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.

 

the best (crashed) ufo pics ever

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Text Purple I just saw it on Sci Fi Channel, KGB Files with Roger Moor and there was a book featured, called Project Isis Tomb of the Visitor, but it is not in amazon and the only thread for it on the net is your post: posted on 6-8-2004 at 10:22 AM Post Number: 710021 (post id: 730715) If anyone gets a lead for the book let us know how. Thanx




posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Why couldn't this ship of crashed fifty years ago and the tress repaired that were damaged or grew up beside the craft...?
It came to me immediatetly after I saw no crash marks. So than they happen to find it, and this is a stake out vid.



posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 07:07 AM
link   
I saw the documentary hosted by Roger Moore several years ago.

This is my recollection of what is stated in the documentary (from memory):

I have seen the animation of the projected crash path and having read through this thread I have noticed that some people are assuming that the object is 'embedded' in the ground and are saying that the eventual resting place isn't 'right' based on that assumption.

Well, the object isn't embedded in the ground. What you are seeing is the largest piece of the object resting against a tree - more than half of it disintegrated when the leading edge (supposedly) smashed into to the ground several hundreds yards/feet away. What was left, cartwheeled and bounced for several hundred yards/feet and came to rest against the tree.

The first point of impact was in an fairly open area not a wooded area. The final resting place of the largest piece is on the edge of a forest or wood.

The documentary team handed over the actual film stock to photographic experts who concluded that the film stock used was authentic in terms of actual physical age and type. The markings and serial numbers on the film stock were examined and found to be consistent with the type used by the Russian military for that period.

The film footage also contained introductory screens detailing the date and time of the footage was shot, which military unit was involved, which departments etc - this was all in Russian (obviously) and was also confirmed by experts to be consistent with what is known about the Russian military at that time. An expert in Russian military matters concluded that the uniforms and weapons were consistent with the period.

The whole scene was shot using 3 separate cameras - one was mounted on a vehicle and two were hand-held. The released footage is a combination of the vehicle-mounted camera (which is stationary) and one of the hand-held cameras. The third camera (hand-held) can be seen by the other two cameras. A military figure (not a soldier) is shown using the third camera for close-ups of the object including examining the 'interior' of the object that is resting against the tree. The footage from the third camera was either not obtained or hasn't been released yet.

The documentary concluded that the crashed UFO footage was authentic (nobody can say for sure whether the object is real) but the footage of the alien autopsy was faked by students working in a medical school - they found the room where the alien autopsy was shot in a University or College somewhere in Russia.

I have no idea whether the UFO in the footage is real or not - how would I know for sure? If I could walk up to it and touch it, and assuming it's not obviously constructed from wood, foam or plastic, how would I know whether it was real? It seems to me that people are eager to jump to conclusions either one way or the other purely based on their current degree of belief.

I find the idea that "the simplest explanation is often the correct one" quite amusing - it all depends on what you define 'the simplest' explanation to be. Which is 'simpler' - a craft of unknown origin crashes in Russia or an elaborate 'hoax' is staged for propaganda. Or perhaps it's a real event released as propaganda? Wouldn't it be simpler to assume that all UFOs are ET craft - yes, it would be simpler but it wouldn't be correct.

[edit on 2/11/2004 by Deckard_BR26354]



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 05:12 AM
link   
you realize this post is about two diffent things right it started with questions about " tomb of the vistor" some how the russia crash got thown in here. me i'm wanting to know more about the tomb cause i could find anything else on the net either



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 05:16 AM
link   
woot! never mind i'm a smuck i came in half way though the post on a google search and didn't realize it was about half way though it



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 06:33 AM
link   
Here we go another one





posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 08:29 AM
link   
whoa whats this a pic of?

does anyone know what this is? it looks really odd
im not sure is that supposedly of the same incident?

btw i have that 2 disk DVD also Secret KGB UFO files or whatever its called
hosted by 007

its very interesting

thats a good theory about it being originally russian disinfo proaganda

but a few things still have me wondering

im not convinced of anything yet

btw the project isis and the sverdosk incidents are related because they are on the same DVD special lol

i saw the pictures of the "mummy-thing" in the tomb
i paused the footage 2 get a closer look

its skeletal features did indeed indicate it was of "otherworldly" origins

now...was it faked? and for what reasons? I Dont Know

but it was a fun video 2 watch non the less



mod edit: removed image from previous post

[edit on 20-11-2005 by sanctum]



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 08:50 AM
link   
In regards to the pictures originally posted why does this object have to be a crashed UFO? To me it looks possible that the object of discussion could be emerging from the ground by the look and pattern of the soil at the base of the object. Perhaps this would explain some people's doubts of lack of a crash site and damaged trees etc.

I am currently undecided on whether these pictures are of a real occurence or simply staged for whatever reasons.

I just wanted to add a new idea/theory to the discussion and to see if anybody agrees with me. Your thoughts please.



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 09:25 AM
link   
I'm d/loading the show now its 700mb

can't wait to see it


wdl

posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 09:33 AM
link   
The original pictures are fake, The TV show that it appeared on was a fake.

They showed some clip of the russia army digging up a tomb in Eygpt and some psychic levitating over it!

I've seen a few of the other documentaries in the series and they are all very poor, they use actors (very bad ones) pretending to be expert scientistswho authenticate various claims

Try finding any of these so called "experts" on the net; you won't becasue they don't exist.



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by wdl
The original pictures are fake, The TV show that it appeared on was a fake.

They showed some clip of the russia army digging up a tomb in Eygpt and some psychic levitating over it!

I've seen a few of the other documentaries in the series and they are all very poor, they use actors (very bad ones) pretending to be expert scientistswho authenticate various claims

Try finding any of these so called "experts" on the net; you won't becasue they don't exist.


In uk when it came on Sci fi it was a real show and it was presented by Roger 'JAMES-FREAKIN-BOND' Moore.
I'm sorry I thought he was a real person.



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 03:10 PM
link   
I'd have to say that my immediate thought was battlefield bunker. Possibly some sort of command post.
The photos are very deceptive in that they don't give any depth. For all the viewer knows this could be the front of a much deeper object. There also seems to be something which could possibly be a cable cover running in front of the central door.

Whatever, the earth around the object seems to have been placed there to embed it rather than a crater which one would expect from a fallen object.



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 07:18 PM
link   
in the program it showed 1st person perspective of a truck arriving, then it cut to another camera which showed the side 'craft' from the side and the other cameraman.



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 11:27 AM
link   

i see something that may debunk this in the bad qaulity second pic but im gonna wait until someone else cathces it.


You're speaking of the ring of bolts around the rim? The inspection windows/vents in the hatch? Or the plumbing fittings around the top half of the object, maybe. The close-ups show these features better. It all says "industrial boiler" to me.

Russian locomotive
And another
Old boiler in the Netherlands

Maybe they were covering up a major industrial accident? That was no town-leveling explosion, comrade, it was a flying saucer.



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 11:45 AM
link   
It is fake... but perhaps based upon real events...

the reason is:
the film shown in the Roger Moore Documentary was clearly marked at the beginning with the label of "training film" (translated by the russian interpreter)

so it was a training film... they however only mention this once... because it would take away from the whole "hype" if it was revealed to be only a training film...

SO they weren't really lieing, so much as not telling...

Training films exist due to a need... so it would illustrate that the Russians had secret SOP for alien crashes also... that is something at least.

perhaps based upon the older looking photo posted earlier in this thread, that was a real event... later used as an example for this training video.



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 02:11 PM
link   



posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Forgive me if this question has already been raised:

Was the crash site discovered by accident or was it located following a report of a downed aircraft?

Assuming the later portion of question 1, the immediate area around the site does not appear as though it could have happened recently unless someone conveniently dug a nice narrow trench and then inserted the "embedded" end of the craft into it.

Other than that, I find this very intriguing.

W.E.S.B



posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 01:04 PM
link   
whats with the Russian ufo pics of all of them sticking outta the ground? lol



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 02:24 PM
link   
it is a macho alien thing...

the higher the angle... well... you can guess the rest...



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 06:31 AM
link   
earlier i was looking up KGB files and when i clicked on an icon it told me that the sight had been removed so i tried another one of the icons and it said the same thing. Well a little while after that i was trying to look up some things about Roswell and as soon as i got into a sight i was kicked offline and i figured it was just my comp but i tried the exact same sight again and it did the same thing i tried about three more times just out of curiousity and it never did let me on. and since then i havnt been kicked offline one time. So do you think the government is hiding something???
Also I found a way to find the KGB book and all you have to do is type in "KGB alien mummy" and there are a few links about the book..

[edit on 4-12-2005 by curiousguy8638]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join