UFO Crash Caught on Video (explain this video)

I am sticking with the missile theory.

As an Army Artilleryman I know that sometimes our shells bounce and skip when impacting, this often results in "shooting out" or shooting out of a safety box.

If it was a saucercraft, why does it have a vapor trail? I doubt our primitive weapons would be able to shoot it down....

I think the FoF show pretty much nailed it, with thier rocket test.

Of course it's not gonna look eactly the same. Just like if you throw dice at a craps table for instance, they don't bounce or behave the same exact way everytime. Even though they are the exact same object's. They will bounce, skip, slide ect in all sorts of different ways just depending on the speed, and arc, tecnique used to throw them. The Rocket test on FoF is close enough for me to say match.

The glow looks close enough (keep in mind again different cameras, different kinds of rockets/ missiles, different times of day) all will make for slight differences in the way it looks. I'm sure military missiles will be useing a much more powerful meansof propulsion making it even harder to see the actual missile.

There's just too many "like-nesses" imo. Not to mention this happened at a "Missile" testing range.

Also the original "Ufo crash video" is slowed down, makeing it look strange and the extremely slowed down explosion at the end really sells the effect thast it's something "otherwordly".

Can someone with the know how speed that video up 2x's. I'm curious to see how it will look when seen at it's correct speed. I'm thinking it will look more missile like, and less "ufo" like.

(This Case is Closed for me personally. Thanks for posting the link to that Fact of Fake(Fiction) show Gortex, never seen that show before.)

Originally posted by gortex
reply to post by Alien Abduct

 

I think the general consensus is the video show a failed missile test at white sands missile range New Mexico .

This one has been floating around the internet for about 7 months. It supposedly shows the crash of a UFO at or near the White Sands Missile Range in southern New Mexico, circa 1997. The footage was “surfaced” by a guy named Ted Loman, who is a story in himself.

When asked about the source of the video, Loman is apparently evasive and has hinted that he received it from Mexican UFO media maven Jaime Maussan–hardly a monument of integrity himself.

www.ufomystic.com...

Yeah and how many missiles can withstand that sort of impact


If that is man made then they are still sitting on the technology and the materiel used in the object is still top secret, because nothing could withstand that sort of impact, the second impact and the explosion that ensues after tells you this was an extremely high velocity impact, the fact it survived the first is nothing short of amazing,

I think its more than obvious its not a missile, its like calling a boat a bike

Having worked on missile systems in the US Navy, I can tell you that it is quite possible for a missile to impact with the ground or water, and yes, actually skip. Impact depending upon speed and angle does not mean that the missile will be destroyed right away.

As for the explosion in the end: when missile engines are being tested, they do NOT have a live warhead on them. Warheads are only applied after:

1) They themselves have been tested and proven reliable.
2) The missile's propulsion system has been tested many times and proven to be reliable.

As to the fuel:

There are many different types of munitions that the military uses. Both rockets and missiles. Rockets being unguided, missiles being either guided by ground uplinks or with a built in guidance system.
The fuel used is either solid, liquid, or a combination of both.

For example the RGM-84 Harpoon cruise missile (a system that I used to work on and I taught the AN/SWG-1A launching system at Fleet Mine Warfare, Charleston, SC) uses both: A solid fuel boost that burns for about 3 seconds, and is then jettosened, at which point the liquid propelled engine, which is a ram scoop jet engine and uses JP10 aircraft fuel, ignites. The aircraft engine on the Harpoon has very little plume behind it. Take a look for yourselves:



The Tomohawk TLAM is also a very good example of a booster launched / jet propelled missile:



Missile and rocket ordinance is painted bright colors such as white, orange or red. This helps identify them as Live Ordinance from a distance. Notice how in the above videos when the camera range is far, you see the missile as a small white or orange object.

I know it's hard to believe, but it is true that something like a missile could "bounce" or "skip", but it is possible, just like a bullet rechochetes off of something, or can even follow the curve of a metal surface.

And sometimes not everything explodes when it hits the ground. Watch this video just for fun. I know I would have had to change my underwear if this had happened to me!

Originally posted by Nola213
I think the FoF show pretty much nailed it, with thier rocket test.

Of course it's not gonna look eactly the same. Just like if you throw dice at a craps table for instance, they don't bounce or behave the same exact way everytime. Even though they are the exact same object's. They will bounce, skip, slide ect in all sorts of different ways just depending on the speed, and arc, tecnique used to throw them. The Rocket test on FoF is close enough for me to say match.

The glow looks close enough (keep in mind again different cameras, different kinds of rockets/ missiles, different times of day) all will make for slight differences in the way it looks. I'm sure military missiles will be useing a much more powerful meansof propulsion making it even harder to see the actual missile.

There's just too many "like-nesses" imo. Not to mention this happened at a "Missile" testing range.

Also the original "Ufo crash video" is slowed down, makeing it look strange and the extremely slowed down explosion at the end really sells the effect thast it's something "otherwordly".

Can someone with the know how speed that video up 2x's. I'm curious to see how it will look when seen at it's correct speed. I'm thinking it will look more missile like, and less "ufo" like.

(This Case is Closed for me personally. Thanks for posting the link to that Fact of Fake(Fiction) show Gortex, never seen that show before.)

Seriously, what planet are you on?


If a rocket was travelling towards the ground at that angle at any angle in fact, the tip of the rocket would dig into the ground.. snap of, and explode, THERE IS NO WAY in a million years a rocket/missile could withstand such a impact, NOT A BLOODY HOPE, mainly because nothing can "that we know of" certainly not holding shape after impact or staying intact as we see in the video... with stand such an impact, utterly impossible, we just don't have that sort or technology to withstand such an impact, do you even know how fragile missiles & rockets are? they're no more stronger than a aircraft or car, and we have seen what happens when strengthened sports cars his a wall and less than half the speed of this object, or a belly diving plane/jet aircraft, did you see the angle that thing comes in at? and then bounces back up at? without debris flying of, i don't know about you but that is just incredible, enough to make anyone stand up and pay attention

To behave the way it did it would have to be a disk shaped, that was using a type of metal or materiel stronger than anything currently know to man, it is what it looks like... a disk shape, it has to be, that is WHY it bounces, ROCKETS/MISSILES do not bounce because of there shape and strength


Throw a disk shaped stone across the water, and then throw a stick at it, i bet the stick wont bounce, thats also why javelins throw in the Olympics tend to dig in, its common sense really

Originally posted by eriktheawful
Having worked on missile systems in the US Navy, I can tell you that it is quite possible for a missile to impact with the ground or water, and yes, actually skip. Impact depending upon speed and angle does not mean that the missile will be destroyed right away.

As for the explosion in the end: when missile engines are being tested, they do NOT have a live warhead on them. Warheads are only applied after:

1) They themselves have been tested and proven reliable.
2) The missile's propulsion system has been tested many times and proven to be reliable.

As to the fuel:

There are many different types of munitions that the military uses. Both rockets and missiles. Rockets being unguided, missiles being either guided by ground uplinks or with a built in guidance system.
The fuel used is either solid, liquid, or a combination of both.

For example the RGM-84 Harpoon cruise missile (a system that I used to work on and I taught the AN/SWG-1A launching system at Fleet Mine Warfare, Charleston, SC) uses both: A solid fuel boost that burns for about 3 seconds, and is then jettosened, at which point the liquid propelled engine, which is a ram scoop jet engine and uses JP10 aircraft fuel, ignites. The aircraft engine on the Harpoon has very little plume behind it. Take a look for yourselves:

The Tomohawk TLAM is also a very good example of a booster launched / jet propelled missile:

Missile and rocket ordinance is painted bright colors such as white, orange or red. This helps identify them as Live Ordinance from a distance. Notice how in the above videos when the camera range is far, you see the missile as a small white or orange object.

I know it's hard to believe, but it is true that something like a missile could "bounce" or "skip", but it is possible, just like a bullet rechochetes off of something, or can even follow the curve of a metal surface.

And sometimes not everything explodes when it hits the ground. Watch this video just for fun. I know I would have had to change my underwear if this had happened to me!

So are you saying that is one of the missiles/rockets you are referring to crashed and exploded that there would be no large cloud of fire and smoke as is the case with the object in the video?

reply to post by TheFlash


It would depend upon the amount of fuel left in the missile. We always trained our personnel to use a minimum distance to target with our Harpoons, so that upon detonation of the warhead, there would be as much JP10 fuel left to literally"Spread the fire".

Aircraft fuels, like gasoline, can explode, but it is a low velocity explosion. If there is enough, you'll get that big fireball. If there is not a lot left, you will not see that.

Oh, and as for "it's NOT possible for it to hit the ground! The nose would break off! And it will explode!"

Please go back and look at the Harpoon video. The missile is designed to not explode upon impact, but to actually penetrate a ship's hull first, and then the warhead will detonate. The warhead is actually located behind the nose cone section, as the nose cone section contains the radar guidance system and MGU (Missile Guidence Unit).

The way the Harpoon is designed, the warhead arms itself once in flight using a G Force switch. This causes 3 probes to extend themselves. Once armed, the MGU is telling the warhead to detonate, but the signal is kept from getting to the warhead by these probes. The probes themselves are located further down aft of the warhead section.
If 2 of 3 probes break off (which will happen when the missile penetrates the ship's hull), the detonation signal reaches the warhead, and it detonates. Which it does, with the same force as a 3,000 pound bomb.

TLAM's are also designed to do penetration. Due to the way these missile are engineered, it IS quite possible for it to strike the ground at a glancing blow, and yes, skip or bounce. These missiles are not designed to explode on impact, but AFTER penetration.

Originally posted by Alien Abduct
reply to post by gortex

 

That's what I hear too and it does seem to be the general consensus.

However I can't find where it has been shown to be a missile. I'm not saying that it is not a missile. Perhaps it has just been assumed to be a missile?

The link you provided gave some alleged background on the person who allegedly initially provided the video but doesn't show how it is a missile. Cool read tho.

-Alien

edit on 4/24/2012 by Alien Abduct because: (no reason given)

Fact or Fake on the SciFi channel did an episode that included this. They were able to pretty convincingly recreate the video using a huge model rocket.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


I sat in the original Mercury capsule and the Apollo capsules, both so small but much more cone shaped. The more modern re-entry and aeroshells are a lot more rounded.

Like I said there are some like Genesis and even the Mars Lander that look ironically similar to the classic UFO not completely but strikingly similar...





Sort of like even if UFO's are not real, the images may have helped inspire the engineers, just an observation that I find interesting...

reply to post by eriktheawful



So you are likening a missile to a bullet now then?

A bullet "would" bounce or ricochet depending on the angle of approach, that's because its a hell of alot tougher than a missile, for many reason in fact, its like having an egg a small one... and also, a very large one lets say on the same sort of ratio as a bullet to a missile so what 100x the size? 1000x the size, lets not forget its made of the same materiel and is under the same pressures and forces, OK?

Ok so we throw the small egg across the grass, i don't know about you but i have done this a few times as a kid, deppending on the angle you may get a very similar effect to this video, a bounce and them a splash [but no explosion or smoke because its not rocket powered]

Ok so lets throw the much bigger even one 10x the size of the small egg, made of the same materiel under the same conditions IE in earth's atmosphere,

The bigger one would just crack and collapse on impact, because like a bullet, it is more tightly compact than the bigger egg or missile,

Lets make a pencil out of glass and throw it at the floor, what is going to happen? lets make a pencil out of steel, now what is going to happen? you understand>?

A missile at those velocity's would explode into a fire ball on first impact, there's absolutely no way anybody can deny that, we are not seeing a missile bounce here, probably new technology of some sort

reply to post by gortex


But wouldn't missiles explode on impact?

I would think that if it was a missile....we would have the whole video (meaning: the launch as well)

+

It glows, doesn't look like a missile, doesn't have a fire or smoke trail.

It could be a test of some top secret type of vehicle...so, not alien....but I really don't swallow the missile.

+

if it was release in 1997, it was easier to dupe people then since the internet wasn't what it is now and only a few would see the video and would not be able to compare and watch it over and over like we do now. So the explanation was prob easy to swallow in 97. Now....mmmmmmm?

Originally posted by TritonTaranis
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

So you are likening a missile to a bullet now then?

A bullet "would" bounce or ricochet depending on the angle of approach, that's because its a hell of alot tougher than a missile, for many reason in fact, its like having an egg a small one... and also, a very large one lets say on the same sort of ratio as a bullet to a missile so what 100x the size? 1000x the size, lets not forget its made of the same materiel and is under the same pressures and forces, OK?

Ok so we throw the small egg across the grass, i don't know about you but i have done this a few times as a kid, deppending on the angle you may get a very similar effect to this video, a bounce and them a splash [but no explosion or smoke because its not rocket powered]

Ok so lets throw the much bigger even one 10x the size of the small egg, made of the same materiel under the same conditions IE in earth's atmosphere,

The bigger one would just crack and collapse on impact, because like a bullet, it is more tightly compact than the bigger egg or missile,

Lets make a pencil out of glass and throw it at the floor, what is going to happen? lets make a pencil out of steel, now what is going to happen? you understand>?

A missile at those velocity's would explode into a fire ball on first impact, there's absolutely no way anybody can deny that, we are not seeing a missile bounce here, probably new technology of some sort

And apparently, YOU don't know what the material of the missile's nose cone is made from, how it's made to achieve penetration.

You've also just showed your ignorance about it's speed.

How fast do you think the Harpoon files at? The TLAM? How fast does the Terrier missile fly at? How about a ASROC?

How does: "Slower than a passenger jet" sound to you? How about: "Almost 2,000 MPH" grab you?

The speed of a missile is dependent upon what the missile was designed for, and of course the fuel that it is using.
Terrier missiles are surface to air missiles that are 22 feet long and use solid rocket propellant. It can achieve speeds up to 2,000 MPH, as they are designed to catch jet air craft. They also are NOT designed to do a skin to skin impact, but use an expanding rod type of warhead.
However, if it had been that type of missile, traveling at that speed, with a nose cone designed for aerodynamics and NOT penetration, then you're right, it most likely would explode right away on impact.

Cruise missile on the other hand are designed for LOW speed flight as they are made for traveling much longer distances. Solid rocket propellant burns too quickly and would not last long enough. The small jet engine used on those missiles are designed for velocities of only a few hundred miles per hour.

Take a look at the videos again, you can tell that their velocities are no where NEAR as fast as a rocket propelled missile.

The Harpoon was designed to penetrate 16 inches of hardened steel and 30 inches of reinforced concrete my man. You are acting like it's made of egg shell like your egg, and they are NOT.
If these missiles were to hit the ground at angles greater than 45 degrees, then they would most likely plow deep into the ground and then explode.
But if they hit the ground at less than that, there is a good chance that it will do exactly like we see in the OP's video.

You don't have to take my word for it. Google penetrating missiles and rockets. Look for yourself.

I just can't see how its a rocket, unless its hitting almost a cement road causing the bounce but even then I'd expect a spin of some sort, as a very early poster said, it seems to skip which would indicate a flattened body.

Its one video I've always looked at over the many years I've seen it and thought, maybe.

The glow COULD be just simply the sun hitting a reflective metal casing, it does seem to be in a cloudless desert setting which is perfect for high reflection if its shiny metal, add to that he poor quality camera..

Whatever the outcome physics says it almost certainly isn't a rocket shape because of the previously mentioned skipping look, to get a pointed head shape to skip like that multiple times is a real one in a million and that's without the amazing fact the craft does not rotate either......So points to a saucer shape...

reply to post by IAMSEEKER

post by IAMSEEKE
I would think that if it was a missile....we would have the whole video (meaning: the launch as well)

The video is allegedly connected to Jaime Maussan , a known hoaxer , if they showed the launch you wouldn't think it was a UFO .

Of the film, he said, "That came to me through Jaime Maussan. Right. And, uh, uh, I don't know where Jaime got it. Well, I just don't know where ... it's best to say I don't know where Jaime got this. But, I, uh, I believe it to be at White Sands. But I cannot, and I will not, confirm or deny that it is, uh, I'll leave it up to the viewers to, to, see it and watch it, and decide for themselves."

The film of the White Sands crash either came from Maussan or was made by Loman for his documentary. The absolute truth still remains to be learned, but unless Loman tries and succeeds at a little interstellar hitchhiking while in Mexico, the truth will come out eventually.
www.theufochronicles.com...

post by IAMSEEKE
It glows, doesn't look like a missile

Here's a picture of a missile being launched from White Sands , I think it compares well to the object in the OP video .

post by IAMSEEKE
doesn't have a fire or smoke trail.

You may want to watch the video again as it does have a quite obvious smoke trail .

reply to post by eriktheawful




EXACTLY

Whether it was a missile designed for penetration or not the angle would have broken it in two regardless of the tip being hardened, had it of hit from top down it would penetrate the ground, OK agreed, thats was what it was designed to do,

Go grab a pencil put it at the angle of approach of this object and exert pressure, OH LOOK its snapped, because its not designed to bounce like a tennis ball or football, its a missile designed for penetrating top down which is why they strengthen the tip, BUT that's not where the pressure would have been asserted on this angle of approach IS IT? go watch a video on why tennis balls bounce and look what it does to the shape of the balls steel does not hold up very well when flexed like that as it wouyld of have to have done on the first impact, thats whay makes it push/spring back up, if you think a missile as fragile as it is can do that then you are dreaming

Had the whole thing been solid like a shell or bullet, from tip to end, maybe, but that's not true of the design of a missile is it? NOPE, they're generally hollow, once that thin shell is breached the whole thing is breaking up, END OFF, the outside pressure would then rip it apart not to mention the impact would crush it, the missile theory is pathetic, and tbh a total insult

Missiles are not bouncing bombs it is a vertical decent penetrating bomb, a bouncing bomb which WAS designed to bounce, bounced because or its shape and angle of decent, hence the shape was not pencil like, but barrel like, close to that of a disk, because those sorts of shapes can withstand such glancing blows as the pressure is distributed around the shape, the missile pencil shape would have been flattened, popped because is nothing more than a coke can, so what if the tip is hardened, the pressure would have gone to the center and POP, integrity breached no spring back

Its disk shaped, we can all see that with our own eyes, secondly it bounces like a football, look at the spring back on that thing after impact, wow IMO, and you call me arrogant? maybe i'm just frustrated with all the stupidity in this thread?

Who ever said.. oh because artillery shells also bounce, missiles can to, ERM no thats not the way it works, maybe if they was extremely hardened missiles made of a materiel unknown to science today, artillery shells and bullets are much smaller and more compact therefore much much stronger, if we expand them to the size of missiles, the impact would destroy it, no question about that,

Missiles are incredible fragile they're not solid projectiles, and are no stronger than a good car of today, they are built for explosive punch not kinetic punch, and under the velocity and angle and shape would be annihilated because when the tip hits the ground, the pressure would move to the center on the pencil shape and snap it in two, shells & bullets are smaller shorter and stronger, therefore bounce at the right angle

Ok its not a V2 rocket, but it is still made of the same materiel and a missile shape, one would expect smoke or some kind of explosion on impact, and totally not expect it to bounce like a tennis ball, this means the object decompressed on impact as a ball does, those sorts of pressure would snap/shatter any metal into bit, the effect we instead see is one of throwing a slab of ICE or an EGG on second impact,

And.. last of all, it also remained the "same colour" as it was when it was in flight.. seriously how do you explain that? id love to hear it, why has everybody ignored this fact to?

How many known objects do this on impact? NONE as far as im aware, i would love to hear your explanation for this, it glows orange then bounces like a football or tennis ball, then shattered like ice on second impact into a million bits.. a million bits that are all the same colour as it was before impact when in flight ???

how is this possible?

reply to post by Alien Abduct


The quality of the video is poor but I agree with the missle assesments. The "brightness" seen is the rocket exhaust and the first "bounce" probably has something to do with nozzels getting twisted and redirecting it upward again. The explosion looks like others of a similar nature I have viewed. As an aside I hope advanced civilizations make craft a bit less flimsy then the one shown in this video...

Originally posted by Helmkat
reply to post by Alien Abduct

 

The quality of the video is poor but I agree with the missle assesments. The "brightness" seen is the rocket exhaust and the first "bounce" probably has something to do with nozzels getting twisted and redirecting it upward again. The explosion looks like others of a similar nature I have viewed. As an aside I hope advanced civilizations make craft a bit less flimsy then the one shown in this video...

So.. why does the brightness of the rocket exhaust break up into smaller bits when it explodes?

was it bits of the craft breaking up or was the flames from the exhaust breaking up into tiny balls of fire with no flame ?

You see what i'm saying?

If its the exhaust were seeing and not the craft, why does the exhaust split up into bit of the craft? or does the missile multiply into hundreds of smaller missiles

It can't be both can it?.. thats impossible, the exhaust wont be visible or in the EXACT same colour as the rocket when it breaks up on impact will it, Unless it is made of the same materiel, IE the object which is glowing and disk shaped broke apart

Originally posted by eriktheawful
reply to post by TheFlash

 

It would depend upon the amount of fuel left in the missile. We always trained our personnel to use a minimum distance to target with our Harpoons, so that upon detonation of the warhead, there would be as much JP10 fuel left to literally"Spread the fire".

Aircraft fuels, like gasoline, can explode, but it is a low velocity explosion. If there is enough, you'll get that big fireball. If there is not a lot left, you will not see that.

Oh, and as for "it's NOT possible for it to hit the ground! The nose would break off! And it will explode!"

Please go back and look at the Harpoon video. The missile is designed to not explode upon impact, but to actually penetrate a ship's hull first, and then the warhead will detonate. The warhead is actually located behind the nose cone section, as the nose cone section contains the radar guidance system and MGU (Missile Guidence Unit).

The way the Harpoon is designed, the warhead arms itself once in flight using a G Force switch. This causes 3 probes to extend themselves. Once armed, the MGU is telling the warhead to detonate, but the signal is kept from getting to the warhead by these probes. The probes themselves are located further down aft of the warhead section.
If 2 of 3 probes break off (which will happen when the missile penetrates the ship's hull), the detonation signal reaches the warhead, and it detonates. Which it does, with the same force as a 3,000 pound bomb.

TLAM's are also designed to do penetration. Due to the way these missile are engineered, it IS quite possible for it to strike the ground at a glancing blow, and yes, skip or bounce. These missiles are not designed to explode on impact, but AFTER penetration.

So given your expertise in missiles/rockets, what exactly are we seeing as the hotly glowing material ejected from the impact in this case?