Crash Of Odd Object

[Turtle]

I'm not convinced that the object is in front of the poles, though I admit at full speed it is hard to tell. The last pole at the end certainly appears to be in front of the explosion to me, because we can see the bottom of the pole but not the impact that caused the explosion. Also, it seems that pole comes into sharper focus during the explosion, can you grap a still of it at that point?

 

i'll see what i can do. i don't have the movie in an editor, rather i am just pausing it so i can't hit every frame.

 

No size comparison to the poles or other geometry is needed. All you need to do is get an accurate elapsed time in seconds T between the bounce and the final impact. Assuming, then that the object was more falling ballistically than flying aerodynamically between those two (not exactly true, my eye tells me, but close enough), and not much slowed by air drag, the height at the top of its arc will be

 

[math]H = \frac{g}{2} \left(\frac{T}{2}\right)^2 \dot= 1.25 \, T^2 \,\mbox{m}[/math]

 

You can then use a ruler to compare that height to the object to get its rough dimensions.

 

i have the same problem getting accurate time as i do individual frames. your count is as good as mine. is g acceleration of gravity? while i can use a ruler, i'm not very competent in physics calculations. my bad. :shrug:

 

did you read any of the recent articles on the physics of frisbee flight that i posted? they sound right up your alley. :smart:

 

that's a w'ap; clockin' out.

[Turtle]

here's that still jm. the camera slows panning here & the pole is pretty sharp.

 

craig, i used a stopwatch and did 4 timings.(2 left-handed, 2 right) got 10.89, 10.61, 10.68, & 10.68 seconds from first impact to second. average 10.715 sec. so do i go 1.25*10.715^2m? = 143.51403125m? m=meters here, not mass right? = 470.846 feet

 

:esmoking:

[CraigD]

craig, i used a stopwatch and did 4 timings.(2 left-handed, 2 right) got 10.89, 10.61, 10.68, & 10.68 seconds from first impact to second. average 10.715 sec. so do i go 1.25*10.715^2m? = 143.51403125m? m=meters here, not mass right? = 470.846 feet

Right. :thumbs_up Of course, we could have just notices the youtube time display, and gotten a time of 10 s.

 

I did a quick cut and paste and counted pixels (a bit tricky, as the camera loses the ground just before the peak of the arc), and getting the height of the peak at about 230 pixels, and the length of the object as 23, for a length of about 14.5 m - about the length of a medium size modern fighter aircraft, twice the length of a ca. 60s lifting body aircraft like a M2-F2, much longer than the biggest artillery or naval gun projectile.

[Turtle]

Right. :thumbs_up Of course, we could have just notices the youtube time display, and gotten a time of 10 s.

 

I did a quick cut and paste and counted pixels (a bit tricky, as the camera loses the ground just before the peak of the arc), and getting the height of the peak at about 230 pixels, and the length of the object as 23, for a length of about 14.5 m - about the length of a medium size modern fighter aircraft, twice the length of a ca. 60s lifting body aircraft like a M2-F2, much longer than the biggest artillery or naval gun projectile.

 

roger the ootube time. i decided it wasn't accurate enough for your standards though. :lol: now since some of the papers i referenced on frisbee dynamics come from the 70's, i still hold this may be an unpowered spinning-disk-oid-esque-ish thingy in an experiment applying the new physics/math put forward in those papers. as to the navy, the projectile needn't be gun-fired, rather lauched from a plane as we surmise in the video/test -à la ww2's dam-busting bouncing bombs- and the plane launched from a carrier.

 

while i accept your object size measure -very clever :thumbs_up-, the glow of the object may well belie the true size of the solid object "inside". the glow may also account for the illusion that the object is passing in front of the first pole as jm suspected and our height estimate clearly shows is the case. the contrail, while suggesting an active "engine", may simply be the trailing smoke from the glowing material.

 

what else? oh; if this is a weapon meant to bounce on land & then detonate, i have come up with a target. power lines! :omg: well...what would you guess? :shrug:

 

how we doing moonster??

[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 both before and after the bounce...

 

A conventional object might bounce (it would have to be a damn tough object)but maintaining controlled flight, IE not flopping over and over, would seem to be very unusual.

[Turtle]

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.

...

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 both before and after the bounce...

 

this gives us some help on the x-38 idea, though they don't specify the test vehicle size. sounds unmanned to me though, so craig can rest easy that no lives were lost in the making of this video. :)

 

crew return vehicle

...The Deorbit Propulsion Stage was designed by Aerojet GenCorp under contract to the Marshall Space Flight Center. The module was to be attached to the aft of the spacecraft at six points, and is 15.5 ft (4.72 m) long and 6 ft (1.83 m) wide. Fully fueled, the module would weigh about 6,000 lb (2721.5 kg). The module was designed with eight 100 lbf (0.44 kN)-thrust rocket engines fueled by hydrazine, which would burn for ten minutes to deorbit the CRV. Eight reaction control thrusters would then control the ship's attitude during deorbit. Once the burn was completed, the module was to be jettisoned, and would burn most of its mass up as it reentered the atmosphere.[16]

...

X-38 Advanced Technology Demonstrator

Main article: X-38 Crew Return Vehicle

In order to develop the design and technologies for the operational CRV at a fraction of the cost of other space vehicles, NASA launched a program to develop a series of low-cost, rapid-prototype vehicles that were designated the X-38 Advanced Technology Demonstrators.[18] As described in EAS Bulletin 101, the X-38 program "is a multiple application technology demonstration and risk mitigation programme, finding its first application as the pathfinder for the operational Crew Return Vehicle (CRV) for the International Space Station (ISS)."[13][19]

 

NASA acted as its own prime contractor for the X-38 program, with the Johnson Space Center taking the project lead. All aspects of construction and development were managed in-house, although specific tasks were contracted out.[19] For the production CRV, NASA intended to select an outside prime contractor to build the craft.[20]

 

Four test vehicles were planned, but only two were built, both atmospheric test vehicles. The airframes, which were largely built of composite materials, were constructed under contract by Scaled Composites. The first flew its maiden flight on March 12, 1998. The X-38 utilized a unique parafoil landing system designed by Pioneer Aerospace. The ram-air inflated parafoil used in the flight test program was the largest in the world, with a surface area of 7,500 ft² (700 m²). The parafoil was actively controlled by an on-board guidance system that was based on GPS navigation.[21]

...

 

ok. if it was an x-38, then maybe the de-orbit burn went bad and the thing is glowing because it's hot & the deployed parafoil is on fire. (however they say atmospheric tests so not sure how high they launched from or how high you have to drop from or how long dropping to get significant heating, or even if the deorbit burn platform was used.) then maybe the onboard guidance tried to correct, but not enough time or control surface to avoid a bad landing. then, maybe it bounced because it was made of composite -think carbon-. then maybe it exploded because the first impact cracked the frame rendering it frangible.

 

A conventional object might bounce (it would have to be a damn tough object)but maintaining controlled flight, IE not flopping over and over, would seem to be very unusual.

 

again, if it were frisbee-esque i would expect to be able to bounce it like a frisbee off a sidewalk. and yes, unconventional to ballistics, aerodynamics, and propositions.

[Moontanman]

this gives us some help on the x-38 idea, though they don't specify the test vehicle size. sounds unmanned to me though, so craig can rest easy that no lives were lost in the making of this video. :)

 

crew return vehicle

 

 

ok. if it was an x-38, then maybe the de-orbit burn went bad and the thing is glowing because it's hot & the deployed parafoil is on fire. (however they say atmospheric tests so not sure how high they launched from or how high you have to drop from or how long dropping to get significant heating, or even if the deorbit burn platform was used.) then maybe the onboard guidance tried to correct, but not enough time or control surface to avoid a bad landing. then, maybe it bounced because it was made of composite -think carbon-. then maybe it exploded because the first impact cracked the frame rendering it frangible.

 

 

 

again, if it were frisbee-esque i would expect to be able to bounce it like a frisbee off a sidewalk. and yes, unconventional to ballistics, aerodynamics, and propositions.

 

 

You seem to be playing both ends against the middle on this turtle, the x-38 or for that matter no US space craft are Frisbee-esque and any object would have stopped glowing if dropped from orbit by the time it had achieved more or less level flight as this object has done before it begins to dive into the ground.

 

But lets assume it was Frisbee-esque, it is certainly bigger than a Frisbee, for the sake of argument let's say 1/2 the size of a fighter aircraft, what material could it possibly be made of that would allow such a skip? if it was solid metal, it might (i have severe doubts about that but it might) but I doubt a solid metal object would be capable of powered flight. This object is not falling as an unpowered solid metal object would, even a rotating metal disc should be far to heavy to be glide as a frisbee does (btw a frisbee is far more than just a rotating disc)and if it is indeed a rotating metal disc (frisbee-esque)it's origin is questionable to say the least. As for carbon fiber, even carbon fiber has limits, boats made of it do indeed disintegrate upon impact at relatively low speeds, this thing has to be going a hundred mph or more and carbon fiber is not that tough and why is it glowing? Too many questions very few answers.

 

The facts that it is under powered flight, that is it glowing, and that it bounced, are very difficult to explain. I'm still betting that someone knows what this is, but it still makes a great puzzle.

[Turtle]

You seem to be playing both ends against the middle on this turtle, the x-38 or for that matter no US space craft are Frisbee-esque and any object would have stopped glowing if dropped from orbit by the time it had achieved more or less level flight as this object has done before it begins to dive into the ground.

 

i'm simply keeping an open mind. i was not suggesting the x-38 is frisbee shaped; i was just following up on your rumor and getting the facts on the x-38 program.

 

But lets assume it was Frisbee-esque, it is certainly bigger than a Frisbee, for the sake of argument let's say 1/2 the size of a fighter aircraft, what material could it possibly be made of that would allow such a skip?

 

if it is frisbee-shaped as in having a hollow underside/inside, then just about any material. composites (plastic), aluminum, or light-weight ceramic.

 

lightweight ceramics

Ceramics based on Allied foams have fine pore size, excellent stability and high integrity. Foam Ceramics can be as light as < 20 pcf ( 323 kg/m3 ) and with use temperatures as high as > 3,000oF

 

if it was solid metal, it might (i have severe doubts about that but it might) but I doubt a solid metal object would be capable of powered flight. This object is not falling as an unpowered solid metal object would, even a rotating metal disc should be far to heavy to be glide as a frisbee does (btw a frisbee is far more than just a rotating disc)and if it is indeed a rotating metal disc (frisbee-esque)it's origin is questionable to say the least.

 

from your arguments i can only get the impression the whole of it is a fake. it may be that too, as i am suspect that the bounce takes place out of sight. when it emerges from the bounce i get an impression of a lauch and the video may well be spliced there. that is, the first descent is from one test, the second descent (and "bounce") from a second test.

 

that you think i don't know anything about the physics of frisbee flight makes me think you did not read the peer-reviewed papers that i gave on the topic. :doh: you seem to be holding out some hope that this is extraterrestrial, wheras i have no doubt the origin is terrestrial.

 

As for carbon fiber, even carbon fiber has limits, boats made of it do indeed disintegrate upon impact at relatively low speeds, this thing has to be going a hundred mph or more and carbon fiber is not that tough and why is it glowing? Too many questions very few answers.

 

well, if it's a flare, and recall there were military experiments of self-sustaing frisbee-flares, then it's obvious why it is glowing. on the speed; craig et al, can we determine the speed?

 

The facts that it is under powered flight, that is it glowing, and that it bounced, are very difficult to explain. I'm still betting that someone knows what this is, but it still makes a great puzzle.

 

i'm not convinced it's under powered flight or that it is actually a bounce. frisbees and gliders make course changes in flight and are not under motive power. you said no one has ever given plausible explanations and that is what i'm doing. obviously someone knows (or knew) what it is a test of.

 

so accepting that the photographer was waiting for this i have to wonder why they are so far away. if it's supposed to be a landing of a craft, why is there no landing strip in view and why are they positioned so as not to have the first impact in view? if this is ordnance, it makes sense to be at a distance and that there is no landing strip. :ebomb:

[CraigD]

… on the speed; craig et al, can we determine the speed?

Using the same scale we got for the length, I stitched together the first 5 sec of the video (after that, the ground exits the camera view, making it hard to keep stitching), I get a speed of 125 to 150 m/s, in the vicinity of 500 km/h 300 MPH, which is consistent with the hypothesis that this is a high-speed air-dropped glider from the M2-F2 lifting body family.

 

The M2-F2 and similar aircraft had rockets that were meant to be fired just before landing to give additional lift. Watching the mystery video again, the flash from around the moment of the impact struck me as possibly not an impact-induced explosion, but landing rockets firing.

 

It happens that we know very well what an M2-F2 crash landing looks like, as one was caught on film (and subsequently posted to youtube):

 

 

(Anyone who’s seen the opening of the 70s TV series The Six Million Dollar Man has seen a few seconds of this video)

 

While the two videos don’t look much alike, the M2-F2 in the second one was surprising intact after the crash, leading me to guess that if a lifting body were pitched up enough after an initial impact, perhaps with the assistance of landing rockets, its flight might look like the mystery video.

 

The fragmenting at the end doesn’t strike me as very consistent, though, as my guess would be that one of these aircraft augering in would go crump rather than boom. :shrug:

 

I tried several reverse image searches on bit of this video, with no success – found the video and various UFO-related pages referencing it, but nothing hinting at an original source. :(

[paigetheoracle]

Not a tracer - look at the start. The object changes trajectory, like it is trying to avoid hitting the ground and failing (controlled?): Heading down at an angle, then it appears to lift up slightly but not enough to stop it hitting the ground again.

 

By the way was tracer gun/ give it a shot, a deliberate pun?

[Little Bang]

I think your right turtle, it does pass in front of the pole so it is pretty small.

[Turtle]

I think your right turtle, it does pass in front of the pole so it is pretty small.

 

while that was my early conjecture, i discarded it following craig's calculations of the object's size & peak height.

 

while i accept your [craig] object size measure -very clever :thumbs_up-, the glow of the object may well belie the true size of the solid object "inside". the glow may also account for the illusion that the object is passing in front of the first pole as jm suspected and our height estimate clearly shows is the case. the contrail, while suggesting an active "engine", may simply be the trailing smoke from the glowing material.

[Moontanman]

I've looked at this video many times and as much as I would love it to be something really odd i have to say I have my doubts about how lucky a person would have to be to catch this crash, so someone knew it was going to be there. As for it being Frisbee shaped as Turtle knows Frisbees are very special shapes and something that is just disc shaped does not a Frisbee make. There is not enough detail in the video to make any assertions about the shape, it could be a rod or a disc or a triangle seen from a odd angle.

 

As for something being tough enough to bounce, that would depend a lot on the size, it's speed, and the angle of impact. If this object is as big as say an F-14 then it is indeed a very odd object due to it's bounce. If it is the size of a trash can lid then it is not odd and could be lots of things. To be honest the more I look at the video the more I get the impression what we see as a glow is actually a rocket exhaust and the actual object is not visible in the film. This could not only make it powered but also allow it to be quite small, possibly even a civilian object like a model rocket gone wild... so to speak... It certainly could be an anti tank rocket or other very tough, powered, and controlled object.

 

But you have to admit it's a very odd object, I've never seen anything even remotely similar.. except anti tank rockets? I'd love to see what someone in the military familiar with ordnance has to say about it...

 

[JMJones0424]

Assuming the object takes a near-ballistic path after the first bounce, and also assuming the video is filmed on Earth, then we have shown that it cannot be any ordinance that I am familiar with. The speed of the AT-4 rocket and the TOW missile, the two anti-tank weapons that I have fired, are both roughly twice as fast as the speed that Craig calculated for this object, and they are both far too short to compare to the calculated dimension of this object. Likewise, the "explosion" at the end is decidedly non-ordinance like.

 

I have been next to a guy that actually skipped an AT4 round off of the hardpan desert in Kuwait, it was quite some time before we let him live that down.

 

I certainly don't know what it is, but it does not at all appear to me to resemble either a tracer round or a rocket with a warhead that detonated on impact.

[Moontanman]

Assuming the object takes a near-ballistic path after the first bounce, and also assuming the video is filmed on Earth, then we have shown that it cannot be any ordinance that I am familiar with. The speed of the AT-4 rocket and the TOW missile, the two anti-tank weapons that I have fired, are both roughly twice as fast as the speed that Craig calculated for this object, and they are both far too short to compare to the calculated dimension of this object. Likewise, the "explosion" at the end is decidedly non-ordinance like.

 

I have been next to a guy that actually skipped an AT4 round off of the hardpan desert in Kuwait, it was quite some time before we let him live that down.

 

I certainly don't know what it is, but it does not at all appear to me to resemble either a tracer round or a rocket with a warhead that detonated on impact.

 

 

I went back to the you-tube channel it was posted on hoping to find someone who knew what this was but all i got was several people arguing about aliens and gods... Some one knows what this is and the fact that no one seems to be forthcoming on this makes me wonder if it is something very special we weren't supposed to see... The idea it's some sort of conventional aircraft fails miserably... Most of these videos are outed as being fake very quickly on you tube, this one has been around along time and no one has shown it to be faked or taken responsibility for it... very odd...

[Turtle]

:D

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddG6WT6FjOs

+space frisbee gun = :ebomb:

[Turtle]

I've looked at this video many times and as much as I would love it to be something really odd i have to say I have my doubts about how lucky a person would have to be to catch this crash, so someone knew it was going to be there. As for it being Frisbee shaped as Turtle knows Frisbees are very special shapes and something that is just disc shaped does not a Frisbee make. There is not enough detail in the video to make any assertions about the shape, it could be a rod or a disc or a triangle seen from a odd angle.

 

my previous post demonstrates how a frisbee can be skipped, and also brings into the mix the matter of wind speed & velocity which we haven't discussed as a possible contributor to the odd action seen in the video.

 

is there some technical reason you dismiss disk-shaped and/or frisbee-esque ordnance, or do you just not like the proposal because it's my idea? i agree the event was intentionaly filmed & have said as much. if it's secret, then one shouldn't be surprised that there is little to no easily found info. beyond the technical information i have already dug up, i digged up some more stuff.

 

the first, a report on using hardened non-explosive disks as armour penetrators rather than rod-shaped as in the more familiar form. it's not clear if these were ever produced and the report is pretty new and the projectiles faster than craigs 300 mph calculation, but i thought jm might find this interesting in light of his last post & experience with real weaponry.

 

>> Army Research Laboratory: Penetration of Multiple,Axially Offset, Disk-Shaped Penetrators: June 2001

 

the second, a fictional hand-launched disk-shaped explosive. :ebomb:

 

>> command & conquer: disk thrower

 

...After the First Tiberium War the technology of grenades and various handheld explosive went through a long and productive evolutionary process. By the Second Tiberium War grenades had changed from the standard hand thrown "pineapples" of yore and had become disc shaped impact explosives that, if the soldier was properly equipped, were thrown from a special motorized wrist launcher. The efficient disc shaped grenades were at the same time more powerful and longer ranged than older hand grenades, with a 40% higher kill ratio. The aerodynamic shape increased range and allowed the discs to skip along the ground....

 

moontan, i'd be interested in your speculation on what it is rather than just what it is not. or perhaps i should say what do you want it to be. :shrug: have you written to the original poster on youtube to ask where they got the video? enquiring minds want to know. ??

 

ps found a very kewl site on military ordnance.

>> mulvaney's technical ordnance information system

 

looking at this one device, perhaps the object in the video is not the ordnance, but rather a target for ordnance.

 

>> FLARE, BALLISTIC AERIAL TARGET; INFRARED TRACKING MK33, MOD 0

 

pps not sure if i listed this already or not. (found searching disk-shaped ordnance; page 2: http://www.google.com/#q=disk-shaped+ordnance&hl=en&prmd=imvnsb&ei=kTrzTpyDCoOXiALMpNjFDg&sqi=2&start=10&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=665329a2f257563d&biw=1152&bih=582)

citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.167...

In the late 1960s the U.S. Navy commissioned a project in

which the aerodynamic characteristics of a self-suspended Frisbeeshaped

flare were investigated [1]. Both spinning and nonspinning

models were tested, and it was found that spin had negligible effects

on the aerodynamic forces and moments. Later, Stilley and

Carstens [2] analyzed flight stability and compared actual flights to

free-fall tests.