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.

 

Amazing UFO crash video

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 08:47 PM
link   
I dont know if this vid ever got discussed here.Probably was already but still i like some questions answered.
Is this fake or real?
Where is this shot taken?

I found 2 versions of this, 1 in really bad quality and a second one wich seems to be cleaned up a bit, probably broadcasted by the tv station.
The one in bad quality was probably amateur footage.
Bad quality vid

Good quality vid

At a first glance i would say its deffinatly a UFO.Will study it further untill i learn more from you guys.




posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 08:52 PM
link   
Looked at the "good quality" looks fake to me. Sure broke to pieces like something built cheaply. How could it have made it here being that weak? Gravitational pull etc.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 08:58 PM
link   
The fact that the object is centered in the video and looks as if it was expected say's quite clearly that this is a fake. I don't know what it is, I only know that it's arrival was expected and anticipated by the camera man. True ufo footage is not that clean.

of course, this is just my opinion,

wupy



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Difficult to say what that was that crashed and then disintegrated. It was moving fast and had a lot of energy though. What I find most interesting is that the first impact at best only softened up the object as it did not disintegrate on first impact but on the second impact. Interesting and not what you would expect normally.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 09:10 PM
link   
This seems to be the same video as discussed in this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Seems to be the same video.

Spiderj



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 09:14 PM
link   
I just LOVE the way pretty much the first post on every UFO vid I've ever seen posted here is - "oh, that's a fake. It looks too clean/was expected/is just a blurry light/is swamp gas..." whatever.

I've seen this one before, and I don't mind nailing my colours to the mast and saying that of all the ones I've seen, I think it's real.

You could say "it was expected" about the footage of the twin towers planes, you know. That's just not a valid criticism.

What IS clearly visible is that after the first impact, the object does not simply bounce, but there is an obvious surge of power that takes its trajectory out of the merely ballistic. You can also see it precess slightly, revealing what appears to be a discoid shape in profile.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 09:33 PM
link   
im not sure what it was? but it wasnt weak it hit the ground twice before explodeing
it looked more like a U.A.V by the way it moved?
that would explain the camara man on the spot ...

very cool vid , thx for posting it....



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
I just LOVE the way pretty much the first post on every UFO vid I've ever seen posted here is - "oh, that's a fake. It looks too clean/was expected/is just a blurry light/is swamp gas..." whatever.


I was pretty explicit in stating that this was just my opinion. I'm entitled to have an opinion, just as your are.

My opinion does not mean it was not a ufo, just as your opinion does mean that it was.

NO ONE should take my opinion, or yours, as gospel. They should continue to learn for themselves and decide what is right for themselves.

If I had the answers I wouldn't be hanging out on a website, neither would you.

Just my opinion,

wupy



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrwupy
The fact that the object is centered in the video and looks as if it was expected say's quite clearly that this is a fake. I don't know what it is, I only know that it's arrival was expected and anticipated by the camera man. True ufo footage is not that clean.

of course, this is just my opinion,

wupy

This could well be a piece of a much larger vid.
He probably saw the object, took his cam and started rolling.He took out the best part of the whole vid and placed it on the net.

Why would it be fake if the object is centered, i just think thats great camerawork.I tell u what the cameraman expected, he expected a crashlanding on the first impact but it didend thus he kept filming the object as his target.Thats what i would do.

Lets just say its your opinion but to call it proof that this is fake is another story.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrwupy
NO ONE should take my opinion, or yours, as gospel. They should continue to learn for themselves and decide what is right for themselves.

If I had the answers I wouldn't be hanging out on a website, neither would you.


This is true to some extent. I hang out here because I can learn stuff. But I have noticed that, everytime I see a video posted, the debunkers are out in force. Now I'm not objecting to valid criticism. There's a video I've seen analysed of a large disc going behind a block of flats, and I read a very detailed and convincing analysis that demonstrated to my satisfaction that it was fake.

On the other hand, some of the criticisms offered here are way too offhand, are uninformed, people don't look at the footage properly, and so on. It is very clear that this object is powered. As I said, its trajectory after the first bounce is not ballistic. I forgot to mention that you can also see it pull up very slightly before its first impact.

The level of critique on the other thread that referenced this footage was similarly poor. People were saying it was a missile, and there was even someone who insisted he'd seen more footage showing the missile's trajectory from start to finish. He was, however, unable to substantiate his claims with a link to footage, which is not surprising as they made no sense anyway.

I'm all for denying ignorance and healthy debate: but debunking for the sake of it is something I see a lot of on this forum, and it surprises me, frankly. The very title implies that people are intrerested in, and open to, the extraterrestrial hypothesis. On the other hand, the idea that some people are here to deliberately lead people away from things they "oughtn't to know about" cannot be completely discarded, either. Sometimes I see argument so wilfully obtuse that I can't help but wonder.

NOT that any of that applies, necessarily, to anyone here right now. Sorry that turned into a bit of a rant, but the level of debate here does occasionally disappoint.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrwupy
True ufo footage is not that clean.


Ok... so could you perhaps give an example of what you mean? some 'true ufo footage'?



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 11:08 PM
link   
The video shown is a test of a reentry vechicle. I believe the site of the test was at the Yuma, Az. test center.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 11:25 PM
link   
I've looked at this one many times over the past couple of years. Various versions I've downloaded over time suggest that White Sands NM 1997 may or may not be an accurate location and time (my oldest copy was d/l'd in '98). I've outputted it to frames and looked at it frame by frame. I can't calculate the scale but it doesn't immediately shout "fake" or anything - I could be wrong but this object does not seem small. I'm thinkin' automobile sized or maybe double that size. If this is real footage of an impact, a couple of things come to mind as points of interest.

This is a white-hot object, perhaps lenticular in shape, maybe spinning that makes a tremendous initial high speed impact and doesn't frag. Think about what that means. It continues - almost like a skipping stone on water, bouncing and seemingly with some degree of gyro-induced stability (that is it didn't tumble) and impacts again.

Whether UFO or kinetic device, this is one tough stabile platform/planform. The "starburst" of debris reminds one of magnesium or molten metal sparks at a steel mill. The lack of "normal orange flames" suggests something but I'm not sure what.

The final fragmentation seems a little "funny" since it should have been a lesser energy impact than the previous which were survived. It may have struck a rock and lost structural integrity. It may have been detonated. When it "let go" it was still smokin' hot.

That this was both on film and in frame accurately being tracked is perhaps suggestive of a test of some kinetic device or a "thing" under human control rather than an accidental filming of a non-terrestrial vehicle "Oops".

Let's suppose that the craft is of alien origin, and that the locale is White Sands and that the vehicle was "brought-down" ala the "Roswell-Radar" oft named as the reason behind the 1947 "incident(s). Couldn't one assume that an organization as advanced as the US military or whomever could predict where such a vehicle would impact if they themselves were responsible for such a "downing"? I don't know. Seems "far out" but might just be potentially feasible.

If this was faked I'm a little surprised to not have seen any variants, yet. If other videos of this specific incident or of a similar nature become available please u2u me.

Thanx,

Victor K.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by flycatch
The video shown is a test of a reentry vechicle. I believe the site of the test was at the Yuma, Az. test center.


Could you provide a link to this information. I find this video fascinating for two reasons.

1. I doubt that we humans have anything that could withstand that 1st bash into the ground and take flight again, albeit a short flight.

2. The explosion is devoid of any fire. No rocket or jet fuel catching fire. Also the pieces that fly apart almost seem self luminiscent.

I also noticed that the camera operator does seem to be filming an event. A planned landing perhaps. Odd truly fascinating piece of video! Two thumbs way up, OP!!!



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 11:40 PM
link   
I think its a test flight of some sort of secret new military craft.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Yes, just a military test flight of some sort. This video pops up on ATS every few months or so, and has been debunked each and every time. If I find the old links I'll post em, but am not going to try looking to hard.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Okay, so here we have a video of something that looks like it crashed. Fine. In order for it to be anything besides pixels on a screen, let's ask a few questions:

Who took the video?
When and where did this happen?
What happened before and AFTER the crash (did anybody go look at the pieces)?

Because it was apparently photographed by a camera on a tripod, it would seem to be that the photographer was waiting for just such a "crash" to happen. It happened in the desert. The quality of the reproduction is so bad we don't get a good idea of the actual shape of the thing.

What could it be? Without resorting to aliens from space, what other possible explanation might there be for it?

"Desert" and "things blowing up" immediately make me think of the military. They like to film the things they blow up, too. So I tend to think that what you're seeing is a very bad duplication of the filming of some missile test. The eliptical shape that suggests a "flying saucer" could be anything from rocket exhaust to simply a blown out reflection of some white or shiny cylinder. Rocket or cruise missile or aircraft body.

Now, I don't know FOR SURE that's what it is, but since there's no more additional information to be had about it, which explanation should I pick to temporarily settle on, so I can get on with my life? Crashing aliens, or missile test? Unless or until there is a bit more hard information given to me to lean more toward the ALIEN explanation, don't you think it makes more sense to stick with the missile test idea? I'll keep an open mind about the aliens, but I really need more information about it to change my idea about a missile test.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 01:01 PM
link   
From the other thread...SCIFI channel did a brief thing on it. its tagged whitesands,nm 1996. Heres a link to the SCIFI vid at my bandwidth expense.

www.silveradoconsulting.com...



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join