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

reply to post by HankMcCoy


Hank, I used to find your replies rational, calm, and collected. Not so much anymore...

He already stated that there were multiple shots and then you argued that without seeing the show. Then when proven wrong you began to attack the show. Attacking in a debate is usually a sign of defeat.

I once adored you.....

[edit on 31-10-2008 by SkepticalSteve]

The problem is that they just don't seem to move like planes. They stop at points during the videos. Biplanes can't hover.
There's no way these were stars. So many people wouldn't make that same mistake on one night. And stars don't move like that. They move slowly over the night.

I don't have anything constructive to add or speculate, so I'll just go ahead and say I think it's da alienz.

My understanding of debunking, is having a claim proved false.

So what is the claim in this case?

All I can gather from all of this is that several people saw 3 lights in the sky. A show has attempted to identify its size and whether it is 3 objects or just 1 large one. Some are suggesting it is other wordly.

So lets just say the claim is

1 1500 foot unidentified flying object that is visiting us from somewhere outside of Earth was witnessed and video taped by several different people.

so

1. 1500 foot object - can this be disproved without a doubt?
2. Object, unknown - can we identify this object without a doubt?
3. several witnesses - can we legitimately dispute they saw something?
4. Videos - are the videos real or fake/cgi?

If these 4 things can be answered than consider this debunked. If they cannot be then consider this an unexplainable event until these things can be proven either way.

Debunking it by saying. What is there to debunk? Its 3 lights in the sky, well sorry then you must concede it cannot be proven that the claim iss untrue.

On the flip side, the claim cannot be proven either.

We can suggest it might be this or it might be that, but that sort of guessing holds no more wait than the actual claim itself.

Originally posted by GrayFox
There's no way these were stars. So many people wouldn't make that same mistake on one night. And stars don't move like that. They move slowly over the night.

Before you dissmiss it out of hand... did you even bother to read the link I provided?

Usually, a description such as “it seemed to hover for an hour” is diagnostic of a star or planet (people get fed up watching after about an hour, or the object sets). Often there are other descriptions such as “flashing coloured lights” or “it appeared to be rotating” which is how bright stars appear when they are twinkling, notably Sirius on a cold, frosty night. Binoculars do not always help identification if they happen to be cheap and with optical defects that produce spurious colours and shapes.

sound familliar?

Let’s start by looking at some instructive examples involving the planet Venus, the biggest UFO culprit of all, popularly known as the “evening star” (although it can also appear in the morning sky as the “morning star”). As amateur astronomers know, Venus is the brightest object in the night sky after the Moon and can dazzle the eye, sometimes appearing cross-shaped. Back in 1967, there was a famous case in which two policemen in Devon, England, reported Venus as a UFO shaped like a “flying cross” and chased it in their car at speeds up to 90 mile/h.

starting to get the picture now?

Perhaps the most celebrated UFO witness of all time was the governor of the US state of Georgia, a former American naval officer trained in celestial navigation and nuclear physics, who was later to become president of the United States: Jimmy Carter. In 1973, Carter reported that four years earlier he and 10 other people in the town of Leary, Georgia, had watched a brilliant UFO low on the horizon which appeared to move towards them and away again, while changing in brightness, size, and colour. He estimated the distance as between 300 ft and 1,000 ft, and said that at times it became almost as big and bright as the full Moon.

This case was thoroughly investigated by Robert Sheaffer, who described it in his book The UFO Verdict (Prometheus, 1981). For a start, Sheaffer found that Carter was nine months out in his recollection of the date. Of the ten claimed witnesses, Sheaffer could find only one who remembered the incident even vaguely, and he thought the object might have been a balloon. But with the correct date established, Sheaffer found that the witnesses had been looking straight at brilliant Venus. The errors in his report are typical of those made by UFO witnesses: the size and brightness of the object is overestimated, the distance is underestimated, and spurious motion is attributed to the object.

source

reply to post by SkepticalSteve


Seriously?

The show is bogus like ALL UFO shows. I am having a VERY hard time understanding what the problem is here..

1. They are lights.

No one is going to debate whether or not these are lights. That part of the discussion is over.

2. They MAY be in formation.

I don't see anything from the --------SECONDS------- of video and -------ONE-------- eye witness that has been shown to indicate that it is in formation for any longer than the briefest of moments. Eye witnesses are unreliable anyway as pointed out in a rather famous example.

A classroom was asked to view a video and tell the professor how many people touched a ball that was being passed around. When the video was over and the students answered correctly, the professor asked the students if they noticed anything unusual about the video. A VERY loew percentage of individuals ever pick up on the fact that a man in a gorilla suit walks through the crowd of people.

This alone makes me question the validity of eye witnesses right of the bat. Not because I think anyone is lying, but because people are rarely sure of anything they are seeing.

3. There was an air show that day. Yes yes, I know, "Airplanes don't fly like that." We have airplanes that can do amazing things. We even have hovering airplanes. I will just mention the Harrier as being one of them, even though it's hovering capabilities are limited to about 90-120 seconds tops (Which I might add is longer than any of these clips are).

4. The multitude of witnesses NOT interviewed by the show. I know I said they aren't reliable, but that doesn't mean you cover up the ones that stray from the story you want to portray.

5. The fact that only 1 tape was analyzed when there were multiple tapes. There is no way to tell anything on that tape (in fairness fromwhat I saw of it).

a) It is a single point of perspective.
b) It hasn't any reference points (except the chopper that flew through it. Ever think THAT might be why he doesn't want to talk about it? He may have been flying through a no-fly zone during an airshow stunt. I am not assuming anything, just laying out another point.)
c) It is low quality film. (Again, in fairness, it could merely be the compression, but I sure can't make out ANYTHING save for the fact it's some lights).

This show is garbage. They are presenting this as unexplainable and they IGNORED the fact that there was an airshow that day. That along with the conclusions that have been jumped to make me scream at the sky because I know that it will make MORE people believe in something that is nothing more than swamp gas refracted of Venus.

I can't even respect anyone that would think this is evidence of an alien presence because it damages your credibility as a rational and free thinking individual to the point that it is a wonder you can even turn on a computer let alone post on a message board.

reply to post by HankMcCoy


Hank...thou dost protest too much.

reply to post by HankMcCoy


Good points. I'm just saying you started to attack the show when you missed the point about the angles.

reply to post by SkepticalSteve


I made a pointed remark based on what I feel is a rediculous waste of time. I didn't miss any points. The episode, which I have now watched, only analyzes one tape (They have three), and as I have pointed out before.. You can't make a judgement call based on the analysis of ONE tape.

I am even MORE convinced now after having watched the entire episode that it is a grouping of planes.

Ok, I live not to far from the sighting in a town called montgomery Il. I have asked around and talked to several people who have lived in the the area for a long time, none of these people have even heard of the tinley park ufo. Infact I moved in around 2004 and have not heard of the sightings until the episode on UFO hunters. Further more I looked up the tinley park junction witch is the local news paper along with other local newspapers and not one of them has pulled up anything about the Tinley park ufo sightings on their websites. I think that is a little funny considering the UFO hunters claim that the sightings were in papers and news broadcasts nation wide. HHHMMMMM. In my opinion the whole thing was made up to boost ratings by the History channel. If that don't declare debunked, I don't know what will.

reply to post by C.H.U.D.

Why so hostile? It will accomplish nothing at all. I'm sorry if I don't think they're stars. Stars are light years away. They don't move in different formations over short periods of time. But to make you happy, I'll accept that there may be some small chance that they're stars simply because we don't know what they are exactly. However, I'd say that chance is very low. I guess that's just my opinion though.

reply to post by HankMcCoy

The airplane explanation makes a lot more sense than stars, but we all seem to realize that most planes don't hover. Also, they usually have different lights. I was trying to find some videos of planes flying at night, but it's not easy or I'm too lazy to look hard enough. It might be a good thing to compare this to though, if someone can find any such videos. (Or for that matter.... more videos of this sighting) Finally, there is the FAA statement that they didn't see anything on radar at the time.

Each object could be some type of VTOL/hovering aircraft, but such a thing would probably be top secret. Why wouldn't they try harder to keep it hidden? It's possible they just didn't care, I guess. After all, who would know the specifics of the plane's design just from seeing lights in the sky? No one. Also, that would mean that the FAA said there was nothing there simply because they weren't allowed to say what they knew. Either that or the planes were stealth and didn't appear on radar.

I'm not ruling out an ET explanation, but it's definitely not the only possibility.

reply to post by HankMcCoy


I saw this thing. Go back to page five for my account. But I have never seen a plane or grouping of planes stay relatively stationary for 30 MINUTES! This thing moved in terms of altitude and disappeared vertically in the time it takes to say "there it goes." Also I was with 10 people outside when I saw this thing.

Secondly to other debunkers these were vibrant red lights not, white lights.
The night was clear of clouds and these lights were obviously nothing we had seen before.

Someone else from chicago posted there was no news about this but they are mistaken. Check the Sun Times archives its there I used to have the article pinned to my bedroom wall but lost it when I moved 2 years ago. It also made the news, check you tube its on there. Ive seen the clip.

HankMcCoy said :

Just as it isn't the anyones job to prove it isn't a flying saucer, it isn't our job to prove it isn't an LED in a balloon. If YOU think it's an LED Balloon, it is up to YOU to provide evidence and to make your case.
I mean, it's like me saying that I believe it is vampires; Prove me wrong!!!
[edit on 31-10-2008 by HankMcCoy]

It sure is to the ones that claim thait it is something out of this world to try to debunk my simple theory, oh and by the way, vampires do not exist, led lights sure do...dumb comparison if you ask me...

LEDs can change colour, put them in a balloon filled with helium and I guarantee that you'll have UFO sightings the next day. It even works with simple white balloons (at dusk it's better).

Send 3 balloons in the air and you'll have your triangle...you can even tie them together with a fishing line for example...

If this event happenned in the 50's my theory would not work I guess, but this was filmed over a big city in America 4 years ago where "kids" like to play, don't they ?

To C.H.U.D :

My "theory" is very simple : LED balloons, stars do not move like those 3 lights did in the video and as far as examples, got none to post with LEDs or with Chinese Lanterns but if you type these words in google and add UFO to them, I am sure that you will come out with quiet a few ones...


A cool video :

www.youtube.com...

Found this article :

Peterson remains skeptical. "I thought maybe it was something tied to a balloon," Peterson says. "They reminded me of LED lights or something you would see at the top of towers and buildings."

Link : www.suntimes.com...

Cheers,
Europa aka Buck


[edit on 1-11-2008 by Europa733]

Guys,

You're missing my point, and GrayFox, I'm not being hostile - I just think it's rude when someone dismisses something I say without even looking into it. You want me to be nice to you - well it's a two way street!

The point is:

I'm not saying these are all stars, but it is likely that at least some of them are. I am well aware that if these were all stars, they would not change position relative to each other.

But what if one was a star, one was a planet, and one was a satellite? (Edit to add - It doesn't have to be exactly that combination, but it probably is some combination of these three objects) Can you see how that would explain the changes in how the formation appeared?

The footage posted shows no evidence of any motion - you only see that the positions between the lights have changed - you don't see how they changed! For all we know, the clips may be showing completely different sets of objects. Without seeing all the footage there is no way of knowing, and I'm certainly not taking the word of some "UFO investigators" and "experts" who I don't know.

On the other hand, it's well documented that people in general do not make reliable whitenesses when it comes to observing celestial phenomena like this. Even experienced sky-watchers can be fooled! People have mistaken "stars" for UFOs and chased them in cars before.

How can you put so much faith in people that haven't got a clue what they are looking at? If you wanted your car fixed, who would you call, a mechanic or a lawyer? If want to know what is in the sky, who would you ask - an astronomer, that's who!

How can you even presume to know what this might be, without being able to definitively say "this is what it is not"?

Call yourself a "UFO investigator"? If I took you outside and pointed to a random fairly well known star, could you tell me what it is/what constellation it's a part of? Can you recognize the ISS when you see it? Do you know what a point-meteor looks like? Can you estimate apparent magnitude?

I'm not being hostile here, I'm just trying to demonstrate to you how flawed your thought process are, and what is needed if you want to be able to look objectively at a case like this.


[edit on 1-11-2008 by C.H.U.D.]

Originally posted by Europa733
LED balloons, stars do not move like those 3 lights did in the video

Show me where you see these lights moving at all - what time in the clip? I'm not seeing any obvious movement, and certainly nothing that moves like a balloon. You'd expect a balloon to buffeted about by the wind, or at least steadily drift away at a brisk pace! Ive never seen a stationary balloon (that's not tethered) in the sky, have you?

I hear this all the time on ATS:

"Why is it the testimony of one person is enough to convict another in a court of law, but when many competent whitenesses see a UFO, their testimony is not considered as overwhelming evidence?"

The answer is simple and obvious...

People are familiar with people and the things they do. People make good good observations when they deal with things that they are familiar with.

However, when it comes to celestial phenomena, people are usually not familiar with what happens in the sky, and this has been shown to be true over and over again! People do not in general make good whitenesses when it comes to celestial phenomena, and quantity certainly does not equal quality.

I'd take the word of a single competent astronomer over the word of 1000 police/military/pilot/celebrity/etc...

Originally posted by HankMcCoy
reply to post by SkepticalSteve

 

I am even MORE convinced now after having watched the entire episode that it is a grouping of planes.

you stated that your surprised a believer even has the ability to turn on a computer and post a message..

but im surprised you think planes can and willingly produced an arial show of such interest to so many people on more than one occasion

one thing that you should know is that I (speaking for myself) am not necessarily drawing conclusions based on this one event. im taking in to account that Ricky Sorells (spelling error) from the stephenville texas area who was walking in the woods and noticed a craft above the tree line which literally blocked out his entire view of the sky, and then the ship shot off into the sky in a blink of an eye.

im holding into account many many many different UFO witness accounts from credible trained eye witnesses such as pilots, ret military, astronauts,police etc.

dan aykroyd put it nicely by saying in this UFO's unplugged movie, that anyone with half a brain can see based on the evidence/testemony that we are being visited, its just a matter how these things are even capable and what is the agenda.so lets put it behind us, the debate of "whats that in the sky" we know now that UFO's are here.

reply to post by C.H.U.D.


hey chud how are you,

I respect your partisipation thus far. I wanted to bring into account that it seems most skeptically inclined minds tend to lean towards.."most people dont know a star from ISS" type of thinking. not all but ive seen it time and time again.

call me a socialist. but i tend to listen to the witnesses on the tape.. listen to the stress in the voice really analyze the "behavior" which is in most cases a window to the actuall moment in time of the observation..

i have more CONFIDENCE in my fellow man and i tend to agree with a town full of people who say they saw something that was just absolutely not normal. im sure if you were at any one of these bbq's on that day your posts would read a whole lot different.

Respectively your comments dont show much faith in the human observation.and i have a hard time just agreeing with the fact that we misconstrude things that are only 3-5 thousand feet about our heads.

lastly, respectively. If a military man came to me and said "what you saw here didnt happen" id turn around and say "what you just said, wasnt heard by anyone"

i done being told what im looking at and what im not looking at.. im begining to think now that im getting more and more mature, i see that we are surrounded by plenty of very intelligent people, skeptic and believer alike.

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.

Originally posted by Europa733
LED balloons, stars do not move like those 3 lights did in the video

Show me where you see these lights moving at all - what time in the clip? I'm not seeing any obvious movement, and certainly nothing that moves like a balloon. You'd expect a balloon to buffeted about by the wind, or at least steadily drift away at a brisk pace! Ive never seen a stationary balloon (that's not tethered) in the sky, have you?

Hi C.H.U.D

I understand your point, it is a good one and you could even be right, but I do act like someone who trust the witnesses and if they kept filming the same lights, then they moved & changed position.

Now, I did not analyze the video (frame per frame for a start to find reference points) and I do not have the "original" version so I do only rely on their words & estimates, they could be wrong but I doubt it. Why, because I am a moderator in one of the biggest UFO-website & forum in France and I never got to this day, one single testimony coming from people who thought stars were moving in a "triangular" formation.

I did get this kind of sightings with satellites & aircrafts, chinese lanterns or balloons, not with stars.

It does not mean it is impossible for it to happen but it must be very rare, this is one of the reasons why I stand with the balloons hypothesis...


Cheers,
Europa aka Buck



[edit on 1-11-2008 by Europa733]

Originally posted by LordThumbs
dan aykroyd put it nicely by saying in this UFO's unplugged movie, that anyone with half a brain can see based on the evidence/testemony that we are being visited

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.

It's obvious that even these "experts" that looked into this case have not got a clue either. Anybody who knows about these things will tell you that you cannot estimate the size of this "object" by "measuring the distance" between two of the lights that you have no way of telling how far apart they are in the first place. If triangulation is used, it has to be used in a very strict and carefull manor to glean any useful results.

Just looking at the footage and comparing to their estimate of 1500 feet, it's obvious they have made serious errors... when you see the aircraft pass in front of the "object", and it must be infront, since the aircraft does not disappear behind it, if indeed it is an object.

For that object to be 1500 feet it would have to have been in very close proximity to the aircraft, which would be highly unlikely IMO... why does the pilot ignore it if it's so close and "obvious"? It's more likely that it would be much further away, and much larger, in that respect. However, if that is the case, many thousands of people would have seen it. None of these scenarios stand up to any scrutiny whatsoever!

Just going back to stars for a moment, here is an example of some footage of Venus: uk.youtube.com...

Compare that to the close-ups at 1:16, 1:34, 2:34, and 3:39 in the OP's footage...