No idea where this video came from but it was posted in another aviation forum by someone from the USAF who was opining that we should all keep open minds about the 'what ifs' of this stuff.
Normally I don't give it the time of day, but I've never come across something like what's in this video. Usually UFO videos are easy hoaxes and blurry images of geese flocking and stationary stars...but this is really something.
What in the hell could survive an impact like that, resume flight, then crash into molten sparks?
[Edited 2007-01-17 09:37:44]
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
AerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (6 years 4 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 896 times:
Seems like it could be a missile that somehow deflected off something in a one-in-a-million shot, returned immediately to flight, and then finally crashed. The brightness would be its fiery exhaust, and the molten sparks would be pieces of it exploding into the air after it crashed.
Wish there could be a UFO video of that thing they saw at O'Hare the other day.
SlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 71 Reply 5, posted (6 years 4 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 878 times:
One question here. Could that film have favored infrared? If so, then the shape that is visible to our eye would be less well represented than the heat signature. That would account for the shape not meaning much to us, as well as the "sparks" seen after the second, obviously harder impact.
I saw a video once of a military jet trainer striking smooth grassy ground and becoming airborne again, only to crash a second time in a ball of fire a short distance downrange. Presumably the pilot was incapacitated or even dead after the first bounce.
I saw a cargo helicopter leave its full imprint on the blacktop of a practice airfield. The wreckage was located a few yards away and no longer appeard to be "intact" as the imprint looked.
From these I take the lesson that an air vehicle might strike a glancing blow and become airborne again while appearing, briefly to still have their structural integrity. Second impact would of course scatter that illusion.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
AerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (6 years 4 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 873 times:
Very intriguing, SlamClick.
I think that the "tail" produced by rocket exhaust could very well register much more clearly than the rocket that produced it, particularly if the rocket itself were light-colored and thus blended in with the sky under conditions of natural illumination. The rocket plume would be substantially brighter than the sky and therefore visible at far greater distances.
In the video, the rocket, if it is a rocket, would appear to be perhaps several miles away. At that range, a bright plume of, say, fifty feet in length and expanding to a maximum visible width of five to eight feet, might be quite visible while the rocket itself, perhaps ten to fifteen or so feet in length of merely a foot or so in diameter, might not be.
Sponsor Message: 
From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 7635 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4934 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 6184 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
