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: 6
68
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I'd like to see those spec sheet, and aircraft launch times.

Additionally, I'd like to see the explanation for the daylight sighting on March 13th, what appears to be the same (or similar) 'lights' in the same area...



[On the 13th of March, Willes was taking his usual video survey of the Phoenix skies when suddenly strange spheres of intensely bright light appeared hovering motionless in the sky. Experienced in shooting UFO footage, Jeff framed the shot with the mountain range for visual reference and several necessary zooms and pans. The orbs of light seem to just dangle there, silently in the cloudy sky, slightly twinkling but by no means strobing, neither did they exhibit any standard FAA flashing lights. As the minutes passed, one of the objects began to slowly move off in another direction until it disappeared beyond the looming cloud bank. The movement was almost imperceptible. The remaining object, still glowing brilliantly then began to move in the same direction and Jeff tailed it steadily with his cam until it, too, moved out of sight, becoming just a tiny glimmer in the distant atmosphere. On Jeff's video, watching the full sequence in fast-forward mode really reveals the remarkable movement of these utterly anomalous objects in the sky, and it becomes abundantly clear they are below the low cloud cover. They very clearly cannot be jets or planes, balloons, ultra-lights, flares, helicopters, stars, planets or swamp gas. ]

Source:
www.rense.com...

This event lasted more than 30 minutes (which would be a remarkable performance for a 5 minute flare...)

Further, the claim issued in your above post leaves me wondering (which incidentally, wondering about the physics involved is what prompted me to physically test and disprove the earlier alleged hoaxer's claims - note: the alleged hoaxer was also US Army Personnel...)

Even with a parachute instead of a balloon, how exactly does a 27lb magnesium flare gradually descend as it's mass rapidly decreases.

I mean seriously, at 2.5 minutes into the burn, the flare would only weigh about 13 lbs., and so on...

You simply cannot calculate for a constantly changing variable... This drop in weight would absolutely effect the descent pattern.

Parachutes are also very affected by the wind, and by thermals. At sunset in Phoenix (the high desert...) thermals exist, and at high altitude, so does wind...

Additionally, the Phoenix lights event lasted longer than 5 minutes.
I just did a video search, and cannot locate video proving this, however I am CERTAIN that during the event, I found youtube video from eyewitnesses that lasted longer than 5 minutes, and no plane in sight (that would conceivably have dropped the flares...)

Also, as noted above, a flare physically burns propellent. This means that the object (once weight has been negated by lift) will travel (at the very least in a circular pattern, against the center point of where it's attached to the balloon/parachute...).

When you see a constant light that doesn't flicker, in my opinon you aren't looking at a flare being suspended by lift in high winds.

A flare would necessarily be witnessed as a 'strobe light' as the flame spins around and passes in and out of view.

The original Phoenix Lights actually went out one by one, before coming back on again, but while present, they did not 'flicker' or 'strobe'.

Going out and then self re-lighting is another neat trick for a solid piece of burning propellant to achieve on it's own (especially in high winds... Once it's out, there shouldn't be any re-lighting...)

But that's just my two-cents...

It's further interesting to note that the Governor of Arizona witnessed the event, contacted the military, and was informed that no US planes were in the area at the time...

-WFA




posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I'd like to see those spec sheet, and aircraft launch times.


I think that site is run by your friend Frank Warren so Frank might be able to put you in touch with the source. (I know he shares your enthusiasm for the BOLA case so that's why I call him your friend).


Additionally, I'd like to see the explanation for the daylight sighting on March 13th, what appears to be the same (or similar) 'lights' in the same area...



On that link you posted, Willis posts this frame capture (I've seen the whole video he posted too):



which looks exactly like this at an angle:



And then he posts this artist's conception saying he thinks it's a sideways saucer?



Sorry but Mr. Willis seems to be hoaxing us with that claim, so he has little credibility with me. (He also claims the balloon travels at thousands of miles per hour but he conveniently fails to capture that maneuver on the video. It only moves like an ordinary balloon during the part he videotapes).


Additionally, the Phoenix lights event lasted longer than 5 minutes.
I just did a video search, and cannot locate video proving this
please let me know if you find it. I don't know what the tolerance range is on the 5 minutes (maybe plus or minus a minute...just guessing) but if it lasts much longer than 6 minutes then I too would begin to doubt the LUU2 explanation.

Here are the LUU2 specifications:
www.globalsecurity.org...
Weight: 30 lb (13.6 kg)
Length: 36 in. (91.4 cm)
Diameter: 4.87 in. (12.4 cm)
Light Output: 1,800,000 candlepower, 1,600,000 candlepower
Burn Time: 240 sec/300 sec
Descent Rate: 8.3 ft/sec (2.5 m/sec)


It's further interesting to note that the Governor of Arizona witnessed the event, contacted the military, and was informed that no US planes were in the area at the time...


www.rense.com...


Officials at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson, Ariz., would report that no military maneuvers were taking place that night at the Barry M. Goldwater Range to the west. (Air Force officials would change their story two months later, saying the person on duty that night failed to look at the proper logbook.)

The lights were flares, said the Air National Guard, dropped during nighttime exercises at the Barry M. Goldwater Range.

That's what they were, insists Lt. Col. Ed Jones, who piloted one of the four A-10s in the squadron that he says launched the flares.

Jones, in his first interview with the news media concerning the night 10 years ago, says he can't believe a decision to eject a few leftover flares turned into a UFO furor that continues to this day.

He now is assistant director of operations for the 104th Fighter Squadron of the Maryland National Guard.


So there's somebody else you could try contacting besides Frank Warren's contact.

If I recall correctly they were something like 60 or more miles away, which one could reasonably say is "not in the area" right?

If we determine the distance to the mountains we know the flares were further away than the mountains from this analysis:



And from such a great distance an 8.3 ft/sec descent rate would be barely visible, until the flare dropped behind the mountain range and was obscured from view.

That's why it's understandable that Rense.com makes comments like this:

www.rense.com...

Parachuted flares do not hover motionless in the sky. They fall, slowly, but the fall is perceptible as recent military flares over Phoenix demonstrated. If you've seen the video of the Phoenix lights, they are not descending at all. They are hovering.


So all that's left is for you to find that video showing the flares burned for 10 minutes or whatever, which will disprove the LUU2 explanation. If we find that we should tell Frank Warren too so he can note that on his site where he posts the LUU2 explanation quite prominently.

[edit on 25-9-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 


i dont think you'll find that footage of the lights over 6 minutes. If it existed ufologists would be all over it. Stanton Friedman agrees they were flares. He's more interested in the earlier sightings.

The one posted by Arbitrageur looks like a balloon i think jeff knows this and is hoaxing. Ive looked at his other stuff very suspect.

[edit on 25-9-2009 by yeti101]



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Frank Warren is a friend from my perspective, he's a really nice guy

We don't agree on everything, but I nonetheless respect his research...


Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Additionally, I'd like to see the explanation for the daylight sighting on March 13th, what appears to be the same (or similar) 'lights' in the same area...



On that link you posted, Willis posts this frame capture ...
And then he posts this artist's conception saying he thinks it's a sideways saucer?

Sorry but Mr. Willis seems to be hoaxing us with that claim, so he has little credibility with me. (He also claims the balloon travels at thousands of miles per hour but he conveniently fails to capture that maneuver on the video. It only moves like an ordinary balloon during the part he videotapes).


Um... I would no more say that Mr. Willis was trying to 'hoax' us by providing a descriptive image that he thought might be the object in the photo, then I would say that the Sky & Telescope article you posted in the Kecksburg case was trying to hoax us into thinking the object there was a meteor.

They were both making their best guesses, and the evidence doesn't seem to support the conclusions made in either case...

Let's be fair.

I only posted the Rense link (I know, people hate that site, I try not to source it...) because Mr. Willis's video tape (as I understand it) is in their possession... And it lasted about 30 minutes.

The video lasting 30 minutes on that sighting exists, and I thought that was relevant to this discussion.

Especially since Mr. Willis taped the sighting in an area near to the area where the phoenix lights were sighted, near to the time of the sighting (you are correct, it was not an exact match in location, nor did Mr. Willis's sighting happen the day before the event...)

As I recall from memory, the video of the phoenix lights lasted about 8 and a half minutes. I'll let you know if I can find it, I'm busy at work but will look at home tonight...


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
please let me know if you find it. I don't know what the tolerance range is on the 5 minutes (maybe plus or minus a minute...just guessing) but if it lasts much longer than 6 minutes then I too would begin to doubt the LUU2 explanation.

Here are the LUU2 specifications:
www.globalsecurity.org...
Weight: 30 lb (13.6 kg)
Length: 36 in. (91.4 cm)
Diameter: 4.87 in. (12.4 cm)
Light Output: 1,800,000 candlepower, 1,600,000 candlepower
Burn Time: 240 sec/300 sec
Descent Rate: 8.3 ft/sec (2.5 m/sec)


Thanks for those specs~
You know I love data!



Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Officials at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson, Ariz., would report that no military maneuvers were taking place that night at the Barry M. Goldwater Range to the west. (Air Force officials would change their story two months later, saying the person on duty that night failed to look at the proper logbook.)



I really have a hard time with that explanation, ESPECIALLY considering what happened in the 'two months' that it took the Air Force to supposedly fix this error.

The case made National News, including the Governors statements.
The case was investigated thoroughly, both here at ATS, and across the nation, by reputable individuals who claimed that no man-made aircraft could have been responsible for the event.

THEN, and only then, a full two months after the event, we get a 'correction' from the Air National Guard, blaming a solitary individual for innaccurately checking the log book, and NOBODY there in the two months this case was all over the MSM bothered to check up on this? Even after the Governor of the State went public?

I have a REALLY hard time buying that line...

I'm sorry. Perhaps this is a case where I'm too biased to be objective, but I don't believe this story, any more than I believe the first three explanations by the Air Force for the Roswell event...




Originally posted by Arbitrageur
If I recall correctly they were something like 60 or more miles away, which one could reasonably say is "not in the area" right?

If we determine the distance to the mountains we know the flares were further away than the mountains from this analysis:



And from such a great distance an 8.3 ft/sec descent rate would be barely visible, until the flare dropped behind the mountain range and was obscured from view.



I'd like you to really think about this Arby, for a moment...

Would an object weighing 30lbs, attached to a parachute, fall at the same rate as an object weighing 15 lbs., attached to an identical parachute?

How about an object that weighed 1 lb (at the time of the alleged flare's end of burn stage...)?

I'm having a real problem with the physics of the claim.

-WFA

[edit on 25-9-2009 by WitnessFromAfar]

Edited to add:
I give up, I can't get this post to format properly... Tried several times. Sorry for the ugly post!

_WFA

[edit on 25-9-2009 by WitnessFromAfar]



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 



The video lasting 30 minutes on that sighting exists, and I thought that was relevant to this discussion.


but 30 minutes of what? are we talking a continueous light for 30 mins or sporadic intermittent lights. We would need to see the footage to be sure.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
I'd like you to really think about this Arby, for a moment...

Would an object weighing 30lbs, attached to a parachute, fall at the same rate as an object weighing 15 lbs., attached to an identical parachute?

How about an object that weighed 1 lb (at the time of the alleged flare's end of burn stage...)?


I don't have to think about it, I ran the numbers, it's a simple formula here:
www.pcprg.com...

Descent rate at:
30 lbs = 8.2 ft/s
15 lbs = 5.8 ft/s
7.5 lbs = 4.1 ft/s
3 lbs = 2.6 ft/s

I doubt it gets much lighter than that (if it even gets that light) because the parachute weight itself is part of the mass calculation for descent. Sure it doesn't fall as fast but so what?

By the way, are you sure magnesium flares get lighter when they burn?
encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com...

Eventually, quantitative experiments revealed problems, including the fact that some metals, such as magnesium, gained weight when they burned

The fact that magnesium gains weight when it burns was part of the experimental evidence used to disprove the existence of phlogiston.
That's quite a contrast to other combustible materials that get lighter when they burn.

But whether it gains weight or loses weight it's still falling toward the earth so I'm not sure why you see a problem with different speeds of falling.


[edit on 26-9-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 



The video lasting 30 minutes on that sighting exists, and I thought that was relevant to this discussion.


but 30 minutes of what? are we talking a continueous light for 30 mins or sporadic intermittent lights. We would need to see the footage to be sure.

Whether or not you think the Willis videos are relevant to this discussion (as you know I think he's a known hoaxer claiming a balloon was a sideways saucer that traveled at thousands of miles per hour), I think we can all agree that his video is not relevant to trying to confirm a claim that the famous video of the Phoenix lights are LUU2 illumination flares. Nobody has claimed that Willis's video shows LUU2 illumination flares, as far as I know. Does that answer your question or did I misunderstand it?

As for what Willis's video shows, I guess we could add it to the other 100,000+ videos of fuzzy dots in the sky that are quite plentiful. More fuzzy dots I'm especially not too excited about since I don't find the source credible in the first place. And no I don't think it's fair if Sky and Telescope didn't know what exploded in the sky that looked like a meteor so called it a meteor, to compare that "claim" to Willis's claim that his balloon traveled thousands of miles per hour.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tifozi
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.


Um, did they tell this airliner not to go there? Apparently not. They did however officially state not having anything in the air? Yes, so that pretty much settles it.


Originally posted by Tifozi
reply to post by Heliocentric
 



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.


I base my statement on what the eye witness states, so it's his opinion you're bashing, not mine.
One thing I'm very clear about is that what a witness sees with his own eyes and what turns up in a video is very much different. You will simply never have a better appreciation of detail, distance, etc than the one that actually looked up at the sky.

No, you can not make a reference as to distances between the airplane and the lights, because you don't know the actual size of them. You simply assume that it can not be that way.

So you ignorantly declare that it has to be the other way around, that the lights are below, and that the witness must be mistaken.

Note that the witness is a CNN reporter, he's trained to observe, he's a bit more than just a "dude on the phone". He probably have a better judgement of the situation than you - even though I know it would be hard for you to admit.

So do I take his testimony and statement that the lights were 30 000 to 40 000 feet above the airplane seriously? Yes, I do. Until proven wrong, which you didn't do.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heliocentric

One thing I'm very clear about is that what a witness sees with his own eyes and what turns up in a video is very much different. You will simply never have a better appreciation of detail, distance, etc than the one that actually looked up at the sky.


That may be true. But I argue that the one who actually looked up at the sky has absolutely no appreciation of the distance of an unknown object. So the fact that our estimation isn't better just means that none of us knows how far away the unknown object is.


No, you can not make a reference as to distances between the airplane and the lights, because you don't know the actual size of them.


When I read that comment, it sounds like we are in complete agreement. you can't, I can't and the observer can't estimate the distance of an unknown object and anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.


So do I take his testimony and statement that the lights were 30 000 to 40 000 feet above the airplane seriously? Yes, I do. Until proven wrong, which you didn't do.


Doesn't this sort of contradict the correct statement you just made that "you can not make a reference as to distances between the airplane and the lights, because you don't know the actual size of them"? How is somebody supposed to tell if an unknown light in the sky is 600 feet away to 60,000 feet away? I have no reason to doubt that he might think they know how far away an unknown light in the sky is, but whether he's been observing for 3 weeks or 30 years, doesn't resolve the impossibility of determining the distance of an unknown light in the night sky. I think we should all be able to realize that any witness claims regarding the distance of an unknown light source at night are unreliable. So the only thing I think you should take seriously is that he honestly THINKs he knows how far away the lights are, but at the same time you should realize that such estimations are impossible no matter how good of an observer he is.

Now judging the distance to an airplane is a different story, because that can be a known object. Therefore a trained observer, knowing the size of the aircraft, can use the apparent size of the aircraft to judge the apparent distance. However if they can't see the outline of the aircraft, this could be challenging at night, and the ability to estimate distance could depend on the orientation of the aircraft with respect to the observer, whether they can see the outline of the aircraft etc. I'm sure Tifozi has some experience in such observations and could elaborate better than I, but I've parked near Chicago's O'Hare airport and watched countless planes land, and I know how far away they are through indirect evidence. I see them lined up on the landing approach at night for miles and miles, and I know they are spaced a certain distance apart by the air traffic controllers. But only the closest planes give me a clear enough outline to estimate their distance visually. The further away the plane is, the harder it is to estimate the distance as the lights run together and have an insufficient arc separation. I could probably say they are a certain MINIMUM distance away when the lights on the airplane appear so close together that it's difficult to resolve individual lights on the aircraft.

I watched the videos and somehow never saw the plane he was talking about, though I heard what sounded like a plane in the audio in 2 of the 3 videos (maybe more than one plane).


Originally posted by mindpurge
Very interesting video to say the least!

But something caught my attention... something the Military "supposedly" said. Check it out...

"Military authorities stated that there were no planes flying at the time of Drenning's sighting." -CNN Reported in the description.

"There was a plane in the video that you can see; there was a plane but it was about 30 or 40 thousand feet lower than what we were able to... the lights were way up there, I don't know how to explain that." -Brad Drenning @ 1:42 in the interview.

So either CNN miss reported it, because the interviewer goes on to specify that the military said THEY had no plains, but the description of the video says something else. You'd expect the military to know exactly what plains were in the sky that night; even farmer Jack, crop dusting a field. So what could they be hiding, they obviously aren't stupid, they KNOW exactly what transpired that night, whether it's unexplainable, even to them, or not.


My interpretation is that the military said THEY had no planes there. I don't think you can interpret that to mean that neither they nor anyone else had any planes in the area.

If the planes (I heard at least 2 of them in the audio I think) are commercial or private planes, then the military could still say that they (the military) had no planes in the area.

[edit on 26-9-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Heliocentric
 



Um, did they tell this airliner not to go there? Apparently not. They did however officially state not having anything in the air? Yes, so that pretty much settles it.


No, it doesn't. You're cutting your reality so you can fit what you believe into this story.

Military has stated before "not having anything in the air" and that was later discovered to be a lie.

The military don't state the truth, they state whatever is more convinient to them.


No, you can not make a reference as to distances between the airplane and the lights, because you don't know the actual size of them. You simply assume that it can not be that way.


Yes, you can. And you can even make a reference to the angle of view. If you can't make this, is another story.

That plane is flying low, and the angle of view is low. Just because of that it is impossible that the object is even above 15,000 feet, not to speak about the ridiculous "30 to 40 thousand feet above the plane".

That statement is not only ignorant, is stupid.


So you ignorantly declare that it has to be the other way around, that the lights are below, and that the witness must be mistaken.


I have never said that. What I said is that the lights are not at 60,000 feet +- like the witness stated.


Note that the witness is a CNN reporter, he's trained to observe, he's a bit more than just a "dude on the phone". He probably have a better judgement of the situation than you - even though I know it would be hard for you to admit.


He's a Ireporter. ANYONE can be a Ireporter if you have ANYTHING relevant to show. That's the new use that news agencies have put into camera cellphones and all that... They tell that anyone can send them matterial and make a story.

And even if he is a CNN reporter, since when that makes him "trained observer"? First people come in here and bash the media because they ridicule the UFO phenomena, but when needed, they are "trained observers"...

He just saw something in the sky.


So do I take his testimony and statement that the lights were 30 000 to 40 000 feet above the airplane seriously? Yes, I do. Until proven wrong, which you didn't do.


I am a airline pilot. I know in the palm of my hand how 30,000 feet apart look like.

But even ignoring that, you can tell that the plane is flying low because you can see the strobe light on the top of the plane. The red one. That means that you are looking at the side of the plane. Thats why the plane has red, green and white lights... So in the dark, you know the direction of the plane, and his angle. Green for right side, red for left side, red strobes for top and bottom.

It's not required to be a CNN reporter to understand that if you can see a object from its side, the object isn't very high, isn't it?

If that object isn't very high, and he has his approach lights on, that means that the UFO isn't very high also. Simple logic.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
And no I don't think it's fair if Sky and Telescope didn't know what exploded in the sky that looked like a meteor so called it a meteor, to compare that "claim" to Willis's claim that his balloon traveled thousands of miles per hour.


That's not the comparison I was making. And I agree that would not be fair.

The comparison I was making was that

1)S&T Report attempted their best explanation of the event - Meteor - without evidence to back up that claim, they then went on to predict the assumed meteor's orbital rotation within the solar system, using guess at velocity based upon two points in a smoke trail. They then continued to offer their explanation as the most likely.

2)Some yahoo named Willis attempted his best explanation of the event - UFO - without evidence to backup that claim, he then went on to predict the assumed UFO's size, shape, and movement patterns, using a guess at velocity based upon two point in the sky on the video. He then continued to offer his explanation as the most likely.

How exactly is that comparison unfair?

-WFA



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
I'd like you to really think about this Arby, for a moment...

Would an object weighing 30lbs, attached to a parachute, fall at the same rate as an object weighing 15 lbs., attached to an identical parachute?

How about an object that weighed 1 lb (at the time of the alleged flare's end of burn stage...)?


I don't have to think about it, I ran the numbers, it's a simple formula here:
www.pcprg.com...

Descent rate at:
30 lbs = 8.2 ft/s
15 lbs = 5.8 ft/s
7.5 lbs = 4.1 ft/s
3 lbs = 2.6 ft/s


So how then do you reconcile what you've just calculated with the LUUN claim that the flares were 'stationary'...

That's my point. The claim doesn't sound like what happens in real physics. What you just posted sounds about right, and is not consistent with the LUUN' stationary claim...


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I doubt it gets much lighter than that (if it even gets that light) because the parachute weight itself is part of the mass calculation for descent. Sure it doesn't fall as fast but so what?


So what? So that's predictable and testable against the phoenix lights video! LOL. That's all I'm saying.


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
By the way, are you sure magnesium flares get lighter when they burn?
encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com...

Eventually, quantitative experiments revealed problems, including the fact that some metals, such as magnesium, gained weight when they burned

The fact that magnesium gains weight when it burns was part of the experimental evidence used to disprove the existence of phlogiston.
That's quite a contrast to other combustible materials that get lighter when they burn.


That's an interesting point. I'm not sure on this, as I understand it, you magnesium burns into white iron ash, which is heavier than the magnesium, however all of that ash would need to be retained onboard the vehicle, it seems more likely to me that as a magnesium flare burned, it's ash would scatter to the wind...

I'm not sure on this at all.

I would submit that it does matter though Arby. If you're going to test a claim, you need to understand all of the factors. And I don't think that either one of us do yet, which is why I enjoy our teamwork in researching cases like this. But don't get discouraged, surely this data is relevant to how a proposed flare would descend...

-WFA



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by yeti101
 


I actually did find the footage I was looking for, I was wrong though.

It was of an event in April of 2008, in fact, the event I was investigating in the other thread...

Here is the video, some of it is crappy, but you can clearly see the lights go out and come back on again...

www.youtube.com...

Here is the same event from another perspective:
www.youtube.com...

and another (with NBC News footage...):
www.youtube.com...

and another,where the objects were on video for 15 minutes...:
www.youtube.com...



My apologies for confusing the two events, I have not yet found a video of the 1997 event lasting longer than 4 minutes, however I'm not done looking either


-WFA



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
How exactly is that comparison unfair?


Because #1 can demonstrate the 2 points in the air photographically and #2 can't, even though #2 was shooting video.

reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 


I still haven't got the slightest clue what your issue with the flares is, but I'll try to summarize the key points here and see if that helps.

1. The flares were dropped and parachutes deployed with initial descent velocity of 8.3 ft/s. Let's assume the descent rate slowed as the flares burned but they continued to drop at a slower rate, eventually 2 fps. (Magnesium definitely gets heavier when it burns but we should assume most of the magnesium oxide falls away, even if not all of it does).

Then we have these 2 observations that appear to be contradictory but are easily resolved:

2. The flares appear motionless. This is explained by the great distance of over 60 miles where a descent rate of 8 fps or 2 fps will essentially appear motionless without any reference point. This is because the arc across the sky at such a distance by those descent rates is imperceptibly small to the human eye or handheld video camera. Accurate technology like a telescope would be able to detect the motion, but no such data was captured.

3. The flares wink out as they pass behind the top of the mountain range. This confirms they are descending, watch the video. And the top of the mountain range provides the reference point that was missing in the observation that they were motionless, as it then confirms that they are in fact descending.

It also confirms the distance is over 60 miles.

All that adds up perfectly to me, but if there's some part of that that doesn't add up for you let me know.

-------------------------

Lastly, I rewatched the 3 videos in this thread, and the way the lights fizzle out sure suggests flares to me.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
How exactly is that comparison unfair?


Because #1 can demonstrate the 2 points in the air photographically and #2 can't, even though #2 was shooting video.



Pretty please desist in insinuating that I am in any way suggesting the comparison is between the claim of the object's assumed velocity.

I've made this clear. The comparison I've drawn is that they both pre-supposed their conclusions, and made guesses based upon their pre-supposed conclusions, and both offered their then self-confirmed pre-supposed conclusions as actual evidence.

They were both 'best guesses'.

Much love Arby, but I think I've been very clear on that point, if you don't agree with it, that's okay, but please do not attempt to reframe the comparison.

I've already agreed with you on the reframed comparison, it's not fair.

The originally claimed comparison regarding basing a hypothesis upon uncomfirmed conclusions seems to me to be fair.

-WFA

-WFA



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 


Regarding other incidents of strange lights in Phoenix (which I do find relevant to this discussion) There is this video report:

"http://www.metacafe.com/fplayer/478729/the_mysterious_phoenix_lights.swf" width="400" height="345" wmode="transparent" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" name="Metacafe_478729" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"> size = 1>The Mysterious Phoenix Lights - Watch a funny movie here

If media does not embed, here is the source URL:
www.metacafe.com...

I also found this interesting, that on March 13th, 1997, the 'phoenix' lights were actually seen over 4 cities and over a period of several hours...

[Evidence points to March 13, 1997 as the onset of this extremely compelling account of various and sundry phenomenal lights which moved over the state of Arizona. These lights, though referred to as the "Phoenix Lights," were actually witnessed in at least five other cities. Phoenix has the distinction as the first Arizona city to report the unknown light sources, which were initially spotted over Superstition Mountains, east of the city, at about 7:30 PM. The first reports indicated an object of six points of light, immediately followed by a report of eight connected lights, with a separate ninth, which moved in unison with the eight.

The formation was seen again over the Gila River just before 10:00 PM. In a matter of minutes, the enormous, lighted structure had made its way over the southern part of the city of Phoenix. At this time, literally thousands of people witnessed the object or objects. It was at this time, that the first photographs and videos were taken. The final sightings of the night were in Rainbow Valley. Witnesses there reported a very distinct "V" formation. This sighting occurred at about 2:00 AM on March 14.]

Source:
www.ufocasebook.com...

-WFA



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
Pretty please desist in insinuating that I am in any way suggesting the comparison is between the claim of the object's assumed velocity.


Sorry if I misinterpreted your comparison, I think it's irrelevant so let's just drop it. I don't find Willis credible and if you do then we can agree to disagree on that point.

The objects in the Willis videos look so much different than the objects in the subject of this thread to me that I'm not sure they if they are even relevant to this thread which is another reason I would personally prefer not to even discuss the Willis videos further in this thread, though if others feel they are somehow relevant and wish to discuss them further, I have no objection, but just count me out of that part of the discussion.

I spent a lot more effort in that post trying to answer your questions about the flares and you didn't respond to that part of my post, are you buying the flare explanation or do you still see some reason not to?



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
Pretty please desist in insinuating that I am in any way suggesting the comparison is between the claim of the object's assumed velocity.


Sorry if I misinterpreted your comparison, I think it's irrelevant so let's just drop it. I don't find Willis credible and if you do then we can agree to disagree on that point.


I'm saying I don't find either of them credible, because the conclusions drawn by both investigations were pre-supposed.

I don't find Willis credible, although I find the videotape relevant to this discussion.

I don't find the S&T article credible either, although I felt the photographs and the math relevant to that discussion...


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The objects in the Willis videos look so much different than the objects in the subject of this thread to me that I'm not sure they if they are even relevant to this thread


I feel they are relevant because it shows that whatever this phenomenon is, it's happening in both daytime and nighttime, and has occurred on several occasions over a 10 year period.

Let me make myself clear here (as the grandson of a fire chief...) that IF indeed flares are being lit and either dropped or sent up on balloons, it is a SEVERE fire hazard, and it's against Arizona State Law.

I'm sorry if you don't see the actual need for investigation into these events, and the need to fully understand how such items perform under real world physical conditions. Fair enough. I DO feel it's important. And frankly, if flares are responsible for these sightings, it's important enough to be prosecutable.

You really never did read the other thread that Snookums linked for you, even after I came personally to ask you to, did you?

As you'll note Arby, I've just posted several more videos of yet another event like this.

Here is some links to underscore the seriousness of the situation according to the law:

[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.]

www2.iccsafe.org...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...


You'll please pardon me for taking these incidents so seriously, considering the fact that Los Angeles has been on fire for the last several months! And last year most of San Diego was engulfed in flames...

I'm going to stop typing about this point now. I will suggest however that you do some research on just how serious fire hazards like sending up a lit flare are to the American Southwest.


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
which is another reason I would personally prefer not to even discuss the Willis videos further in this thread, though if others feel they are somehow relevant and wish to discuss them further, I have no objection, but just count me out of that part of the discussion.


Fair enough.


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I spent a lot more effort in that post trying to answer your questions about the flares and you didn't respond to that part of my post, are you buying the flare explanation or do you still see some reason not to?


As you know Arby, I don't really 'buy' much of any explanation.

I prefer to test each explanation to see if it actually works, before lending credence to a particular explanation.

Especially when it takes 2 months for the explanation to be formed, and it's as weak an explanation as 'oh, that guy checked the wrong night in the logbooks'.

As I've stated earlier, it could well be the case that this explanation is accurate, however due to the extremely unlikely situation in which this explanation arose, I feel the explanation deserves to be tested.

I'm not sure what else to say on that point that I haven't already said.

I don't think that either you or I have a full understanding of the materials involved at this point, in the LUUN explanation.

I'm the type of guy that, instead of proclaiming that since I don't know the investigation is over, to KEEP ON LOOKING.

Surely a magnesium flare exists with a parachute rig somewhere where I can go and look at it, and pick it up in my hands.

Surely an expert exists that can answer my questions as to how the flare burns and what happens to the white ash...

I'm not sure why my not making a definitive statement on that theory bothers you, but I'll make the most definitive statement I can:

"I think the LUUN claim sounds fishy, I don't think it should have taken 2 months of national mystery to re-check the log books. I feel that the claims made in the LLUN claim don't sound to me like they would work in real physics, and at this point, I'm still investigating."

That's as definitive as I care to be on this case at the moment.

If you'd like to call it case closed they were magnesium flares in the Phoenix lights case, that's up to you.

I see a real danger here, even if all of these events DO turn out to be flares, either being dropped from planes or sent aloft with balloons, and due to that real danger, I feel it prudent to continue to investigate these cases until the flare possibility has been either difinitively proven, or dis-proven.

Your theory makes sense, but I can't confirm or deny it either way, and so I'm not done looking


-WFA

_____________________________________________________________


Edited to Add:

Arby, I also spent a fair amount of time sourcing for you other incidents where similar lights have been seen over phoenix, and where the military does not claim to have dropped flares... Would you mind addressing these posts?

I've additionally sourced the UFO Casebook reports from four cities, over a period of several hours here above, would you mind addressing these reports, as they pertain to the 5 minute magnesium flare explanation?

-WFA

End Edit

[edit on 27-9-2009 by WitnessFromAfar]



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 07:33 PM
link   
At the beginning of this clip (taken from national news clips) you'll clearly hear the witness (entire 'Lee' family) describe witnessing the object for 12-15 minutes before it passed over their house, they then continued to watch the object for 5-6 minutes as it headed towards phoenix...

vids.myspace.com...

Further in the above video, Michael Guillen quotes the Air Traffic Controlers 'could not see the object on the radar screen, although they could see it with their eyes'. His theory (put up while the military and air traffic controllers were in agreement about no planes being up that night, before the second claim by the Air Force...) is that is was a stealth craft.

Further in that video (in another later clip) we hear from MUFON, who is buying the 'Flares' explanation, still cite that 'something that wasn't flares' was seen over three other cities that night...

Further in that clip, Councilwoman Frances Barwood, of Phoenix, states that her office was bombarded with thousands of people demanding an official investigation. These eyewitnesses included doctors, lawyers, and Pilots, Retired and Active Military Personnel were also amongst those who contacted Councilwoman Barwood. All claimed it was a single object, larger than any they had ever seen, and that the object moved slowly, with no sound...

Her investigation went all the way up through the Senate, to the Air Force, to the head of the Armed Forces, who sent it to the "Blue Bird Archives" who THEN threw the investigation out... Wierd to make it so high up the chain of command if only flares were responsible...

In this below clip from CNN, Governor Simonson comes out nearly 10 years later to speak against the Military claim (issued to him 2 months after their initial claim that nothing was in the skies that night) claiming he believes it was an Alien Spacecraft, and that at the time he chose not to fight the gov't stance, in order to keep the residents of Arizona calm...

www.youtube.com...

___________________________________________________

Here is some further information on Magnesium, and how it burns:
www.webelements.com...

and here is an interesting discussion on the color of a magnesium burn under different conditions:
www.newton.dep.anl.gov...

As we can see from reading these pages, burning magnesium releases a lot of energy... This picture illustrates that point well:



I have yet to see a magnesium flare burn in person, but reading through the process, such a flare would seem to burn in much the same way as a traditional road flare, which would indicate energy released in one particular direction.

I made a point above that seems to have gone un-noticed in this thread thus far... that being:

When the weight of the flare is negated by lift, the propellent burn becomes the strongest force at play (in essence the flare itself would serve as a small rocket!)

So in effect, we would see the result of the propellent burn guiding the vehicles descent (in the case of a parachute) or moving the flare around in circles (in the case of a balloon, as long as the weight to lift ratio remains balanced, which as observed doesn't last long with a variable weight measure...)

___________________________________________________________

Here is an example of a parachute flare falling during testing (note: this is not a military magnesium flare, I'm still looking for that info...)



www.youtube.com...

Here is a simulation of a parachute flare being used to detect a ship:
www.youtube.com...

__________________________________________________________

More to come as further information emergers...

-WFA



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The objects in the Willis videos look so much different than the objects in the subject of this thread to me that I'm not sure they if they are even relevant to this thread


I feel they are relevant because it shows that whatever this phenomenon is, it's happening in both daytime and nighttime, and has occurred on several occasions over a 10 year period.

Let me make myself clear here (as the grandson of a fire chief...) that IF indeed flares are being lit and either dropped or sent up on balloons, it is a SEVERE fire hazard, and it's against Arizona State Law.


As I said I don't see the similarity, as the objects Willis videoed don't look like flares to me. The 1997 "Phoenix lights" and the lights in this thread do look like flares to me, though I would say the former appears to confirmed by Lt. Col. Ed Jones who dropped the LUU2 flares from his A10, and the latter isn't confirmed but would be a different kind of flare as it obviously burns longer than 5 minutes.


Here is some links to underscore the seriousness of the situation according to the law:

I will suggest however that you do some research on just how serious fire hazards like sending up a lit flare are to the American Southwest.
I agree it's a fire hazard. I also think Chinese sky lanterns can be a fire hazard too in some areas but they seem to be quite popular. So nobody in the southwest should be sending up flares like this, but people shouldn't be speeding either. That doesn't mean that it didn't happen.


Surely a magnesium flare exists with a parachute rig somewhere where I can go and look at it, and pick it up in my hands.


I read the LUU2 flares sell for about $300 each but am not sure if they are available to non-military buyers. The guy who posted in Frank Warren's site seems to know a lot about them, he might be able to suggest ways you could go look at one, just a thought. You wanted to confirm his claims anyway I think and he seemed willing to cooperate.


I see a real danger here, even if all of these events DO turn out to be flares, either being dropped from planes or sent aloft with balloons


I agree there's a fire danger, people in the southwest shouldn't be sending up flares on balloons. Whether or not the military is violating any fire regulations north of the mountains, I don't know, but the magnesium flares are far more dangerous, especially if the flare ignited but the parachute failed, it would fall to the ground and become a very intense fire source.


Your theory makes sense, but I can't confirm or deny it either way, and so I'm not done looking
well instead of referring to it as my theory, you could refer to "the claim of Lt. Col. Ed Jones" who dropped them:
www.rense.com...

The lights were flares, said the Air National Guard, dropped during nighttime exercises at the Barry M. Goldwater Range.

That's what they were, insists Lt. Col. Ed Jones, who piloted one of the four A-10s in the squadron that he says launched the flares.
.....
He now is assistant director of operations for the 104th Fighter Squadron of the Maryland National Guard.


If you accept his claim that he dropped them, and I see no reason not to, then all the evidence would seem to support that claim for the videotaped 5 minute sighting which DIDN'T fly over the city. It wouldn't explain the other claim that something flew over the city at a different time that night, but I've seen no videotape of that.

_____________________________________________________________



Arby, I also spent a fair amount of time sourcing for you other incidents where similar lights have been seen over phoenix, and where the military does not claim to have dropped flares... Would you mind addressing these posts?


I saw the videos in this post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Which are extremely on topic since all four videos appear to be independent videos of the same lights mentioned in the OP of this thread. Again they look like flares to me but unlike the 1997 lights which are confirmed LUU2 flares, these could be road flares, maybe the 30 minute kind you mentioned. Yes I read 80% of the thread snookums linked to but skimmed some posts that didn't appear relevant. One possibility you may want to consider: If the guy who sent up the flares really would get in trouble for a fire code violation, maybe he intentionally gave out disinformation about a smaller balloon so anyone trying to "confirm" he did it wouldn't be able to? Complete speculation but he may have thought more about the possible consequences after he did it, as I suspect happened in the New Jersey flare case too where those guys DID get in trouble, right?


Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 


Regarding other incidents of strange lights in Phoenix (which I do find relevant to this discussion) There is this video report:


They show the 1997 5 minute flares and say the lights were seen over phoenix over a 2 hour period. That seems to be inaccurate. Probably what happened is some errors in people reporting the times, or they are also referring to the other event which was not videotaped which was not flares. As you found the videos all seem to show 5 minutes or less. But the LUU2 illumination flares have a visibility of perhaps 100 miles, they still looked pretty bright at the over 60 miles from Phoenix. So I would assume the other cities that saw the lights might also be within roughly a 100 mile radius of the light source north of the mountains?


I've additionally sourced the UFO Casebook reports from four cities, over a period of several hours here above, would you mind addressing these reports, as they pertain to the 5 minute magnesium flare explanation?
Could you please do me a favor and copy the link from "this post" at the top of the relevant post so I know which post to look in? Sorry I'm not sure which post you're referring to, thanks for a little help in pointing it out and I'll gladly look at it.




top topics



 
68
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join