UFO Crash Caught on Video (explain this video)

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.

I never said it was a saucer? a UFO is an Unidentified flying object.....which could be anything coming through the sky, from a bird to an ET craft......

My point was to the other poster.......yes it could have been considered a UFO until it was identified.......UFOdoes not = ET craft......

I feel like im having to over explain myself...........or there is some kind of miscommunication

reply to post by Alien Abduct


Probably just another failed N. Korean rocket!

reply to post by gortex


So who says the sources are not credable? what makes those people not trustworthy? Your opinion? or another de-bunkers opinion? Maybe they were made to seem not credable by people like you, who just say things like they are true fact, even though they are only your opinion and a guess?

Beleive half of what you see, and absolutley none of what you hear or read. Opinions arnt facts. Nothing you read here will ever be validated. Your countless "self validated" contradicting opinions only dilute the truth. That is why ATS exists. If we had the "true" facts we wouldnt be having this conversation.

reply to post by kman420


Actually that was in response to it being submitted by Jaime Maussan who has been proven to submit fraudulent data for his own benefit. He is well known in the UFO field.

reply to post by kman420

what makes those people not trustworthy? Your opinion?

Not just my opinion , search Jaime Maussan and see for yourself .

Maybe they were made to seem not credable by people like you

, or maybe by trying to pass off a skinned monkey as an alien plus many other perpetuated hoaxes .

Opinions arnt facts.

No... facts are facts and there are plenty of them waiting for you to find , before you get on your high horse to defend a hoaxer get your facts straight .


Not created by me

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,

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,

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 it 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.

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 in my first post 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

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

I was referring to your mention of the recent youtube postings, that was my point. I have found one from 2006.
www.youtube.com...


the video it seems, is from White sands missile test ground maybe 1996, that need not mean it to be a missile though.

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.

LOL

Under what propulsion system ?

Are ET using fossil fuels then are they?

Just for the records that is not what i'm suggesting, that this craft is ET, i'm just saying if it were... how would you know what propulsion system they was using and how it works? and what they can or can't do?

Nobody ios saying it a man made disk, under those term you could turn around and tell me if it was actually disk shaped it would have to spin to maintain control, but thats not the case here so your argument is totally irrelevant, had you not noticed this is posted in the UFO section? not man made top secret projects section?

We get people claiming to be all sort of things on here 99% of the time they're just talking BS, i don't see or hear anything astonishing about your claims other than you backing the missile theory and calling yourself a aircraft technician in the USAF, that does not make you opinion correct sir,

I'm an astronaut ive seen many of these saucers up very close just outside mars orbit, honestly.. no joke.. i'm not lying, but that does trumps your BS expertise, and also means im correct and your wrong

Seriously kid stop with the BS you're not fooling anyone, if you have proof its a rocket please provide it, stop convincing people that your opinion is the correct opinion,

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?

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.

I think its possibly a test of some new type of craft, and certainly new materiel used, i'm sure if it was made of steel or the likes it would pop like an egg on impact,

And yes the fact its on a tripod and military area also says alot, i could well believe it was a missile if it even looked like one or behaved like one but it doesn't at all in the slightest, in my opinion its wayyyy to slow to be a missile to, it behaves more like a slow bouncing ball the shatters like glass

He's trying to debunk it as a missile simply because... "he says"... if man was to make a flying saucer fly - stable in flight & maneuver with our current technology today, it would need to rotate at an incredible RPM, and because it doesn't it is not a disk flying

this guy isn't even out of high school imo, let alone a contractor on secret aircraft projects

Its that typical fake Hollywood B movie again, which we all know is fake as f~~#

If he could just get this fossil fuel crap out his head maybe he might understand or ponder on other possibilities, because as far as i can see the only reason he's not budging from his missile theory is because the illuminated orange flying disk he sees in the video with his own eyes doesn't rotate like he expects it to,

Lets play with some anti gravity propulsion instead, something ET might be playing with that is the next step technology for us humans to, Now does it still need to spin under this type of propulsion? NOPE, what if its man made anti-gravity test? still need to spin NOPE, either way saying its not disk shaped because its not spinning is just ridiculous when trying to answer unknowns

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?

LOL

See this is my point, this is why i find it hard to even consider you have the credential you claim because your clearly abit slow, or just not savy to sarcasm, i'm not sure how you managed to get confused tbh, i was joking on the idea that i was an astronaut to back up my own opinion as i suspected you did just to bolster your own opinion, as i said we have no shortage of them on here,

Ok so you are sure this thing has exhaust gasses, so am i ...i agree with you, it it trailing something, but lets not forget this object is crashing, i very much doubt this is the norm for such a craft, therefore the gasses you speak of could be literally anything on a BROKEN craft making a crash landing, correct? also they could be due to the brightness of the object on grainy footage and not actually trailing from the UFO,

So you can neither use that as proof of it being a missile,

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.

I'll leave it,

Maybe we can start another thread and keep i OT and probe your knowledge some other time ? would you be willing to state who you are and provide proof?

reply to post by TritonTaranis


It's actually the fossil thing that makes a failed missile unlikely, if you consider that, if it was a missile under power with a burner trail at the back of it right up to the moment of last impact, then there should have been a fireball of some degree, but there was not. A missile is like a bag of spuds, most of it is spuds, (fuel) the rest is a strong paper bag to carry the spuds, you'll know what that is like. If anything, the spud bag works better than a missile strengthways. In other words the whole caboose should have blown up on the first impact, a deeper dive than the second. If there was a dummy warhead attached, (most likely) it might not have been of the same material as in real warhead, which is heavy metal, but something similar in weight.

I don't buy the missile explanation. Seems clearly a glowing disc-like object. As to the trail or vapor coming from the back of it, there has been rumors of a ufo crash in new mexico, where the object came down, hit the ground once, bounced back up in attempt to correct its flight, then shortly after lost control completely and disintegrated. Seems remarkably like a description of this video. A question would be, how was someone on hand to film this? Was it known ahead of time to be a shoot-down attempt, and was filmed? Or, if you go with failed missile, it was a military test while being filmed, hence the cameraman being on hand. I don't believe it was ever proven to be a missile test, so I don't know which explanation is true. But my opinion is either a dramatization of that ufo crash from a documentary, or a real video.

I do not think a missile could take that first bottoming out and survive, they are not constructed to take any horizontal stress, mainly just sheet metal riveted around the inner mechanisms of payload, fuel and engine.

It also appears the video is taken with night vision technology, and the heat of the object is what illuminates it. If this is so, then there is no flame or heat plume coming out the back that would be indicative of rocket or jet propulsion.

It may be smoking, or that is a heat signature as well that it trails from heating air in the atmosphere.

It is obviously under some kind of internal or external control, since it tries to avoid the first hit, and almost recovers.

It could be a projectile fired from a barrel type weapon, but again, the fact that it tries to recover on the first plunge, does not really make sense, unless it is an external operator guided round, but is more plausible. It could also be a failed test of some type of drone.

It appears that the operator of the video is set up well, on tripod, and is expecting the event.

The film/video is processed at the end to slow down the action when the debris field erupts.

It is very interesting in these respects.

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.

Well you are ASSUMING rockets are still functioning the way they always have -- which I'm not.

The X-Wing aircraft and swept forward wings of some ultrasonic craft, are adjusted at the millisecond rate. I've also seen videos of robots that hop around on one leg and can constantly do summersaults in a test of balance -- which was needed to mimic upright human walking but superseded by fast calculations on silicon chips.

A rocket with Lateral thrusters could very well keep itself from spinning wildly -- it's the same technology that would be required for new "supersonic" torpedos -- incidentally, it's rumored that China has the tech to, so the idea of Star Wars is obsolete if we can't nail a missile a few fathoms down moving at Mach 5.

>> I've pondered about gyro-magnetics and high pressure liquid metals -- but that rocket could be gyro-stabilized. The TROUBLE is, that if you aren't propelling it with gyros -- they will tend to slow you down as the constant change of inertia means more effort for thrust.

It doesn't look like a "frisbee" skip on that missile - it looks more like very fast thruster attitude control -- but I could be wrong.

If the US military had gryo propulsion, they wouldn't need the rockets on a craft like this at all ... so that's the biggest crimp in that theory.

reply to post by Alien Abduct


Nice Vid I think it is not a missile for starters it looks disc shaped and a regular missile would have broken up and plowed into the ground at the first impact and there is also what looks to me like a plasma plume or some sort of vortex coming out the bottom of the craft and with the impact I would have expected a bigger explosion if it were a rocket because of all the volatile rocket fuel onboard a missile would create a sizable fireball not just glowing pieces of wreckage flying everywhere....my two cents

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.

And why is the entire object lit up like a light bulb? Sure seems like an overcast day in the clip. And then the object crashes, with each broken part illuminated. Just too weird for a plain old missile.

For the love of God people. Did no one see where I said this has been thoroughly investigated and pretty much proven to be a missile test gone wrong??? Look, I want to believe as much as the next UFO buff but a little common sense and intelligence MUST be used with these things.










I hope this thread gets moved to the hoax bin...