It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


New Phoenix Lights Hoaxer Might Be Lying About Hoaxing

page: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on May, 12 2008 @ 05:52 PM

Originally posted by snookhums
On the verge of proving that this may infact be another cover up yet people are still not that interested.

It seems you're right Snookhums. I'm going to post an Alert to let folks know we think this thread has been solved. For many at ATS, jumping into an already 6 page thread (not to mention reading through the threads that came before this one) can be a daunting task. And there really isn't a way to mark an existing thread (that I know of) that it's been solved.

I'll try to alert folks, and see if we can get some outside opinions on the past weekend's experiment

If nothing else, people should see the evidence in this case, so that they have the data available in case this method of alleged hoaxing is brought forth as an excuse again.


posted on May, 12 2008 @ 07:00 PM
Just thought I'd drive the nails into this coffin...

at the timestamp indicated in the below picture, the Witness (Lino Mailo) claims he watched the Flares for 30 minutes.

A 30 minute road flare would weigh TWICE as much as the 15 minute flare I couldn't get to lift. That would increase the weight of the flare to about 726 grams.

Also interesting, the Reporter KNEW this setup wouldn't work.
There is only one possible reason that he's holding the Balloon and Flare like he is here:

And that reason is to hide the fact that the Balloon doesn't lift the Flare.
Had this reporter's Balloon lifted the flare, SURELY he would have released the Balloon slightly to prove it. Especially since he tied another line to the Flare itself, as if to hold it down from the bottom. It looks to me like the reporter went to demonstrate the principle, but it didn't work. But he claims it works anyways.
Irresponsible journalism. This reporter should lose his job.


posted on May, 12 2008 @ 09:12 PM
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar

Good work WitnessFromAfar !!

I'd like to buy you a drink!! cheers!


posted on May, 13 2008 @ 05:10 AM
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar

Hiyah Witness....

That's a great've done sooo much work on this thread I just wanted to thank you from the bottom of my grinch heart
I was a tad obsessed with this case
because it seemed a case that we all could disprove here on ATS for one, and two because it broke so quickly then faded away by the useless even if no one chimed in with their opinions, like Schnookums pointed out, a lot of people were sure reading it...

So even though the people that claimed it was lanterns or whatever in the earlier thread, didn't reply, I am thinking a lot of them read it and just didn't have the guts to say they had been wrong.

But really Witness, take a bow for your awesome basically slapping a big HUGE case closed on this one !!! I don't care how many are posting really, I just soooo needed to have this proved for myself, that NO it wasn't helium balloons and flares!!!! That explanation was the most ridiculous thing I have read in a long time (well, off ATS I mean

I am still going to write the article and send it to all the media, local politicians, heck I might even send it all over the country
ATS was already sighted in the NY Times this week, might as well go the WHOLE hog as we say in Ohio

posted on May, 13 2008 @ 05:20 AM
No matter the results...its important to even question calls-for-hoax - in every UFO-case, not just this one.

Im always amazed how people immediatly cave-in and loose interest when someone only whispers the word "hoax"

posted on May, 13 2008 @ 05:52 AM
reply to post by Skyfloating

Hiyah Skyfloating,

You're exactly right, once the media on April 23rd, the day after this event slapped the "Oh ok, it's explained, the guy confessed, it's flares and balloons" no one questioned this, and it was forgotten.

Witness: thanks for pointing out too that IDIOT reporter holding the balloon tied to the flare I had forgotten about him, he OBVIOUSLY is stupid or like you said, totally lying there.

No one wondered why the guy wasn't arrested except for a few skeptics of the hoaxing story sprinkled here and there around the country, and the awesome members here on ATS who thought the idea was as ridiculous as the few people actually "thinking" around the country.

posted on May, 13 2008 @ 06:07 AM
Hi LA. I'm glad to see that this thread is still active. Great job sticking with this.

Witness, an amazing amount of work you are doing.

My husband witnessed the Pheonix lights years ago. That incident is the one and only reason that he even entertains the thought that there is more out there than we know. He is former Coast Guard, has used flares many times, military and civilian, and never, never, never, believed that flares were the cause. "Not possible" in his words.

Thanks for the hard work you are all doing. This is what ATS is all about.


posted on May, 13 2008 @ 10:43 AM
Great job Witness. Guess we don't need to meet up in OC for that test afterall. Was looking forward to meeting you.

If you have this test filmed, you should post it on Youtube. Get it out in the media to let those higher ups know that they can't fool all of us.

posted on May, 13 2008 @ 10:51 AM
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar

Hi WitnessFromAfar,

Can you video tape your test? If you can and load it up to youtube, I'll gladly adjust the thread title to reflect the fact the "hoax" was hoaxed!

How bizarre is that?

I assume you are using helium filled balloons the same size and shape as the hoaxer claimed and all things are equal yes? Do we know if the hoaxer tied more than one balloon to each flare?

Please do let me know if you get this on video, and if you would, try to lift the flares with more than one balloon, it's inevitable the skeptics will argue the hoaxer could have had more than one balloon per flare.

Thanks for your excellent work so far on this.


posted on May, 13 2008 @ 10:56 AM
I believe the witness made a specific claim of 4 balloons, but by proving just how many balloons would be necessary to pull this off would be of great significance.

posted on May, 13 2008 @ 12:27 PM
Hello everyone, and thanks for the responses

To answer some of the questions asked, yes I used exactly the equipment claimed in the news reports.

I had to do a good deal of research to figure out just what that equipment was though, I'll explain as briefly as possible...

There are two main types of Helium Balloons available for sale to the everyday person. Granted you could order a weather balloon, but that's not what was claimed in this case. The two types of Balloons available to the average consumer are Mylar and Latex.

There are major differences in these two Balloon Types.

1) Uninflated weight - A Mylar Balloon is much lighter uninflated than a Latex Balloon of the same diameter. Mylar is used for party balloons because it is lightweight, and it requires less helium to obtain self lift than a Latex Balloon of the same diameter. So so far, one would think that a Mylar Balloon would be the right choice for this experiment. (I disagree, please read further)

2) Cost - A Mylar Balloon costs more than a Latex Balloon of the same diameter. Latex (the balloons that feel like 'rubber', and are stretchy) Balloons are cheap and easy to mass produce. The color is mixed into the Latex, as opposed to a Mylar Balloon that usually has an external logo or design imprinted on the face of the fabric. This means that even if Mylar were the proper choice (which it isn't IMHO) the cost of the experiment (or the original hoax) would increase dramatically.

3) Internal Volume - This is the kicker. Mylar Balloons are made by cutting two equal sized sheets of Mylar (usually into a circle) and ironing the two together to create a sealed balloon. Latex Balloons are made to expand, whereas a Mylar Balloon has a fixed maximum volume due to it's design. This means that a Mylar Balloon cannot hold as much weight (payload) due to it's inferior internal volume (capacity of Helium, providing lift) when compared with a Latex Balloon of the same diameter.

In the simplest terms possible, a Latex Balloon is the better choice because it holds more helium than a Mylar Balloon of the same diameter.

So from there I did the Math to obtain the required volume to produce enough lift to carry the required payload (a road flare weighing 363 grams or .8lbs. As demonstrated in above posts, the required balloon diameter is supposedly 36 inches, or 3 ft. This should provide 14.1 cubic feet of internal volume (containing helium) which will lift .9 lbs (.1lb more than theoretically needed).

Right there I knew that the Math and a real world test would differ here. I've done a lot of work with building my own RC Blimps (a few years ago) and from experience in that research and development process I know that the closer you get to the tolerance (the maximum amount of weight the balloon can lift) the less 'actual lift' the system will have. Meaning in laymans' terms that the system will rise more slowly, and sometimes not at all, even before the mathematical limit on paper.

But I decided to test the system anyway, because the math could have been correct in a real world application. So to make sure, I had the woman at the Balloon store inflate my balloon to it's maximum capacity. I pushed her past her comfort level, and we really got that balloon inflated.

Anyway, back to the determining factors for the experiment, I next did some online shopping, and phone call verifications, to ascertain what Balloons are available commercially in Phoenix.

The largest sized latex balloon available was 36 inches, or 3 ft in diameter, perfect for this experiment, and the largest balloon one could buy.

I then found a dealer here in LA with the same product, and commenced the testing.

The road flare was weighed firsthand by myself on a postal scale.

I did capture the system on video, and in the wind, where the flare never left the ground but was pulled along it.

I have never posted anything to Youtube before, and I'm extremely busy today at work, but I will do my best this evening to set up an account there and post the video of the testing. It's just a few short clips of the system in action, and it was filmed on the same cybershot still camera (does video too) that the above pictures were taken on. So I can't guarantee it to be the best quality video ever. I will post it though as soon as I get time to do so.

The Balloon I used is now destroyed, unfortunately. At the shop I referenced earlier one of our executives brought his kid to work that day (you may see the kid in one of the video clips). He was playing with the balloon while I was busy working, and he popped it.

At any rate, anyone who wants to recreate the experiment again should do the following:
1) Purchase your flare from Kragen Auto Parts, they are the cheapest $2.99
2) You can get fishing line for free at the Balloon store, I made the mistake of buying my own and then having it anyway for free

3) Your Balloon should cost around $6.00, and the Helium to fill it will cost around $25.00 (mine was $24 and change)
4) You do not need to ever light the flare to test this system. If you plan to light the flare, please don't launch the balloon, and if you must recreate the entire experiment, please contact your local fire department and coordinate your efforts with them.

I hope I've answered everyone's questions. I'll do my best to get that video up this evening. It's on my home computer so I have to wait till tonight to get to it.


posted on May, 13 2008 @ 01:07 PM
GREAT work WFA, I have followed this thread and it is good to see that your experiment was successful (or unsuccessful
). A three foot balloon is huge, and as you said, it is the largest you can even purchase in the area. Which means THE PHOENIX LIGHTS WERE NOT ROAD FLARES ON BALLOONS.

I believe you have thoroughly proven this "hoax" to be a lie. If the largest balloon and $25 of helium could not lift the lightest flare off the ground, than how did 4 of them float for over 15 minutes while lit?

Once again great work... now what

posted on May, 13 2008 @ 03:06 PM
Good job WFA! We knew the flare story was BS, thanks for devoting your personal time and energy to verify it.

posted on May, 13 2008 @ 05:52 PM
Hi All!

I am going to reply to the posts that came in earlier today...and I also have another e-mail that came in today from the Assistant Fire Marshal of the City of Phoenix which I want to show you all....

First off, here's the response I got from the Assistant Fire Marshal, Kevin Roche:

Thank you for your message of May 5, 2008. I am sorry that it has taken so long for us to respond but your question generated a lot of discussion among our staff.

The fire code does not envision a situation where someone would attach a flare to a balloon and release it. This situation certainly presents hazards that we need to address. There is currently not a section of the fire code that prohibits this activity.

We have referred your question to our attorney to draft appropriate language to be added to the fire code.

Please let me know if I can provide you with any additional information.

Kevin Roche
Assistant Fire Marshal

To WitnessFromAfar - Thanks for providing everyone with a summary of how you went about proving the Hoaxster was Hoaxing! And once again thanks for all you contributed to ATS through your posts and your hard work!!

To Samureyed and everyone else - Now what indeed!

Well I for one plan on doing just one more thing which will be to write a letter/e-mail outlining the outcome of Witness's balloon/flare order to address the main issue, which is, the lights everyone saw on April 22nd CANNOT be explained by the hoaxer's blatant lie he told and a plea to the media, the local politicians, etc to open up an investigation, for the media to REPORT that the hoaxer was lying or at least following up and reporting that the information they first reported could not possibly be true..etc. (a long e-mail list to be sure because I plan on sending the info nationwide as well) A probably futile task, but I am going to see it through until the bitter end

I plan on using the information off this thread, as well as, with Witness's permission, his photos etc, along with the councilwoman's e-mail to me claiming the "Feds and the FAA" were investigating, etc...And we'll see what happens with that....I must have sent probably 20 e-mails just to the politicians and media, and Fire Department in Phoenix, and so far only 2 responses, so I guess we shall see what they have to say with all the facts laid out in front of them.

And of course, the deafening silence from the Phoenix local media to the first e-mail doesn't bode well for the 2nd one...but the ATS Truth Machine must grind on!!

posted on May, 13 2008 @ 08:06 PM
Hello everyone

As requested, LateApexer now has the photos.

Here are the Youtube video clips I shot. I'm sorry they are not very long. But I think they are enough to prove the case.

Here is the system in relatively no wind:

And here it is in the wind:

You can tell the thing never gets off of the ground.
Further, the kid you see in the first video is the one that popped the Balloon
He punched the thing a LOT. You can see that the Balloon was higher than his head, so he was punching upwards, and each time he did, the Balloon hopped up, and then came right back down from the weight of the Flare.

There is one more piece of evidence I find relevent to this case, that I haven't had a chance to test yet. When I bought the Balloon at the Balloon store, the woman who inflated it attached an uninflated latex balloon filled with sand (I presume, it feels like sand) as a weight to hold the thing down. She had several of these prepared in a box, and they all looked fairly uniform.

I've still got the makeshift weight, and tomorrow at my day job I'll try to weigh it on the postal scale. If it weighs less than the flare (which weighs 363 grams) then that would further indicate that the Balloon type in question cannot lift the flare. These weights are specifically to keep these balloons from floating away, so I'm anxious to see exactly what they weigh.

At any rate, I hope this answers everyone's questions. I'm curious to find out what the media has to say. LateApexer, don't forget to include the feedback you've already received in your letter writing campaign. If there is indeed a Fire Code being created as a byproduct of solving this mystery, that's a pretty big deal, and should be mentioned in the press if any follow up is forthcoming.


posted on May, 13 2008 @ 08:28 PM

Originally posted by Springer
[SNIP]...if you would, try to lift the flares with more than one balloon, it's inevitable the skeptics will argue the hoaxer could have had more than one balloon per flare.

I'm certain that could be done. I've thought about this in regards to the recent case. From the supposed eyewitness testimony, as well as the interview where the identity of the alleged hoaxer is hidden, it says it was a one balloon per flare mechanism.

I also would note that the more balloons you have above the flare, the more the light cast by the flare's burning would reflect on the balloon surface.

I would also note that the more balloons you add per flare, the more the cost of the experiment/hoax will rise.

But yes, it would lift if I added another Balloon, and it might lift if I added just a 12 inch (1 ft) diameter latex balloon to the system.

It's too bad that Balloon popped.

But if anyone els wants to recreate this testing I'd love to see independent verification.

Thanks Springer for your comments. I hope I answered your post adequately


posted on May, 13 2008 @ 09:07 PM
Okay maybe I'm dwelling a bit long on something I already feel proven false, but I was thinking about part 2 of the testing...

As you can see illustrated below from a portion of one of my above pictures, there is only one way to tie the flare in order to avoid having the heat be directly exposed to the fishing line. That way is to tie the fishing line at around the flare at the exact center of the flare. Thereby (theoretically, if wind is not a significant factor) placing the flare perpendicular to the fishing line.

But as we know, a flare burns from one end, and gradully burns through the stick (containing its fuel) like a candle burning down. So that means that at halfway through (assuming the unbalance in weight has not already caused the flare to burn through the fishing line) the burn process the flare will burn through the fishing line tied to the flare at the center point.

This means that you don't even have a 15 minute burn time on the visual effect, you only have a 7 and a half minute burn time, and after that 7 1/2 minutes, you could expect to see the flare drop from the fishing line, still burning. As this happened, the Balloon would shoot upwards.

This is not what we see in the most recent Phoenix Lights episode.
These people seem to have over 4 minutes of footage:

And in this clip (warning, foul language) there is over 5 minutes of footage.
These guys also claim they MUST be flares because they all went out within 30 seconds of each other. That also runs counter to the alleged hoaxer's original claim that he lit and launched each balloon/flare 1 minute apart.

Now from over 5 minutes of observed flight time, we certainly must assume that it took at least 2 and a half minutes for the alleged Balloons to have reached that altitude, and for the multiple documenting witnesses to independently set up their cameras and record.



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 11:02 AM
Once again, great work WFA!

I've been doing a little research on the witness, (Lino Mailo). Remember that I stated that he had a military style haircut and that I thought he might be in on the hoax. Well so far, I can't find anything about him! In fact, I can't even find a Lino Mailo anywhere in the US. Maybe someone has some better resources than myself. I figure now that we can make a claim of Hoax, we still need to try and find out what exactly the lights were. If this witness was in fact military, it would at least lend some credence to the theory of a cover up.

posted on May, 14 2008 @ 04:40 PM
Excellent job at exposing this fraud! I'm surprised this thread is not getting more attention here at ATS. My research of Lino has led me to believe his actual first name is Marcellinus and a people search reveals a map of his address in northern Phoenix that looks like the house in the video. I also found his sons myspace page and the photo matches the son in the video but I won't post it because he might be a minor and he wasn't named like in any of the reporting like his father.

posted on May, 14 2008 @ 06:14 PM
That's funny you say that Cro...

I myself tried to find ANYTHING about him I could as well, back when he first made the claim that he saw the balloons one hit in any phone books, old addresses, and I searched myspace and FaceBook too, a few search engines, short of paying for info which I wouldn't do of course lol and I couldn't find anything either. I don't know if that's strange or not to tell you the truth. The only hits I got on his name all had to do with this one incident. It's an odd name too, at least to me, so if there was anything out there, it's not like we were searching for a John Smith, so you'd have thought other people with the last name Mailo would have popped up as well, but I never got a hit on the LAST name accept for a few references to some football player in Hawaii with the last name. Odd. But unfortunately a dead end unless one lives in Phoenix and had the nerve to knock on his door.

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in