Lights in Phoenix again!!

OK people look...

I hate to buy into the road flares as well but it is a logical explanation.


Source from this PDF

Which means it is roughly a half of pound



If a 3 foot diameter balloon can lift 0.9 pounds, then a 2 foot balloon could lift 0.5 pounds.

In the end these could actually be flares on balloons, it sucks i know.

reply to post by Mark Roazhar

---

Aamen. What really kills ufology and makes it so much harder to investigate are the "i want to believe so much that i ignore everything else" people. Every seagul photo is alien and every strange looking rock in the moon is a humanoid or alienbase. Mind should be open, but not open like a toilet seat banging in the wind. Healthy sceptism is needed and consideration of the earthly explanations first. Usually the more likely simplest explanation is true. Not always, but most of the time.

If one were to use a more substantial helium lifting device other than a kids 'party balloon'...

and one were to tie several of the 2 cubic foot helium filled balloons together in a series some 10 yards apart with something like 50lb fishing line...
and crimp on fishing clips to secure several light weight, 2 AA battery electronic-flares. (seen here) www.familydefense.com...


i bet the observed 'Formations' could be seen in an 8pm sky.


people would not notice the lit up electronic flares until they were high enough above the city skyline to be prominant...
at low altitude the lights-on-balloons would be caught in the confusion of
streeet lights & high rise buildings and the 'haze' of the Phoenix city.
Only when the drifting lights were 2-3000 ft altitude would they become noticeable to the valley dwellers.


a good out of the way launch site (also being East) of Deer Valley and Scottsdale airports might be the Granite Reef Dam parking area for the Salt River tubing enthusiests...
or perhaps Fountain Hills.

Its true that the huge desire to believe sometimes does cloud sound judgment. HOWEVER this witness to come out makes me wonder. First of all if it was a hoax it screams of fire hazard. I mean at the very least it was reckless. We are post 911 and we have seen the damage that wildfires pose. To think that someone would admit to something like this seems dubious. The other thing is that the neighbor got on camera and pointed this person out. Is he not worried about any reprisals? I mean it's one thing for a neighbor to tell a police officer and quite another to point him out on national television. Also take a look at his son in the background who looks very nervous. Im not sure what to think at this point. It might have been flares but something to me seems off. I will feel a lot better if this person is IDENTIFIED and brought up on some charges.

AS-

I dunno about that. Sure, there are some who won't let go, and that can be annoying. But people that pretend to be interested in UFO's, yet jump on the "Occam's razor" EVERY time something is witnessed that is out of the ordinary, do some damage to ufology as well. It's funny how some were positive that they were Chinese lanterns, but now, road flares tied to balloons is the "obvious" explanation. The funnier thing is, some of the people willing to believe what anonymous people and the news claim, are the SAME ones who constantly doubt the MSM and anonymous sources on other issues such as the war. Also, some of the same people who say things like "i want to believe so much that i ignore everything else" critical of those who believe that aliens visit the earth, are probably religious types, the ironly is not lost on me. Like I said, I wasn't jumping on any bandwagon here. I still want to know why the man wasn't charged.

reply to post by A SINCLAIR

---

There is the point that his neighbor ratted him out, which was shown previously actually pointing out to the reporter the house, who was doing it, and where he was launching from.

Then, the reporter just walks over to the house of the guy who is quietly s**tting himself because of it, and "says how about an interview to explain why you did it?"

See Lost_Mind's post, posted on 4/23/2008 @ 12:22 It's a TV interview with the neighbor, Lino Mailo, who saw the guy sending the balloons up.

I also wouldn't think balloons not tethered together could hold formation either. But, way back in grade school, a few times the teachers had us write some info on cards and attach them to helium balloons and yet them all go. When we let all 30 go, most of them stayed together for the most part. I'd say the odds of something heavier staying together in somewhat calm winds would be pretty good.

As for the story, the alternative would be that the neighbor and "the guy" are govt plants, or paid off to make up the story. For 4 lights in the sky? Way too much effort to cover something that unremarkable up.

On the scale of believability, I'll go with the flare story.

The case is far from closed. You can always come up with an excuse days after the fact especially with todays technology.

What the pseudoskeptic desires is an explanation that fits his pre-existing belief system. This video has to be examined by a professional not people saying it's this or that.

You can always find "consistent characteristics" with something if you give it enough time. What you will never here the pseudoskeptic talk about is the inconsistent characteristics. A truth seeker will look at both. If there isn't any characteristics inconsistent with lanterns or flares and this same situation can be reproduced then you have lanterns and flares. If there is characteristics inconsistent with these things then you don't.

You know people are not seeking the truth but they are seeking answers that satisfy what they already believe. This is why they are so quick to say case closed and lets move on. It's really silly and an affront to logic.

The pseudoskeptic is always talking about the "SCIENTIFIC METHOD" when it comes to Ufology but the "SCIENTIFIC METHOD" is thrown out of the window when it comes to pictures and video.

All someone has to do is yell fake, weather balloon, flare or something else and without any evidence the skeptic believes it. This shows a desire to satisfy a pre-existing belief not to seek the truth.

I don't see a problem with a guy setting up a hoax that incorporated LEDs or somthing similar where there is no fire danger.


The road flare bit is tremendously dangerous in an area with a lot of brush and dry grasslands.

Not to mention if it landed on a dried out shake roof.


I believe the next bit of news that will come out of this is that the guy who launched the flares is arrested.

I hope so, before some more clowns are tempted to do the same thing.

A year of weekends hoeing brush in the foothills would be a suitable punishment methinks....

I know I'm probably going to get a lot of flak for what I'm about to say, but why are you wasting so much effort on this case? If this happened any place else it would've most likely been discounted days ago. Just look what happened with the Florida case, everybody pretty much ignored it when it was presented. There's not really anything in this video that stands out as truly amazing. Even if this doesn't turn out to be the given explanation it's still just going to end up in a pile of videos that you look at and say "Huh. That's interesting," and then move on. There's no way to verify 100% what these were and as such they will never change anybody's mind from what they already believe. There are probably cases out there more worthy of attention, but everyone seems to be focused on a case that won't be solved with what we have been given so far. So, instead of arguing the same points over and over again, why don't we all just step back and wait for any other evidence to emerge and in the meantime direct out attention to areas that are more productive?

reply to post by Desert Dawg

---

My thoughts exactly. Anybody who lives here knows you can start a brush fire just by staring at it long enough. That and it was released in an area with lots of small aircraft traffic, an area where red lights are placed on mountains to direct them. People could have been killed. A police helicopter was even supposedly involved, in which case, it's almost impossible to believe the man was not arrested for pulling a stunt that was both illegal and incredibly dangerous. Arrests were made in the case of those Aqua Teen Hunger Force ads in Boston that freaked everybody out but posed no threat whatsoever, so how can this just be laughed off?? The authorities would want to make it VERY clear that such crap is not tolerated, to avoid copycats. That's why the explanation seems so fishy to me.

reply to post by InterestedObserver

---

They may also be from Fallen Angelic origins, so discernment is crucial, even if the sighting really was UFO's and not a hoax. The color not such a positive indication for me, RED???? That is again if they were genuine.

Edited to add: I for one do not think this was a genuine event. The one on
March 13, 1997, I do however believe was the real deal.




[edit on 24-4-2008 by cindymars]

On a similar note, somebody on this thread pointed out that this possible hoax may also be used to discount the 97 event...on this link, that may not be too far off base since they used a pic, on the front page, from the 97 event on the story about last monday....

news.ktar.com...

Again, until the man is arrested, I have a hard time believing this explanation.

Edit to add link:

www.nationalledger.com...

Apparently I'm not the only one who feels this way.

[edit on 24-4-2008 by 27jd]

finally saw the video. If they were tethered togeter, then why don't the lights ever move together? the tethers only work ONE way. The lights looked like they were fixed to one ridged unit. (however, I only saw very short clips. Please direct me to unscrubbed versions)

Also the lights are disc shaped. If they were sky lanterns you'd see the volumetric fade from the greatest light intesity source to top of the lantern. nothing like that in the video. The light sources appear to be flat disks.

And if they were flares, you should see a perfect circle of illumination, not a disk shape. Flares burn in a 360 degree, so from the distance these were shot, you would see the 2D circular shape of a spherical illumination pattern.

Anyone ever see a C-130 drop anti missle flares? When I lived in Gulf Breeze there were people who thought these were UFO's But when you see them it's pretty obvious they are flares. The biggest obvious reason is that they DO NOT emit a clean steady light. The light from a flare is intermitant as the element is burned. They are not a precision instrument.

And DAMN! Where are these people getting ballons that can lift a FLARE? Tell me, and I'll do the same hoax in Atlanta!

Also, Flares have intense heat! So are you telling me that they hoaxer balanced these flares perfectly so the that flame ALWAYS stayed away from the fishing line? Eventually the flare would tip either down or up depending on how it was ballanced. And all that heat going up would melt the line. And remember as the element of the flare burns, the weight of the flare changes!

So LED's. OK, lets see the "wreckage" from all this. Let's see this recreated.

Still to me, they are lights in the sky. Interesting lights, but still just lights.

But if you just want to accept Meridith Viera saying, "It was a Hoax", great! Like I said, if we believed what was on TV, this site wouldn't exist. But when a guy is a pilot & states that these were not flares, I take that over the damage control big media anyday of the week.

Now that story with Meridith & the probe type UFO pics that are clear as day! Gimmie a break! I could produce those shots with 3D Studio MAX and photoshop in less than a day!!

At the same time, I truely believe that if I had video of everything I've seen, (I stopped counting after 30 sightings), pretty much no one would accept it. So to me, the whole thing about catching a UFO on video now is subject to the ILM theory. What I mean by that, is that a PC is so powerful now, you can take some good software and MAKE a ufo video.

What makes a sighting valid to me are multiple wittnesses, and GOOD wittnesses. I think cops, pilots & ex-military are good witnesses.

Also, I know some people in Pensacola FL, who have very good video of UFOs, but they refuse to release it to the public. The main reason is that they have lives & businesses. The media is set up, (and I have to include the debunkers as part of the problem here), to ridicule & debase the people who come forward. With that said. how much footage do you think is out there that won't be release because of fear of ridicule or loss of business?

I always follow the money on stuff like this. If the newest Phoenix lights are a hoax, who stands to gain from that hoax.

I don't really care if I am in the minority on my ability to see UFO's. I've always been very observant. When I was in the Marines, I saw a Ninja in Japan, and no one believes that either. (He scampered on a wire & flipped back in the other direction in 2.5 seconds.) Crazy story but it happened. I was the only one who saw it.

I'm all about debunking crap UFO footage. I supose it's because I've seen them, and it yanks my yodeler to see crap presented as anything close to what I've seen. This is almost as bad as a guy who tells me he was in the Marines, in the 6th Marine Division. And I told him, "Dude...there are only 4 divisions."

Hope this gives everyone something to think about

Interesting update...



Makes me doubt this explanation even more. No investigation huh? Even though the stunt, if true, would have put lives and property in serious danger. I kinda figured that if it was a BS story to discount the sighting, there would be no investigation. So it's okay to send burning magnesium into the path of passing jets? What a crock...




[edit on 24-4-2008 by 27jd]

OK, I saw a few videos from April 21st. Also saw the one with "THE GUY" who did it.

Just want to actually see footage of a flare in the sky held up by a balloon. Why didn't they do their own test & show it compared to the UFO footage? Maybe because it would be impossible to do.

And now no investigation?

But with the way that lady was freaking out, maybe it would be better for her, if they were balloons & flares.

That was definately some serious altitude, so I wonder how far away you'd have to let a balloon go to get it up that high?

Also, would a common balloon be able to go that high? Wouldn't the latex get cold and brittle?

Who knows? If that is what was done, it sure looked cool!

Also, that rose colored light seemed a lot closer to the lights I saw in Gulf Breeze. And the flares I saw were more amber and less rosey.

The light's "flickered" so the flare theory could be real, but I am still VERY skeptical about it.

I am going to recreate this, but not with road flares, I plan to use something more safe, like cheap flashlights tied to balloons or similar.

We are going to see if we can tie the balloons together in a shape, and if they will stay like that.

No please don't. That is a horrible idea, what if once the balloon popped the flashlight fell and injured somebody?

Then that is their problem for standing under my balloon.

I'll wrap the flash lights in bubble wrap, will that make you happy?

Sure will! As long as I can pop some of the bubbles, I love bubble wrap .