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.

 

Any info on this video of a UFO crash?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Can anyone provide information about this video of a UFO crash? I first saw this video on “Out of the Blue”, which is a SciFi Channel special. The video was shown along with the text “White Sands New Mexico, 1996”, but it was never discussed.

www.putfile.com...

I saw the video again when it was posted on the Aliens and UFOs Video Archive, and asked about it, but no one had any more info on it. It definitely was not a conventional aircraft, because of the shape and bright glow. Plus, any aircraft we have would have disintegrated on the initial impact.

I searched on google, but so far have not turned anything up. If you know anything about it, or have a link to an explanation, please let me know. Feel free to list your opinion also, even if you don’t have any info. To me it looks real, but I would think if it were, there would be more info on it.




posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 05:03 PM
link   
I've heard it was just a rocket



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phood
I've heard it was just a rocket

I thought that maybe it was a missile from nearby White Sands Missile Range, but it doesn’t look like a missile. This video is not very good, but in the SciFi special, you can clearly see it is not a missile. It looks like an eliptical object that is illuminated. If it was identified, why show it on a UFO special?

It just looks strange that it bounces off the ground once then disintegrates on the next impact, and all the pieces are illuminated. I don’t think a missile or a rocket would do that.



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Outstanding piece of footage..BUT, how was the camera exactly in-line to follow its trajectory?

Dallas



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dallas
Outstanding piece of footage..BUT, how was the camera exactly in-line to follow its trajectory?

I don't know anything about the video, that's why I'm asking if anyone knows. It doesn't look like the typical amateur video, which is probably a clue. It could have been a professional video taping a missile test. But then why does it show up on a UFO documentary? I know there was another clip in the same documentary that is a known hoax, so that tells me the clips were not scrutinized very well. I expect that it will turn out to be a military experiment gone bad, but would like to find out for sure.



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 08:28 PM
link   
Yes..and I would suggest it would have disinegrated on the more pwerful first impact..

Dallas



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 08:29 PM
link   
thats some neat footage.. but ide have to say its probably some sort of test because of the cameras angle. It is pretty wild how it breaks up into pieces like that.



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 08:54 PM
link   
I have seen this clip before but it was better much quality and theres no way is a misslie. Its clearly a disk shape, But this object clearly bounes across the ground like a tosses stone over a pond. IMO its a test of some sort.



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 09:17 PM
link   
i say it was a tolatal fake. more would have hapend on the first impact



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sand_man
I have seen this clip before but it was better much quality


I did a video capture from the video. This is much better quality.

UFO Crash 467KB

Enjoy.



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_TechMan
i say it was a tolatal fake. more would have hapend on the first impact


Yeah if it was constructed from "know" metals



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Same stuff. Why would it go to pieces on the second impact at lower velocity, rather than the first high velocity impact?

And it only bounced a few light poles before the second impact too.

Dallas



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dallas
Same stuff. Why would it go to pieces on the second impact at lower velocity, rather than the first high velocity impact?

Well I would guess that the first impact was a softer impact on dirt, then on the second impact maybe it hit a rock or something. But I'm just guessing.



And it only bounced a few light poles before the second impact too.

From the perspective of the camera, it looks like it only travels a few poles. But the object is farther away while the camera is standing still, so it actually traveled more than a couple of poles. Hope that's clear enough. Without knowing the size of the object or the distance away, it's impossible to know how far it was between impacts. To me it looks like it's quite a distance from the road.



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by The_TechMan
i say it was a tolatal fake. more would have hapend on the first impact

I don't think it's a fake, as in computer generated, but I suspect it is a real object that crashed. Maybe an experimental craft, but what I would like to know is what the object is that would appear like a glowing ellipse, and not disintegrate on the first impact.

I would first like to find out the origin of the video. If it were a real crash of a UFO, I'm sure it would have been confiscated and covered up. If it were a secret military craft, the same would happen. I just find it strange there is no story to go along with this video.

So does anyone know where this video came from or the story behind it?



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 08:14 AM
link   
Just bumping the thread. See if anyone else can give info on this video.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Hey guys - new to the board, but I'm familiar with this one - this is a military video of a "dam buster bomb testing" It was a bomb that was designed to bounce when it hit the ground so as to have a trajectory that was more aligned with destroying a dam - can't remember the name of the guy that invented it but if you search it up on google you'll probably find it. Definately not a UFO though, sorry.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Mr. Fingers

I believe youre right, i recall hearing the same story with respect to this video as well. Also if you recall (or if anyone does for that matter), during world war II, when military high brass and army corps. were trying to decide how to "bust dams", they used a very similar technology with balls and cylinders .. basically rolling or skipping the balls or cylinders off of the body of water housing the dam. Im sure many, at the time, who didnt know any better, considered these balls and cylinders UFO's, to them they were



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrfingers
Hey guys - new to the board, but I'm familiar with this one - this is a military video of a "dam buster bomb testing" It was a bomb that was designed to bounce when it hit the ground so as to have a trajectory that was more aligned with destroying a dam - can't remember the name of the guy that invented it but if you search it up on google you'll probably find it. Definately not a UFO though, sorry.

Welcome to ATS mrfingers, and thanks for the info. Now that you mention it, it does remind me of the dambusters. But I thought that the only time it was used was in WW2, in Operation Chastise. In fact accourding to Wikipedia the bouncing bomb developement was discontinued in 1944. I guess it's possible a bouncing bomb project was started again, but so far nothing on google.

Also if it were a bouncing bomb, I guess it was not packed with explosives, and the illumination is reflecting sunlight?

Edit: I was just thinking, with all the smart bombs and bunker busters, what application would ever have a need for a bouncing bomb? Keep in mind this was filmed in 1996.

[edit on 7/18/2005 by Hal9000]



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 10:18 AM
link   
My guess is that it is a weapons test of some kind, maybe not a bomb in the conventional sense (ie with an explosion), but most likely not an aircraft test. I'm about 99% positive it's not an alien craft, or if it is then it's definitely not an "Oh my god! Get the camera honey!" type sighting. As everyone's already mentioned, the camera angle is just too well pre-planned for that.

As far as the illumination of the object, my money is most definitely on reflection of sunlight. There's a few frames where it's angled a little differently and there's an increased glare, and aside from that it just seems to be lit a little too consistent with ambient/sun lighting.

If it is an air/spacecraft of any kind being tested, then either their design standards have dropped or they're designing something that wouldn't be recoverable after a crash. To the best of my knowledge at least, no normal craft would completely withstand a first bounce like that and then entirely disintegrate on the second. It might handle the first bounce perfectly well, I could see that happening, and that weakens the structure enough to where it can't handle the second one, but it wouldn't burst apart like that.

Given the amount of disintegration and the spread of the debris, I'm thinking the shrapnel is the actual destructive part of the weapon. No (visible) explosion to speak of, so like I said above, I doubt it's a normal bomb. If they could get the spread aimed lower, it might be a great anti-personnel weapon; then again, the video ends too quickly to see where the shrapnel lands and how hard it hits. That's my guess though, kind of a flak-bomb for ground attacks.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by MCory1
My guess is that it is a weapons test of some kind, maybe not a bomb in the conventional sense (ie with an explosion), but most likely not an aircraft test. I'm about 99% positive it's not an alien craft, or if it is then it's definitely not an "Oh my god! Get the camera honey!" type sighting. As everyone's already mentioned, the camera angle is just too well pre-planned for that.

I agree that it's not your typical amateur video. The camera is too well placed and high quality. But I am thinking it was more of a test craft/vehicle that crashed and not a bomb.

More rhetorical questions...
I don't think the bounce nor the disintegration was intended, because if it was normal, there would have been more similar tests. Wouldn't there be more similar footage out there?

Why is this video a one of a kind?

edit:spelling

[edit on 7/18/2005 by Hal9000]




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join