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.


Tinley Park UFO - Calling all the UFO debunker's out - Debunk this one!

page: 12
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 04:55 PM
just for the record here i am not normally the type to debunk and throw the chinese lanterns into the mix. however the actual raw video has not been posted in this thread for anyone to examine.

correct me if i am wrong

also the ufo hunters are not the end all discussion Gods imo and the only thing i have seen in the Op video is three lights in the sky that MAY or MAYNOT be chinese lanterns.

so far the witness testimony is the strongest evidence in this video posted in the Op and to rule that out would not be smart

[edit on 2-11-2008 by easynow]

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 05:22 PM

Originally posted by mikesingh
I've seen with the exact same triangular formation of three strange lights. So it couldn't be just coincidence.

Couldn't it?

Any 3 of something, whatever they be, lights, objects, etc will form a triangular formation like that (or a line), as has been pointed out on this thread numerous times.

Try arranging 3 coins on a flat surface in random ways... see how they happen to fall into a triangle - uncanny, isn't it?

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 09:21 PM
I just finished watching this on the UFO Hunters. I lived, literally, blocks away from the one of the witnesses on that night 8-21-04. Unfortunately I didn't see these lights. However, just to give you a small insight on the area... you could not look in the night sky for 5 min. without seeing flashing lights from aircraft flying into or out of Midway or O'hare Airports. It would really take something odd to catch the eye of someone living there.

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 09:28 PM
I get a great laugh out of reading how sightings are "explained" by sceptics as natural or man made phenomena.

This does not mean the sighting IS explained, it only means people can provide a number of possible other explanations.

I also love the way sceptics work, using generalisations to cover the specific.

Don't get me wrong, I think we all need a healthy scepticism in life so not to be sucked-in to various scams etc, but the Sceptics seem to take great delight in keeping an unblanced scepticism based solely on their NEED to insure their own beliefs are see as the right ones.

Too bad for anyone else's beliefs or experiences that do not agree.... you are WRONG apparently.

Wonder if the Sceptics ever give themselves a Reality Check?

Do they ever consider they might be wrong?

Or are they so sure of Reality, by knowing it for themselvs as Fact, that they can force their small-minded beliefs on everyone else?

No point debating with an unbalanced sceptic, you will always be wrong to them anyway.

So, who cares what some self-proclaimed sceptic has to say about anything?

The self appointed description proves one thing: That they will refuse, in the face of any proof, to accept the possibility of anything existing outside of their own belief-structures.

Therefore they will always perceive with a closed mind!!

Not being open to other possibilities would make for such a sad state of reality and life that they might as well just end themselves now since nothing exists after that, apparently.

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 09:34 PM
reply to post by Phage

Well, I guess you'll have to watch the episode and argue that point with the expert from NASA.

but, if you missed the episode.. the point is mute.

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 09:43 PM

Just a heads up to let everyone know the episode about the Tinley Park UFO sightings will be on in a few minutes. Everyone who can should record it to be accurate when posting to this thread.

I will now have the program to refer to and will post my summarized thoughts about it in the next few days.

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 09:59 PM
Do not ever call on the skeptics of ATS to debunk a video. They will always win. ATS has become synonym of Debunk. I could bring hands down proof, say a parked alien flying saucer with open doors, aliens inside it, at perfect view and for everyone to see, and here in ATS it will get debunked. They will come up with the most amusing of theories and wala, debunked. Next!

Now look back at your videos which are simple lights in some kind of formation. Hell I will debunk it right now. They are fire lanterns, they move like fire lanterns, they simply drift with the wind; the formation could be due to currents of wind that have made them fall into position. Also, noted is that they do not suddenly accelerate at impossible speeds, or the videographer does not show how they leave the area. And there is the fact that many videos proved here to be genuine fire lanterns look exactly like these. So therefore, if they look like balloons, they probably are balloons.
Fire Lantern UFO

See, so this is why if anyone ever gets real proof of an alien ship on film, they should bring it first to the professionals. Do not just bring it here to ATS where they will debunk it, and if it really is an ET UFO guess what? You will probably trash the tape because you have convinced yourself that it is not, because you learned it here on ATS. ATS is a place to exchange ideas, to view videos, and then debunk them. That’s it. So if I were you I would get a hold of MUFON or some other Agency that has professionals who deal with this kind of stuff. Now I know that this is not your video, and that a professional was working on the case, but this is just to show you how it’s done here on ATS.

[edit on 2-11-2008 by The Coward]

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 10:03 PM
A couple of points that have been mentioned that I will comment on:

1) Regarding the Helicopter passing in front of the lights. I still have the episode Tivo'd and I have rewatched it multiple times. The footage with the Helicopter shows the lights as they appear more vertically, still in a triangle, but one above another. The lights are still quite a distance apart, and the Helicopter passes between the middle and the bottom light, but never in front of either. You cannot make a judgement as to whether the Helicopter is in fron of the lights, or behind them. One poster mentioned that the Helicopter definitively passed behind the lights because the lights never disppeared. That is not correct, the Helicopter definitively passed between the middle and bottom light, but never in front of or behind either.

2) Trying to figure out what the lights "were" seems backwards, shouldnt we try and eliminate what the lights "were not", and then see what is still possible?

For example, the UFO Hunters captured video from 4 or 5 seperate vantage points, miles apart in all directions, and yet exactly at the same times. They were able to see multiple perspectives of the same event, which is not often the case in these situations. Therefore, 3 stationary points of light, maintaining a fixed distance from one another for 30 minutes, clearly visible from multiple vantage points, really does eliminate a number of potential explanations.

-airplanes: unlikely to remain at fixed distances for that period of time. Also the 3 lights together never blinked. Airplane lights blink, especially over a 30 minute timeframe. Even planes flying in formation would either move away or come closer, these lights appeared to remain in the same general area.

-lanterns: again, because of videos from varying vantage points, natural drifting would be easy to detect from at least one of the videos. Perhaps it is, and they didnt show that particular video, but from the number of different videos I saw, there was no drifting whatsoever.

So where does that leave us? I dont know. Satellites? Maybe, but if so, wouldnt that be an easy debunking to prove. If the object is in fact 1500 feet across, where would that leave us? What could be that large in the sky? Dont know. If its not 1500 feet, how large was it? Given that so many people captured it from great distances apart, could it really be much smaller than the hypothesized 1500 feet? Could something 100 feet across create these images or sightings?

Thats where Im at, not wondering what it was, but what it wasnt. Once you figure out what it wasnt, and the explanations run out, then we cn see where we are. I dont know if it was extraterrestrial or not, but I am always intrigued by mass sightings where so many people are compelled to be alarmed and excited about an object, especially when these people are so different, and in this case, in so many different places.

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 10:39 PM
i've not read all 12 pages of the thread, but my first impression is that it seems a lot like the phoenix lights back in april (flares tied to balloons and tied together with fising line). if i remember right, that was a big mystery until the guy who did it came forward. as for the pilot, there could be many reasons he "fears for his job" if he was to talk much ... not just ufo conspiracy. for instance, maybe he was flying somewhere he wasn't exactly supposed to.

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 01:11 AM
reply to post by Chadwickus

As far as the pilots' testimony, you won't hear that, until perhaps they are retired/fired, because as anyone knows, the "official" documentation of things of this nature are seldom allowed to become so.
Concerning the displacement of the lights... it could have been your imagination/faulty perspective, or not, but either way, what relevance is held in the notion that the lights remain in exactly the same ratios...except in regards to the idea that they represent but one large craft.
I don't believe it to be one large craft personally, rather three. The plane can easily be known to be below the lights, because one can estimate the disance between the front and back lights of the plane, giving it a definitive shape and size. The lights themselves are but dots, suggesting a much further distance from the observer.

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 01:51 AM

Originally posted by Observer_X
Or satelites, how many satelites are up there? I hear they put up about 200 new ones every year so half those lights we see are probably those.

Artists impression of our earth satelites (dont know how true its probably rubbish?)

Observer_X, check out this link in reference to your satellite question. The artists impression is not too far off.......when you go to the link, get JTRACK 3D (realtime satellite tracking)

JTrack 3D

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 04:44 AM
I watched the show. Here are my observations about the UFO Hunters methodology.

Claim: It was a single object

Despite having a bunch of videos available, the Hunters used a single video in this analysis. Judging from what was shown on the program a very brief part of that video was used. By stabilizing the motion of one of the lights they reached the conclusion that the lights all moved in unison. There was no indication in this analysis that is was not the camera that had rotated and with no other reference points, it was not possible to make that determination. They could have compared the relative positions of the lights from the different videos they had at their disposal but they did not. Some of the witnesses specifically stated that the lights changed configuration as they watched.

Conclusion is questionable.

Claim: The object was 1,500 feet across

The UFO Hunters calculated the altitude of the lights from a distance of 2.5 miles. They said the lights from that distance were quite low to the horizon, about 5 to 10 degrees above it. Using 10 degrees, the altitude calculates to 2,327 feet.

Tinley Park is within the Class B airspace of O'hare Airport with a floor altitude of 3,600 feet. An aircraft on approach to Midway Airport (15 miles away) would probably be higher than this, likely at about 5,000 to 6,000 feet. A departing aircraft would be much higher.

We have no way of knowing the altitude of that jet but unless it was flying unusually low (below 2,000 feet), it did not pass under the lights. Without knowing the type of aircraft (to determine its wingspan) and its altitude, there is no way to determine the separation between the lights.

Not a valid conclusion.

Claim: According to the NWS the wind that night was blowing 30mph.

At 9:00 pm, within a 50 mile radius of Tinley, the surface windspeed varied from calm to 5mph. As expected with such windspeeds, the direction varied quite a bit.

The closest upper air report available is from Lincoln, about 125 miles away. The 7:00 pm sounding showed windspeed at 2,265 feet to be from the NW at 9.19 knots.

Inaccurate data. Casting more doubt on the methodology.

My conclusion based on the light winds, descriptions and video of the lights, the fact that the siting on the 21st was the night of Ozfest and the next was on Halloween. It was a probable prank carried out with either "Chinese sky lanterns" or LED's inside of balloons. The fact that the lights appeared at the same time of year (when people are outside, enjoying the evening) on subsequent years bolsters this conclusion.

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 06:48 AM
No offense to anyone, but I believe I've said this a few times. The wind speed was about 12 mph on the night of the sighting. The wind speed on the night of the experiment was 30 mph because of a storm. I'm not sure this really has much of an impact on anything though.

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 09:57 AM
The show was such tripe and the "researchers" just a bunch of confirmation bias hunters. All the eyewitness reports and video seem to describe perfectly flares on balloons. Silent, floating, changing "formation" (any three points will make a triangle - pareidolia anyone?). Even their poorly constructed test balloons looked just like the original sighting but nobody wanted to admit it. Cmon people, this is such a common hoax!

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 02:09 PM

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.

And Dan Aykroyed is qualified exactly how? Does having the lead role in "My Step Mother is an Alien" somehow qualify him as an expert?

If anyone with half a brain can jump to the conclusion that we are being visited, what does this say about the countless people with "whole brains" that keep misidentifying the moon, planets, stars, meteors, etc ? ATS is full of such mis identifications, and many of these people are not stupid - They simply don't have the experience to say for sure what they saw.

Dan aykroyd is a certified field investigator for mufon, and im assuming this means nothing to you at all. but there is recognition involved with dan.
i may have misquoted him on the other part but i came close enough to get my point across.

having no actuall evidence of the size of the object i would like to reference a ufo case which was recently posted by internos about flight JAL 1642? back in 1984.. the pilots discription easily puts its at about 1500 ft.

but of course its tinley park which gathers plenty of attention since we have a nice dark backdrop for lights in the sky..which gives everybody the right to speak their opinion.. but when its JAL flight 1642 or dorothy izatt..things tend to be a little hush hush when the "evidence" beams.

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 04:38 PM

Originally posted by LordThumbs
Dan aykroyd is a certified field investigator for mufon, and im assuming this means nothing to you at all. but there is recognition involved with dan.

I'm sure he went through a rigorous selection and training process... the latter probably lasting many long minutes!

I'll bet hes also a competent astronomer, and has at least has some experience of scientific method... yeah right... I might believe it if I saw some evidence of it

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 05:30 PM
You called, Sir! ATS chief debunker at your desposal, although I prefer the term skeptic myself....

No. I'm afraid what you have are three points of light which appear to be shifting independantly (they are clearly not one big object) in a black sky with no frame of reference. It is very hard to gauge distance or size when you have three bright points in the dark, I can demonstrate this thus. Imagine we are in a dark field. If you have a camera and point a small pocket torch you can also recreate a light of similar brightness by a huge lamp some distance away, but unless you knew that lamp was much more powerful, you would have no idea the lamps were not equal.

Earlier this year, I managed to create a UFO flap here in Britain by releasing five or six Chinese lanterns (no, I'm not say that's what these are!). Now these things were very bright- you lit some parafin soaked material and they filled with air and rose into the sky- there was no smoke from them. Once they were up there it was impossible to gauge distance or velocity- they appeared to hang still in the night sky then tear off for miles in one direction before becoming to an abrupt halt. What was actually happening of course was thay were not that high up and the wind would blow taking them a distance beofre changing direction.

This is why three bright lights in a dark sky are not conclusive- I have pictures of a plane passing near one of my lanterns- because they were som bright and much closer, they made the plane look tiny- in fact the plane was much further away but it was impossible to tell that in the dark night sky.

Now my lanterns also flared up, very brightly, this was due to the winds that were higher up, in fact we had a wonderful result, the lanterns would hang in the sky, the wind would blow, they would then brighten up and be taken by the wind, the effect of course made it look like some sort of spacecraft was powering up it's engines and moving away at a sharp speed!!! yes, it was most convincing!

So, I'm not sure why you find three lights in the sky as such an astounding piece of hardware. I can't be ceratin as to what these are, but I am pretty certain they are not ETs!

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 05:42 PM
reply to post by C.H.U.D.

like i said, im sure you wouldnt take dans accomplishments seriously. thats ok too since its not the messanger im concerned with, only the message. you can find 'evidence' of this at mufons home page.

any comments on JAL flight 1642 or dorothy izatt...ummm didnt think so. maybe ill check those threads and see if you had any input on them too.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 05:58 PM
reply to post by timelike

Interesting event you mentioned, its helpped me to understand what chinese lanterns may do in the sky, so thank you. i understand the point of reference illusion and the flare ups due to wind gusts painted a good picture of what my seem like an engine flare up..

however there is a similar case that has taken only a few days ago which involves a truck driver who pulled over to snap pictures (via crappy camera phone) of what looks like an intensly lit (chinese lantern?) rising up to 3 'moderately lit chinese lanterns' which caused a crystalline effect to show up inbetween the 'chinese lanterns' as if there was an actual reflection off of the underbelly of a ship.

so my question is, could there be massive amounts of smoke from chinese lanters being let off. lets say if a lantern was to be defective?

you can find this amazing thread HERE

[edit on 11/3/2008 by LordThumbs]

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 09:21 PM

Originally posted by LordThumbs
Dan aykroyd is a certified field investigator for mufon,

How does one become "Certified" in the field of UFOlogy?

new topics

top topics

<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in