Odd object

[Moontanman]

This is a video of an object hitting the ground in what can be described as an "unusual" manner. I'm not sure of what it is, but it's an old video 20 + years at least.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Cfhs5nDuMw&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

 

I've tried to figure out what could do this but so far no real explanation has come to mind, some sort of tracer round from a very large gun is about as close as I have come, anyone want to give it a shot?

Edited August 27, 2011 by Moontanman

[Externet]

Is simply as the title says, a UFO crash.

 

The bouncing at first impact resembles very closely to the 1st. Annual Report (Annex A, No. 3) for the designated ULAT crashed at site L-2 in 1947.

 

But cannot be the same event, as no color movies then and happened at night in a lighting storm.

Edited August 29, 2011 by Externet

[tomgwyther]

After the first bounce it follows a pretty perfect parabola; doesn't appear to be guided or 'flown'

It's still giving of light after the second impact when it breaks apart.

Im gonna go with Meteorite.

having said that, it does seem to 'pull-up' just before the first impact... Hmmm.

Edited August 29, 2011 by tomgwyther

[JohnB]

It was the light from the planet Venus reflected off the wings of migrating geese as they rode a wave of swamp gas.

[Phi for All]

After the first bounce it follows a pretty perfect parabola; doesn't appear to be guided or 'flown'

I disagree. It comes in pretty steep, then levels out a bit before the first skip, and climbs after it hits more than an unpowered object should be able to. It continues and almost seems to speed up on the ascent before coming back down for the final smash.

 

It acts like a frisbee would if skipped along the ground. If the frisbee got some extra spin going after the initial skip.

[zapatos]

Is simply as the title says, a UFO crash.

 

The bouncing at first impact resembles very closely to the 1st. Annual Report (Annex A, No. 3) for the designated ULAT crashed at site L-2 in 1947.

 

But cannot be the same event, as no color movies then and happened at night in a lighting storm.

 

 

Technicolor is a color motion picture process invented in 1916...

 

Color film processes that recorded all three primary colors on one strip of film had been developed for 16mm and 8mm amateur film in the 1930s by Agfa in Germany and Eastman Kodak in the United States...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technicolor

[Externet]

Right, zapatos.

Color movies existed in 1947. My wrong . But still not the same event as it happened during the night.

[JohnB]

It would be very helpful to know more about the provenence of the video, however a few things can be said.

 

1. It was daylight.

2. It was within about a mile of a road. (Telegraph poles)

3. It was probably in America. (The scrubby nature of the vegetation is indicative of a drier region.)

4. The slightly "off" colour is reminiscent of footage from the 60s or 70s.

5. The object retains form after the first impact implying strong structural integrity.

6. There is a complete lack of explosion or smoke after either impact. This implies that there was little or nothing conventionally combustible associated with the object. (It wasn't a fancy jet)

 

The biggest problem with things like this is that many people don't like where logic and evidence takes them, it destroys their sense of superiority.

 

We have an object on film. There are two and only two possible types of object. It is either natural or manufactured. Due to the changes in trajectory both before and after the first impact, "natural" can almost certainly be ruled out. The option left is that it is a manufactured item.

 

Again we are faced with two and only two possibilities. Either humans made it or they didn't. If the film is from the 70s and we were in the 70s, I would say some sort of secret aircraft development. However this is 2011, 30-40 years later and military technologies tend to filter down and into the civillian sphere, or at least become more common militarily if they work. The news gets out somehow. This counts against it being ours.

 

However it is also possible that it was a secret project that was an almost complete bust. The project gets closed and the files filed away and everybody forgets about it. Knowing the reason for the failure would be informative.

 

I sometimes wonder how many old, closed projects could be reopened with much better results now. If the idea was good but the materials and technology were lacking, then the project would fail and later people coming up with similar ideas would be told "We tried that and it didn't work" and would therefore drop the idea. But this may not be true today. To use the object in the film as an example, assuming it was a radical drive concept from the 70s. Perhaps the drive was workable but control was too unstable for practical use, pilots and computers simply weren't up to the task. With the vastly increased computing power now available, perhaps the control would be stable enough for the drive to be workable, but nobody tries because "We tried that and it didn't work".

 

Just a thought.

 

Of course, if the object was not the result of human manufacture then that only leaves one other option.............

[Externet]

The important thing I see in the movie is that the object does change trajectory before first impact by pulling up, trying to avoid collision with terrain.

That discards the natural meteorite posibility. Has to be controlled.

[Moontanman]

I've managed to come up with a little bit more info on this "crash"

 

The sources say it was presented at an Australian UFO conference in 1997 by a group called CSETI, it is also suggested that the video is of a crash of an X-38 space life boat (scale model) another says it was a lifting body, none would explain why it is glowing or why it survived a bounce. I still think I saw this video several years earlier but memory can play tricks on you. So if it's 1997 that would make it 14 years old?

 

Slow motion version of the crash

 

 

Completely dishonest version of the crash (I know it happened way before 2009) i have the video tape of the crash in my hands right now and it dates from the 1990's at least.

 

http://wn.com/Balochistan_Crash_ufo

 

Not much information out there about this for sure but I question the life boat idea due to the glowing aspect of the object, the actual bounce , and it's apparent powered flight (or at least controlled flight IE it didn't flop end over end) both before and after the bounce...

Edited August 31, 2011 by Moontanman

[imatfaal]

Has anyone ever used Tracker Video? The vid might be a useful candidate to try it on. My perception is that the flight is powered as well as controlled - it certainly appears to level off before first bounce and the upward trajectory after bounce seems driven. However John's point above that there does not appear to be any burning afterwards is weird - unless the crash was due to fuel running out and the anomalous trajectory was an attempt to use the last dregs to flatten out and land less destructively

[Externet]

About dates; it can be any, much earlier or later; if you believe this is bogus or not :

 

----> http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_mj12_3e1.htm

 

About the lack of burning afterwards can be because the 'fuel' is not flammable; there is bogus or not documentation that explains that.

 

About the similarities of the event; I have this (Annex A - No. 3), bogus or not, since about 1998 saved in my files; it may be on the net somewhere:

[JohnB]

Okay, the Balokistan vid is definitely a copy of the original, but its larger size does show some interesting points.

 

1. Immediately after the first impact the object is noticably brighter and/or larger, for lack of a better word, it "flashes". This could be due to an actual brightness change or due to a change in orientation that presents a larger cross section to view. (An aircraft has a bigger cross section when viewed from above or below than from the side.)

 

2. While there doesn't appear to be any zoom used on the camera, the size of the object varies. Before the bounce it gains in size, perhaps indicating that the object is approaching the camera at an angle. After the bounce the object is much larger and doesn't appear to change much in size, moving more directly from right to left. This could indicate a change in trajectory, or it could indicate a change in orientation but I would tend towards change in trajectory.

 

The lack of smoke is also more apparent. The object is glowing white. If that was from being "white hot" there should be smoke. Normal air is dirty with small particles that white hot metals precipitate as smoke and ash. One of the reasons foundries are so dirty is that they literally burn the crud out of the air as soot. Speaking from experience for steel to be that white, the temp would have to be over 1500 degrees C, any airborne particulates that come in contact with such a temperature are cremated instantly. Given this it is reasonable to conclude that although the object was "glowing white", it was not "hot" temperature wise. Note that there is a "trail", but this is more indicitive of a contrail than smoke, the colour is very light.

 

Given the changes in trajectory and the lack of smoke I would think that bolides etc could be ruled out. Natural objects do not change course all by themselves and only glow white due to combustion or heat. For the reasons above both combustion and heat can be provisionally ruled out.

 

So we are left with a glowing, structured object that appears to be powered and controlled. The lack of explosion or smoke tells us that it was either out of combustible fuel or doesn't use combustible fuel. Two things count against the first option;

 

1. Sanity. You might drive a car until it runs out of juice, but you don't fly aircraft that way. Short of being absolutely lost over the ocean or a catastrophic fuel tank failure that dumps all your fuel before you can land, a pilot always has reserves. A pilot simply won't fly around until almost out of juice and then save the last dregs for a last ditch attempt to lessen the crash. This simply makes no sense.

 

2. Immediately after the initial impact the object appears to accelerate. This implies that the engines were operating in some fashion and that there was fuel available. However there is a distinct lack of dust being blown around as one would expect from a jet exhaust at ground level.

 

What sort of a craft fits the bill is another question altogether.

 

Externet, I would put the "Memo" linked to as bogus. There is too much in it. Crashed craft, Tesla drives, secret projects, etc, etc. It's written in such a way as to encourage the more "excitable" of the UFO people and conspiracy theorists to jump up and down crying "This is it, we've hit the jackpot!". At the same time it's rediculously vague, referring to the power plant as "atomic". No sh*t sherlock, did people think it was steam? Given that it was supposedly written some 40 years after the project, it should have contained a more detailed reference than the generic "atomic". The bits talking about the power plant remind me of 1950s pulp SF.

 

Note also the performance given for the "S" craft. Why on earth spend heaps of cash developing the F-22 when you had an almost viable airframe with far superior performance 40 years ago? According to Wiki $22 billion was spent on the F-22, as the "S" craft was supposedly "electronic fly by wire" controls (early F-16) then it would have been better and cheaper to develop the "S" craft to a production level than start the F-22 from scratch. According to the memo there were two primary reasons for the projects failure, 1950s avionics weren't up to the task and 1950s shielding was good enough, both of these problems could have been solved with modern avionics and shielding.

 

Simply put, the story outlined doesn't make sense. It must be assumed that those in charge of such projects are rational and the decisions required for the story to play out as written simply aren't rational.

[michel123456]

Just wondering:

there are no mountains in the background or anything, the foreground looks like desert, or dunes: maybe it is on a sea shore, with the horizon too low so that sea or ocean is not observable. Then maybe there is an aircraft carrier hidden, and the object is an aircraft missing the landing, then crashing. It is also presumed that the white color has been added technically on the movie. If you look cautiously, there are a some black remains. That doesn't explain the absence of smoke.

Edited September 2, 2011 by michel123456

[JohnB]

Interesting thoughts. I doubt a missed aircraft carrier landing simply due to the dust thrown up for the first impact.

 

The lack of distant hills isn't surprising. There are many areas in Australia where the ground is flat clear to the horizon and no, or very few, hills are visible. I assume that this would be the same for the US and other places.

 

The other reason for the lack is that the camera isn't looking across flat ground, it is angled up slightly. Both times it hits the ground the object disappears. If the camera was looking across flat ground this wouldn't happen, so the object must be impacting behind a set of very low hills. (Not much more than undulations in the ground.) Since the object impacts below the crest of the hill on the far side and is hidden from the camera, then the road from where the footage is taken is also below the crest, in a gully. This and heat haze would hide distant hills quite well.

 

Remember that when I say "hills" I really do mean undulations. Think of it like an ocean with swells about 10-15 feet high and the peaks separated by 2 miles or more. Unless you look, you don't even really notice that the land isn't flat. I've seen a lot of really flat countryside and trust me at that distance, on flat land, you would never lose sight of the object.

 

Good one on the black, I didn't notice that. There is a distinct black line under the object after the first bounce. Does anybody know how to check to see if the glow was added later?