UFO Crash Caught on Video (explain this video)

reply to post by gortex


if it were a missle, wouldn't it have a bit more of an explosion. it looks more like a lot of debris when it finally crashes, and i've never seen a glowing missle either. i don't really know, just some thoughts.

went back and watched the show explaining it and that actually makes a lot of sense. i take back the above statement.

Originally posted by Beamish

Perhaps it's not a missile, but a prototype aircraft. A saucer shaped one.

hehehehe this made me laugh!

Although I thought the same thing when I first watched the video... Seems odd that it would bounce like that and not break up upon first impact...

Originally posted by solongandgoodnight
reply to post by gortex

 

went back and watched the show explaining it and that actually makes a lot of sense. i take back the above statement.

Redacted answer due to the above

Originally posted by gortex

Originally posted by solongandgoodnight
reply to post by gortex

 

if it were a missle, wouldn't it have a bit more of an explosion. it looks more like a lot of debris when it finally crashes, and i've never seen a glowing missle either. i don't really know, just some thoughts.

If it was a rocket test then they wouldn't put a warhead on it , the explosion would have been caused by the rocket fuel .
As for the glow check out the video I posted Here

yeah i think you for sure got this one right. pretty crazy looking when you first look at it though.

reply to post by Alien Abduct


We can make some physics-based armchair observations about this video to determine what it isn’t. It isn’t a missile or conventional aircraft and it isn’t entirely out of control.
The structural integrity of that object would have to be super strong for a missile or aircraft to survive that first impact, and they ain’t made that way. Missiles and aircraft are made as lightweight as possible. They don’t bounce off of the ground, so scratch that possibility. It is fantasy.
We can plainly see in the initial seconds of the video that the craft makes some effort to alter its downward slant as it nears the ground. A missile or a plane could do that, of course, but they have been eliminated as possibilities. What we see is an object that seems to be under partial control.
That low angle of attack is not that of a free-falling body. Certainly it cannot be a meteorite or space junk moving at that relatively slow velocity. We must suppose there is some force keeping the thing almost airborne as shown by the attempt to alter its downward slant at near the final seconds. And that assumption is buttressed by the visual evidence that the craft is not out of control by tumbling or erratic motions at any point in its decent either before and especially after that bounce. Finally, it does not seem to lose much if any velocity as it bounces off of the ground. Without a doubt virtually anything we can think of would have lost power and disintegrated at that point. It did not, it gave every appearance of trying to still recover.
What we seem to know about UFOs? UFOs don’t seem to “fly.” They give every indication that they avoid, repel or eliminate mass in some fashion. With this object, it is difficult to understand how it remains stable and initially can bounce of the ground relatively unscathed. How can anything do that? The answer may be that with the first and even second contact with the desert, that its bulk was partially shielded such that the structural stresses of the contact were greatly reduced and this allowed it to almost recover. Yes, to literally bounce off the ground. Yet, its altitude control system was failing or had failed and its aerodynamic shape was not enough to provide sufficient lift to keep it airborne. After the first ground strike, anything not powered in some fashion could not have maintained the long arch of its gradual descent again to the ground. In fact, it almost seemed to have won its battle with the ground. I maintain that long arch also speaks of an internal power supply that negating the pure forces of gravity to some extent and provide it a bit longer life than nature would allow, thus, defying our expectations of what we witness.
If that seems a rather wild and bizarre explanation, I need to point out that the Mexican crash of 1974 and the secondary (near) Roswell crash of 1947 both gave indications that UFOs are tough hombres, in that they can sustain mid-air collisions with small aircraft with only minor physical damage and/or cannot be totally destroyed when striking the ground, leaving skid marks etc.
I have not claimed that the craft was alien. However, given that the camera work is highly professional and the taken in the desert, there is little doubt but what was recorded wa a test of a UFO-type craft. And I don’t see how anyone can deny that the US government has been working on developing our own versions since day one of our recognition that those were mighty strange craft flitting around in our air and how nifty it would be to have our own.

[SNIP]

yeah rocket thrusters glow. They are rather hot aswell...

Watch the video gortex provided this case is debunked!




Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com



Mod edit: Removed quote from deleted post.

reply to post by ThePeaceMaker


your right it does seem to try to change it flight path,
and i would think a missile would explode on impact

reply to post by gortex


and thats your proof its a rocket
take a look at your own vid
now look at the two vids together
enough said

Originally posted by maryhinge
...and i would think a missile would explode on impact

Would it?

Don't you think it could skip off of the ground, like a rock on water (similar to the small-scale rocket test that the TV show Fact or Fiction did).

I suppose I don't know enough about missiles to say that they would always explode, rather than skip off of the ground. It seems to ma that at the proper angle, it just may be able to structurally survive a glancing impact and skip -- that is if it didn't explode. I suppose if the fuel tank ruptured, then it could explode.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


they dont use the same angle,if they did then it would
be more believable but we will never know

Reply to post by maryhinge

Okay the video was taken at a missle testing range, that should be your first clue. Start the video at 7:00 and explain what is so obviously different than the "ufo" video in the OP.

I dont know why your asking gortex to do a side by side of the videos, they do that in this video which makes me wonder if you even watched it?? That doesn't matter, I would like to hear your opinion on this.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by maryhinge
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

they dont use the same angle,if they did then it would
be more believable but we will never know

Obviously, the angle of the object in the OP is moving at the correct angle and speed that would allow it to skip (considering that it did in fact skip).

The question then becomes: what is structurally able to withstand the impact then skip (because obviously the object withstood the impact and skipped). Maybe it wasn't your normal "rocket", but I would think there are plenty of man-made things that could survive the initial impact mostly intact, then skip.

What sort of chemical missile propellant would explode in an apparent shower of sparks, with no smoke, rather than a large fireball and cloud such as was seen in for example the Challenger disaster?

Ya know, I hate being a skeptic, because I so strongly believe that aliens are here, and elsewhere in the universe. But Soylent Green's post made me think. What was the government looking into in the late 90s in terms of "the next big thing" in aircraft? This was post-F-117 stealth, and before the F-22. Lifting Bodies. Small, fast, wingless aircraft that were powered by ram or scramjets, that were to have a top speed that could outstrip the SR-71, and a top ceiling higher than the X-15. They were the grandfathers of today's theorized "space planes." The idea, in a nutshell, was that the body of the plane itself was so aerodynamic that it didn't need wings to propel it. No wings = no wings shearing off during atmospheric exit and re-entry and high level flight. They built them fairly strong--so it's conceivable this was a failed test of one such aircraft. Especially considering, also in the late 90s, whenever someone wanted to do a test of a black box project, but not on one of the "traditional" black box sites, they went to an abandoned missile range...
However, as The Flash said, the explosion still bears questioning, because that is a mysterious enigma. And personally, I can't stand ForF...they do some interesting stuff with ghosts, but as for UFOs, they hardly research or properly test anything--in this case for example, when they tested the hoax theory, their "explosion" was a stationary cache of pyrotechnics, which, while it exploded in the proper pattern as the original video, was not moving like in the original video. As you can see, this video is being taken at a 90 degree angle from some motion, be it out the side of a car window, or whatever. The point I'm making is that, upon explosion, the explosion itself follows the motion of the car, as would be expected with an object plowing into the ground at a high speed. ForF's explosion, being stationary, would simply have disappeared to the rear in such a scenario.

Originally posted by TheFlash
What sort of chemical missile propellant would explode in an apparent shower of sparks, with no smoke, rather than a large fireball and cloud such as was seen in for example the Challenger disaster?

Here's a better question. Why assume it a missile or a UFO or, for that matter, a rocket propelled aardvark? Why not shut the door on this video without requiring what it will never be able to give us...an answer and closure?

reply to post by Beamish


Have you ever seen that vid of a UFO on 911? It's the one where people are in an air cart...those cart type things that they use for ski hills...ect so u can ride up....chair lift, whateva thier called...lol anyways...it's a disc shaped object that flies fast into frame and does a turn around and just as fast as it was there it rockets off just as fast?

That disc looks just like this one....I would definitely say Military experimental or launch gone bad....

Originally posted by TheFlash
What sort of chemical missile propellant would explode in an apparent shower of sparks, with no smoke, rather than a large fireball and cloud such as was seen in for example the Challenger disaster?

Maybe something more like an alcohol-based propellant, rather than the liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen mixture used by the main external tank of the shuttle.

When liquid hydrogen is burned (such as by the shuttle's main engines) a lot of water is created (H + O [in combustion] = H2O. Most of the "smoke" you see on a shuttle launch is condensed water vapor, like in a normal cloud.

Alcohol-based propellants, on the other hand, burn mostly invisible. The sparks could have been caused by the debris from the craft itself.

Here is a very good article UFO's will crash and some backgound info on the video and history etc and that is had been analyzed, "it is quite clear the UFO is spinning around and around on its own axis (not a cruise missile)".

As per all video's they all pretty useless, erm yup its blip erm yup its a ufo something.

The glowing object in this video is the thrusters exhaust (flames) from a rocket.. They are the same shape on nearly all rockets, I say 'nearly' because I could be wrong.

The actuall rocket is not visible because of the type of camera being used and the brightness of the exhaust.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com