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.


UFO interview video clips

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 30 2003 @ 05:20 AM
I stored some RealPlayer clips at . If that server is tied-up, you can download the ZIP-ped WindowsMediaPlayer (.wmv) or RealPlayer (.rm) files from . One of them was from the NBC "DATELINE" interview of Col. Corso, who at the end said he saw one other crash during his tenure and -- while pointing to a disc have embedded in a rock -- said that one involved a "time machine". The others are the British and Russian equivalent to our Roswell, an off-the-cuff interview with Lazar, and former NATO SHAPE intelligence officer Robert Dean's explanation of "Cosmic Top Secret".

posted on Jan, 30 2003 @ 05:26 AM
what i dont understand is that if 'little green men' 'greys' whatever you want to call are flying these things why the hell do they keep crashing if the technology is 1000's of years in advance of ours maybe they aint so advanced after all, or were they shot down by another species of 'little green man' i find it hard to belive that a highly advanced species of whatever would crash so often, unless the technology is being afected by sombody somthing else, ie humans other aliens or whatever...

[Edited on 30-1-2003 by The Blade Runner]

posted on Jan, 30 2003 @ 09:56 AM
with a well-placed arrow, can shoot down a helicopter by hitting the pilot...

Seriously though, we don't know enough about the kind of travel utilized, to know the risks involved. Nor do we know the ratio of crashes to successful visits. For all we know, crashes happen only like .01% of the time. It's just like all of the good things that happen to us on a daily basis, but only the bad crap hits the news...

posted on Jan, 30 2003 @ 10:14 AM
do they crash so often?

I think its more about the perception ppl have that they do. To explain what I mean - off the top of my head I can probably think of about 10ish ufo crash reports that would stand up to some serious scrutiny.

Now they're the ones that have become public, so lets be really generous and say there's at least 50% that are not known, so that gives us 15 crashes that span over 50 years.

Now look at the stats for aeroplane crashes in one year alone. I did a quick search on google and from the first page got a link to a pdf file that was concerned with South Africa's Civil Aviation Authority.

You can view it here

scroll about half way down and you can see a very generalised 146 crashes for aircraft for the year 2001. Now that's just for one country, and looking through the document, the definition of 'aircraft' can range from microlights to large jets, but my point is this.

If that's one countries stats, you can imagine that other countries have higher or lower %'s based on levels of safety, numbers of flights etc.... but I think you can make a general assumption that there's approx. 1000 crashes a year....... compared to say 15 over 50 years..

even with all the technology, I think they still crash because nature being nature, accidents will happen. There was allegedly a thunderstorm around the estimated date of the Rowsell crash.. was it hit by lightning? dunno, some say that there two craft involved, did they hit each other? again, I dunno, is radar a cause? beats me, but in the grand scheme of things its possible.

Perhaps the flux capacitor burnt out

Thing is, things break in whatever way, accidents happen, but its important to get it into perspective. They aren't dropping out of the skies like flies just yet.

posted on Jan, 30 2003 @ 10:43 AM
I think you might be right if it's assumed that the only aliens visiting here are tourists. But if you're assuming some sort of governmental and scientific based expeditions, then you'd have to restrict your analogous data to military jet aircraft crashes from countries with good military equipment and maintenance.

(the Earth is many many light years away from other solar systems. Any civilization capable of reaching here has to have a good starcraft program.)

posted on Jan, 30 2003 @ 01:01 PM
how so byrd?

I can kinda see your comparison but I do not think it holds - taking the general theory that if you're capable of star travel then you have got surpassed the concept of wars and destruction, I wouldn't see that 'they' would have military vehicles that were superior to other vehicles. They would all possess the same technology, maybe a few prototypes for even more advanced travel which, may have been the ones that crashed earlier but I don't really think you can make that direct distinction in vehicle types.

Another thing to look at is the frequency of crashes over the time period. E.g. were there more in the 40's and 50's than now, just as you'd expect there to be less military crashes now than in the 40's and 50's assuming that the craft were of military or scientific types.

posted on Jan, 31 2003 @ 04:48 AM
I dont think there is many possible senarios, either they are not much more advanced than us maybe a couple of hundred years which would explain that crashing is still a possibility, they were shot down, they are coming in such vast numbers that it makes it seam like alot are crashing there would have to be 100.000's of them in the past 50 years to make that theasable and if this is the senario you dont send 100,000's of ufos for public relations that sounds like and army to me, or they are rubbish pilots, or they are deliberatly crashing.

It all just doesnt seam to quite add up to me.....

new topics

top topics


log in