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.

 

CNN "IReport" - Unknown Objects Videotaped over Phoenix, AZ!

page: 4
68
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Unless someone provides a link to this supposed New Jersey hoax where they show how they used flares to fake such a UFO sighting, I don't buy it.

There already is a link that shows a balloon won't carry a flare.

Two balloons, maybe, but chances are they wouldn't carry the flare that high, balloons are very limited in the altitude they can obtain. Just to get a flare considerably high in the sky would probably take ten minutes.

A typical balloon, without anything but a string attacked only goes up a few hundred feet, certainly no where near the elevation that an airplane flies.

They would have had to use a weather balloon, which means spending quite a bit of money for a hoax, and even then chances are that the flares burnt out before the weather balloon obtained an altitude above an aircraft.

The balloon theory is nonsense I don't know why people keep repeating this.




posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Yes, I agree with you because we've already discussed the logic behind this story is highly improbable. And to point out that no one got into trouble/fined for releasing flares into a city that is bone dry and crawling with flamable dry plants. we get into trouble here in new mexico for lighting any fireworks that go higher than 10ft in the air.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 24-9-2009 by snookhums]



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Turbulence from a passing jet made them move?


Yea.. right.. ok. I'd believe in aliens before I'd believe that. A guy for no good reason decides to release flares on balloons.. and apparently was able to deduce the distance between a plane and the balloons, and that this caused them to move. I'd imagine it would have to be quite close to do that. Was he fined for endangering aircraft? I'd almost consider that a terrorist act. Huh.. wonder why nothing happened to him.

What a load of carp.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by stereotype


I think you are confused with the recent hoax in New Jersey, in which the hoaxers apparently wanted to "show people how easy it was to misidentify things". Well I guess they didn't consider the legal charges that were slapped on them for creating a public disturbance. It was good in a way, it should be done to anyone who hoaxes with a misleading attempt. Here is a link to the story: Charges Filed Against 2009 New Jersey UFO Hoaxers

 


reply to post by ufo reality

Excellent video and case, thanks for sharing with us.


I have no idea what they were, it is excellent footage and in my opinion NOT flares, a morphing government plane(although that could account for some sightings, so thanks to fls for posting that
). With the USAF saying nothing was in the area we are left with a true UFO, since all the other mundane explanations are likely eliminated (such as mirages, temperature inversions, NOSS satellites, etc). The formation of the objects are similar to other true unidentified reports and videos. In fact i was thinking that the movement of the objects were very similar to the objects in the Tremonton, Utah Incident of 1952.

A true unknown, at this point it could be anything from alien to some odd natural event. But I think more research MUST be done on the RAW footage, as well a thorough investigation into possible corroborating reports and any possible radar anomalies taken that night (if they are even possible to get, if they even exist). The one thing I personally did not like was the CNN reporter laughing when asking "was it a UFO", it was like her and the IReporter automatically assume "UFO" means "alien"(although the IReporter obviously realised more so than she did that UFO does not mean alien), which is NOT the case. That is a common theme unfortunately these days, one that must go. Anyways, thanks for posting, S/F....



[edit on 9/24/2009 by jkrog08]



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   
I took a gander at the thread posted above in which the poster said he ran an experiment with the road flares and balloons, the assertion being either that the balloon he used was incapable of lifting a flare, or that helium balloons in general are incapable of lifting flares. Either way, it would be interesting to see the video he (or she) says was made of the experiment. Has it been posted, as the experimenter said it would be? So far, the only video I've seen of people trying to launch flares with helium balloons (the New Jersey hoax) shows that the flares were lifted extremely easily.

A couple more relevant points: The two still shots taken from the news story and used as proof that the hoax assertion was part of a cover-up of some kind are weak evidence at best.

Although the alleged witness in the first still says he watched the balloons/flares for 30 minutes, I'm sure this is not an exact figure. Maybe it was 20 or 25 minutes. Maybe flares exist that burn for slightly longer than 20 minutes. Either way, I don't think this minor discrepency - if it even exists - warrants accusations that he was part of some (government?) coverup.

The second still, of a reporter holding a flare and balloon, is even less convincing as a piece of evidence, much less proof. The poster's assertion - to the effect that there is no conceivable reason why the reporter would be holding the balloon and flare in the manner he is holding them unless he, as a co-conspirator in the cover-up, was attempting to conceal the fact that the balloon would not lift the flare - is reading way too much into way too little. The only evidence we have here is of loose thinking on the part of the poster (no offense intended).

I'm not trying to be a debunker here; I am a firm believer that there are actual UFOs, some of which are quite probably ET, but come on man, let's use our heads a little. There are plenty of cases out there that are immeasurable more compelling than this.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Here you are sir! Video of the guys creating New Jersey Hoax
video.tiscali.it...



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 


Definately not confused!

People jump to HIGHLY unlikely answers without using any logic.

New Jersey Hoax proves that balloons will lift flares.


IN PHOENIX, a person admitted they did the same thing, and yet everyone keeps trying to say that Balloons will not lift flares so there must be a cover up. Once again evidence is right in front of people, yet ignorance is being gobbled up!



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   
so we take the average weight of a flare and the amount of a weight a typical balloon can carry to see what possibilities we have. The math has been done and it would take a very big balloon or a lot of little ones to carry 1 flare. a typical birthday balloon can barely lift a pencil. we're talking about a heavier object that needs to be lifted as high as a plane is allowed to fly over a city. plus, the amount of string and possible entanglements of balloons to fly in perfection/sync with each other to create such shapes without blatantly looking like a cluster of tangled flares.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by stereotype
 


I never said that balloons can not lift flares did I? I agree with you that some jump to hasty conclusions, especially when they want to believe. However, I feel that this case is still unexplained, furthermore I believe that the geometric formations shown in the video, as well the constant nature of the lights seem to rule out flares on a balloon, but I could be wrong. Simply put, this IS a UFO until some evidence can identify it.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 


Oh I know you didn't disagree with balloons lifting flares, I was refering to the person above you. My apologies for the confusion!



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by stereotype
 


lol and you're evidence you hang on to is of a guy saying that he did it? anyone could admit that. Thats not evidence, thats just testimony which holds someone responsible for it but, you can ignore the math, the materials, the story with holes in it, no charges against him, no specifics to how it was done.

If you had clicked on this and read through a lot of the posts it'll show examples of balloon sizes, etc.

CLICK HERE

[edit on 24-9-2009 by snookhums]



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by snookhums
 


CLICK HERE FOR VIDEO OF BALLOONS LIFTING FLARES IN NEW JERSEY AKA UFO SIGHTING>>>>>>>>video.tiscali.it...



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereotype
i]reply to post by Aeons
 


The man, who did not want to be identified, said he used fishing line to attach road flares to helium-filled balloons, then lit the flares and launched them a minute apart from his back yard. He said he believed turbulence created by a passing jet caused the balloons to move around.

Phoenix Police helicopter pilot Bruce Bates, who saw the lights, said the balloons explanation makes sense.

``People say they saw different shapes -- a square, a diamond, an arrow, all these different shapes. Well, that's just the balloons moving around in the wind currents," he said.

Some people will always think the lights were UFOs, Bates said.

``I think people want to believe what they want to believe."
www.ktar.com...



Thanks for the good info, but here's some more information about the Phoenix hoax I didn't see posted yet:


Mysterious Phoenix Lights


On Monday evening, April 21, mysterious lights were seen over Phoenix, Arizona. At just after eight, hundreds of residents called police and local news media to report four bright red lights hovering silently over the city. They changed shape after a while, moving from a triangular to rectangular configuration, then disappeared one by one.

The Air Force had no explanation for the lights, and air traffic controllers said that whatever was causing the lights didn't show up on radar. Theories abounded, with UFOs and aliens of course being very popular. One UFO enthusiast named Jeff Woolwine said that he is certain that the lights are from alien spaceships.

The lights remained a mystery and became a national media story.



One of the hoaxer's neighbors, a Mr. Mailo, actually saw the hoaxer launch the helium balloons and flares. Mailo said the flares were lit about 8 p.m., just before the UFO lights were first sighted.

Thus the mysterious Phoenix Lights of 2008 are explained. Any object seen in the sky, especially at night, can be very difficult to identify, and it's no wonder that the lights puzzled many people. All that is needed to create a UFO sighting is one person who may not recognize a light or object in the sky. But just because people — even thousands of people — don't know what they are seeing doesn't mean that someone else (maybe a hoaxer), doesn't know exactly what it is.

This is not the first time that strange lights have appeared in the dark skies over Phoenix. In 1997, similar lights were reported by hundreds; the military had been dropping flares over a nearby testing range, though many UFO believers rejected that explanation as part of a military cover-up.

The Phoenix Lights of 2008 shows just how easy it is to fool the public and create a media stir. All it takes is a few balloons and flares, some spare time, and a mischievous streak.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by stereotype
 


since you're being lazy and will not read a bit. here's some excerpts pulled for a discussion on this same topic 1 yr ago.




FIRE CODE

3013.3 of the Phoenix Fire code law states a separate permit is required for tents, outdoor fireworks, theatrical and special effects displays, the display of vehicles and use of open flames. 305.3 Open Flame Warning Devices. Open flame warning devices shall not be used along an excavation, road, or any place that dislodgement of such devices might permit the device to roll, fall or slide onto any land or area containing combustible material. What if this man attaches explosives to these balloons next time to take out a passenger plane? What if these flares had burned through the "fishing line" he claims attached the flairs to the balloons, and fell into someone's backyard or house and caused a massive fire?

SOME MATH
I just weighed the flare on the postal scale, and it came out to exactly .8 pounds. This translates to about 12.8 ounces. Most importantly, in grams: .8 pounds = 362.873896 grams Source: www.google.com... So when I stated earlier that I was estimating on the light side, I wasn't kidding. The road flare actually weighs approximately 363 grams. This means using 12inch 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 it's maximum lift capacity, meaning a slower ascent than an equal sized balloon with a lighter payload. So doing the math now there is no conceivable way that a 12 inch balloon can lift 363 grams of weight. It's pointless for me to even try the 12 inch standard size balloon. I'll see if I can locate a 36 inch (or 3ft) diameter balloon to test with this evening, and I'll update the thread later today when I can find one.

COST EXAMPLES
It's a really big however. I got pricing information, and the Balloon itself costs about $6.00 without Helium. If you're going to buy one with the Helium, it costs $30.00 There is no bulk rate. So now that I understand the pricing, it seems we're being asked to believe that not only did this guy break the law, but he spent a LOT of money in order to do it! I don't see how a reasonably comparable hoax (comparable to the original phoenix lights event) could be pulled off without using at LEAST 5 Balloons. 5 Balloons of this size filled with Helium would cost you $150.00 USD, before tax. And that's using the bare minimum number of balloons!



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   
I think many at ATS need to know this:

- Whatever you think the US military has in development regarding next generation weapons, aircraft, submarines, ordinance or any other equipment, you are wrong. They are 50 years beyond that in the development stage.

Also, why do any of you think the military should just up and reveal this stuff. Has no one read the art of war? Doesn't anyone play poker? You should never reveal your cards, your enemy should never know what you have in your hip pocket.

some folks here would be the last people to know anything, as they run off and blab about it as soon as you get even a hint that something is happening it's ridiculous sometimes.

Is there electromagnetic craft? Probably, why wouldn't there be?

You never hear about anything until it is time to advance the technology into the commercial market.

None of you saw a space shuttle until about 1980. Unless you worked for the USAF or NASA.

They had that thing getting developed in the early 50's. The Boeing trials etc were all a put on to make people believe this was being developed in real time. The trials were done years before that.

Just pointing it out. Topics should be interesting and intelligent in their presentation. But pointing and shouting at a little blip of ligt in teh sky when it is know there are thousands and thousands of objects floating above us at 20k mph, well, why would you see something?

I still see the pics of the busted solar panel surfacing as a ufo for pete's sake!
Or even better the dropped satellite with the comet samples is being pumped out as a ufo crash.

It's ridiculous and should be more thoroughly moderated to prevent the kind of dis-info that this type of things holds up which ultimately impedes anyone of us from actually "knowing" anything about any of it.

/rant



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b

Unless someone provides a link to this supposed New Jersey hoax where they show how they used flares to fake such a UFO sighting, I don't buy it.



Originally posted by snookhums
reply to post by stereotype
 


lol and you're evidence you hang on to is of a guy saying that he did it? anyone could admit that. Thats not evidence, thats just testimony which holds someone responsible for it but, you can ignore the math, the materials, the story with holes in it, no charges against him, no specifics to how it was done.

If you had clicked on this and read through a lot of the posts it'll show examples of balloon sizes, etc.

CLICK HERE


All that thread demonstrates is that one person doesn't know how to do it. That's hardly evidence that it can't be done when we have videos of other people doing it here:

New Jersey balloon-flare Setup

Google Video Link


New Jersey balloon-flare Launch

Google Video Link


Story: www.skeptic.com...

The Launch video clearly shows it can be done, the guy in the other thread was probably using a balloon that's too small and he doesn't know how to attach the fishing line. Those are pretty big balloons.

[edit on 24-9-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Meh more lights over Phoenix..
UFO indeed...but nothing I will get too excited over.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Those look absolutely nothing like the UFOs I've seen, thank goodness. Yay for gaining more faith in my own observations! Thanks, guys!



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
All that thread demonstrates is that one person doesn't know how to do it. That's hardly evidence that it can't be done when we have videos of other people doing it here:


With respect Arby, please read the full thread here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I was the one who did that experiment, and I carried it out using EXACTLY the materials that were claimed by the alleged 'hoaxer' in the Phoenix case.

The Balloon he claimed he used would not lift the flare he claimed he used, upon full inflation...

I merely tested the claim the alleged Hoaxer made, and it looks like he Hoaxed his hoax.

Since that experiment (it gained a bunch of attention on Youtube), others have refined the Balloon/Flare theory to use bigger balloons (thereby carrying more lift capacity, and able to lift a flare) and lighter flares (which burn for MUCH less time, this is a very important detail...)

Sure, anybody can launch a balloon with a flare tied to it, if the balloon is big enough to carry the flare.

In the case you were refuting, the alleged hoaxer claimed a balloon size that did not work in actuality with a flare capable of burning for a duration longer than 15 minutes. (The Phoenix lights were observed for up to 30 minutes, as I recall...)

To be perfectly honest, I've not read this entire thread, so I'm not sure of the context of this debate, I just wanted to add my take on Snookhum's sourced ATS investigation, since I was the one that carried it out...

Hope that helps!

-WFA



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 



Planes that can 'hover' have been around for a while no, so you can't discount that as a possibility. Type 'hover plane' into google images and you get stacks of photos of planes with 'anti gravity' ability.



new topics

top topics



 
68
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join