UFO Crash Caught on Video (explain this video)

reply to post by Alien Abduct


I'm an aviation expert.

It's a missile. I'm 99% confident.

You see after the first impact the guidance system makes a little correction to get it back in the air. You can see the thrust from the rocket motor and the missile accelerates again just after the first impact and self corrects it's attitude.

Just before the first impact the guidance system attempts to level out. This looks like a guidance system failure to me. I'm pretty confident about that.

I am 100% sure its a rocket driven vehicle. Though it does appear from the distance of the camera to have an odd shape. It could be a winged missile like this.

reply to post by gortex


A missile?
I've never seen one glow like that and skip in that manner upon impact..

Originally posted by Spirit Warrior 11:11
reply to post by Alien Abduct

 

I'm an aviation expert.

It's a missile. I'm 99% confident.

You see after the first impact the guidance system makes a little correction to get it back in the air. You can see the thrust from the rocket motor and the missile accelerates again just after the first impact and self corrects it's attitude.

Just before the first impact the guidance system attempts to level out. This looks like a guidance system failure to me. I'm pretty confident about that.

I am 100% sure its a rocket driven vehicle. Though it does appear from the distance of the camera to have an odd shape. It could be a winged missile like this.

I believe that all your observations are correct, but whos to say that a UFO is not demonstrating these same capabilities? I mean, all of the observations you made are good, but none of them conclusively point to it being a missile

Originally posted by ka119
reply to post by gortex

 

A missile?
I've never seen one glow like that and skip in that manner upon impact..

It only appears to glow because it's all white. And the missile levels out before impact so it does skip and not crash.
Look at the fact that it still has all that forward motion. This means the kinetic energy is still in motion and did not dissipate in the first impact.

Then look at the angle of attack in the second impact. No leveling out and all that energy goes into making it explode like the coyote's rocket ride.

reply to post by ka119


The main point in that regard its the thrust. You can clearly see the thrust.

This is especially the case after impact when it makes an attitude adjustment. The thrust follows that line of motion for a second or so. Look right after impact 1.

It would be awesome (in the real sense) if it were a 'saucer UFO' but I don't think this is the case here.

Originally posted by Beamish
I've seen the video before. And read the same explanation, which is more than likely the correct one.

However, what has always puzzled me about this clip is that if it is a missile - a long tubular airframe - and considering the immense forces exerted upon it by the first impact, and considering its incoming trajectory is smooth (no wobble or spinning) and we see the missile - I'm assuming sideways on - hit the ground so hard, why does it skip back up into the air in the same trajectory - with the same profile to the camera - and not flipping and pitching wildly? Try throwing something long and make it skip perfectly...

A disc will...

Now, I'm no expert in flow mechanics, but that does seem odd to me.

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

I was noticing the same thing.

I don't in the LEAST think this is a spaceship. But I have to notice that "downward vapor trail" from the object -- it doesn't look like a video artifact (it would be above the object as well as below if it were), so I'm going with some sort of propulsion.

I don't think this is a conventional missile. It could be a drone, or some new type of propulsion / thrust vehicle.

The "bounce" might be due to either having a vertical stabilizer, or an exceedingly tough fuselage.


>> I'd mark this as one of the Experimental systems out of Groom Lake or other testing ground.

Originally posted by Spirit Warrior 11:11
reply to post by ka119

 

The main point in that regard its the thrust. You can clearly see the thrust.

This is especially the case after impact when it makes an attitude adjustment. The thrust follows that line of motion for a second or so. Look right after impact 1.

It would be awesome (in the real sense) if it were a 'saucer UFO' but I don't think this is the case here.

Haha an attitude adjustment? Damn punk rockets these days..

Seriously though, I believe that you are probably right. The explanations make sense.
The only thing that I would be defending is the thought that if we use that technology in an attempt to save our missiles, then why couldnt a UFO be doing the same thing? (thrust and all)
Personally, I believe if these UFOs can travel between dimensions they are not going to have a mere 'unlucky crash' on our soil, thats just to human!

Originally posted by Spirit Warrior 11:11

Originally posted by ka119
reply to post by gortex

 

A missile?
I've never seen one glow like that and skip in that manner upon impact..

It only appears to glow because it's all white. And the missile levels out before impact so it does skip and not crash.
Look at the fact that it still has all that forward motion. This means the kinetic energy is still in motion and did not dissipate in the first impact.

Then look at the angle of attack in the second impact. No leveling out and all that energy goes into making it explode like the coyote's rocket ride.

It can ALSO GLOW because our military has been testing a kind of "plasma" caused by electric current on the skin of aircraft to improve laminar flow for some time. Not just because it is white - but because the air around it might actually be glowing -- using the same principle of high voltage + low watts as we see in Fluorescent lighting.

I think I read about it in Popular Mechanics -- back when they were probably still independent and not lackeys for 9.11 (just kidding, or maybe not). Anyway -- by increasing the speed of the air around the vehicle, the AIR itself then takes up the drag and the vehicle can move without resistance. What you lose by becoming more visible, you gain by losing the sonic boom and drag.

reply to post by Spirit Warrior 11:11

post by Spirit Warrior 11:11
It would be awesome (in the real sense) if it were a 'saucer UFO' but I don't think this is the case here.

Agreed , up until a couple of years ago I thought it was a flying disk crashing but once you put all the pieces of the puzzle together you get a picture of a rocket .

The question of the type of fuel and accurate description of what is seen ejecting from the final impact point has not been answered.

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst


Ok, just to entertain the saucer theory.

In the first place this thing would have to spin like crazy to be stable enough for flight.
This makes rocket propulsion an impossibility unless there are two counter-rotating masses at the CG of the craft which make up the majority of the mass of the vehicle.

Even then control surfaces would not work as we know them.

The object hits the ground in impact 1 and maintains stability and forward motion, makes a quick 45 degree adjustment, accelerates, and moves on to crash. If this were a spinning object it would have had major issues by hitting the ground flat. The kinetic energy loss would create an unstable airframe.

Last, you can clearly see the exhaust gasses. This cannot be a spinning object.

I was always led to believe that this was a re-entry test of satellite components, the thing is white hot, also a reason for having a trail behind it. Most likely a propellent tank. Come to think of it, I'm near sure that footage has been clipped. It is very old, and you will see it on related documentaries.

reply to post by ka119

I believe that all your observations are correct, but whos to say that a UFO is not demonstrating these same capabilities? I mean, all of the observations you made are good, but none of them conclusively point to it being a missile

It was a UFO..............so technically it was/is a UFO

till we find out is a missle ;o)

Originally posted by ka119

Originally posted by Spirit Warrior 11:11
reply to post by Alien Abduct

 

I'm an aviation expert.

It's a missile. I'm 99% confident.

You see after the first impact the guidance system makes a little correction to get it back in the air. You can see the thrust from the rocket motor and the missile accelerates again just after the first impact and self corrects it's attitude.

Just before the first impact the guidance system attempts to level out. This looks like a guidance system failure to me. I'm pretty confident about that.

I am 100% sure its a rocket driven vehicle. Though it does appear from the distance of the camera to have an odd shape. It could be a winged missile like this.

I believe that all your observations are correct, but whos to say that a UFO is not demonstrating these same capabilities? I mean, all of the observations you made are good, but none of them conclusively point to it being a missile

HI

I'm an astronaut, while i believe you maybe correct with analysing of the flight system i don't think it proves in anyway shape or form that the object is in fact a missile,

The object is clearly disk shaped, if it were a rocket exhaust then it would not split into a million peices on second impact, therefore the illuminated object must be the actual object,

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


Are you waiting for an expert to tell you it was a missile or a witness?

Because you already have one of those

Originally posted by Spirit Warrior 11:11
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

 

Are you waiting for an expert to tell you it was a missile or a witness?

Because you already have one of those

No........im saying it WAS a UFO.......until it was proven a missle.....

UFO does not = alien craft.......

reply to post by TritonTaranis


I'm not sure about that. Can we say for certain that we know exactly how it would look for every missile impact? Not really.

To me it looks like super heated parts of the propulsion system. Anyway, I'm sure you can identify the exhaust gasses.

We cannot also ascertain the object is glowing. What is the angle of the sun relative to the object? Do you see my point?

Also, all we have is a side-view from an distance. Hard to tell it is even a disc shape. It could just appear that way.

I've seen many missiles in flight, and that is what it looks like to me.

If I didn't see the change in direction after the first impact it honestly would look like a heat-shield re-entering the atmosphere. But just after the impact rules that out for me.

Originally posted by Spirit Warrior 11:11
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

 

Ok, just to entertain the saucer theory.

In the first place this thing would have to spin like crazy to be stable enough for flight.
This makes rocket propulsion an impossibility unless there are two counter-rotating masses at the CG of the craft which make up the majority of the mass of the vehicle.

Even then control surfaces would not work as we know them.

The object hits the ground in impact 1 and maintains stability and forward motion, makes a quick 45 degree adjustment, accelerates, and moves on to crash. If this were a spinning object it would have had major issues by hitting the ground flat. The kinetic energy loss would create an unstable airframe.

Last, you can clearly see the exhaust gasses. This cannot be a spinning object.

LOL

So you know how flying saucers and ET craft work now then

If i was you id get on the phone to the USAF and sell them your working prototype

So you are dismissing the idea of a flying saucer simply because it doesn't fly how you "think & expect them to fly" right? like hollywood b movie spinning top

You made up how a flying saucer flys, realised it couldn't be a spinning flying saucer then dismissed it WHAT? are you serious?

Come on man stop pretending to be an expert,

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


You just want to say a UFO is a UFO. There is no way to prove anything for certain without pieces of evidence. All we can offer is an educated guess.

How about Occam's razor for those in the Saucer camp (even a terrestrial saucer). The best explanation with the least amount of assumptions is a missile. We have WAY too many assumptions to make saying it's a saucer.

reply to post by TritonTaranis


Ok, I WAS in the USAF, and I STILL work with them on classified projects daily as an engineer.
So I think I am qualified to answer that question and make those assumptions based on real science.

A saucer shape with no control surfaces MUST spin to have any stability. Period.