The real Fire In the Sky

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 03:49 AM
link   
not even sure really where this should be posted

It's two videos. It seems like the same thing in both videos. The posters of the video dont really give an explanation of what it is. I thought I'd see if our wonderful community could tell me.







posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 04:17 AM
link   
reply to post by constantwonder
 


Jet contrails catching sunlight.

The sun has set over the horizon but the light is still catching the contrails.

Hope this clears things up for you.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by constantwonder
 


Jet contrails catching sunlight.

The sun has set over the horizon but the light is still catching the contrails.

Hope this clears things up for you.


I would like to say that your statement is not proof of anything and your two line post is really against the spirit of ATS. If you were there, and you were in the athmosphere or have telescopic lenses that allow you to pinpoint the make and model of the 'airplane', then your statement would be valid.

You are not helping, nor does your matter of fact attitude change that it is not the usual fare. This is a DISCUSSION board, not a bag and tag mission. My proof of your lack of understanding, is that you did not leave any other possibility open for this discussion, no matter how much like a contrail it looks.

Frankly, in structure and how it veers, a contrail is a good estimate. It seems to initially resemble a contrail, granted. However, the black streak in the center alone warrants a closer look, and there are other non-alien explanations (a large piece of debris, a medium-small meteor, or a highly heated comet before break up "except for the color which of the two I have seen personally have the blue white coloration".

Chadwickus, the difference between your and my post is simply the fact that you are satisfied with a two sentence post, whereas I spent a good deal of time pointing out WHY I disagree with you AND how I do agree that I have seen plenty of contrails illuminated at sunset, that look almost exactly like what was captured. Just like your math teachers tell you, SHOW YOUR WORK, don't just say it is a contrail, give your perspective, talk about your experiences, share your understanding.

At least you were polite, but how can a discussion ensue when you have already made up your mind?

Finally, if this is to be given the shallow grave that all these recordings receive, we should at least consider the coloration of the 'contrail/streak' and we might be able to assign a chemical spectral signature (including the time of day, altitude, and so forth), that tells up what could be in that vapor trail. I would venture high concentrations of that toxic rocket fuel additive perchlorate would be detectable, unfortunately without recording the evidence with spectral analysis cameras directly, or having access to top end software, it looks difficult to determine at best.

To quote Freud, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar", but I just say you better look twice before you use it, because you never know for certain.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by GideonHM
Frankly, in structure and how it veers, a contrail is a good estimate. It seems to initially resemble a contrail, granted. However, the black streak in the center alone warrants a closer look, and there are other non-alien explanations (a large piece of debris, a medium-small meteor, or a highly heated comet before break up "except for the color which of the two I have seen personally have the blue white coloration".

The dark (not black) streak in the centre is not darker than the darker streaks on both sides, it is probably the result of the video compression, when there is a sharp change in brightness it usually puts a darker area to emphasise the contrast.

I also think they are both cases of contrails at sunset.

PS: Chadwickus post was a three line post, not two, and sometimes one word is enough to answer what was asked.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Armap, you just utilized the fallacy of the Strawman/Red Herring.

His post in topic was two, and the third sentence was irrelevent to the point, not to mention that you ignored the POINT of the post and quickly tried to knock down the matter at hand.
This is a DISCUSSION forum, and you are not really discussing the meat of the topic and are concerned with 2 or three sentences (yes, I did that on purpose, as the information is more important than the delivery).
You nit-picked over the fact I purposefully left off the third sentence, and ignored the majority of the relevent issues I posted. I know you winked in fun, but gimme a break.

For the contrail, it looks like a contrail to me, but I know that you would rather close the book on it Armap. I disagree with your take on many issues, but I never deny your intelligence, but I do deny your take on what is an acceptable post, and I am trying to avoid an ad-hominem attack on you, as your perspective is at the heart of your statement.

I personally know that you have shot down many opportunities for a relevent conversation, WHO CARES IF THEY ARE WRONG? Not to mention you have every right to express your doubts (even as to their sanity at times), and I defend that right. Period. However, I have no disagreement as to whether or not this is a contrail. I myself have seen lit up contrails, typically horizontal, and similar (if not exact) occurances of the creation of vertical contrails more times than I can tell.

Can you provide spectral analysis of the video footage? PLEASE? All I am asking is that people contribute more than the minimum post requirement.

Also, rarely is it possible to retain the effectiveness of a sentence or paragraph when rendering it down to one word (or in the case of a paragraph one sentence).

Short and sweet does not effective make.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   
It seems like an aurora in the sky. Anyways i believe there are no such things as UFO's.
here is a proof: www.arrivals.technocrazed.com...



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 




akums razor

The video appears to be either late afternoon or early morning. From my "untrained" eye it seems that at those hours the sunlight would have caught the water molecules at just the right angle to give the appearance of a orangeish red appearance, Hazarding a guess, I'd say that was filmed in California being raised there myself I've seen many blood red clouds at sunset and sunrize. Rather beautiful if you ask me.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Armap, I checked out the border and you are right, if there was black at all the exterior has it. I do find the border strange though, but how would you explain the refraction/reflection of light that is illuminating it, yet produces a significantly darker outline?

Athmospheric friction could do it, IF it is some type of boloid/meteor. Do you have ready handy comparison photos?

There are two possibilities, one it is sunlight creating the light (very plausible, but the default answer), or it is generating the light itself (which could explain the dark border, outside of camera rendering issues which are quite valid). Maybe, it could be a fusion of both these concepts, an ignited contrail?

If a contrail contains enough flammable material, it could ignite, but the variables go through the roof! Quick Armap, pull out your supercalculator brain and compute all possible athmospheric fuel related combustions!

That is a good question though, how much fuel would it require to create a burning contrail, and how much oxygen or flammable gas would be required to sustain the reaction, and what kind of discharge would ignite it?

Don't certain meteors produce a buring contrail? Reentery of an object could produce the color. Damn.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by GideonHM
Armap, you just utilized the fallacy of the Strawman/Red Herring.
Did I? I do not even like herrings (or straw
).

If I did, I suppose it was on the PS, the rest of my post was, as far as I understood it, a correct answer to what you had posted about the videos, and that is what we are supposed to talk about, that was why I left the comment about Chadwickus's post for the PS.


His post in topic was two, and the third sentence was irrelevent to the point, not to mention that you ignored the POINT of the post and quickly tried to knock down the matter at hand.
OK, how many of your answer to Chadwickus was really on-topic and not a comparison of posting styles or way of doing things?


This is a DISCUSSION forum, and you are not really discussing the meat of the topic and are concerned with 2 or three sentences (yes, I did that on purpose, as the information is more important than the delivery).
Yes, this is a discussion forum, but let's look at the opening post.

What constantwonder said was "I thought I'd see if our wonderful community could tell me.", he (or she?) did not even presented a discussion, he was, in my opinion, just asking for opinions about it.


You nit-picked over the fact I purposefully left off the third sentence, and ignored the majority of the relevent issues I posted. I know you winked in fun, but gimme a break.
How could I discuss anything except the dark streak on the (possible) contrail?
How can we seriously know about "chemical spectral signature" for something we do not even know where it was filmed, how the atmosphere was at that time at that place (and I do mean at that altitude), etc.


For the contrail, it looks like a contrail to me, but I know that you would rather close the book on it Armap. I disagree with your take on many issues, but I never deny your intelligence, but I do deny your take on what is an acceptable post, and I am trying to avoid an ad-hominem attack on you, as your perspective is at the heart of your statement.
If by "close the book" you mean that I think that this is not worth more effort in trying to prove what it was, then you are right, I don't see anything more that could be understood about this when we do not have any more data about it.
And while you can have your own opinions about anything, so can I, and I find that the post from Chadwickus was "acceptable". It was not a really good post (that is why I did not starred the post) and it was not an excellent post (that is why I did not applaud him), but it was acceptable, in my opinion.


I personally know that you have shot down many opportunities for a relevent conversation, WHO CARES IF THEY ARE WRONG?
If that is your opinion, I would like to be warned about it every time you see it, I have no intention of making of ATS a less active forum than it is.


Can you provide spectral analysis of the video footage? PLEASE? All I am asking is that people contribute more than the minimum post requirement.
As I said before, how can we? Only if we contribute our opinions (seeing that more data is hard, if not impossible, to find), and that was what I did.


Also, rarely is it possible to retain the effectiveness of a sentence or paragraph when rendering it down to one word (or in the case of a paragraph one sentence).

Short and sweet does not effective make.
No, but neither a long and with big words post means that it is effective, and by effective I mean relevant to the what was being said.

But I think we should stop this discussion about what is and what is not acceptable in our subjective opinions and let the thread follow its natural flow.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by GideonHM
That is a good question though, how much fuel would it require to create a burning contrail, and how much oxygen or flammable gas would be required to sustain the reaction, and what kind of discharge would ignite it?
Although I am not aware of the calculations needed (and my brain needs a reboot
), I think that at that altitude there is not enough oxygen to burn that fuel, after all, they have to compress the air before it enters the combustion chamber, and the fuel is not that flammable (I think).



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by GideonHM
 



If a contrail contains enough flammable material, it could ignite...


A contrail consists of ice crystals....water ice crystals. If you can figure out a way to ignite water (or ice) you will soon be wealthy beyond your wildest dreams!!



That is a good question though, how much fuel would it require to create a burning contrail...


What you're describing is known as an 'After Burner', or also called 'reheat'. Not used on commercial jet liners, but on Military fighters.



Don't certain meteors produce a buring contrail?


I think just about anything encountering the heat of re-entry will leave a trail of burning debris behind it...but, whadda I know?

en.wikipedia.org...

A meteor is the visible streak of light that occurs when a meteoroid enters the Earth's atmosphere. Meteors typically occur in the mesosphere, and most range in altitude from 75 km to 100 km.

For bodies with a size scale larger than the atmospheric mean free path (10 cm to several metres) the visibility is due to the air friction that heats the meteoroid so that it glows and creates a shining trail of gases and melted meteoroid particles. The gases include vaporized meteoroid material and atmospheric gases that heat up when the meteoroid passes through the atmosphere. Most meteors glow for about a second.

Meteors may occur in showers, which arise when the Earth passes through a trail of debris left by a comet, or as "random" or "sporadic" meteors, not associated with a specific single cause.


Fireball
A fireball is a brighter-than-usual meteor. The International Astronomical Union defines a fireball as "a meteor brighter than any of the planets" (magnitude -4 or greater). The International Meteor Organization (an amateur organization that studies meteors) has a more rigid definition. It defines a fireball as a meteor that would have a magnitude of -3 or brighter if seen at zenith. This definition corrects for the greater distance between an observer and a meteor near the horizon. For example, a meteor of magnitude -1 at 5 degrees above the horizon would be classified as a fireball because if the observer had been directly below the meteor it would have appeared as magnitude -6.



Reentery of an object could produce the color.


A little research before posting does wonders to prevent the egg/face syndrome.

BTW, Chad was correct. His answer was all needed, for most common sense thinkers. I had a minute or two, so I included a little more. Hope it didn't offend anyone.

How do I know it's a contrail? 30+ years of flying experience.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by constantwonder
 

There have been many postings of pictures of contrails illuminated by the sun in the same manner as the contrails in your video.

Here are two unusual pictures I thought were interesting:

This one is a contrail over Perth that is being illuminated against a very dark (almost night) sky.

www.lifeonperth.com...

This one is a picture that was thought to be an exploding meteor (i.e. fireball) that was captured just before it disintegrated.

news.bbc.co.uk...

I also recall that several months ago, a spectacular illuminated contrail picture was posted after being photographed by a famous surfer from Hawaii (at least I think it was from Hawaii).



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   
This man is thinks the fire in the sky is satan:
It's a long video in 5 parts explaining the fall of satan and his angels after they lost the war.
This guy in the clip is convinced that satan fell to the Tunguska forest and now he is wondering the earth like a ball of fire




posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by cosby
 


He’d be a genius….

“…it got brighter & brighter which meant it was less dark…”




posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by GideonHM
 


My apologies, next time I'll write a 10 page thesis as to how and why a contrail, like a high altitude cloud can catch sunlight from a setting sun, I mean honestly, you spent a short paragraph on the subject and the other 4 paragraphs were spent berating me about my posting style, yeah it was short and sweet, but at least I'm not waffling on like some pompous school headmaster with a chip on their shoulder.

Now we have that out of the way, I'll add some more to the subject.

 


Here is a good pic showing an orange cloud and two orange contrails:



So why do they turn orange?


When light (photons) from an astronomical object passes through the Earth's atmosphere, it scatters off particles. These particles like to scatter blue light more than they do red light, so "bluer" photons (those with shorter wavelengths) tend to get scattered, and "redder" photons (those with longer wavelengths) pass through. So, astronomical objects look redder from Earth than they would from space, because the redder wavelengths from the objects penetrate the atmosphere better than the bluer ones.

Incidentally, this is why the sky is blue. Blue light from the Sun is scattered in all directions on its way to the Earth.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by cosby
 


cosby,

Oh, my!

The JW are a peculiar bunch, no doubt. There's a whole thread about them, here somewhere....

Always portrayed as nice, kind and gentle people....delusional, but nice, kind and gentle....as long as you agree with them!!


Well....veering OT, so I should stop.....



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


There ya go, Chad, waffling on like some school headmaster...
!!!



Seriously....didn't you go to the link?? It was OBVIOUSLY morning, not evening!!!


.....details, details....kicking the can down the road, muttering softly under my breath....

Joking, mate....of course!! Cheers!

There are SO many beautiful examples of sunrise/sunset effects on the sky...countless, in fact! Especially when you catch an example that includes some shadows cast by contrails, or clouds, as well....


[edit on 4 July 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by GideonHM
Don't certain meteors produce a buring contrail? Reentery of an object could produce the color.


weedwhacker's post was spot on, albeit that he was wrong about "burning".


ab-la-tion
Pronunciation [a-bley-shuhn]


–noun
1. the removal, esp. of organs, abnormal growths, or harmful substances, from the body by mechanical means, as by surgery.
2. the reduction in volume of glacial ice, snow, or névé by the combined processes of melting, evaporation, and calving. Compare alimentation (def. 3).
3. Aerospace. erosion of the protective outer surface (ablator) of a spacecraft or missile due to the aerodynamic heating caused by travel at hypersonic speed during reentry through the atmosphere.

Source: dictionary.reference.com

Technically speaking, there is no burning process. Burning requires sufficient oxygen.

In fact, you do not see the meteoroid at all. The bright glow a "meteor" produces is actually an area in front of the meteoroid known as the "bow-shock".

This is where air molecules are split apart into their atoms, and the energized atoms emit photons of light as the atoms return to their lower energy states. The principal is a bit like a florescent tube, except that the energy comes form the momentum of an object ploughing through an atmosphere instead of an electricity grid.

Superficially, in some cases, the trains produced by meteors can resemble aircraft contrails to the untrained eye, but the examples in this thread are definitely not meteors, and that is obvious to many, including myself, who have some experience.

That, and the fact that examples like the ones in your OP are always filmed when the sun is on or near the horizon from the cameraman's perspective makes it obvious to most of us here that these are examples of sun-lit aircraft contrails.

Not wanting to stifle discussion, but we are here to talk about UFOs, not aircraft contrails, so many of us here are tired of seeing it, and having to go through the explanations of why contrails look like that, over and over again, as I'm sure you can appreciate. (perhaps this forum could do with a "stickie"?!)

I downloaded this video at least 7 or 8 years ago, which I have never seen posted anywhere else since. It took me a few years to figure out what the objects in it were. Be thankful others here, who have gone through the same thing, are willing to explain what the cause is, and save you years of scratching your head!



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by C.H.U.D.
 


Thanks, C.H.U.D.

Hey! Don't shoot the messengier! I just dumbed it down, using Wiki...you have expanded it, and that is a good thing!




posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sam60
This one is a picture that was thought to be an exploding meteor (i.e. fireball) that was captured just before it disintegrated.

news.bbc.co.uk...



That photo, and the others the boy took had NASA stumped for a good while too. It was actually members of the meteor observing community that exposed the source of the trail as an aircraft.

Here's more info on the subject from the Dutch Meteor Society.





new topics
top topics
 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join