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

Just to add....... a thread that some guys say you can't lift a flare with a helium balloon? What a load of rubbish! Get a big enough balloon and you can lift lits of things into the sky. So just because someone tried it and was not able to do it means it cannot be done.. What rubbish.

Still, looking at the video, I am not convinced its balloons. No one has noticed but a few times in the video the lights flash red in unison. So how do you get flares on balloons to do that???

I am still thinking experimental aircraft of some sort...... thats my 2c worth.

Possible connection with this thread?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm thinking that the video was of a stealth aircraft that the government doesn't want to admit, or doesn't know about.

Originally posted by snookhums
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.

There is another important point here Snookhums, I'd like to highlight..

As can be seen in the video I posted of the Balloon/Flare test I did last year, the Flare itself actually works like a rocket nozzle.

A flare essentially burns solid propellent fuel, and though this has no effect of setting the flare into motion on the ground (due to the flare's weight) once the flare's weight has been negated by a balloon, the flare itself will serve as a small rocket engine...

Add to this the wind factor, and I'd hesitate to call a Balloon/Flare rig a 'non-moving light source'. The Flare itself would be observed as a flashing strobe, as it turned around and around under the balloon due to it's own exerted 'pushing' force (the propellant burn...)

-WFA

Originally posted by TheWretched
Just to add....... a thread that some guys say you can't lift a flare with a helium balloon? What a load of rubbish! Get a big enough balloon and you can lift lits of things into the sky. So just because someone tried it and was not able to do it means it cannot be done.. What rubbish.

Still, looking at the video, I am not convinced its balloons. No one has noticed but a few times in the video the lights flash red in unison. So how do you get flares on balloons to do that???

I am still thinking experimental aircraft of some sort...... thats my 2c worth.

Please note that experiment used materials cited by the alleged Hoaxer.

It was only a test to see if THOSE materials would work in the real world, as the alleged hoaxer claimed.

His claims failed the test.

To re-itterate, certainly you can lift a flare into the air using a large enough helium balloon, however the claimed materials in that case (cited by snookhums) would not lift a flare that would burn for the duration claimed by the alleged Hoaxer.

Since that experiment, other alleged hoaxers are now claiming to use (and using, as Arby's video shows...) larger balloons, with flares that do not burn for a full 30 minutes...

These things should be taken on a case by case basis, and both Arby's example, and my own are valid...

-WFA

I am 99% sure those are some sort of balloons, lit up somehow. You can see them slowly drift, with the wind...

Whats all the commotion about?

Another quick note before I leave work today...

I found firsthand when doing the cited experiment, that as the flare burns, it's weight decreases...

This is really like, 'no duh WFA' but seriously when doing the experiment and holding a 30 minute flare in your hand, you begin to get it on a real level...

My point here is, if a flare is attached to a balloon that is set with enough lift to take it to an approximate altitude, that altitude will neccesarily continue to increase, as the flare burns and the weight ballast is lowered.

In a balloon/flare system, we would necessarily see the balloons slowly drift up and up and up, until they could not be seen (or until they pop from pressure).

When you see a light that isn't slowly ascending, my guess is that its not a balloon/flare setup.

Example for clarity:

Assume a flare weighs 1 ounce (this is NOT accurate, just for understanding...)

At the halfway point in that burn, it will then weigh 1/2 ounce...

So the balloon would have to be slowly leaking (decreasing lift at an equal speed that flare weight is lost) in order to remain at a constant altitude...

Additionally, I learned when trying the experiment, is that you need to tie the flare at it's halfway point. Once the halfway point of the flare is reached, the flame from the flare necessarily burns through the fishing line/string... So in reality, you would need a 1 hour flare (which don't exist to my knowledge) to burn for 30 minutes, while aloft...

Following that logic through to it's natural conclusion, even before the halfway point of the burn is achieved, the flare would lose it's balance on the string line, as one end of it melted away and the other end remained...

Just thought I'd point these things out to everyone interested...

-WFA

I would have to agree that the Phoenix video and the New Jersey video look essentially the same. It looks like somebody repeated the hoax, but I don't think we are getting the all the information on these hoaxes.

First, both videos seem to have the gain turned down very low. All you see are the red glows of the flares, no background light. I wonder if, when seen with the naked eye, or by turning up the gain on the video, how much different these flares would look. I would bet that you can probably see burning embers that typically are put out by flares when looking at these with the naked eye. This is why the videos are so dark, to hide how much more obvious it is that these are flares.

Second, why aren't these balloons being carried away by the air currents. They are far too stable for balloons simply floating in the air. They should have been carried off at a considerable distance. Could they be tethered by say a fishing line to keep them in a relatively stable location?

Research show that typical toy balloons, not designed for high altitude, obtain an altitude of 6,000 feet, as these flares burned, and got lighter, as WitnessFromAfar they would, these balloons should have continued up into the night sky.

The guy who took the Phoenix video clearly was not telling the truth in the interview. When you watch the full video, the flares clearly die out, they don't peel off. It makes it look like the guy taking the video was in on the hoax.

In addition the guy who took the videos claims that these lights were far higher than aircraft fly, but if they were balloons carrying flares, that simply could not been true, once again making it look more and more like he was in on the hoax.

I think these were tethered somehow, and kept at an altitude probably under a thousand feet. Also, that is seen with better camera settings, or the naked eye, it would be much more obvious that these were flares.

When the flares went out they reeled them back in to destroy the evidence.

reply to post by ufo reality


S & F

We have no real defense against them.
The Governments of the world have no answers.

What I saw made it across the sky in a few short minutes.

Flares hanging from balloons don't move that fast.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
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.

Thanks for tracking that down. That shows it definitely can be done, and (in at least one case) was actually done.

In any event, in my original reply I didn't necessarily say it was balloons with flares. It could have been some other light source. People seem to have become fixated on that being the only possible light source - probably because it's known to have been done (as shown in the videos). I think that people have also become fixated on the idea that it was one balloon for each light source. That's also a bad presumption. There could be a whole batch of baloons holding up each light source. Given enough balloons of almost any size, you can lift just about anything ... Man floats 193 miles

As to the altitude these may have been "hovering" at, without some way to gauge depth/distance from the observer, you can't really estimate size or altitude.

One way to estimate distance from the observer might be to compare with objects that are definitively in the foreground and background at known/fixed distances (so that it can be said for sure that it was between those two distances). However, with this type of lights-in-the-sky sitings, there are generally no such points of reference to use for comparison - certainly not in this video.

From an observer's view-point, something might even look like it is at a higher altitude than jets cruising at thousands of feet, when in fact it is way lower, but at a higher angle from the observer's position at a closer range.

What would really help with a sighting like this would be simultaneous video from additional witnesses to the same event, from different angles - preferably several miles apart. Then, it would be possible to make some rough estimates as to distance and altitude using basic trigonometry. With distance/range established, then it might be also possible to make estimates as to size by comparing to the size of a coin or thumb held out at length, etc.

From the lone video itself, it's just impossible to tell much objectively. It may very well be something extra-ordinary (military, EBE's, whatever) you just can't really discern anything from this type of lights-in-the-sky sighting.

I'm not dissing the video or the witness. In fact, I thank them for coming forward, as it might lead to additional postings with video from another location/angle. I'm just saying it's not really evidence of anything other than some lights in the sky that could be just about anything.


[edit on 2009-9-24 by EnhancedInterrogator]

www.shareintl.org...

I read on Share International's web site where they contend that there are four UFOs here to herald the emergence of a world teacher. They report that they are solar charged and will eventually be seen by most everyone.
They have lots of pics on their site.

That film was a very very good shot of something that may be either a UFO or a secret got. air crafts. But the way those things where acting and how they where able to kep stationary when they wanted (I know harrier jets can hover, but they can't hover that high or do the moves like those glowing red). The guy is very credible, and toward the end he won't say little green men, but he will say that it isn't any craft or movement that americans have.

Originally posted by TheWretched
This one is interesting. I am guessing experimental aircraft of some sort ( yes I am not a believer, but I keep an open mind.
If its not an experimental aircraft then this one has me stumped.

I believe you're stumped.

"Experimental aircraft" by who? The military? They officially denied having any type of aircraft in the air, so if it's still them, they're lying their heads off.

Second, they would not fly their "experimental aircraft" over cities or populated areas, among regular air traffic (remember the airliner that flew by?). They would fly it over restricted areas, military bases, etc.

Third, what type of "experimental aircraft" are you talking about?

Apparently something that flies very high (30 000 or 40 000 feet above the airliner, as estimated by Brad Drenning, the eye witness) but still stays motionless in formation for more than 11 minutes, and changes (!) formation during this time.

Note how strong the light source of these objects are compared to the airliner that passes by on a much lower altitude.

If the objects are 30 000 or 40 000 feet above the airliner, it means that the light they emit is very strong,

Kind of weird for a secret, military experiment, no?

IMO, that theory is only credible to those that consider anything more credible than the "craft controlled by unknown intelligence" theory.

Just about anytime you can get away from the city and into a wide open area with no lights around you can see some amazing things.. I remember being somewhere in the middle of Texas and looking up for over an hour and seeing all sorts of crazy sh**. You can see why hundreds of years ago they were able to see Mars and Saturn, because there was no unnatural lights at night messing it up.. I have always wondered what the stars looked like when your looking up from the surface of the moon.. Something only 12 people know for sure..

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
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...

We're on the same page WFA, I understand you were trying to use the exact same balloon that guy claimed to use and that didn't work, no problem there. But others in this thread seemed to be taking that thread to mean that because your test showed it couldn't be done, that it couldn't be done, and obviously you agree that it can be done with a larger balloon, so no worries. That was good research by the way.

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
Additionally, I learned when trying the experiment, is that you need to tie the flare at it's halfway point. Once the halfway point of the flare is reached, the flame from the flare necessarily burns through the fishing line/string... So in reality, you would need a 1 hour flare (which don't exist to my knowledge) to burn for 30 minutes, while aloft...

Not true, watch the videos I posted at the bottom pf page 4, they use duct tape to attach the fishing line to the flare, so they can burn almost the entire flare before it has a problem with the line.

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
Additionally, I learned when trying the experiment, is that you need to tie the flare at it's halfway point. Once the halfway point of the flare is reached, the flame from the flare necessarily burns through the fishing line/string... So in reality, you would need a 1 hour flare (which don't exist to my knowledge) to burn for 30 minutes, while aloft...

Not true, watch the videos I posted at the bottom pf page 4, they use duct tape to attach the fishing line to the flare, so they can burn almost the entire flare before it has a problem with the line.

Yes, it is possible to be able to attach the flare in such a fashion but we have to remember that the researched we discussed a year ago that WithessFromAfar did was to demonstrate what was claimed doesn't work. The added weight from duct tape will only hinder the lift of the balloon.

reply to post by Heliocentric

"Experimental aircraft" by who? The military? They officially denied having any type of aircraft in the air, so if it's still them, they're lying their heads off.

Sure... Like they never did THAT.

Second, they would not fly their "experimental aircraft" over cities or populated areas, among regular air traffic (remember the airliner that flew by?). They would fly it over restricted areas, military bases, etc.

They can do it. And actually, they can tell airliners where NOT to go, but we can't tell them where they can't go.

Apparently something that flies very high (30 000 or 40 000 feet above the airliner, as estimated by Brad Drenning, the eye witness) but still stays motionless in formation for more than 11 minutes, and changes (!) formation during this time.

Completly wrong. If to Brad Drenning that was 30,000 of difference, he needs to go back to school, or at least, learn when to shup up and not talk about things he doesn't know.

So you can get a reference (and I never get tired of giving this one, because it's a good one), you can see the trails of a plane when he is above 18,000/20,000 feet. From the ground, to there, that's 20,000 feet of difference. Do you honestly believe that in THAT video the aircraft and the UFO's are 30,000feet apart?

Actually, they look closer than the aircraft. And it's not just because a dude on a phone is saying "oh, they are far" that I'm going to contradict what my eyes are seeing.

Note how strong the light source of these objects are compared to the airliner that passes by on a much lower altitude.

The airliner isn't that high, and neither is the UFO.

Originally posted by EnhancedInterrogator
What would really help with a sighting like this would be simultaneous video from additional witnesses to the same event, from different angles - preferably several miles apart. Then, it would be possible to make some rough estimates as to distance and altitude using basic trigonometry. With distance/range established, then it might be also possible to make estimates as to size by comparing to the size of a coin or thumb held out at length, etc.

Welcome to my friends list fellow Mathlete

Your summary here is exactly why I think the original Phoenix Lights case (as well as the recent Indiana case) could not possibly have been flares. That data (multiple video from multiple locations) exists in the original phoenix lights case, and additionally the duration of the lights simply rules flares out in those cases...

Most importantly in the Phoenix Case, the 'lights' did not gradually ascend, in fact, they DESCENDED behind the mountain line...

This is simply an impossibility in a Balloon/Flare setup, where the lift of the balloon is calculated to equal (slightly surpass) the weight of the ballast. If the weight of the ballast is changing constantly (the only way a flare burns is to burn through it's solid propellent, which makes up most of its weight) then the balloon MUST rise.

-WFA

Originally posted by snookhums

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
Additionally, I learned when trying the experiment, is that you need to tie the flare at it's halfway point. Once the halfway point of the flare is reached, the flame from the flare necessarily burns through the fishing line/string... So in reality, you would need a 1 hour flare (which don't exist to my knowledge) to burn for 30 minutes, while aloft...

Not true, watch the videos I posted at the bottom pf page 4, they use duct tape to attach the fishing line to the flare, so they can burn almost the entire flare before it has a problem with the line.

Yes, it is possible to be able to attach the flare in such a fashion but we have to remember that the researched we discussed a year ago that WithessFromAfar did was to demonstrate what was claimed doesn't work. The added weight from duct tape will only hinder the lift of the balloon.

This is a good point, there are other ways of affixing the balloon, and in the case I tested, I used the method the alleged hoaxer claimed. I was merely pointing out the flaws in the alleged hoaxer's claims...

But you are right, there are other ways to attach it.

The thing that you can't get around with a flare though, is the gradually decreasing weight due to the burning of the ballast.

That's going to be a constant, as long as the flare is in play.

I've worked extensively with exhaust valves (never once has anyone claimed that their balloons had any sort of exhaust release, EVER, that's worthy of note) and from my experience, I would say that it's virtually impossible to regulate a helium release that would precisely match the burn rate of the flare. You could make a good guess, but it would be VERY difficult to match something like that up...

Not to mention the added weight of the 'fixes' (Snookhums correctly pointed out that duct tape weighs more than fishing line, and a release valve would likely weigh more than the entire flare itself...

-WFA

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
Most importantly in the Phoenix Case, the 'lights' did not gradually ascend, in fact, they DESCENDED behind the mountain line...

This is simply an impossibility in a Balloon/Flare setup, where the lift of the balloon is calculated to equal (slightly surpass) the weight of the ballast. If the weight of the ballast is changing constantly (the only way a flare burns is to burn through it's solid propellent, which makes up most of its weight) then the balloon MUST rise.

We are talking about different Phoenix cases. In the older case you mentioned, the flares were on parachutes, not balloons. Makes more sense right?
www.theufochronicles.com...

I just watched the phoenix UFO story. I have worked as a munitions specialist in the USAF for over 30 years. The UFO sighting is 100% actually LUU-2 illumination flares. Here's why:

The flares are ejected in sequence and ignite...just like the video...in a line. The flares are 27lbs of magnesium and burn at 2 million candle power...for approximately 5 minutes...while hnging nearly motionless from a parachute,,,visible line-of-sight for 100 miles in the right conditions. This explains the slow movement and the "vanishing" one after the other. They are flares.

I know that no one wants to hear that, but that's what they were. Oh yeah, the other reason I know, I was there. The A-10 jets were launched from Davis Monthan AFB. There were 4 jets with a total of 32 flares. If you bothered to REALLY investigate or want the REAL answer...I can produce assembly sheets, a flying schedule and an expenditure document that perfectly matches what thousands of peopl actually saw. THEY DID SEE IT...but it was NOT unexplained...really, just flares.

So the videos were of the flares. There was supposedly another event where a large craft flew over the city at another time that evening, but I haven't seen any videos of that one, just videos of the flares.