this instability and allows to obtain a position accuracy at sub-pixel level.

Once done, it is possible to draw the total acceleration curve for the 0.25s of the sequence (see following chart, to be read from right to left). Just as the speed is already incredibly high for an object at sea level, the accelerations are equally unbelievable, between 80g and 400g, where g represents unit gravity a the surface of the earth. The object enters the scene from the right in the field view in a tight turn at 350g, softens its trajectory until it suffers «only» 80g at the time of firing, then tightens its turn when leaving the field of view from the left at 400g! These values of acceleration, in terms of gravity, suggest that the craft was moving at incredible speeds, which could kill a pilot if some kind of gravity dampening technology wasn't in use.

With these new elements, the argument for a intelligently guided object become indisputable: acceleration is minimal at the same time as the distance to the rocket is minimal, i.e. one image before the explosion, which is an obvious characteristic of an intelligent behavior of the object!

These mathematical characteristics are difficult to reconcile with a bird flyby (even with a scale factor if the bird is much closer) or hoaxer, many remain skeptical and refute the thesis of an intelligent object.

Such flight characteristics are impossible with standard earthly technology, like airplanes and drones. Researchers of UFOs claim they use gravitational propulsion and that an X-ray beam is deviated in an intense gravity field, except if it is aligned with this local gravity field and thus with the radius of curvature, which means perpendicular to the trajectory!

All this information was published in a first video (see above) in mid-September 2016 but a second peculiar event happened on February 19th, 2017.

During the launch of a new SpaceX rocket, mission CRS-10, the live broadcast shows an unknown object passing close to Stage 2, at the 10 second mark.

What is this object ? Is is related with SpaceX explosion?

UFO appears to the bottom right below the booster.

These questions push us to continue research on the SpaceX explosion and a 3D reconstruction seems to be a good method to better understand what happened. It took only a weekend to reconstruct the scene in 3D by relying on the images of Google Earth and adequate 3D modeling software.

New compelling discoveries await us! All these discoveries are now rendered in a 3D animation, seen below.

Later investigations will show that this new UFO from February is not the same object as the one seen in SpaceX explosion.

An interesting development is the similarity between the original video and the 3D reconstruction, once the already known parameters (distance, zoom, UFO positions) are introduced in the simulation.

And another development happened when analyzing the UFO's position when the rocket firing begins, which is exactly the opposite of what is supposed to be the launch pad entry.

In mathematical terms, the object has an x-coordinate equal to 0m when firing, in the frame of the launch pad.

And yet another insight comes from the y-coordinate of the UFO when firing and equal to precisely 100m. (Note that in this 3D reconstruction, x,y are now ground coordinates, and z is the altitude.)

These remarkable coordinates were not detected before, because of the angle of view of USLaunchReport camera, rotated by 33° in launch pad reference frame. But the best is yet to come!

On each point of the trajectory, the radius of curvature is derived from speed and radial acceleration by the formula :

radius_of_curvature = speed² / acceleration

By studying the position of the object at the moment of firing, when its acceleration is minimal, and therefore its radius of curvature is maximal, another insight awaits us! A striking similarity appears between the three values of speed (777 m/s), radial acceleration (784 m/s²) and radius of curvature (770 m). This similarity was difficult to detect because of the units used so far, which are 2800 km/h / 1790 mph for speed, and 80g for acceleration (where 1g is 9.81 m/s²).

Usually these three values are different because they are linked to the angular velocity (expressed in rad/s) by the formulas:

speed = radius_of_curvature * angular_velocity

acceleration = radius_of_curvature * angular_velocity²

Here, the three numerical values are nearly identical, and the measured angular velocity is about 1.01 rad/s. Again, such an angular velocity value is not due to chance. It is the only value that makes it possible to arrive at the next insight, the common value (within 1%) of these three parameters is 777 !

I leave it to the readers to interpret for themselves the meaning of this value.

In conclusion, it is appears the object is unnatural and or of non man-made origin. All the characteristics of the trajectory confirm the hypothesis that this object is under intelligent control and is directly the cause of the explosion of the Falcon 9 rocket, contrary to the official theory of SpaceX.

The consequences are beyond imagination, for again, these flight characteristics are not compatible with known technology. As a result one can then make several assumptions about the origin of this craft:

This craft is of terrestrial origin, under control of interests contrary to those of SpaceX company and have advanced top-secret technologies.

This craft is of extraterrestrial origin, under the control of unknown entities profiting from humanity's state and therefore want to remain hidden.

This craft is of extraterrestrial origin, under control of entities wishing to awaken humanity to their presence.

The trajectory characteristics in terms of minimum distance and acceleration at the time of firing are directly related to the mission of rocket destruction but the triple encoding of value 777, which suggests that there is a willingness to deliver a message beyond the intervention on the rocket itself.

Without this message « 777 » it was very difficult to choose between one of the three previously listed assumptions. But this inference is important because it suggests those in control of the object want to alert humanity to their presence.

Among the three hypotheses above, hypotheses one and two are eliminated by the need for secrecy and therefore only the third hypothesis remains compatible with this event.

As a bonus, this new video demonstrates that the trajectory of the object is part of an ellipse with semi-major axis equals 200m and semi-minor axis equals 100m, and explains why, on one frame, the object is illuminated from above!

About the Author

Christophe C. is the lead engineer of a team of more than 60 engineers specialized in image acquisition, image processing, AI and robotics. For more than 7 years, he has had a special interest in the UFO phenomena and seeks to understand the mysteries of the technologies that are used. He published a video in 2014, synthesis of testimonies amongst the most emblematic, then short videos aimed to be more technical about underlying technologies.

Edited and reworked for an English audience by Justin Deschamps.

Receive News from Operation Disclosure via Email