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.

 

Two UFO Crash/ Explosion Videos - Real or not?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Apologies if this has appeared on here already but just came accross it. Its pretty impressive!

By UFO i mean i dont know what it is. I doubt very much that this is fake.

A forewarning, this guy likes his woahs and holy mackerel...

Exploding UFO

Any ideas? It aint a flare as someone has said because flares descend at a slow rate, this doesnt descend at all.

Only seems to be visible in nightvision as well although this may be just the debris when it starts to fade.
EDIT: Jeezus - I just came accross this as well! I love Youtube... Again, it looks convincing but why wasnt it on the news or anything

Crash

[edit on 20-8-2006 by fiftyfifty]

[edit on 20-8-2006 by fiftyfifty]




posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Anybody? Is it just me who's impressed by these then? 34 lookers and no replies phh


I want some opinions!



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by fiftyfifty
Anybody? Is it just me who's impressed by these then? 34 lookers and no replies phh


I want some opinions!


The video you named Crash impressed me, wow that was spectacular :O i hope it's real

I just have to say again how cool that video was, isn't that some good evidence?

[edit on 20-8-2006 by InSaneTK]

Again i just want to say that no ordinary aircraft bounce of the ground after first impact, that's something saucershaped stuff can, like if you throw it vertical on water

[edit on 20-8-2006 by InSaneTK]



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   
The video named crash is a video of a missle test , were obvouisly the missle crashes



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marto_Bagg
The video named crash is a video of a missle test , were obvouisly the missle crashes


Who told you that? It could be but give evidence of it being a missile bouncing of the ground n stuff like that, also i heard that the US goverment attacks any UFO in sight to maybe answer the smoke



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a missile? Do you know that for sure? Im pretty sure a missile wouldnt bounce that high. Also, ive seen a missile before and they dont glow completely like that...



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 03:47 PM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thats how i know



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Not so much a "missile", per se, but an Air Force experimental lifting body.Discussed here.

And the "floating light" appears to be a fire-balloon that catches on fire, sending burning pieces drifting down. Now, if it zoomed off at impossible speed, that would be a different story


[edit on 8/20/2006 by eaglewingz]



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 03:53 PM
link   


Thats how i know



Ok, previously debunked but still.. no evidence that it's a missile. Just because somebody thinks its a missile test at white sands don't mean it is. The link to the video is out of date now and doesn't work so i dont know if it is clearer by that.

What about the first video?



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 03:53 PM
link   
I don't know what to believe, but if it was really an UFO crash, then the goverment would do anything to cover it up ofcourse.



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 04:11 PM
link   
The government would only cover it up if they thought that the video showed some conclusive evidence, like the body of ET himself being flung from the wreckage on impact. However this video just shows a 'UFO' (which it still is IMO as i dont believe it's a rocket) which is open to debate and opinion.

A rocket would have exploded on first impact.



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 05:07 PM
link   
A scale model of the x-38 lifting body aircraft has been proposed as the most likely conventional explanation.

Here's a pic of the test range. Notice the similarity of the ridge and power poles?




And one of the craft itself :




posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by eaglewingz
A scale model of the x-38 lifting body aircraft has been proposed as the most likely conventional explanation.

Here's a pic of the test range. Notice the similarity of the ridge and power poles?




And one of the craft itself :



well whatever it is its not a UFO thats all that matters



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 05:26 PM
link   
i wonder what the first vid was, its strange that the best the guy could sayd is woah,woah,woah, whats thats,woah



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Well since I'm the one that witnessed and captured this event on video, I guess I'm the most likely one to be able to address any questions without a lot of conjecture being thrown into the mix...

A complete report (and regular video download) can be viewed on Brian Vikes site:

www.hbccufo.org...


in regards to all the "woah's", I guess until you see something that is completely a once-in-a-lifetime 'mind-blowing' event, you can feel free to crack all the jokes and make fun of my dialogue as you wish. I'm a veteran skywatcher and ufologist with over 20 years behind the lense of a camera, and this really took my breath away. And since as you all know, I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't keep the audio-track in there, so it is what it is. My main concern at the time was to keep the footage steady, my last concern was how my verbal exclamations of amazement would be later rediculed.

I will address any questions (to the best of my abilities after you have read the posted report at HBCCUFO) on the event EXCEPT any that deals with my observation verbage.


For those that want a better quality resolution of the event, it's been broken down into four segments with one side digitaly-zoomed, the other at regular POV mode.

Segment 1:Segment 2:Segment 3:Segment 4:


By the way, a UFO is any unidentifiable aerial object,, and since no one has been able to come forward with any visual and written exclamation for what I captured (that is not simply conjecture), this sighting will remain a UFO.

Personally, I think (here again my own personal opinion) is that it was some form of a military test.

Johnny Anonymous



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Holy Mackral!! I didn't expect the guy behind video to show up in the forum

Hey, atleased your expressions wern't explicit



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 11:05 PM
link   
AD,

Not bad intuition , but I have to disagree that a Rocket launch is not what is on the video.

I've seen this video before , and I'd lay all my money on some type of exploding Balloon. IMO the video , which is good video, is totally consistent with a Balloon that explodes for several reasons. At no point is there any detectable movement that leads me to think this object is under any control. At some points before the explosion there appears to be something consistent with some type of payload a balloon would carry directly underneath the object. When the explosion happens the hot air from the explosion can be seen rising, at the same time what appears to be a payload falls. Right after the explosion some of the warm air is visible rising slowly while hotter air is seen rising much more rapidly. After the explosion the visible pieces simply seem to free fall which also is consistent with a Balloon with payload.

It's weird video for sure and I've never seen anything quite like it , but I'd say it's completely consistent with a Balloon of some type ( probably non-extensible with payload ) that exploded either on purpose or by accident.



JohnnyAnonymous,

Welcome to ATS.

And I'd agree with you too that this was likely a military experiment.



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Access Denied

Intuition? Well, considering I've been in the space and missile propulsion "business" for over 20 years now, my "intuition" could arguably be considered above informed opinion.


Irrelevant. It's a logical fallacy to appeal to public opinion.

Plus it's arrogant to assume your opinion is above that of others.

If you've really been in the "business" 20 years why am I having to point out to you a video of a balloon exploding isn't a Missile launch?



I disagree. The "object" is clearly visible to be gaining altitude relative to the observer's position and perspective. Whether or not this matches the trajectory of a Delta II launch is in my opinion an exercise perhaps best left to the student.


How can you know what the altitude of the object is when we only have a star in the background to judge the movement?

What I see is the whole screen slowly migrating from left to right and the object in question only moves less than its own diameter in relation to the Star in the background. It's consistent with a Balloon on the wind IMO.



A balloon??? Coming from you that has to be the most ironic thing I’ve ever heard.


Well it's not really ironic because I've been calling them like I see them since day one , and this one IMO is a Balloon being "Aborted" after a long day in the sun.

Just for fun , a little history trivia reveals that C. B. Moore and Co. from Project MOGUL were the first to pioneer the use of high explosives to Abort high altitude Balloons.





[edit on 21-8-2006 by lost_shaman]



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 01:16 AM
link   
Marto,

How is something debunked just because some people "think" it is a missle without any proof? Is that what we have come to on ATS? opinion=Fact? I also love the comment, "Well it may not be debunked but it's not a UFO!" Ok
Thanks for clearing that one up


How about "Not sure but I think its a missle."

I personally have no idea what it is. I do not believe it is a missle though. 'Opinion'

[edit on 21-8-2006 by kleverone]



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Access Denied

Anyway, my opinion FWIW is it's undoubtedly a missile launch. What the mission was, and whether or not a range abort was or wasn’t involved in conjunction with stage separation, is undetermined.

I will not engage in an attempt refute your balloon theory so feel free to present us with the results of your research into possible sources for this balloon, it’s configuration, purpose, and correlation to known observational characteristics.


It would seem that it doesn't take a Rocket Scientist to see there is a destructive explosion of some form and then we can clearly see warm and hot air rising at different speeds on the video. That in my opinion is consistent with an explosion ( hot Gas ) and warm Balloon Gas rising at different speeds and because we can see that warm and hot air and can not see any exhaust fumes in my mind rules out a Missile Launch while totally consistent with a balloon and explosion.

At the same time everything else I see is consistent with an explosive Balloon "Abort"/descent too. Like I stated it's only been done for 58 years or so. You can't really have big Balloons with significant payloads floating into Air Traffic lanes can you?










[edit on 21-8-2006 by lost_shaman]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join