It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 9
23
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2008 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Cromagnum
 


Hiyah Cro....

I would love to include this information in the "article/e-mail" concerning the alleged witness Lino....and his military status etc...you don't have to tell us how you found this information, but can you provide at least a link to where you got it so I can footnote it in my piece?




posted on May, 17 2008 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Sure can. but first I just want to say that I did in fact visit his sons MYSPACE site and I can confirm with 100% certainty that this
Marcellinus Mailo is indeed our Lino, (The Witness). I have their address, phone #, wifes name. And what I found a little strange was the fact that their sons friends on MS all made comments about seeing him on the news and were laughing about it. Out of 5 or so posters making comments, only 2 of them had their own site that was open to the public. THe others were private so I couldn't see what Lino's son said when he was posed with a question about the event. But he pretty much stated the exact same thing is Lino did in the video. He was very (matter of fact) about the whole thing. He didn't rant and rave like I would think a teenager would do. Wouldn't you think a teenager would be hyping something like that to his friends?

For the life of me, I can't figure why Lino is in Arizona! I only come up with 2 scenarios. 1.) Continued military eduaction through several of the many schools in the area.-This though seems highly unlikely since he has moved up to 10 times in the Phoenix area. 2.) Working for the Navy in some capacity at another military installation in the area. And there are several which specialize in Intelligence, Special Weaponry and Aircraft. But those are located in Yuma and Flagstaff. So why live in Phoenix if this is the case?

Anyway, here is your link.
community.military.com...



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 03:44 PM
link   
There is no doubt that this is the guy! VERY unique name. This information from classmates.com matches his stated age of 44 in the news reports and his Samoan appearance.

Marist Brothers' High School in Malaeloa alumni:

Marcellinus Mailo
Marcellinus
USS Long Beach
USS New Orleans
Marist Brothers' High School, MALAELOA Class of 1981



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Hello everyone, and thank you for your patience.

I have some unfortunate news to report.

I went about testing Part 2 of this alleged hoax, (will the flare burn through the fishing line...) and unfortunately my experiment was predominately a failure.

This was mostly due to the fact that I set up the experiment improperly (lack of foresight).

I did video the experiment, and will post it as soon as I return home this evening from work.

I do believe that there is a lot that can be learned from the experiment, and I'll elaborate on that when I post the video.

Unfortunately though, this experiment was inconclusive at best, regarding the main question we were trying to ask (will the flare burn through the fishing line).

I believe the experiment could be properly conducted if I were to try again, however I would need to build some sort of non-flammable rig to hold the fishing line with the flare suspended.

You'll see why when I post the video of this experiment...

I'll do my best to update this evening


-WFA



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 09:17 PM
link   
Okay here is the video of my chaotic experiment.
I don't have time for analysis this evening, but I'll do my best to comment on what I've learned from this experiment tomorrow morning


Part One - Setup (please note safety protocols for anyone attempting this on their own)


Part Two - The experiment - Note that the flare needed to be extinguished, as it was a danger to the building and myself.


If nothing else, have a laugh at my expense


I'll be back with some analysis tomorrow.

-WFA



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Hey Hey Witness,

Great work as usual! Wow the flare didn't put out half as much "flame" as I thought it would...great fire safety system there


So it is conceivable that the flare would NOT burn through the fishing line, even if it could be lifted by the balloon. I am not sure what you claim to have done "wrong" looks like you did everything right to me guess I shall wait for the analysis


Cro: Thanks for the information, and yes I would have definitely been bragging to ALL of my friends on Myspace if I had been a teenager and saw some huge "hoax"!!



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Okay, sorry for the delay but I had no time last night


LOL LA, yes my fire safety system was uber high tech eh?


Let me try to explain what I mean by 'I did it wrong'...

I looked for a place to tie the fishing line, so that the flare would hang appropriately from it, but there really wasn't a suitable place to be found.

I ended up using the hose spout, as you can see in the videos, since I thought it would be safest to conduct the burn right there by the spiget.

Unfortunately, the hose spout didn't stick out far enough away from the wall of the building, and the flare's burning end kept exposing itself to the building's wall. Now, I don't feel it was a direct threat to the building (since I had it contained like I did), but it was certainly beginning to scorch the side of the wall. I'm accountable for that damage, so I decided to douse the flare.

Unfortunately the dousing needed to happen long before the flare was finished burning, so I couldn't get a reading on how long it would take for the flare to burn through the fishing line.

To do the experiment properly, a rig would need to be constructed to hold the fishing line/flare out away from anything like the wall seen in the video. We'd need to suspend it freely.

I only had an hour yesterday to conduct the experiment, and so building a rig was not in the realm of possibility. It is possible I'll be able to retest this in the future, but this week is really busy for me, so I'm not sure when...

At any rate, there are definitely some things I learned from this experiment, that I did not suspect before. All in all, I still don't think this is a workable system, even if we could get it off the ground...

Things I learned:
1) The burning end of the flare shoots the flame directly out the side of the flare, as opposed to a flame coming out and rising upwards, like a suspended candle would.
- This tells us that it IS possible for the flare to burn for a while without burning through the fishing line
- This also tells us that the burning end is acting as a tiny engine, and ejecting the burning fuel as propellent (with directional force).

2) As the fuel within the flare burns, the exterior casing seems to remain for the most part.
- This tells us that as more fuel burns (inside the tube) the directional channel created by the tube becomes longer, and that should directly affect the velocity and focus of the fuel burning out the end of the flare.
- Since this flare did not burn for very long, additional testing is required to determine the veracity of this apparent result.

3) The flare was extremely difficult to extinguish.
- The flare required not only the 4 liter jug of water I had standing by, but kept burning until I drenched it with the hose significantly
- This tells us that once lit, a flare will theoretically stay burning until the fuel supply has been exhausted, possibly even in the rain.

4) There is a LOT of heat coming off of this flare. I’m not sure how that would effect the overall experiment, but I definitely observed serious heat during the testing. The hair on my right arm is slightly singed, and from the video you can tell that I never really got too close to the flare. It singed me from over 6 inches distance (from the flame to my arm).
- Since fishing line curls and singes just about as easily as the hair on my arm
I’m willing to state a confirmation here that at 7.5 minutes (half way through the flare’s fuel) the flare would most certainly burn through the fishing line supporting the tube at that physical point. I’m willing to bet it will do so even if the tube casing remains intact. The heat generated is such that it would be impossible to contain with cardboard.
- This is further illustrated using the instructions and warnings on the flare itself. It states clearly in no uncertain terms that the flare is not to be held for longer than 10 seconds after ignition, because the tube gets too hot to hold, even where the flame isn’t burning.

Conclusions:
I’m not sure that there are too many conclusions that can be drawn from this particular experiment, without a retest to back up these results and to elaborate on what occurs when the flare is not extinguished preemptively.

I can say this for certain though, the flame coming out the end of the flare does not simply act as a light source. It’s also acting as a small engine, burning propellant, and would necessarily have an impact on the trajectory of the balloon/flare/fishing line system if it were possible to get it into the air at all.

Combined with wind in a constant direction (at least mostly) this propellant force would cause the flare to travel in a circle (or possibly to spin around on itself) limited by the range of the length of fishing line between the flare and the balloon.

In effect, if actually launched, what we would see from such a system is NOT a constant light source that eventually diminishes. What we WOULD expect to see is a flashing light source, that is for the most part rhythmic. This would represent the fact that an observer could only see the light source while it was pointed in his/her direction.

Think of a lighthouse as an example, you can only see the light when it’s facing your boat/plane. The light is always on, but you only see it in flashes due to its rotation.

A pulsar (star) is visually observed in much the same way:


At any rate, even though the experiment didn’t fully conclude, I feel that the evidence obtained here argues heavily against this hoax even being possible, let alone likely.

I look forward to analysis from others as well, and if needs be I am willing to redo this aspect of the testing at a later date. Building a proper rig to hold the suspended fishing line/flare properly.

-WFA



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 06:53 PM
link   
The article has been launched all


I sent it to over 150 journalists, television news stations, UFO digests and blogs, and television shows. Some of the media on the list were, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Chicago Tribune, Dallas/Houston papers, all the Arizona and Phoenix media, the Boston Herald, among others. MSNBC, CNN, FOX News, Dateline, Primetime, UFO Hunters, and many papers around the country that had done UFO stories in the last month. Papers in Texas and Florida etc. You get the idea



2008 Phoenix Lights: Hoaxer Hoaxing the Hoax?

- Written by


Lights Above Phoenix, April 21, 2008 Timeline

On Monday, April 21, 2008 4 lights appeared over Phoenix. Video and photos were taken. Air Traffic Controllers in the main tower at Sky Harbor International Airport visually identified them. Witnesses all over Phoenix confirmed the sighting. The FAA releases an initial statement reporting that the lights did not appear on radar and weren't a threat to any air traffic, so no action was taken. The FAA then issues a statement saying that they will not allow the Air Traffic Controllers to talk about what they saw. Witnesses report Air-force jets were scrambled at roughly the same time the lights appeared in the sky.

Tuesday April 22, 2008 the Arizona Republic newspaper reports that Phoenix resident Lino Mailo claimed his neighbor launched several helium balloons with flares on them [1]. Lilo says the balloons went up in the sky from his neighbor's yard around 8pm on Monday night. An "anonymous" confessor comes forward and says he launched 4 latex balloons tied with fishing line anchoring common roadside flares to each balloon, launching them 1 minute apart into the air in his backyard [2]. Lino Mailo backs this story up in many interviews.

April 26, 2008 - Bill Knell, UFO investigator, writes an Op Ed piece stating: "After hearing the hoax story, I contacted a friend who lives in Phoenix. He agreed to try and reach Mailo or his neighbor. Since the article came out on Tuesday, attempts to contact Lino Mailo have failed. He does not answer his door and his neighbor wasn't home when my friend stopped by on two occasions. In fact, people living two houses down from Mailo say that they know Lino's next door neighbor and he was not home on Monday night. They claim they were out in their own backyard that evening and would have seen balloons with flares being launched." [3]

Our Investigation Begins

A group of researchers, myself included, thinking that the alleged "anonymous" hoaxer's confession sounded highly suspicious and unbelievable, decided to investigate further after the above chain of events occurred. Just analyzing the theory that these lights were a flare, tied to a latex balloon, filled with helium, 4 of them total, poses two problems right away:
A. Mathematically, a latex balloon of the size the hoaxer claimed he used, would not be able to lift the flare off the ground [4], let alone be able to obtain the altitude seen by all the witnesses and in the video and pictures.
B. A flare tied to a latex balloon with fishing line would melt the fishing line before it ever got off the ground.

Meanwhile, we wondered, if this hoaxer's story was true, why in dry conditions like Phoenix was this man not charged with at least some sort of Fire Code violation or issued a ticket for this reckless prank? After all, he had admitted to the crime on broadcast television [5]. Several news articles stated that the police department, the FAA and fire department weren't going to investigate or charge the man due to the fact he hadn't broken any laws that they knew of [6].


Continued -

[edit on 19-5-2008 by LateApexer313]



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Continued -


I sent e-mails to the mayor of Phoenix, to the members of the Phoenix City Council that had e-mail addresses listed on the city site, and to the Phoenix Fire Marshall outlining the fire hazard represented by this alleged hoax, and asking why the alleged hoaxer was not being investigated for Fire Code and FAA violations. After all, if the alleged hoaxers actions were taken to the extreme, such an individual could conceivably have tied some sort of explosive device to these helium filled latex balloons, and floated them directly into a commercial airplane's airspace and exploded them, the result could well have been catastrophic. I also sent a copy of that same e-mail to the 3 major local news networks in Phoenix [7].

One councilwoman and the Assistant Fire Marshal did reply to my e-mails with the following statements:

From Councilwoman Maria Baier:

"Cherie,

I spoke with my contact over in the Police Dept. regarding the "Phoenix Lights" incident and Sgt. Dwyer said that yes the gentleman would be charged with something but at this point it is out of the Phoenix Police Dept.'s hands. The feds and the FAA are looking at what charges to bring against him. He did not have any further details. Please let me know if you have any further questions, thank you.

Sincerely,

Jessica Amend
District 3 Office Manager
Councilwoman Maria Baier
phone: (602) 495-0594
fax: (602) 534-4190
email: jessica.amend@phoenix.gov
website: www.phoenix.gov"

(original e-mail available on request)"

And from Assistant Fire Marshal, Kevin Roche:

"Ms. :

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"

(original e-mail available on request)


So, according to the Councilwoman's inside Police source, despite the denial to the media that the FAA had no plans to investigate, the police knew differently, and indeed, the FAA was investigating, as were the Feds.

Preparation and Purchasing of the Materials for our Recreation of the Hoaxer's Story

Knowing ahead of time that mathematically the hoaxer's story was highly improbable, we recreated the alleged hoax at significant trouble and expense, and acquired photo and video documentation of the experiment. Our results conclude firmly that the hoaxer's story was completely false.

The researcher tasked with recreating the hoaxer's story did a search for companies in Arizona that sell latex balloons at 3ft (or 36 inches) in diameter, as the hoaxer claimed and as verified by the alleged eyewitness, his neighbor, Lino Mailo. Most retailers didn't sell latex balloons over 12 inches wide. (12 inches wide is the standard size) One retailer, found online, sold a latex balloon 3ft in diameter, so he bought one for our experiment. He bought the 36 inch wide balloon for $6.00, plus $24.00 for the helium to inflate it, at ‘Balloon World’ on Olympic in LA.

The experiment made use of the lightest weight Road Flare commercially available. The flare is made by Orion. It was purchased from Kragen Auto Parts. It cost $3.99, and it claims a 15 minute burn time. He weighed the flare on a postal scale, and it came out to exactly .8 pounds. This translates to about 12.8 ounces or 362.873896 grams.

This means using 12 inch diameter balloons, with a lift capacity of 14 grams a piece, it would take 25.9285714285714285714285714 (285714 repeats forever...) or about 26 Balloons to lift one flare. Using a single Latex Balloon, you would need a 3 ft diameter balloon or 36 inch diameter balloon. These are said to lift .9 lbs, while our flare only weighs .8 lbs. This also means that our fishing line must weigh less than .1 lbs or 45 grams (approx).

It also means that our balloon would be at just about its maximum lift capacity, meaning a slower ascent than an equal sized balloon with a lighter payload [8]. It takes 80 gallons of compressed Helium to make 11 Cubic Feet. We need approximately 14.1 cubic feet to achieve a lift of .9 lbs.

Experiment Recreated Exactly As Hoaxer Described Fails Completely

In short, the guy running our experiment had the 36 inch diameter latex balloon inflated to its maximum capacity. He then tied the flare to it with the fishing line. The flare could not be lifted by the balloon. He tried it both inside [see attached photos] and outside [see attached photos], and even took it to an alleyway where there was clear wind [see attached photos]. No lift. Still photos and video were taken of this experiment. Cited are links to the still photos and the video of this experiment.[9]

Conclusion

The anonymous alleged confessor seems to have been "hoaxing" the hoax, according to our findings. Something other then balloons with flares tied to them was seen over Phoenix. A Police insider confirms that the FAA and the Feds are investigating, according to a Phoenix councilwoman. New information has uncovered that the "witness" Lino Mailo is in the military, specifically the Navy, according to a search done on his old addresses over the years [10]. Millitary jets were scrambled according to many confirmed witnesses. Neighbors of Mailo's were outside the whole evening and saw no balloons tied to flares being launched, and indeed said the man who confessed to launching them wasn't even home that night. [11]. Our investigative group feels that all of these facts are overwhelming evidence that something travelled on April 21, 2008 over Phoenix that warrants another media investigation into these events.


Footnotes

[1] Lino Mailo's two part interview of what he saw his neighbor do that night.
(www.abovetopsecret.com...)
[2] The newscast of the anonymous alleged hoaxer.
(www.abovetopsecret.com...)
[3] Bill Knell's article (www.opednews.com... )
[4] Reference page containing information on how large a helium balloon has to be to lift weight.
(science.howstuffworks.com... )
[5] The newscast of the anonymous alleged hoaxer.
(www.abovetopsecret.com...)
[6] Article in the Arizona Republic with FAA quote that there was "nothing to look into."
( www.azcentral.com... )
Article in the Arizona Central with statement from the Phoenix Fire Department.
( www.azcentral.com... )
Article in the National Ledger concerning the lights and the fire hazard implications.
( www.nationalledger.com... )
[7] E-mail I sent to the Fire Department, the Phoenix City Council and Mayor. (Original available on request)
(www.abovetopsecret.com...)
[8] Helium amount calculated by using this site: ( businessservices.berkeley.edu... )
[9] Video of the balloon and flare experiment:
(www.abovetopsecret.com...)
[10] Lino Mailo's military information obtained from this site: ( benefits.military.com... )
[11] Bill Knell's article ( www.opednews.com... )







[edit on 19-5-2008 by LateApexer313]



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 08:06 PM
link   
Wow, LA! When do you find the time? Very well written. You guys have left no stone unturned.



Rush



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by hsur2112
 


Thank you, thank you Rush
WitnessFromAFar helped me TONS and I worked on it some this weekend, plus we have AWESOME members that made it all possible all throughout this thread! Take a bow everyone


And guess what all?

We have already had our first response




"Awesome job! May I reprint your article in my newsletter?

Bill Knell
www.ufoguy.com...


[edit on 19-5-2008 by LateApexer313]



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by LateApexer313
We have already had our first response




"Awesome job! May I reprint your article in my newsletter?

Bill Knell
www.ufoguy.com...




Very cool, indeed! And I'm sure it won't be the last. You and WFA have put an incredible amount of time in this, what a payoff!

Rush



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Hi WPA et al,


Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar

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.

-WFA


Excuse me for coming to the party late, and I apologize if this has already been brought up; however, if you'll notice your balloon is up against a "cinder block wall," which measure 8" X 8" X 16"; in the picture it doesn't encompass "2" blocks; I' going to guess that that the balloon is about 29" in diameter, substantially smaller then 36," and not enough helium to lift the flare in this experiment.

Moreover the hoaxer said his flares weighed "178" grams; additionally, in the 2 videos I watched of him, he never said how big his balloons were, (although the reporter injected a size). He did indicate that "he filled them" which would mean he could add as much helium as necessary or until they popped).

All in all, I'm sorry to say the experiment is flawed, as is the result.

Cheers,
Frank



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frank Warren

Moreover the hoaxer said his flares weighed "178" grams; additionally, in the 2 videos I watched of him, he never said how big his balloons were, (although the reporter injected a size). He did indicate that "he filled them" which would mean he could add as much helium as necessary or until they popped).

All in all, I'm sorry to say the experiment is flawed, as is the result.

Cheers,
Frank



You fail to remember that if indeed he did state 178 grams for the flare that doesn't allow enough burn time. The neighbor Lino stated he watched the flares for 30 minutes, others stated for at least 15 minutes. The flare that was tested was a 15 minute flare which weighed almost twice the amount. So if his neighbor stated 30 minute burn times then this so called hoax still doesn't add up.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 12:22 AM
link   
Holy Smoke-O-lies !! Frank...I have faith in WitnessFromAFar, completely.

He's mathematically correct (I had a mechanical engineer check the math to make sure, no offense Witness, just covering all the bases) and of the utmost integrity, he would never skew the results. This meant too much to all of us following and investigating the facts on this thread.

I am only after the truth...and I would like to know, how you come up with your measurements?


Excuse me for coming to the party late, and I apologize if this has already been brought up; however, if you'll notice your balloon is up against a "cinder block wall," which measure 8" X 8" X 16"; in the picture it doesn't encompass "2" blocks; I' going to guess that that the balloon is about 29" in diameter, substantially smaller then 36," and not enough helium to lift the flare in this experiment.


I am sure Witness will measure these cinder blocks for us if it comes down to this? But I am curious as to how you got your precise measurements of these cinder blocks being 8" X 8" X 16"? I am simply an English major here and the math escapes me, especially, how you can tell from a photo how large the cinder blocks are?

If we have flawed data here, I want and will pay for the whole thing to be done again for sure. I certainly, at this late date, don't want to have just sent out flawed information to every media outlet between here and the Antarctic!


Moreover the hoaxer said his flares weighed "178" grams; additionally, in the 2 videos I watched of him, he never said how big his balloons were, (although the reporter injected a size). He did indicate that "he filled them" which would mean he could add as much helium as necessary or until they popped).


The alleged hoaxer gestured and measured the width of the balloons with his hands, and the "witness" stated an estimate, gestured with his hands as well, perhaps you're getting the 2 confused or I didn't site all of the interview footage?

I will go back and check that, there were so many interviews, especially with Lino Mailo...meanwhile, thanks for posting these things and alerting us all...I would never knowingly send out flawed data in an investigation like this.

Cherie/Late

Going to u2u you since you're still on Frank, seriously, walk me step by step how you determined the balloon wasn't 36 inches according to your measurement of the cinder blocks and how you arrived at their measurements or I will never get so sleep!

"U2U to Frank :

Hiyah Frank....

I read your post, and I am frantic...."All in all, I'm sorry to say the experiment is flawed, as is the result.

Cheers,
Frank "

Please come back and explain why and how you got your measurements of the blocks and why you are so sure our experiment is flawed....this really means a lot to me and as you can read by my reply, I only want the truth. Your reply would be greatly appreciated, thanks in advance Frank. "

[edit on 20-5-2008 by LateApexer313]

[edit on 20-5-2008 by LateApexer313]

[edit on 20-5-2008 by LateApexer313]

[edit on 20-5-2008 by LateApexer313]



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 01:01 AM
link   
Hiyah Frank


I just checked my yahoo mail...and found your direct reply, and I am going to post it here so that WitnessFromAfar can address the points in it, thanks Frank!




Hi Cherie, Et Al,

I for one certainly appreciate your enthusiasm with this case; however, the "alleged perp" said he weighed "his flares" and they were 178 grams each; moreover, "he" never said "how big the balloons were" (the reporter said 3' ft) although he did say, that "he filled them up pretty good" indicating that he had the equipment himself opposed to going out and buying already filled balloons." (meaning he could add as much helium as desired before the balloon popped).

All that said, any experiment to prove or disprove whether a helium filled balloon could lift a flare as "he stated" needs to be done "as he stated." If you look at the picture you provided the balloon used for the experiment is directly in front of a "cinder block wall"; cinder blocks are 16" long; as you can see the balloon doesn't even encompass "2" blocks; looking at the picture I would guestimate that the balloon is about 29" in diameter, not 36" as suggested--so the helium is/was substantially underestimated, and there wasn't enough to provide lift for the weight of "that flare."

In the end your experiment was/is "flawed" on it's face. Even if you get the weight right, the "size of the balloon, i.e., the amount of helium provided for lift is still an unknown factor; although, a 3' diameter balloon filled with helium (14.1 cubic ft) has a lifting capacity of .9 lbs; 178 grams = 0.392422827 lbs, more then enough to lift that weight.

Finally, I can assure you that the physics involved in regards to the amount of helium for lifting measured mass isn't going to change, if another experiment is desired, might I suggest using a small block of wood for the weight; this way it could be cut down to size or more specifically the weight of 178 grams.

Cheers,
Frank
~Knowledge is Power~



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 01:28 AM
link   
Frank, In the video of the interview with the hoaxer he is holding a flare that is the same as was used in the experiment. Here is link to a video where you can see for yourself exactly 1 minute into the story.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Hello everyone, sorry to be late this morning.


I did get the email from LA and Frank, and I responded to it before I signed into ATS this morning. In the interest of full disclosure, I'll post my reply to Frank's message here. Of course I will be willing to recreate the experiment, and I will measure the cinder blocks or whatever needs to be done. The standard size for a cinder block is as Frank stated, however the balloon was not directly against the wall, so I'm not sure the comparison is entirely accurate, I'll take another look at it today when I get a chance.

Rest assured if the experiment was flawed it was not intentionally, and the materials used were as close to the hoaxer's claims as possible (using what is commercially available to the consumer).

Here is my reply to Frank's message:



"Good morning Frank and LateApexer


Frank, I'm the person who conducted the aforementioned experiment. I truly appreciate your input. I originally set out to recreate the experiment as stated in the interview, and I'm unclear on how to make it better exactly. Perhaps you could give some advice?

I don't see where you are getting the 178 gram flare info from. In the interview with the alleged hoaxer posted in the thread at ATS, I don't see where that is mentioned.

Also, I went to a lot of places, looking for flares, and the Orion with a 15 minute burn is the smallest (lightest) flare I could find on the market.
It weighs approx 363 grams, or .8 lbs. Do you know of a lighter flare? If so could you please point me in the right direction in order to obtain it?

Necessarily, a lighter flare (using the same fuel, mostly magnesium) would burn for proportionally less time. The alleged hoaxer claimed a 15 minute burn flare (what I used in the recreation, and independently weighed, and cross-checked the weight against online weight specs).
The alleged eye-witness, Lino Mailo, claimed a 30 minute burn time, which would entail a 30 minute flare, at double the weight of the flare used in the experiment (roughly).

Regarding the balloon, it was not directly up against the wall, does that make the comparison with the bricks is misleading? The Flare was 9" from end to end. Perhaps that would be a better comparison choice?

I'm not sure how to improve that aspect of the experiment. When shopping for balloons, the largest sized latex balloon I could find commercially available is the 36" (3ft) balloon. When I purchased this I had it filled to what the handler said was maximum capacity, and she was checking the pressure guage on the Helium tank, as I understood it. She was truly afraid that the Balloon would burst there in the store.

Additionally, the standard weight (a small balloon filled with sand) used by this Balloon store to anchor the large balloons weighed less than the flare mentioned above (the lightest available on the market that I could find). The weight actually weighed in at .6 lbs.

I'm just not sure how to recreate this alleged hoax any better than this first attempt. Perhaps you'd like to assist in a second attempt at recreation? I'm out of town this weekend, but I could conceivably do it the following weekend.

At any rate, even advice on how to improve the experiment would be appreciated. Using what's actually out there in the real world (short of commercial weather balloons, which were not claimed in the alleged hoax) I'm not sure how to make this work. I can't find a flare that weighs only 178 grams, and even if one does exist, how could it burn for 15 minutes using the same fuel as the heavier flare (nearly double that weight)?

Thanks for your help Frank. As always your advice is highly valued.


-WitnessFromAfar"



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Oh, sorry, just to be clear, I certainly agree with Frank that an alternate payload (like a wood block or some metal washers) could be used to simulate the flare for testing, however, first a flare at 178 grams must be located and weighed, to determine that such a flare (with a 15 minute burn time) even exists.

Just wanted to be clear, I'm all for trading out the payload, but first we need that weight to be certified.


-WFA



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by snookhums
You fail to remember that if indeed he did state 178 grams for the flare that doesn't allow enough burn time. The neighbor Lino stated he watched the flares for 30 minutes, others stated for at least 15 minutes. The flare that was tested was a 15 minute flare which weighed almost twice the amount. So if his neighbor stated 30 minute burn times then this so called hoax still doesn't add up.


As usual Snookhums, great eye for the details.
Additionally, we've got video of this event that lasts for over 5 minutes, and there MUST be time allowed (roughly 2-3 minutes I'm guessing, but it can be tested) for the Balloons to reach altitude. (Note, a balloon weighed down at maximum capacity will rise slower than a balloon with less or no payload). So we're looking (using my best guess) at an overall time stretch of 7.5 minutes roughly. This means a flare tied at the middle (which we're being generous and saying will burn to the middle before it burns through the fishing line) would have to have a 15 minute burn time to show the 7.5 minutes we see here.

Also, according to the alleged hoaxer, the Balloons were released roughly 1 minute apart, so the formations seen in the video are really in my view impossible.

At this point (until I see and weigh a flare that actually only weighs 178 grams and burns for 15 minutes and is for sale to the public) I'm more apt to believe that the guy was lying.

On another note, this video has been up on Youtube for about a week now. Nobody has been able to offer a response video with a successful recreation so far... If someone can do that I'll certainly be more excited about trying it again for verification.


-WFA



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join