It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Spirit Warrior 11:11
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.
what makes those people not trustworthy? Your opinion?
Maybe they were made to seem not credable by people like you
Opinions arnt facts.
Originally posted by Spirit Warrior 11:11
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 TritonTaranis
Originally posted by Spirit Warrior 11:11
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.
OK
So lets say it was the flames from the exhaust,
The flames looking disk shaped,
It drops down, the shape is still horizontal on decent, it skims the floor, impact, enough of a collision to alter its course, on that impact, i'm more than sure it would have been major damage, but it tries to climb once more, drops altitude, this time the disk shaped flame is at 45 degrees? roughly
Ok heres where i'm a little confused,
The object we see, this illuminated disk or rocket exhaust, break into thousands of smaller bit all exactly the same colour,
So how can the rocket exhaust be the same colour as the thousands of pieces it breaks into? shouldn't the exhaust be extinguished on impact and the bits change colour?
To me it looks like... and for this example, we'll just say and egg, its flying through the sky because I throw it through the sky, now we have a camera tracking this "let pretend" its an egg shape flying through the sky the only propulsion it has is the force i through it at, there is no exhaust its just a glowing egg, it bounces across the floor and back up, comes back down can't take that sort of hit again and explodes into a thousand bit all the same colour, bits of egg shell go flying everywhere,
That basically all i see here because the object upon exploding is EXACTLY the same in colour as the object before it exploded therefore it must be the same object and not a rocket exhaust,
Its like throwing a touch, a big battery torch, and seeing the light beam side obscuring the object, that is what you are telling me right, ok so the exhaust is the light beam, fair enough i can see that, and yes the missile theory does works up until the point of the second decent/explosion, but when it smashed into bits at hundreds of MPH the torch/light is and should be extinguished, that is where it does not work
We do not see this happen, we see the same object break into thousands of bits like its abit of red hot charcoal out the fire,
he is not right about the recent origins of the video. It has been on youtube around six years if you look
Originally posted by gortex
reply to post by smurfy
he is not right about the recent origins of the video. It has been on youtube around six years if you look
I didn't say it was a recent video , someone quoted a quote I used from an external source and seemed a attribute it to me , I know its an old video because when I first saw it I was on dial up , and at the time thought it was a compelling UFO video ....now I know different
edit on 25-4-2012 by gortex because: Speeling edit
Originally posted by Spirit Warrior 11:11
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.
Originally posted by smurfy
Originally posted by TritonTaranis
Originally posted by Spirit Warrior 11:11
reply to post by TritonTaranis
OK
So lets say it was the flames from the exhaust,
The flames looking disk shaped,
It drops down, the shape is still horizontal on decent, it skims the floor, impact, enough of a collision to alter its course, on that impact, i'm more than sure it would have been major damage, but it tries to climb once more, drops altitude, this time the disk shaped flame is at 45 degrees? roughly
Ok heres where i'm a little confused,
The object we see, this illuminated disk or rocket exhaust, break into thousands of smaller bit all exactly the same colour,
So how can the rocket exhaust be the same colour as the thousands of pieces it breaks into? shouldn't the exhaust be extinguished on impact and the bits change colour?
To me it looks like... and for this example, we'll just say and egg, its flying through the sky because I throw it through the sky, now we have a camera tracking this "let pretend" its an egg shape flying through the sky the only propulsion it has is the force i through it at, there is no exhaust its just a glowing egg, it bounces across the floor and back up, comes back down can't take that sort of hit again and explodes into a thousand bit all the same colour, bits of egg shell go flying everywhere,
That basically all i see here because the object upon exploding is EXACTLY the same in colour as the object before it exploded therefore it must be the same object and not a rocket exhaust,
Its like throwing a touch, a big battery torch, and seeing the light beam side obscuring the object, that is what you are telling me right, ok so the exhaust is the light beam, fair enough i can see that, and yes the missile theory does works up until the point of the second decent/explosion, but when it smashed into bits at hundreds of MPH the torch/light is and should be extinguished, that is where it does not work
We do not see this happen, we see the same object break into thousands of bits like its abit of red hot charcoal out the fire,
That's close to my thinking. It's definitely a test, the camera is smooth as on a tripod. While Gortex has valid reason to think that JM is a bit of a plonker, he is not right about the recent origins of the video. It has been on youtube around six years if you look, (I'll look for an 'original') in fact the video itself is much older maybe twenty years, and some of the same arguments came up before, missile or UFO? Is it revolving as a flying disc should do or not? Thing is the second hit, which is much shallower, has no explosion, (of fuel) as you might expect in a failed missile test, what seems to happen is a disintegration of hot parts of a heavy metal all very singular to one type of metal. That's why I think is a re entry test of the most survival part of a satellite or similar, the propellant guidance tanks, usually titanium. You can see why they would do this kind of test.edit on 25-4-2012 by smurfy because: Text.
Originally posted by Spirit Warrior 11:11
reply to post by TritonTaranis
What? I'm not a kid or an AF Technician.
I'm an Engineer and I've been involved in military aerospace programs for 16 years. Take it or leave it I really don't care.
My point is valid even if you have a difference of opinion. If you cannot admit that then I have serious doubts about your credibility.
My point is that we cannot see clearly that this is even a sauced shape for certain based on the view. I'm saying this thing may not be 'glowing' at all but is a reflection of white paint and the sun. The video is very grainy and zoomed in.
My other point is that it is CLEARLY using a rocket motor for thrust. You can see the exhaust gasses and you can see the perfect physical characteristic of this right after it makes the first recovery. The UFO over-corrects initially in the climb. You can see the thrust follow the action of the tail end of the UFO.
If this UFO uses technology that defies known physics then why do they also need a rocket motor?
The crash just looks like super-heated metal to me like the remnants of a propulsion system.
So, you have 'seen' 'many' 'up close' saucers in Mars orbit have you? What mission was this? I don't recall hearing the miraculous news that we had a manned mission to Mars.
Did you photograph this 'saucer' Top Gun style while pulling a -4G inverted maneuver ? Where is the proof?
I find it very hard to believe you are an Astronaut with these claims. Did you mean the commander of your space video game?
I'm an Engineer and I've been involved in military aerospace programs for 16 years. Take it or leave it I really don't care.
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.
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.