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: 7
68
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 10:35 PM
link   
There's no point in discussing this or arguing this case much further IMO, the objects in that video are lanterns. Its not necessary to dance around the lantern theory by suggesting these are balloons with road flares attached to it... I think calling them lanterns is enough to close this case.

They have all the characteristics:

-They drift in all sorts of directions- they do not hold formation, maybe at first they seem to but there isn't anything deliberate about it.
-They have an orb like appearance very similar to how lanterns look when floating in the sky
-They flicker out one by one, according to the witness.


Watch this video and see for yourself. Here are 3 lanterns released in a triangle formation that seem to hold it for a bit and then drift apart...notice how they look just like the lights in the cnn video...



I've been on ATS long enough, and have seen enough of these light formation videos posted (heck I probably posted one or two myself) to know a lantern when I see one...I'm sorry but that's all they are...




posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
Watch this video and see for yourself. Here are 3 lanterns released in a triangle formation that seem to hold it for a bit and then drift apart...notice how they look just like the lights in the cnn video...


Those can't be lanterns, they form a triangle and lanterns can't do that because the wind will blow them around!
OK that rebuttal is ridiculous on so many levels:

- 3 points of light will always for a triangle (and the formation of the 4 points in the OP video seemed no more significant despite ridiculous claims to the contrary)

- The changing shape of the formation is nothing special, in that video or in the OP, could be sky lanterns or balloons with flares which would move similarly.

You could be right and it could be sky lanterns, but the only reason I think flares instead, is the color in the OP vid and the 2 subsequent vids looks more like flares than sky lanterns. Now if the sky lantern itself matched that color, then that might explain the color and you could be right. However as the video you just posted demonstrates, all 3 sky lanterns were different colors, but all 3 light sources looked amber-whitish at a distance, not the color of the lanterns which I could only see when they were closer.

And the videos in the OP and the 2 follow-up videos were more reddish in color like road flares, especially in parts 2 and 3:

Originally posted by IconoclasticTalamasca
EDIT: Found links to the additional footage. I have never uploaded a video here, plus I am at work, so here are the links. Thanks bunches to whoever uploads them.


www.ireport.com... Part 2

www.ireport.com... Part 3



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
As I said I don't see the similarity, as the objects Willis videoed don't look like flares to me.


You've also said that the objects in the Willis video DO look like balloons to you...

So either it's relevant or it isn't Arby, up to you I guess.

In a thread discussing the possibility that these sightings are balloons, I found it relevant, and I'm a bit surprised that you don't... but oh well?


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
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.


With respect Arby, let's be clear that you are choosing to believe that this explanation is true.

It might be true, but it has yet to be tested. The claim is in contrast with THOUSANDS of other claims made by citizens of Phoenix, including doctors, lawyers, pilots, and retired and active military personnel, and including the Governor of the State of Arizona.

I think that combined with the 2 month delay on the Air Force even submitting this explanation as a possibility during a national news bonanza on the topic, this explanation AT THE VERY LEAST deserves to be fully tested before issuing a definitive proclamation one way or the other.

It's shocking to me that after I've already demonstrated a clear case where an Air Force officer was shown to have HOAXED an explanation for the Phoenix Lights, back in April of 2008, that you would still give so much automatic credence to what appears from the outset to be a very shaky claim (that it took 2 months to come to the conclusion that 'one guy checked the wrong logbook').

But I suppose if you're ready to make a conclusion, so be it.

I'm not.


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
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.


Very true. F.Y.I. Chinese lanterns have been banned in San Diego.

People do things that they should not all the time.

People don't often do things that violate the laws of physics though, which is why we're able to test claims against a constant standard.


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
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.


Confirmation of his claims would have to come from somewhere besides the original source Arby.

That's why it's called confirmation, and not 'hearing it again from the same guy'...


I'm attempting to corroborate information he claimed. So far, it looks like Military flares actually do fall quite quickly, even when attached to parachutes. It's noticeable, even over a distance. At least that's what my research has led me to believe thus far.

Further, flares don't go out and then relight themselves.

Further, nobody has even brought up yet, the '9th' light, that isn't in the same formation as the rest of the lights, yet moves with them...

Further, nobody has addressed how an A-10 can fly THAT SLOWLY...
(When watching the Phoenix Lights videos from 1997, you'll notice a definite delay between the 'lighting up' of the lights.... How does an A-10 fly that slowly?...)

As I've said before, his claims don't seem to match up with the video evidence, and they REALLY don't match up with the 3 other cities full of people who saw this same object until about 2:00 in the morning that same night...


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
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.


Fully agreed, and to be perfectly honest, it doesn't really make much sense for an A-10 to have dropped these flares, AT ALL...

Unused munitions (even flares) still cost real money. Why waste what you could use in your next run? Why empty out the flare bay to need to be refilled upon landing? What on the ground was this pilot supposedly attempting to light up?

It just doesn't make ANY sense to me.

Where is the rest of his crew? Surely this A-10 had a support crew...

Why have we heard from nobody besides this one individual, on a national news story like the Phoenix Lights...

Why would the Governor come out 10 years later to decry the explanation as false?



Originally posted by Arbitrageur
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.


I see we're now separating the events.

The national news media didn't, in fact you'll note from an earlier news clip I posted that Air Traffic Controllers confirmed that nothing was in the skies...

Nothing including Military A-10's doing training exercises...

Arby, I see a LOT of reason not to believe this claim.

Nonetheless, I'm STILL willing to subject it testing against known physics.



Originally posted by Arbitrageur
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?


Perhaps that might be possible, if the Flares lasted from 10:00 PM to about 2:00AM, sure that could be possible.

Arby, I think you're really reaching for some of these explanations, when there are much simpler explanations that fit with the observable evidence.

When you reach like that, you accidentally ignore pieces of collaborating evidence, like the fact that these sightings happened at different times during the night...


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
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.


It's this post here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Where I quoted from UFO Casebook:
[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 again:
www.ufocasebook.com...

-WFA



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
Watch this video and see for yourself. Here are 3 lanterns released in a triangle formation that seem to hold it for a bit and then drift apart...notice how they look just like the lights in the cnn video...


Those can't be lanterns, they form a triangle and lanterns can't do that because the wind will blow them around!
OK that rebuttal is ridiculous on so many levels:



That's called setting up a 'Straw-Man' argument, so that you can then knock it down...

I've not seen anyone here making this claim.

Let's please not try to insinuate that the other is 'crazy'.

-WFA



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Just found this video showing troops loading a parachute flare...

vids.myspace.com...

And here are some parachute flares being used to illuminate a scene during what looks like a training excersise:
vids.myspace.com...


-WFA

[edit on 28-9-2009 by WitnessFromAfar]



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 


why do you think stanton friedman concedes the phoenix lights were flares?

The thousands of witnesses saw exactly what is on the phoenix lights videos. They were not up close to them. The earlier sightings maybe diffirent. Thats why ufologist shifted to those once the phoenix lights were debunked.

As for these other videos what makes those lights anything special? We dont see any incredible manouvers, they appear to just burn out like a man made object would. What is it that makes them special to you?



[edit on 28-9-2009 by yeti101]



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
Further, flares don't go out and then relight themselves.

Can't they flicker as they are burning out?


Further, nobody has addressed how an A-10 can fly THAT SLOWLY...


For the same reason the flares appear motionless, both the flares and the A10s that dropped them are over 60 miles away.

I think you said you have engineering skills, right? Then you might be able to come up with a pretty good speed estimate from the location of the mountain peaks in the video below showing where those peaks are in the night video. You might be able to get those peak locations from Google earth. Then since the flares are beyond the peaks (you could assume just beyond like 65 miles from the camera), you should be able to estimate the speed of the A10s dropping them to see if the speed is within it's normal flight characteristics for such a flare dropping exercise. I would expect you'll find the speed is normal.


As I've said before, his claims don't seem to match up with the video evidence, and they REALLY don't match up with the 3 other cities full of people who saw this same object until about 2:00 in the morning that same night...


OK I looked at the UFOcasebook link you provided, thanks for pointing that out. I've seen the flare video shown here:

so All I'm saying is that what's in that video, is most likely flares just as they say.

As for other events and sightings that night, I really haven't seen any video of them, so until I do I have no idea what they saw. If they shot video of the giant V-shaped craft that flew over the city, then let's look at it, maybe they saw something else besides flares, as that description doesn't sound like flares. In fact one theory I've seen is that the flares were dropped as a distraction to focus attention away from the unknown object flying over Phoenix. The problem with that theory, is the hours that separate the flare dropping from the flyover, so it would be a lot better distraction if they both happened at the same time. I'm not making a claim that nobody saw anything other than flares that night. I'm only claiming that the video of the flares is probably just flares.


Unused munitions (even flares) still cost real money. Why waste what you could use in your next run? Why empty out the flare bay to need to be refilled upon landing?


Darn good question, and knowing they cost $300 a pop makes me mad if he was ejecting leftovers for no good reason. I'd like to know the answer to that too.


Why have we heard from nobody besides this one individual, on a national news story like the Phoenix Lights...
Why would the Governor come out 10 years later to decry the explanation as false?


The pilot Lt. Col. Ed Jones is one person. Another pilot apparently is Lt Col David Tanaka, who appears in the video above. The guy posting on Frank Warren's site would be a third, non-pilot witness, who claims he can provide documentation to prove the flare explanation. I can't speak for the rest but I think military pilots and personnel are discouraged from talking to the media or general public. But now that we know who two of the pilots were, you could always try asking them who the other pilots were. They might not want to reveal their names, if they prefer not to be pestered by lots of phone calls from UFO investigators, or they might not have authorization to talk. I wouldn't be surprised if the pilots speaking to the media have authorization to do so from their superiors.



Originally posted by Arbitrageur
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.


I see we're now separating the events.


Not that it's a great source, but Wikipedia separates them:

en.wikipedia.org...


There were two distinct events involved in the incident: a triangular formation of lights seen to pass over the state, and a series of stationary lights seen in the Phoenix area. The United States Air Force (USAF) identified the second group of lights as flares dropped by A-10 Warthog aircraft which were on training exercises at the Barry Goldwater Range in southwest Arizona.



When you reach like that, you accidentally ignore pieces of collaborating evidence, like the fact that these sightings happened at different times during the night...


There may have been multiple events observed at different times as Wikipedia says. But I'm only saying the famous videotape shows flares. I'd be interested in seeing videotapes of the object flying over the city earlier that night if there are any, then I could comment on those. I've read various explanations for those and with no video it's hard to confirm or deny any of the explanations.

Regarding the other events mentioned in the UFOcasebook, I'll just have to say "Unknown" as I'm not claiming everything seen was flares. I will say this, the 2nd photo in the series of 4 photos on the UFOcasebook link shows a series of lights in front of the mountains which is not what the famous video shows. I don't know if that photo has been manipulated or not, as in all the videos I saw, the mountain range was not visible. I wonder if that could even be a frame capture from the video I posted in this post in which case it's very misleading. It looks like it could be a video capture, right? But the arrangement of the lights seems to have the same pattern.

So one question that raises is, over what length of time were the training exercises performed that night by the ANG? Did they make several flare dropping runs over a period of time? I have no idea, but it makes it more interesting to see the flight schedules that guy on Warren's site claims to have, if they dropped flares in several locations. But I didn't see any documentation listed for that photo like photographer, time location, etc to confirm it. All we have is a cryptic caption that says: "Various photographs of the Phoenix Lights" which isn't that helpful to researchers right?

Lastly, I don't know if you listened to this podcast by Wes Owsley in this ATS thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

In it he makes a comment I find very interesting. He has a contact (close friend) who apparently was at the Arizona base in 1997 when all this happened. And in the podcast, Wes said that his friend won't say one word to him about the whole event, or something to that effect! It really adds an aura of mystery to the case if it's that dramatic. Is there a gag order in place as that comment might seem to suggest? I have no idea. Maybe they were testing secret aircraft that night and the flares were just a distraction? But why fly a secret aircraft right over a huge city like Phoenix? It doesn't add up.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


You're excellent reply Arby shows me that once more I've misinterpreted your investigations here.

Fantastic reply. When you and I get down to the very detail of things, it's apparent that we agree on about 90% of our conclusions.

Thanks for illustrating to me that there was more than 1 person reporting this, I haven't visited Frank's site yet, and was using your posts as a reference to what was there. (That'll teach me, even when it's a researcher I trust, like yourself, to actually go read the info...LOL).

It is a mystery indeed, which is why I feel further investigation is warranted.

Star for the fantastic post that furthers this cause!

-WFA



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Your post was big, so instead of a direct quote, I decided to cut and paste, hope that's okay...


Arby said...
[you should be able to estimate the speed of the A10s dropping them to see if the speed is within it's normal flight characteristics for such a flare dropping exercise. I would expect you'll find the speed is normal.]

It's that I cannot reconcile the speed of flight with the descent rate, at the same viewing distance.

As I said earlier, you may well be right, but it seems off to me...

-WFA



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 


why do you think stanton friedman concedes the phoenix lights were flares?


I haven't read Stanton's analysis, but I imagine he has good reasons!



Originally posted by yeti101
The thousands of witnesses saw exactly what is on the phoenix lights videos. They were not up close to them.


Not according to the thousands of people who contacted Councilwoman Barwood's office (see earlier posts...)


Originally posted by yeti101
The earlier sightings maybe diffirent. Thats why ufologist shifted to those once the phoenix lights were debunked.


Fair enough, I'd like to take it a bit further and do thorough analysis on the physics of the objects involved, but I respect their opinions...


Originally posted by yeti101
As for these other videos what makes those lights anything special? We dont see any incredible manouvers, they appear to just burn out like a man made object would. What is it that makes them special to you?


The alleged hoaxer's claim was what was special to me, I doubted it would work in physics. Then I proved it by carrying out the experiment using his proclaimed materials, and videod it for ATS...

The fact that no charges have been brought against the alleged hoaxer (military personnel I might add...) that's special to me.

There are many aspects of these sightings that remain unexplained, and as I've stated before, even if the cause DOES turn out to be flares, that's worth investigating as well, as it's prosecutable, and it puts peoples lives in danger.

-WFA



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 



well i think that illustrates how bereft the field of ufology is of material. If this is interesting i'd hate to see the mundane ones.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by yeti101
 


Here I would politely differ.

If these investigations are able to identify UFOs of any sort, I see their validity here at the UFO forum...

But you're right, in that there are certainly more interesting cases out there.

BOLA for example...

-WFA



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
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.


Actually I found this link in my research. It's apparently the non-magnesium version (Infrared version) of the LUU2 flare, called the LUU-19 flare.

What's interesting, is that it shows a cutaway view that the spec sheet for the LUU2 flare doesn't have. This might be even better than holding one in your hands where you can't see what's inside, as this actually shows what's inside.

www.fas.org...

The LUU-19 is the IR-spectrum variant of the LUU-2 paraflare currently deployed by F-14’s from ITER’s. The LUU-19 has the same physical dimensions as LUU-2, and provides IR illumination of the target area for NVG-capable attack aircraft. The LUU-19 flare is the latest in a series of infrared flares introduced by Thiokol for covert target illumination and rescue missions. Designated as a multi service flare by United States military forces, the LUU-19 incorporates improvements and modifications that further enhance its performance and reliability.


Based on the statement that "The LUU-19 has the same physical dimensions as LUU-2" it's probably not outrageous to assume they are similar inside except for the Magnesium being replaced by something else.

Also I'm glad we're not as far apart as you thought on what happened that night, and glad my last post cleared that up.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Nice find Arby!

I'm having a busy afternoon, but if I don't get to it today I'll read the link this evening


I love data!

By the by, did you see the video above I linked with the guys loading a parachute flare munition? Those things are pretty big!

-WFA


Edited to Add:
Got a chance to review that link, nice find!

Here's what I found interesting:



With a parachute flare, there appears to be a very defined direction of light output. That direction being namely, down at the ground.

It sure would be nice to be able to get a sattellite photo of Phoenix at that time, to see if there were circles of light on the ground...

It seems odd to me that in the reported sightings of this event, that several cones of light (each emanating from each light source) were not described by eyewitnesses...

In the simulation video clip I posted above, you can see how these flares are used to light up a large area on the ground...

-WFA

[edit on 28-9-2009 by WitnessFromAfar]



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Those can't be lanterns, they form a triangle and lanterns can't do that because the wind will blow them around!
OK that rebuttal is ridiculous on so many levels:


That's called setting up a 'Straw-Man' argument, so that you can then knock it down...

I've not seen anyone here making this claim.

Let's please not try to insinuate that the other is 'crazy'.

-WFA


Don't take it personally. I wasn't referring to you.

I was referring to Brad Drenning, the reporter in the OP video, more than anyone in here.

Listen to what he says about the 4 lights making "formations" like "Trapezoid, square, kind of a W, so it was very specific formations".

And of course we can watch the video ourselves to see that there's nothing remarkable about the movement or formations. And then he says "They can't be flares because they made specific formations".

I was pointing out the flaws in his comments, and rightfully so in my opinion.


Edit: I just saw the videos of them loading flares! Yes those things are huge! They aren't road flares, that's for sure! Thanks for sharing that! starred!

[edit on 28-9-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

I was pointing out the flaws in his comments, and rightfully so in my opinion.



Thanks for the trackback on that line of reasoning. I agree, your comments were justified. I didn't really know who you were replying to...



Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I'm still looking for that video of them loading the flares, I found the other videos you posted of dropping flares, burning magnesium, etc.


Here it is:
vids.myspace.com...

Not sure how to make a myspace vid appear here at ATS, but the link seems to be working...



-WFA



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   
A) If they are flares, gravity would take effect and send them toward the earth. Oh wait, they must be those hi-tech ANTI-GRAV flares.....Lanterns wouldn't have stationary altitude for that long either.

B) If it's a Top Secret aircraft, then why is our govt. flying it over civilian airspace? To 'test public reaction'? Heard that one before.

C) I can't prove it's alien, but what we do know, is its an Unidentified Flying Object.







[edit on 28-9-2009 by NightVision]

[edit on 28-9-2009 by NightVision]



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by NightVision
A) If they are flares, gravity would take effect and send them toward the earth. Oh wait, they must be those hi-tech ANTI-GRAV flares.....Lanterns wouldn't have stationary altitude for that long either.


Flares like these, I guess you could call them antigravity, but not really hi-tech:
New Jersey balloon-flare Setup

Google Video Link


New Jersey balloon-flare Launch

Google Video Link


Story: www.skeptic.com...

And nobody knows what the altitude of the lights in the OP is, or if the altitude is stationary or not. The photographer thinks he knows the altitude but he doesn't, just as he's wrong about other assertions.

[edit on 28-9-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


looks alot like the vids we see in this thread. Impressed by the news coverage and witness "testimony" LoL

Great illustration of how something ordinary turns into soemthing amazing in the minds of the observer.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


The balloon flare theory is a very tempting explanation, but it contradicts the testimony of the eye witness filming. He described the object(s) as 'taking off out of frame one at a time'. By the balloon theory criteria, the objects would have to be launched tied together w. a string in order to make the shapes seen on video, and then simultaneously break in multiple points at the same time.

According to the witness, there's still 11 minutes worth of video to see, so I guess we'll just have to wait in order to know either way...



[edit on 28-9-2009 by NightVision]



new topics

top topics



 
68
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join