posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 06:59 PM
I am not big on UFO's, but I think I remember reading about this particular case. If it is the one I am thinking of then I don't see how a balloon
could be a plausible explanation. Although many people like to question whether the witnesses got the details correct, this case has so many witnesses
that it is quite likely that the details we received are fairly accurate; details including the behavior of the craft, what it looked like, etc.
Again, if I remember correctly, didn't this object land and then take off again at a decent rate of speed? I think that it also did some other things
that balloons just cannot do. So I do not understand how the balloon hypothesis could be correct, since essentially a balloon is just a blob of
gas-filled cloth or cloth-like material. They can take on various shapes when disturbed by wind or some other force, and could even take on the shapes
of other reported UFO's, but their behavior is quite predictable. Depending on the type of gas inside them, and the volume of that gas as well as the
volume of the void which holds the gas, the balloon will either rise, fall, or hold its altitude.
Depending on other forces, and whether there is a payload and how that payload is attached, a balloon can pitch, roll, or yaw as well, but none of
these maneuvers look "unnatural" by any means. Especially if the balloon were on the ground, where it could be viewed closely. If it had come down
already, yet still had enough gas to maintain a solid shape, it should have been obvious to those present that this was something manmade. There is
nothing intricate about a balloon. It is quite simple, and quite simple-looking.
Coupling the fact that balloons look a certain way with the fact that balloons follow a pretty regular set of behaviors, the sighting could not have
been a balloon. If certain things were witnessed, and corroborated by other witnesses, and those things are outside the realm of possibility in terms
of balloon behavior, how can anyone claim this is a feasible explanation? All of the witnesses would have to be wrong to mistake a balloon for what
was described, and not only would they all have to be wrong, they would all have to missed the relatively obvious fact that the object looked like a
freaking balloon, lol. I just don't find it plausible.
I think even reports with only a single witness are often times fairly accurate in the general or large details, although minute details are more
likely to be misconstrued or overlooked, and with multiple witnesses the chances of the reports being real increases, if the witnesses corroborate one
another. And when you have a group the size of the one we are talking about in this case, and the fact that their testimonies agreed for the most
part, it is not very likely that they described something that didn't happen. So if what the actions and characteristics they described are accurate,
and a balloon cannot perform those actions or did not have those characteristics, it tells me that the object was not a balloon.