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.

 

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

page: 7
29
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Donoso
 


Did you even see the show last night? If not, I suggest you do so before making anymore comments on the subject. The evidence that was shown proved that it was not just" lights"!!!!!!!!!!




posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by TH3ON3
 


What do these lights proove???
It certainly doesn't proof spacecraft!



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 11:52 AM
link   
I watched the episode the first time it aired (silly guide said it was a repeat! Conspiracy? LOL)

Anyway I live about 30 miles or so north of Tinley part and our skies are filled with aircraft day and night.

Anyway the things I found most interesting.

-There was Military tranining going on in the Southwest (yes a considerable distance but none the less)

-The objects moved -with- the wind (out of the Southwest) but not at the same speed as the wind. (clouds at different altitudes move at different speeds due to different wind speeds, don't they?)

-A Helicopter moved behind the three points of light and you could clearly see the Helicopter at all times. To me this means the lights did not form one solid craft as we understand the term. Either we are dealing with some type of optical stealth (then why show three lights?) or the lights themselves represent three seperate craft moving in formation.

-The flare theory is out the door (I have some military experience I could of told you that upon the inital viewing but lol I had not heard of this as I recall!). Well that is the flare theory has to itself start moving into "controversial" territory. If this a case of lights of a mundane nature they were not made via off the shelf materials.

-So in the end we have three lights that hold formation arcoss a large space (1500 ft!!!), moved with the wind but not at the same speed as the wind, were probably not one solid craft. (again remember all they proved was the lights stayed eqidistant and thus appear connected, You can no more say they formed one solid craft then you can say the Blue Angels are one craft while in formation.)

-Similar (if not identical) sightings occur all around the world within a reasonable time frame.

Ending thoughts.

Coordinated worldwide hoax using some clever construction not obvious at the moment? Innocent and coincidental airborne event explained by natural means if we only had all the facts? Military craft that malfunctioned or escaped during testing? We are not alone in our vast mulitdimensional universe?

All see equally likely to me...



[edit on 31-10-2008 by Helmkat]



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Helmkat
 


The key to this whole sighting lies with the pilot who did respond and said he saw something but was afraid to speak up because he was concerned about his job.

But since so many people saw the lights and it is backed by numerous video evidence why not try to get him to go on the record.

The only two reasons i could think of would be if he knew it was something that would open him to ridicule like a huge 1500 foot craft. The second and not nearly as plausible would be if he somehow knew it could be military, which if he was a commercial pilot wouldn't hold water.

So I hope someone connected to the investigation can contact the pilot and let him know his job will be secure because of all the evidence in support of the sighting.

And as for the suggestion that the plane/helicopter went behind the three lights I don't remember them ever saying it went behind. If I remember correctly, it went in front of the lights thus allowing it to be measured.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Ok for everyone who doesn't know the whole story, this sighting was featured on the season premier of UFO Hunters. To date it is one of the best unexplained mass sightings in the history of ufology.

I invite all of the debunkers to first watch the show and then come back here with your explanation. If you can find a plausible one, I will consider it.

I only posted the one video because for one thing the show wasn't posted on the History Channel site when I first conceived the thread. I believe it will be posted after the second episode of UFO Hunters airs. But as it stands now, that is the best video in public domain.

I do consider myself an amateur scientist first, and a paranormal believer second. But I have to admit after watching the show and after reviewing all the evidence, this case looks like it will go down as unexplained.

Again, the rebroadcast of the show will be on this Sunday at 11:00 PM Eastern 10:00 PM Central 9:00 PM Pacific.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 12:45 PM
link   
And as for the suggestion that the plane/helicopter went behind the three lights I don't remember them ever saying it went behind. If I remember correctly, it went in front of the lights thus allowing it to be measured.

-I can't be 100% sure but I thought it was behind the lights, if it went in front it would of obscured one of the lights, it didn't, all lights were visable all the time. When we got to that portion of the show my partner and I stopped the dvr and replayed it several times because we both thought it was the most important video we had seen so far. I remember quite clearly my confusion when I realized it was not solid. I thought the invesigators meantioned something about they knew the approx. distance of the lights on the Helicopter from each other, thus allowing them to approx size better.

I will ask my S.O. and see what he says.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 12:52 PM
link   
I will ask my S.O. and see what he says.

and here is what he said. I will have to watch it again (knew I should of saved it!).

They showed it passing between the lights. Which means there could not have been a solid object between the lights obstructing it from view. It did not pass behind the actual lights, but between them.

So there you have it, three people, three different takes on the same video...



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Thise has been debunked a long time ago.Heres some eye witness reports of the the fake UFO.[Dave Palagi was sitting with his wife around a fire in their friends' backyard September 30, enjoying a lovely clear night when they all saw the oddity explained."

"'We could clearly see the red lights themselves were flares, and each was suspended by two balloons,' he said."] And heres more.['An occasional ash could be seen dropping. Another member of the party then saw a third balloon, farther to the north and much higher. We were watching them actually rising-lazily drifting along and going up.'"

"Palagi figured the balloons were launched around 175th Street and 84th Avenue, not far from Wally and Maureen Bekta's home in the 8200 block of Queen Victoria Lane where the group sat."] [www.ufoinfo.com...] Debunked is what i would have to say.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Helmkat
And as for the suggestion that the plane/helicopter went behind the three lights I don't remember them ever saying it went behind. If I remember correctly, it went in front of the lights thus allowing it to be measured.

-I remember quite clearly my confusion when I realized it was not solid.


No, I remember it passing in between the lights and never did any of the lights on the commericial craft go dark, so it flew in front of or below the unknown, and doesn't mean it wasn't solid, just that it could be much bigger than they estimated, as true distance was estimated using the three different videos..

Like you, I should have DR'd it.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 01:18 PM
link   
This is exactly what the UFO community needs. Researchers who go out to where the sightings were reported and getting some measurements as to how big the object was. The three videos helped out a lot, and the many witnesses were questioned in person.
I also found the Air Force response puzzling. They had no logs or records of any reports because of high turnover? They are supposed to keep records for at least seven years.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 01:28 PM
link   
I debunk that is alien technology...why because I can..
That seems to be the consensus in this thread. You make a claim that cannot be founded in fact and since your claims of it being alien are based only in theory then mine is to. Your claims of it being alien are not based on anything, some lights in the sky do not make it a highly advanced culture visiting us. You people always rag on the skeptics for believing the word of others when they tell us there is nothing, yet you people turn around and believe people only when it suits your needs. You all have not witnessed it with your own eyes, yet you can all make bold claims that this is absolute proof of aliens here. All the video shows is some slow moving lights and I will not believe people who are biased on the subject such as Bill Birns. Let someone who does not care what the outcome is do the research in to this. I doubt it was one craft...most likely three in formation.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 01:30 PM
link   
There is diffently something afoot with all the new ufo sightings it seems more like an out right invasion. Critics may be left trying to debunk UFO while being flown out on UFOs.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by riggs2099
 


I don't know if it is alien technology. The case is an unknown, and to make it into an alien craft is wrong of both sides. It is a good case, but there is not enough information to make an ET claim. The show never states it definitely is an extraterrestrial craft to their credit.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 01:33 PM
link   
UFO hunters did"nt want to debunk this.First they used white balloons. lol.Then some flimsy PVC pipe.Come on, they could have come up with something better then that.And the red flares? Why hang them 3 feet from the balloon? 30 feet would have been better. And why were they so close?They should have been a mile away.And the eye witnesses that confirmed they were flares were not even interviewed.This is a very weak UFO case with no proof to back anything up.UFO hunters need to get theit act togeather and start really debunking this crap,



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by riggs2099
I debunk that is alien technology... I doubt it was one craft...most likely three in formation.


Well at least you believe they were craft and not just balloons or chinese lanterns etc. Even the joker is lucid enough to see that.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by TH3ON3
But I have to admit after watching the show and after reviewing all the evidence, this case looks like it will go down as unexplained.


Congrats!

You just debunked your own thread!



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Interesting video and thank you for posting it.

I could have done without the childish troll like nonsense challenging whoever it is you are mad at.

I would far rather you have analyzed it and posted your thoughts and any other info applying to it, insead of the silly challenge. I'm no longer flagging unless people actually analyze or show an effort. Takes no effort to post someone else's video with a rant.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by dobsonion2
UFO hunters did"nt want to debunk this.First they used white balloons. lol.Then some flimsy PVC pipe.Come on, they could have come up with something better then that.And the red flares? Why hang them 3 feet from the balloon? 30 feet would have been better. And why were they so close?They should have been a mile away.And the eye witnesses that confirmed they were flares were not even interviewed.This is a very weak UFO case with no proof to back anything up.UFO hunters need to get theit act togeather and start really debunking this crap,


We were never privy to the full desgin and its construction. I must admit that I would of been happier if they asked some independant group to put it together. However lets face it, there are so many ways such a device could be put together that given the framework of the show they could not of tested them all. I do appreciate that they appeared to use material more readily available to the general public. I myself have thougt about how I would make a 1500ft triangle with flare/balloons into a craft strong/rigid enough to do what the video did...

I can't but I'm no engineer. I'm sure given enough money and know how it -could- be done but to just casually say "Flares on balloons" won't work in this case anymore. Honestly such a clumsy explination rates right up there with swamp gas to me.

Lastly UFO hunters is at its core -entertainment-and they need to keep people coming back, thus it is in their best interest to always leave some doubt (IMHO). So in this respect you are correct, they don't want to totally debunk. They focused on the facts they wanted to and not so much on others that would cause questions (like the fact it was moving in the direction of prevailing winds and never once as far as was stated moved against the wind)



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Interesting video and thank you for posting it.

I could have done without the childish troll like nonsense challenging whoever it is you are mad at.



Well I was hoping to do that, but the link to the UFO Hunter show wasn't working, and I suspect they wont let it work until the next episode. It does have a place to click on at the History Channel site that says watch complete episodes, but it wont download anything. Could be a glitch but I'm not sure.

If and when they post the episode I will post the link here.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by TH3ON3
 


You are probably right. I'll watch for it. I work most evenings and miss these things, so thanks for posting.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join