Pic of a Crashed UFO??

This is great stuff, I'm following it with great interest. Suppose if the tank is positively identified it sure would say a lot toward the pic being old or new(after WWII). Of course if new the pic is a fraud.

Looking forward to learning it's fate.

Edit: Found some info on WWII Rusian Tanks:
www.tankmuseum.ru...


Dallas

[edit on 22-11-2006 by Dallas]

Originally posted by jmlima

Originally posted by L3X
it could be a prototype recovered during the assaults to the factories where they built it

A Soviet prototype?

A German prototype?

german of course
the point is who was the first to arrive...soviets or americans?
and so that, the tank in the picture was a russian p2...and i suppose americans didn't share with russians a thing like this...the russians in this case arrived before americans.



[edit on 22-11-2006 by L3X]

After reviewing the picture closer I do agree it does start to seem similar to a BMP. The shock absorber and body design do match. The only problem I have at the moment is BMPs have a metal overhang that covers the track at the top. In this picture it looks like you can see the track and there is nothing covering it. This leaves me with doubts whether or not it is a BMP even though I will admit it is strikingly similar. Will have to look into it further before I can say for sure.

Originally posted by Reh1
... The only problem I have at the moment is BMPs have a metal overhang that covers the track at the top. In this picture it looks like you can see the track and there is nothing covering it. This leaves me with doubts whether or not it is a BMP even though I will admit it is strikingly similar. Will have to look into it further before I can say for sure.

If you search, even in google for bmp-2, you'll see that the BMP was used with the skirts and also without.

members.aol.com...

thanks jmlima

I looked at the picture on your link. The more I look into this the more I am convinced it is not from WW2. After I have compared it to many different tanks, self-propelled guns, tanks destroyers of both Russian and German origin.
Plus no lend-lease equipment looks like that. I have to say I am leaning towards it being a BMP as others have stated. You look at the pictures and it does match up to some variants of the BMP. Some models not all.

Now that the tanks is more or less reasonably identified, one question, why would anyone say that the object in the foreground is a UFO? Because of its apparent shape?Remember that we do not see the entire object though...

I say it does not matter if it is a UFO, and it doesn't matter what kind of tank it is. This is because I believe it is a fake. Quite sure of it. Peace.

Originally posted by templersstorms1312
I say it does not matter if it is a UFO, and it doesn't matter what kind of tank it is. This is because I believe it is a fake. Quite sure of it. Peace.

Heck! Temple, deny ignorance!!
Why do you believe it is a fake? You've must be having solid reasons for your 'belief'.
So let's have it.

The pic points to these facts:

> It is an old pic probably dating back to WWII.
> If so, this couldn't have been 'Photoshopped'.
> The grains of the pic are uniform throughout, so it couldn't have been a cut and paste job.
> It could very well have been a German saucer captured by the Russians in WWII.

Don't believe the Germans had saucers? Take a peek at this thread here, complete with pics!

And here's one from the link.



Now does that plant the seed of doubt or are you still absolutely sure it's a fake??

Not a BMP M1976 (our turret is too far forward)
www.fas.org...

I don't think it's a BMP-2 because there is a rocket launcher on the turret which would obscure the spotlight.

I think it's a BMP-1
www.globalsecurity.org...
because there is a spot light atop the turret and this is visible in the UFO picture and is shown here in this pic.
www.globalsecurity.org...

The Spot light is inline with the leading edge of the third wheel from the rear.

So the BMP-1 was started around 1966 which if nothing else rules out WWII, one then has to ask why the grainy sepia tone WWII type photo?

Being post 1966 this also allows it to be a satelitte (or other) dish.

Also look to the left of the photo the "dish" appears to be broken and the BPM gun barrel could be visible behind coming out to the left edge of the photo.

If it's not totally fake I think it's a broken satellite dish.


[edit on 23/11/2006 by Wig]

video.google.com...

at 24:40 into this russian docu theres a bigger version of this pic
taken from a magazine by the looks of it. Its neat, you can see the dome!

If I had my "main" computer up and running I would´ve done a screengrab for you...not possible on this old system though...

Originally posted by Wig
Not a BMP M1976 (our turret is too far forward)
www.fas.org...

I don't think it's a BMP-2 because there is a rocket launcher on the turret which would obscure the spotlight.

I think it's a BMP-1
www.globalsecurity.org...
because there is a spot light atop the turret and this is visible in the UFO picture and is shown here in this pic.
www.globalsecurity.org...

The Spot light is inline with the leading edge of the third wheel from the rear.

So the BMP-1 was started around 1966 which if nothing else rules out WWII, one then has to ask why the grainy sepia tone WWII type photo?

Being post 1966 this also allows it to be a satelitte (or other) dish.

Also look to the left of the photo the "dish" appears to be broken and the BPM gun barrel could be visible behind coming out to the left edge of the photo.

If it's not totally fake I think it's a broken satellite dish.

There were so many variants of the BMP-1/2 that it would be hard to narrow it down without seeing the whole vehicle.

However; I agree it is A BMP model armored vehicle, which puts this picture in the late 60'a at the EARLIEST. However; Soviet camera technology was vastly behind western photography. If you look at Soviet video taken during Afgahnistan, it still looks like video filmed in the 60's. And Soviet Photos and film of their space program in the 50's, early 60's looks like US photos from WWII. So trying to date this by the grain or resolution, or color schemes of the photo is going to be very difficult.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Fixed quote


[edit on 17/12/06 by masqua]

Originally posted by Sr Wing Commander
However; Soviet camera technology was vastly behind western photography. If you look at Soviet video taken during Afgahnistan, it still looks like video filmed in the 60's. And Soviet Photos and film of their space program in the 50's, early 60's looks like US photos from WWII. So trying to date this by the grain or resolution, or color schemes of the photo is going to be very difficult.

Utter Twaddle

it is arrogant and ignorant to dismiss the entire russian photo industry with one condesending sweep .

Soviet Cinematography was 1st rate , lust look at the Stalin era propaganda films

the russians made exclent Leicia clones .

and the quality of thier WWII photo archives is hugely variable - as is every other countries

there are WWII vintage soviet pictures that are pin sharp - i have many in my collections .

as for the grain on that photo : ever occured to you that it has been down graded digitally - to obscure details and give faux vintage ?

Sdirailgun, gave a link above to a video with more pics, I took these from the video

The narrator appears to be saying the video of the UFO in Russia going behind a towerblock (the 10th picture) is the same UFO as the crashed model. Then goes on to say that the same UFO was seen in Edinburgh on a CCTV (the CCTV vid is on Youtube) - (picture 11).

They also show an autopsy picture ( the 8th picture) so maybe they think it really was the green guys - he's a small little bug isn't he, looks like a seal to me.

They might also be saying the UFO is Russian military or that the Russians copied the thing which crashed and then they crased theirs in a forest.

Not sure what the connection is with the last photo but I thought I might include it aswell.

Now then, Why if it crashed in the trees, did it not cut the trees down?
If it came down vertically so as not to cut trees then why is at an angle?
If it slumped over after falling vertically why is the earth not raised in front of the thing?
Why is there no gouging in the dirt on either edge of the disc?






















[edit on 14/8/2007 by Wig]

Originally posted by Wig

Now then, Why if it crashed in the trees, did it not cut the trees down?
If it came down vertically so as not to cut trees then why is at an angle?
If it slumped over after falling vertically why is the earth not raised in front of the thing?
Why is there no gouging in the dirt on either edge of the disc?

I've read somewhere about this crashed disc. The questions you have raised are pertinent, but as mentioned by some, this disc crashed some distance away, broke in half and careened into the spot where it was photographed.

So that explains the angle and why the trees were not cut from above. No gouging too as the half saucer 'rolled' to the spot.

Well, that's the explanation, but I guess this requires further analysis.

This thread is one year old.
The russian disc video is a viral for some game, iirc.

Well, if that crashed ufo russian video is fake, they take a good time and efford on it. Uniforms, vehicles, parts, weapons, a lot of actors...

I really was just posting those pics because it shows more of the pictrue in the OP.

But as the thread has moved into the other UFO crash here is a video I just found, it does look really fakeish overacting and doing stupid things, which you would expect if it was fake like a platoon of soldiers marching in from a truck to the site a distance of about 30 feet, they would not have marched and done an "about turn" they would all just have jumped out of their truck and walked over.

video