It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Firing at UFO's

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 16 2003 @ 10:33 PM
I watched a documentary on UFO's and it showed this video clip from some camera that might have been on a satellite or something. Anyway, it showed a rocket firing these strange beams at a UFO or some other unidentified flying object. They speculated the US was keeping the aliens away

Does anyone know anything about that?

posted on Jul, 16 2003 @ 10:38 PM
I think this is what you are speaking about...

posted on Jul, 16 2003 @ 10:42 PM
I downloaded that video, it is very interesting.

It shows at least one object in motion, a flash, and another object closing on the first at high speed at an approximate 120 degree angle. At the moment of the flash, the first object immediately reverses direction 180 degrees and darts out of the trajectory of the oncoming object at extreme speed.

I would point out that the flight characteristics of the original object matches exactly those of the US X Craft, or any other vehicle using MHD drives. (IE, immediate shift in trajectory, no apparent momentum lag, no apparent reaction plume, extreme acceleration).

At least one article online indicated that the calculated acceleration of the original object when it "turned and ran" from the oncoming missle would have been in excess of 40 Gs. In a normal environment, a human crew would have extreme difficulty maintaining control in that situation (even assuming G suits and proper body containment/preparation, the pilots would likely blackout). Of course, the vehicle could be unmanned, but it is further interesting to point out that the MHD drive developed by T. Townsend Brown damps G Forces within its propulsive field, and therefore would be capable of such acceleration with NO G force effects on a human crew.

posted on Jul, 16 2003 @ 10:47 PM
DR can u post the link here for the download of the clips?

posted on Jul, 16 2003 @ 10:49 PM
If we're talking about that STS footage, I think it's been shown that the 'blast' is most likely a jet of exhaust from one of the shuttle's manuevering rockets. Quite simply, the angle at which the blast diverges is so great that its source must be near the point at which it is being filmed. The 'UFO' in question is probably ice that is being pushed along by the invisible gases that precede a rocket blast.

Wasn't sure if I could respond... but D-R did above, so...

posted on Jul, 16 2003 @ 10:56 PM
Those particles are too big to be ice and since they are many kilometers away from the shuttle, they can't be the result of a rocket blast.

posted on Jul, 16 2003 @ 11:13 PM
If you look at any other STS footage out there, particles like this are quite common around shuttles in orbit... they're almost the equivalent of foam at the tip of a sea-going ship's bow.

IF they were as far away as you suggest, like I said above, the angle that the 'blast' is at would indicate that it could not touch the surface of the earth at its convergent point.

You have to realize that the outsides of the space shuttle are covered in little bits of condensation (though these are mostly from the External Fuel tank). When the shuttle separates from the tank, these little bits go with it (as its main engines stop firing at that point). They just travel along with it as ballistic companions (remember, there is no aerodynamic manuevering in space).

posted on Jul, 16 2003 @ 11:22 PM
I was just repeating the arguement made by a U.S. scientist that was just below that picture in that site in my previous post.

posted on Jul, 17 2003 @ 12:13 AM
The problem with that being ice affected by a jet blast is that if you lay out the angles (I did this by drawing on a piece of saran wrap on my monitor) the original angle between the original object and the "jet blast" is about 120 degrees... when the "jet blast" occurs, the object reverses direction, and moves back, again at 120 degrees. If it was a direct effect from the "blast" it would have been blown in the direction of the blast.

It didnt, because it was individually propelled.

posted on Jul, 17 2003 @ 06:04 AM
I'm sorry, but I don't buy the jetfire and water blob explanation on this. I have found this particular clip to be one of the most interesting I have ever seen concerning unidentified objects. Without getting into whether the objects are of terrestrial origin or not, my opinion is that this is a clip of a missile being fired at some type aircraft. Was it a test??? Don't know. But I think it is legit.

Furthermore, I do know a little bit more...

posted on Jul, 17 2003 @ 10:21 AM
I thought that the camera was focused at infinity. Doesn't that put the ice crystal in front of the camera theory in doubt?

posted on Jul, 17 2003 @ 11:22 AM
Can anyone post the link for download?

posted on Jul, 17 2003 @ 04:28 PM

posted on Jul, 17 2003 @ 04:40 PM
If you look at any other detailed STS footage out there, you will see these little things floating all over the place. They are no mystery to those who've spent any time watching footage from shuttle missions.

The 'blast' only opens up right before it goes near the object. It could not have kept such a wide aperture and have originated from the ground.

Besides that, the 'blast' would have to be clearly visible from earth. People across the planet would have seen it streaking across the sky.

I'm sure you can find the infamous footage of the soyuz/progress that crashed into Mir. In that footage, taken from the station, you can clearly see jets like the 'blast' that shoot out from its manuevering rockets.

As for the motion of the 'UFO'... These thrusters also put-off gases that are invisible to the naked eye. The UFO was most likely moved, first, by the ouput of another, unseen thruster.

posted on Jul, 17 2003 @ 04:46 PM

Originally posted by maynardsthirdeye
Yeah its:

Thx.....its remarkable!!

posted on Jul, 17 2003 @ 04:50 PM
I'm beginning to feel that my mission is a failure...

posted on Jul, 17 2003 @ 09:05 PM
Yeah you might as well give up.

posted on Jul, 17 2003 @ 11:19 PM
I'm thinking of giving up, not because I'm wrong, but because it seems that some people will believe in something because they want to believe in it, and, for them, no amount of information concerning manuevering thrusters or the realities of space travel will convince them that something they want to be true isn't.

Anyone who has ever seen footage of space craft during manuevers will clearly recognize the death ray 'blast' as simply being a product of a craft's manuevering thrusters. there is NO confusion about this video among people who have taken the time to learn how spacecraft work... even those people, like myself, who believe in UFOs that are piloted by aliens. If anything, most serious UFO researchers really hate the STS-48 issue because it's a red herring that distracts people from real UFO cases.

For those of you who would like to read-up on this, feel free to peruse these links: x.html

Again, mistaking jets from manuevering thrusters for death rays is like mistaking ripples in a ship's sails for ghost activity, or thinking that the little squeaks car barkes make are caused by invisible pteradactlys.

The STS-48 issue is one of those things which have been dropped by people who are involved in real discourse but are picked-up by every 12 year old who logs onto the internet for the first time.

..But, maybe I should just give up and write threads entitled "could dos bards be alens in desguise?" like so many others are doing these days?

posted on Jul, 18 2003 @ 02:44 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, onlyinmydreams, but doesn't the term 'starwars' insinuate that the source of the missiles would be an orbiting space-based-missile station? (meaning their convergance point would't have to be on earth.)

posted on Jul, 18 2003 @ 09:16 AM

Yes, good point Greyhaven...

the problem, though, is that this 'blast' or 'beam' looks exactly like the exhaust jet from a manuevering rocket... It's immediately recognizeable.

But, true, the convergent point wouldn't have to be on earth if fired by a satellite... however, blasts of matter, when fired by satellites, still have to follow orbital mechanics... so the blast shouldn't be in a straight path if fired in a direction reversed from the orbital one and to a slight northerly angle. There would be a curved 'stream' (right?)

If it were an actual 'blast' from weapons fire, I would imagine that it is not a true ray or particle weapon, as the blast is travelling far slower than lightspeed... rather, it looks more like a gas.. which, like I've pointed out above, would tend to appear to 'bend' as it stretched out across dozens of miles in space.

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in