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.
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...
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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:
Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
Further, flares don't go out and then relight themselves.
Further, nobody has addressed how an A-10 can 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...
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?
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.
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...
Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
why do you think stanton friedman concedes the phoenix lights were flares?
Originally posted by yeti101
The thousands of witnesses saw exactly what is on the phoenix lights videos. They were not up close to them.
Originally posted by yeti101
The earlier sightings maybe diffirent. Thats why ufologist shifted to those once the phoenix lights were debunked.
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?
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.
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.
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
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I was pointing out the flaws in his comments, and rightfully so in my opinion.
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.
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.
Google Video Link |
Google Video Link |