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.

 

UFO Crash Caught on Video (explain this video)

page: 10
25
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by TheFlash
 



I do but Im not sure you do so I am providing the definition here:

noun
1.
the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
2.
a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic.
3.
the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.
4.
reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn't much logic in her move.
5.
convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness: the irresistible logic of the facts.



You continue to ignore an excellent investigation that has proven facts based on LOGIC.




posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by DerbyCityLights
reply to post by TheFlash
 



I do but Im not sure you do so I am providing the definition here:

noun
1.
the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
2.
a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic.
3.
the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.
4.
reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn't much logic in her move.
5.
convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness: the irresistible logic of the facts.



You continue to ignore an excellent investigation that has proven facts based on LOGIC.


And you fail to answer my questions. That is indicative of arguing and attempting to deny or hide truth.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by TheFlash
 


I answered every question you posted. You refused to accept them. Now you are just outright lying.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheFlash

Originally posted by DerbyCityLights
Ok, let me try this one more time for you...


Originally posted by TheFlash


No, my previous analogy was just not completely valid.


Which means you used failed logic.



Here is another one. Let's say that a UFO behaves like a Chinese lantern or balloon. The 1991 Mexico eclipse UFO is a good example.


So since you cant fundamentally argue against my proof you have to move on to another video? Interesting...




If you study the case you will find that it is very unlikely the the object video taped by many people was not a balloon or lantern,


So if it is unlikeley the object is not a balloon then it would be a balloon...





yet I'm sure that someone could make and float a balloon that looked similar when viewed for a few seconds.


The characteristics of a high altitude balloon are hard to recreate with any kind of metallic objects of enormous size.




That does not mean that the object filmed was not a metalic, solid object.


No, it means that only the ones associated with the object can every truly know what it was.





A 'real world' example. Logic passes.


No, your logic is still quite lacking. I mean no offence, but you are just not using any common sense here. Man, I believe we are not alone. I believe there is life out there, but you can not say that the video associated with this thread is proof. It has been proven to be a failed missile test at white sands. If you continue to ignore the facts given as opposed to the opinions without any facts, then again your logic is destined to fail you.


Do you know what logic is??

Where is the proof that the "video associated with this thread" has been "proven to be a failed missile test at white sands"? Are you saying that the TV show you clips you posted are that proof? Where is the proof that the video was even taken at White Sands?




I asked "Where is the proof that the "video associated with this thread" has been "proven to be a failed missile test at white sands"?" as shown above. You failed to answer the question. You said I lied about it. You were wrong about that also.

I asked " Where is the proof that the video was even taken at White Sands?" You failed to answer the question also.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   
The only question I failed to answer is the one about White Sands proof. The other one you said I did not answer WAS answered in the video I directed you to and I told you as much, thus ANSWERING your question. The videos I linked to also will show the area as White Sands. BOTH your questions are answered. If you dont accept them or are to lazy to watch the videos for the answers I provided, then that is on you.

I said you are outright lying because you implied that I answered none of your questions. Your implication was a lie. period. I did miss one of the questions, but that hardly constitutes as all of them.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 10:34 AM
link   
That is a missile, looks like failure in the guidance system due to sudden change in elevation of terrain and incorrect compensation. What we have here is a missile failure followed by a rare event where the missile is not destroyed upon impact, the shimmering is due to the weather and environment

There is nothing else to it, the real mystery is why it took ATS regulars 10 pages to figure it out



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by QQXXw
 





the real mystery is why it took ATS regulars 10 pages to figure it out

It didn't

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by gortex
 


Thank you for the redirect to another thread however when the first words I read are - general consensus...

My first thought is herd mentality and that is not proof. Men go mad in herds and recover their senses - one by one!

Much Peace...



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Amanda5
 


Ummmm, he linked to his second post in THIS thread...



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Alien Abduct
 

Those test pilots are really brave....trying to fly alien technology with speculative reverse engineering.



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by gortex
 


Well, that was so good info!

You seem to be right about the smoke trail as well. It's pretty faint but it looks like there's something!.
Still looks pretty funky for a missile.
When you look at missiles going off course, they really do go all over the place.
This looks to me more like a craft.....not saying alien, but something that is meant to be control, not just a missile!

Well - this is interesting stuff non the less!



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheFlash

Originally posted by TheFlash

Originally posted by DerbyCityLights
Ok, let me try this one more time for you...


Originally posted by TheFlash


No, my previous analogy was just not completely valid.


Which means you used failed logic.



Here is another one. Let's say that a UFO behaves like a Chinese lantern or balloon. The 1991 Mexico eclipse UFO is a good example.


So since you cant fundamentally argue against my proof you have to move on to another video? Interesting...




If you study the case you will find that it is very unlikely the the object video taped by many people was not a balloon or lantern,


So if it is unlikeley the object is not a balloon then it would be a balloon...





yet I'm sure that someone could make and float a balloon that looked similar when viewed for a few seconds.


The characteristics of a high altitude balloon are hard to recreate with any kind of metallic objects of enormous size.




That does not mean that the object filmed was not a metalic, solid object.


No, it means that only the ones associated with the object can every truly know what it was.





A 'real world' example. Logic passes.


No, your logic is still quite lacking. I mean no offence, but you are just not using any common sense here. Man, I believe we are not alone. I believe there is life out there, but you can not say that the video associated with this thread is proof. It has been proven to be a failed missile test at white sands. If you continue to ignore the facts given as opposed to the opinions without any facts, then again your logic is destined to fail you.


Do you know what logic is??

Where is the proof that the "video associated with this thread" has been "proven to be a failed missile test at white sands"? Are you saying that the TV show you clips you posted are that proof? Where is the proof that the video was even taken at White Sands?




I asked "Where is the proof that the "video associated with this thread" has been "proven to be a failed missile test at white sands"?" as shown above. You failed to answer the question. You said I lied about it. You were wrong about that also.

I asked " Where is the proof that the video was even taken at White Sands?" You failed to answer the question also.


Well aparently the aliens scheduled there crash.If you didnt notice the camera was mounted on a tripod nice of them to plan the crash for us.



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Woah this thread reached 10 pages and if left unchecked it will reach 100 with 900+ flags


First of all did any of you really believe that they proped a camera and waited a ufo to crash???????

And we expect ufology to get respectable.I already hear debunkers laughing their rears off.

This video was shown in the documentary "out of the blue" with the line “White Sands New Mexico, 1996”

and then we had a thread here. click

Sometimes i get the impression some people come here to chitchat


Do your research people



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by DerbyCityLights
reply to post by charlyv
 


Watch the videos I posted. They clearly prove that rockets can in fact take that kind of an impact and become airborne again.



Ill do you one bettter i can show a rocket going through a ship! When they test missiles they have dummy warheads.This is probably what they were testing in white sands by its cruise and trajectory most likely an anti ship missile. Its an awesome video really have a look




posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 05:12 AM
link   
I'm an engineer. I saw clips of this video on intro's to some show but never saw the video before. I immediately knew from just the clip there's something unusual there but couldn't find it to watch. Just tonight I caught an episode of UFO Chasers where they investigated the video. My god what a bunch of idiots, they didn't even know how to use a metal detector.

First off this is definitely NOT a missile. Missiles are like arrows, they have no strength against a sideways force. No missile that big could hit the ground and bounce undamaged and it was pretty big, not an air to air. Only a couple small air to air missile could even possibly hit the ground like that without damage. Missiles always have fuel that explodes or at least burns, there was no explosion or burning fuel. They also generally never have much horizontal velocity. Missiles are fired up and come down. They generally only travel horizontally when there is a malfunction and when that happens they have a load of fuel. It also has a smoke trail from the beginning but a missile with no fuel probably wouldn't leave a smoke trail.

Second and even more unusual is that it hit the ground at over a hundred miles an hour and bounced seemingly without damage and then hit again at the same angle and speed and then disintegrates WITHOUT exploding. If you gave me a million dollars and asked me to do nothing else but build something that could duplicate that video I don't think anyone could. We could build something that would bounce but not disintegrate like that too.

Third, no one seemed to notice that it changes pitch as it travels to the ground after the first bounce. That strikes me as almost impossible for an unpowered craft. If the shape of the craft is a cylinder that is an unusual path to travel after a bounce, possible but unlikely to be a perfect pitch change as in the video. Before the first bounce it looks like it's lifting to avoid the crash, also it looks like it changes shape a bit during the bounce looking more like a disc than cylinder. If the craft is a disc and it's spinning, it can't change pitch without power. When you throw a frisbee and bounce it off the ground it stays parallel with the ground and doesn't change pitch because of gyroscopic forces from the spin. Try bouncing it off the ground without spinning it and it'll start flipping. So will a cylinder. There's only one way for a disc that isn't spinning to change pitch like that.

And that leads to an even stranger conclusion. In order for a disc to change pitch perfectly like that it has to be either very, very lucky or under powered flight. It looks to me like it's a disc and under power.

My conclusion is that can't possibly be a missile, it's disc shaped, not spinning and under power as it crashes. If it was powered when it crashed and it didn't explode and burn it wasn't conventional fuel. It does nothing in that video that can be conventionally explained. In fact it looks like a classic case of oversteer. The pilot is crashing, pulls back on the stick too late, it hits the ground bounces up, the pilot overcompensates by pushing the stick forward and crashes the second time.

And for the comments about a camera being there, who ever heard of anyone being present where missiles are landing? No one is within miles of missile targets during tests, they are present with cameras for tests of aircraft though.

edit on 23-2-2015 by 1355AM because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-2-2015 by 1355AM because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-2-2015 by 1355AM because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-2-2015 by 1355AM because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-2-2015 by 1355AM because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-2-2015 by 1355AM because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-2-2015 by 1355AM because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 05:18 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Big deal. An arrow can go through a steel pail of sand but if I smack you on the side of the head with it it'll break in half like a toothpick. Just like that thing would have done if it was a missile hitting the ground.



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 07:21 AM
link   
I consider this one to still be unexplained.

Doesn't look at all like a missile. A missile wouldn't glow and the lighting and background would make the missile body obvious if the glow where the thrust.

I find it impossible to believe a missile would skip like that.

I also find it impossible to believe that if it were a missile, that the controllers wouldn't have hit the self destruct well before it ever reached the point where the video began.

I don't think the video proves it was a "flying saucer", but I think the missile explanation is exactly the sort of unlikely explanation that would be offered up to cover for it being a flying saucer. People who want to believe it's a missile will decide that's what it shows, case closed, even though, objectively, it just doesn't fit that explanation.

I think it's a compelling video, but it would need a lot more corroborating evidence to rule it something otherworldly.



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 11:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: 1355AM
First off this is definitely NOT a missile. Missiles are like arrows, they have no strength against a sideways force. No missile that big could hit the ground and bounce undamaged and it was pretty big, not an air to air. Only a couple small air to air missile could even possibly hit the ground like that without damage.

And bombs arent supposed to bounce off ground targets either but here you go: www.youtube.com...

I do not see any problems with a rocket, missile or some kind of test vehicle bouncing off the ground at the angle its going in the OP video. Especially if it was a desert area with a sandy surface.



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Orkojoker
I've always thought this was an interesting video. Can someone please explain the apparent luminosity of the object, or is that something that doesn't fit into the missile/rocket theory? Is it typical for missiles to give off light like that when they're flying close to the ground?


---

This is a video of a "Bouncing Munition" technically designed to
spread bomblets far and wide as it bounces along its merry way.

Originally designed at ROF Base Chorley in England in the 1940's,
these bouncing bombs were tested by the USAF (USAAF in those days)
and then further developed at White Sands Missile range in the late
1950's and STILL have some in stock in 2010+ era USAF. The shininess
of this video indicates PROBABLE simple aluminum build and is just
a sunlight reflection. Since the aluminum wasn't used until the late
1950's when someone had the "great" idea of adding bomblets
to the bomb and thus needed a LIGHTER bouncing bomb casing
to carry greater payload. I think ONLY the early stage test bombs
were aluminum and then steel alloy became back in vogue due
to costs issues with the much more expensive aluminum.

NOT A NEW IDEA! AND NOT A UFO!

"...ROF Chorley was the site where the bouncing bombs, designed by Barnes Wallis..."
See Link to above quote:
en.wikipedia.org...

Barnes Wallis Inventor of the bouncing bomb:
en.wikipedia.org...

P.S. The bomblets were an idea from the USA late 1950's to Early 1960's
and were designed for HARD TARGET PENETRATION.

See 2nd paragraph of this link:



The earliest penetrating munitions were developed in rudimentary
form during World War II. Allied forces used powerful “bouncing bombs”
that skipped across the surface of waterways and over torpedo netting
to penetrate the concrete structures of dams in Germany’s Ruhr region
in 1943. By collapsing the dams, the Allies hoped to flood important
industrial and agricultural areas, hampering Germany’s war effort.
Although the bombs did breach some dams, the predicted
widespread damage did not occur.


Link:
www.britannica.com...

edit on 2015/2/23 by StargateSG7 because: sp

edit on 2015/2/23 by StargateSG7 because: sp

edit on 2015/2/23 by StargateSG7 because: sp



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: 1355AM

Where do you get the idea that missiles only travel horizontally when there's a malfunction? All missiles except ballistic missiles travel horizontally as part of their flight. There are probably a couple hundred videos of missiles in level flight. In fact there's one from just last week of a Tomahawk crossing level and being steered to the target by a chase aircraft.
edit on 2/23/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join