UFO Crash Caught on Video (explain this video)

Reply to post by TheFlash

Okay touche lol. I believe it will be hard to find a comparable video for this even with knowledge of what fuel is being used, ofcourse we wouldn't be debating this if it wasn't


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by Alien Abduct


I hope the following link helps you with your investigation research into the UFO crash in Mexico: m.youtube.com...#/watch?v=5NFWGmesHnI

Originally posted by strafgod
Reply to post by TheFlash

 

Okay touche lol. I believe it will be hard to find a comparable video for this even with knowledge of what fuel is being used, ofcourse we wouldn't be debating this if it wasn't

There is no "debate" certainly not in any formal sense. Debates have outcomes and the outcome depends upon consensus or resolution. The only resolution to this matter is that there is no resolution.

Since I am the only one willing to face this fact, and I am alone in this argument, there is no debate.

this clip, although old, is interesting. i think a missile would have exploded at the first impact, not bounced as this object did. failing any 100% verified historical documentation of this clip being a missile test of some sort, i say - 'unidentified'. maybe a failed test flight of either a recovered/back engineered 'flying saucer'? it's possible.

What everybody seems to be ignoring is the video was shot at White Sands missile range , why is it so hard to believe that what we are seeing is a missile being tested at a missile range ?

Here's a picture of another missile at White Sands , imagine it horizontal and it kinda looks familiar ... no ?

Originally posted by gortex
What everybody seems to be ignoring is the video was shot at White Sands missile range , why is it so hard to believe that what we are seeing is a missile being tested at a missile range ?

Here's a picture of another missile at White Sands , imagine it horizontal and it kinda looks familiar ... no ?

As previously written, it has to do with the facts fitting the theory - or not.

nevermind...

Originally posted by TheFlash

As previously written, it has to do with the facts fitting the theory - or not.

What facts? That's the whole point, there are no facts. No one can agree to anything that is a fact and that is the only fact in this entire discussion.

Entertainment, obviously, doesn't have to be factual.

i don't believe that was a missile either, pretty bad missile if it doesn't explode on impact.

what about this one? what's the concensus on this vid:



watch it closely, at the 1.55/56 mark exactly something peeps out of the crack on the left hand side of the screen.

I read somewhere years ago that this was a video of a test of a "bunker buster" missle that are designed to skip across the ground before detonation. Sounds plausible to me.

reply to post by ladyteeny

i don't believe that was a missile either, pretty bad missile if it doesn't explode on impact.

Why would they put a warhead on a test missile ?

As for the video you posted its the reentry of NASA's Genesis Probe .


reply to post by Evildead

Its as good a theory as the others , or at least better than the UFO theory

Originally posted by ladyteeny
i don't believe that was a missile either, pretty bad missile if it doesn't explode on impact.

First of all, missiles with warheads don't necessarily explode on impact. Today's missiles have electronic detonation devices that are set to explode anytime -- prior to impact (airbursts), or after impact, such as "bunker busters" that are designed to bury themselves deep into the ground before exploding.

Secondly, who says that this is a missile with an armed warhead? It could be a test of just the rocket part of the missile itself. Some missile tests do not include armed warheads.

Originally posted by ThePeaceMaker
I'm no expert but two things don't seem right for it to be a missile. First is as someone else said if it was a missile surely it would of been destroyed in the first impact there seems to be no change in movement after the impact too. Secondly I could be totally wrong but at the very start of the video the flight path of the "UFO" seems to decend and then try and pull up before it hit the ground if you get me. I could be completely wrong

Unless the crash was perfectly elastic. Then it would bounce back with mininal crash impact. Who knows what they are cooking up.

Then again if my assumption is correct, it wouldn't be a missile but a craft. EDIT: unless indeed as above mentioned it's a rocket that drops the load. Then it could be reused.

Being that it wobbled I would think it is a craft designed by the military that was spinning. It appears to be very hot so I would say it's glowing appears to be consistent with very high speed drone experimentation that ended about how it was intended. I wonder how much that experiment cost the taxpayer? I'm sure it wasn't cheap.

Is this how they tested some of the rockets at White Sands ?..... Minus the guy obviously
Could this be why the rocket was traveling horizontally before it bounces off the ground ?

Just a thought

A blast from the past
White Sands Missile Range (Tularosa Frontier) "The Big Picture" - 1950's American Military Film

ok well watching the video ive noticed a few things. it looks like before the "object" hits the ground the first time, it looks as if its trying to pull up. i dont think missles pull up before they impact. Secondly after the first time it hits u can kinda see that the speed has been slowed and that after it bounces it almost immediately starts heading down. almost a second after it starts heading down again its angle starts to pull up again. and after it pulls up somehow its no longer at the slowed speed from the first hit. so it gained speed again as if it was tryin to recover and keep flight. also i noticed that after the first impact, their seems to be a faint lighting glow coming from underneath it. almost as if it was a thruster trying to gain air. (NOT THE SMOKE TRAIL BEHIND IT), last thing i think kinda shows its not a missle is the splash of the object after the final crash. wouldnt a missle have more of and explosion and not so much of parts flying? (missle exploding part more of a ?)

reply to post by gortex


Always thought it was a bit funny and ironic though that the Genesis return probe shape is completely typical of the 40's-70's Flying saucer. And to me gave a bit of credence to the design of those ships as we ended up designing re-entry vehicles this shape! But nobody discusses that cause it is so easily de-bunked as um…coincidence. LOL

Back on topic I think that although it is most likely a Missile could it have been made with exotic materials, possibly even deflector shielding allowing it to survive the first impact.

Missiles blow up over a lot less, I would have to think an impact at that angle would have cause some sort of leak, leading to an explosion and yet it survived long enough to impact a second time...

Originally posted by abeverage
reply to post by gortex

 

Always thought it was a bit funny and ironic though that the Genesis return probe shape is completely typical of the 40's-70's Flying saucer. And to me gave a bit of credence to the design of those ships as we ended up designing re-entry vehicles this shape! But nobody discusses that cause it is so easily de-bunked as um…coincidence. LOL...

Entry vehicles are blunt, with a round or disc-shaped "business end" (the end being subjected to the heat of re-entry), because that blunt shape dissipates the heat load most efficiently:

In the United States, H. Julian Allen and A. J. Eggers, Jr. of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) made the counterintuitive discovery in 1951[3] that a blunt shape (high drag) made the most effective heat shield. From simple engineering principles, Allen and Eggers showed that the heat load experienced by an entry vehicle was inversely proportional to the drag coefficient, i.e. the greater the drag, the less the heat load. Through making the reentry vehicle blunt, air cannot "get out of the way" quickly enough, and acts as an air cushion to push the shock wave and heated shock layer forward (away from the vehicle). Since most of the hot gases are no longer in direct contact with the vehicle, the heat energy would stay in the shocked gas and simply move around the vehicle to later dissipate into the atmosphere.

Source

The Apollo capsule and the Russian Soyuz are both "blunt bodies" with a disc-shaped cross section where it counts -- the part that leads the rest of the capsule through the atmosphere. The rest of the shape is not that relevant for re-entry.

I think the FoF video is complete bogus. Their angle isnt correct, making their rocket more likely bouncing off the ground since it didn't have a stepper angle. Also the velocity and weight is much smaller then that of the video. I don't need prove, its just basic conmen sense. Kit vs Real life size .And to all those hurr durr its a missile range. Wouldn't it be obvious to carry out secret projects or whatever you want to call them at missile test sites?

reply to post by YouCanCallMeKM

Their angle isnt correct, making their rocket more likely bouncing off the ground since it didn't have a stepper angle.

Their rocket didn't have a guidance system , I think we can assume the one at White Sands did .

Wouldn't it be obvious to carry out secret projects or whatever you want to call them at missile test sites?

I would think in the 90s it would make more sense to test secret projects at Area 51 .