UFO caught on film in sweden (anti tank weapon test)

How about regular speed?
Why is regular speed not included?

I keep hearing the word bird, and then a weird thought came to me, could bird be a pseudonym for a fast walker in code speak? Maybe thats why they call them birds so much!

To be exact there 4 objects in the video, one seems to follow the missile.

BUT..

Its a very strange video, the angle and the distance from the target and the framing are all very suspect. To be honest I'm not sure any of its real at all. Weapons trial video and sales video's are normally focused directly on the target with a small allowance for the missile to enter the frame as the key point is to show the destructive force and not how pretty the surroundings are.

The movement of the dots is very smooth, pretty much maintaining the same speed, almost like a spline path.

Nope, does not feel right...

Its a very strange video, the angle and the distance from the target and the framing are all very suspect.

Here is Saab demo, watch (3:28):

www.youtube.com...

"Perfectly guided missile and a predicted flight path."

So maybe here in Sweden video flight path is not straight line..

I watched all anti tank missile videos in Youtube, this video is only copy. I asked uploader how he got this video. No reply message yet..

Originally posted by hande

Its a very strange video, the angle and the distance from the target and the framing are all very suspect.

Here is Saab demo, watch (3:28):

www.youtube.com...

"Perfectly guided missile and a predicted flight path."

So maybe here in Sweden video flight path is not straight line..

I watched all anti tank missile videos in Youtube, this video is only copy. I asked uploader how he got this video. No reply message yet..

edit on 9-2-2011 by hande because: (no reason given)

I see what you are saying but my point is that the framing and distance of the strike was staged so the camera was far away, proper strike films show the target in frame with just a little extra for the missile to show as it hits. The only reason there was almost no zoom shots in your video was that the strikes on the moving tanks were FX added after but when they showed those blocks being blown up the camera was placed feet away to show the destruction.

In the initial video they did none of that which seems very suspect to me.

I am with others on the insect card here. But the point also about the launch "blast" from the weapon could have created some debris in the air seems valid.

Originally posted by wonderboy2402
I am with others on the insect card here. But the point also about the launch "blast" from the weapon could have created some debris in the air seems valid.

I'm positive some people are only watching a few seconds of the video before posting...

If it's debris from the blast, then how is it at the other end of the screen from where the missile enters, and flying towards the missile, then up, then back then up again....

Also, I think insects would be the case if this were normal framed footage slowed down, but it is high speed footage played which would mean those insects, if they are close to the camera, are moving insanely fast in such a very very small area...

?!

Originally posted by MainLineThis


The real conspiracy here is why do the swedes need an anti-tank missile?!?!?! lol......

Never heard of the company called Bofors then? Only one of the most advanced weapon systems companies in the world. They have just invented an intelligent munition round for bunker and building busting. You have two guys hiding, using a window to fire from. The round enters through the window calculates how far it has penetrated the room and only explodes once it knows it is sufficiently inside enough to take out anyone hiding either side of the window frame.

Bofors also supplied the only weapon that was standard issue to both the Nazis and the Allies in WW2in the form of the 40mm anti aircraft gun.

I asked Youtube uploader where he found this video:

Hello from Finland Sweden anti tank video. Where did you find it? Do you have link to original source? Answer:

Hello Suomi!

Thanks for your interest.
Im sorry to say i dont have the original copy any more and i dont think there are no links since its from the military.

Thanks any way

Please Subsribe

<

reply to post by MainLineThis


you obviously didnt watch the full video and made that opinion based on actual debri which yes u see however that was not the objects in question...but the actual ringed objects that are in the distance in front of the missile....

tut tut

Originally posted by badw0lf

Originally posted by wonderboy2402
I am with others on the insect card here. But the point also about the launch "blast" from the weapon could have created some debris in the air seems valid.

I'm positive some people are only watching a few seconds of the video before posting...

If it's debris from the blast, then how is it at the other end of the screen from where the missile enters, and flying towards the missile, then up, then back then up again....

Also, I think insects would be the case if this were normal framed footage slowed down, but it is high speed footage played which would mean those insects, if they are close to the camera, are moving insanely fast in such a very very small area...

?!

Well I did watch the entire vid. My thought was that initial blast from the launch would travel outwards at a faster rate from the tube as the missile/rocket would speed up. The back blast from rocket weapons is enough to badly burn or kill someone standing behind the weapon due to the heat/pressure. Alot of that energy leaves out the back of the weapon as the warhead leaves the tube, but some of that pressure would escape outwards too.

If we are seeing debris/insect directly in front of the camera (say, less then a foot from lens) a blast could disturb them I think.

reply to post by butcherguy


I'm assuming they are behind the tank, because they seem to enter the clouds; they may not be, of-course.
Parallax enters into it because we are estimating something's velocity based on another 'known velocity', given their distal relationship.
It's not the camera moving, but our reference frame (the rocket) is.

There'll be a mundane explanation I'd say. Little mites/motes on the camera lens maybe, the high contrast and low focus could make them "disappear" and "reappear".
If this was filmed on a mechanical camera, vibrations could move them around as well, but I'd say it was digital.