Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

UFO Crash Caught on Video (explain this video)

page: 3
23
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlchemicalBinoculars

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?


Because sharing, examining and commenting on videos and other media is what this site is for. If you are uninterested in this thread you are free to leave it be.




posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by maryhinge
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

One's a small off the shelf rocket used for demonstration purposes and the other is a military rocket , what do you expect .... an identical effect


As a demonstration I think the FoF rocket displayed close to the same characteristics as the supposed White Sands UFO and just adds more weight to the rocket theory .
If you don't wish to accept that fine .... enough said .



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

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.




Water and carbon dioxide are the products of burning alcohol just as they are when burning hydrogen.

C2H6O + 3O2 ==> 2CO2 + 3H2O

If a large amount of alcohol was suddenly and catastrophically burned there would be a huge cloud of steam/water vapor as a result. It would be very visible.



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by gortex

Originally posted by maryhinge
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

One's a small off the shelf rocket used for demonstration purposes and the other is a military rocket , what do you expect .... an identical effect


As a demonstration I think the FoF rocket displayed close to the same characteristics as the supposed White Sands UFO and just adds more weight to the rocket theory .
If you don't wish to accept that fine .... enough said .


The question of what type of fuel was used in this rocket has not been answered. ... a fuel which would catastrophically burn with the noted appearance.



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheFlash

Originally posted by AlchemicalBinoculars

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?


Because sharing, examining and commenting on videos and other media is what this site is for. If you are uninterested in this thread you are free to leave it be.


I'm quite aware of what this site is for and quite aware of my freedoms and limitations while participating on it.


Inclusive of those freedoms is to wonder out loud why this unanswerable question is of relevance...to you in this case. I now have my result.

You seek entertainment. Go for it.



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlchemicalBinoculars

Originally posted by TheFlash

Originally posted by AlchemicalBinoculars

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?


Because sharing, examining and commenting on videos and other media is what this site is for. If you are uninterested in this thread you are free to leave it be.


I'm quite aware of what this site is for and quite aware of my freedoms and limitations while participating on it.


Inclusive of those freedoms is to wonder out loud why this unanswerable question is of relevance...to you in this case. I now have my result.

You seek entertainment. Go for it.


Your powers of deduction leave something to be desired. Perhaps that is why you give up so easily.

I also find it very interesting how some people seem to discourage others from analyzing and discussing...
edit on 24-4-2012 by TheFlash because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   
This one is a classic. It sure doesn't behave like I would expect a conventional rocket to during a crash. You will often find that good clear videos like this one will quickly be dismissed as "known hoax" or "already debunked" specifically because it is otherwise unexplainable. A diagnosis of exclusion if you will.



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Reply to post by TheFlash
 


"a fuel which would catastrophically burn with the noted appearance."

the camera used plays a major role in the appearance of the explosion, im sure you know this though?


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by strafgod
Reply to post by TheFlash
 


"a fuel which would catastrophically burn with the noted appearance."

the camera used plays a major role in the appearance of the explosion, im sure you know this though?


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



Regardless of the type of camera used I can see that there is no large, opaque cloud resulting from the explosion as would be expected from a typical oxidizing chemical explosion.

Examples of such rocket explosions can be seen here for some examples.

www.youtube.com...

edit on 24-4-2012 by TheFlash because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheFlash

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

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.




Water and carbon dioxide are the products of burning alcohol just as they are when burning hydrogen.

C2H6O + 3O2 ==> 2CO2 + 3H2O

If a large amount of alcohol was suddenly and catastrophically burned there would be a huge cloud of steam/water vapor as a result. It would be very visible.


Armadillo Aerospace used an alcohol-based propellant for the X-Prize challenge, and it created very little visible steam or smoke:




posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Reply to post by TheFlash
 


You also cannot see the rocket in the video only the hot exhaust, you possibly can't see a plume of smoke from the explosion for the same reasons you can't see the rocket? Idk


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheFlash

You seek entertainment. Go for it.


Your powers of deduction leave something to be desired. Perhaps that is why you give up so easily.

I also find it very interesting how some people seem to discourage others from analyzing and discussing...]

I encourage you and yours to entertain yourselves. I suggest that there is more to the pursuit of the unanswerable than entertainment.

I believe people like yourself require closure, they must have an answer. Why this is so is due to a myriad of reasons one of which is a fundamental insecurity in living in a world that is much, much larger and complex that they care to imagine. Or are capable of dealing within.

Far be it from me to disallow your self-medication by limiting your quest for entertainment, "Flash". lol Ultimately, it's all you got.



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by TheFlash

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

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.




Water and carbon dioxide are the products of burning alcohol just as they are when burning hydrogen.

C2H6O + 3O2 ==> 2CO2 + 3H2O

If a large amount of alcohol was suddenly and catastrophically burned there would be a huge cloud of steam/water vapor as a result. It would be very visible.


Armadillo Aerospace used an alcohol-based propellant for the X-Prize challenge, and it created very little visible steam or smoke:






Let's see a video if it blowing up - all at once, so we can compare apples to apples.



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Alien Abduct
 


I don't see this being a missile, people.

The moment it struck ground, it should have exploded. Additionally, there would be flames. I don't see any of that happening here.



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by Alien Abduct
 


I don't see this being a missile, people.

The moment it struck ground, it should have exploded. Additionally, there would be flames. I don't see any of that happening here.


Again I ask, would it necessarily blow up rather than skip?

I would think the fuel tank would need to fail before it would explode. I think it's possible for a craft or even a rocket to skip along without complete structural failure if the "angle of attack" with the ground is proper.

The small-scale test video that Gortex provided back on page 1 showed that it is possible in concept.



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   
I am not convinced that it is a missile. As far as the the fact or faked crew, they aren't experts either. Just because they can make a video similar to the original means nothing concrete. If you watch at the 14 second mark of the video it is the so called exhaust of the "missile" that impacts with the ground. How can exhaust impact with the ground. As well, the "exhaust" never alters the way something burning and shooting out the back of a rocket does. But rather the shape at the back is hard and consistent not burning and jagged like a missile exhaust.



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Reply to post by TheFlash
 


"Let's see a video if it blowing up - all at once, so we can compare apples to apples."

Well if the OP's video is just a rocket thruster explained in the fact or faked episode (posted by gortex) then the video you posted above cant really be used to compare. Besides what is gained from knowing what fuel type is used?



 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   
I see some sort of Extremely hot Molten material, first impact did not destroy the bond of material, Maybe they were experimenting with shooting molten materials at an object as a new weapon, a nuke killer.
On the other hand, a rocket shaped like a disc could maybe do this, looking at the angle of entry for the first impact, it would have just enough angle to skip like a rock on water, but the second impact the angle is to steep for it to continue skipping, cool though
edit on 24-4-2012 by Glassbender777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by strafgod
Reply to post by TheFlash
 


"Let's see a video if it blowing up - all at once, so we can compare apples to apples."

Well if the OP's video is just a rocket thruster explained in the fact or faked episode (posted by gortex) then the video you posted above cant really be used to compare. Besides what is gained from knowing what fuel type is used?



 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



What is gained is being able to rule out the object being a rocket if the characteristics of it crashing and exploding do not match with characteristics of current, Earth technology rocket fuel exploding. If the facts do not fit the theory - then you need a new theory.



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 






top topics



 
23
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join