Lights Over El Paso, TX October 15, 2010 (SOLVED/Identified - SkyDivers)

One problem I have with this being sky divers with flares is that when the lights all stop and hover this is apparently when the parachute is pulled correct? But the "flares" are clearly still lit as the lights are still going. Now if that flare is attached to you shooting hot sparks above you would you want to pull your parachute send it flying through the sparks? Doesn't make sense to me.

That and the fact that in all those videos phage posted the lights do not look or act the same as the OP's video IMO.

reply to post by scitpeks


Why did you completely ignore the rest of that post?

Where is your supporting evidence for your theories?

reply to post by 0ne10

You put forth the theory that the video was in color, you put forth the theory that the video was correctly focused, and you put forth the theory that the second video was not the same event.

Ummm, sorry but it was YOU that said the video was filmed (for some odd reason) in black and white.
It was YOU that said the video was out of focus and it was YOU that said your video was of the same event...

I think you are getting a little confused here.
YOU continue to put forth assumptions and then ask ME to prove them for you..
I think you need to step back for minute and take a good hard look at who you are argueing with, I think it's yourself...

I can go back and get quotes from your posts for all I have just stated if you really need me too..

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter


Agent_USA_Supporter.....

I know it is parachutists.

You know it is parachutists.

Therefore it is not useful to engage in further dialogue as it will serve no purpose.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by 0ne10

Where is your supporting evidence for your theories?

What theories?? Yours?

Originally posted by monkeykillingmonkey
One problem I have with this being sky divers with flares is that when the lights all stop and hover this is apparently when the parachute is pulled correct?

Correct. But "flares" is not completely correct. More like "fireworks".

Originally posted by monkeykillingmonkey
But the "flares" are clearly still lit as the lights are still going. Now if that flare is attached to you shooting hot sparks above you would you want to pull your parachute send it flying through the sparks? Doesn't make sense to me.

Watch this video:



Does it make sense now?

Originally posted by scitpeks

Where is your supporting evidence for your theories?

What theories?? Yours?

Another example of you completely ignoring almost everything I type... you have selective reading.

Here read my post again:

Originally posted by 0ne10
You put forth the theory that the video was in color. You put forth the theory that the video was correctly focused. And you put forth the theory that the second video was not the same event. I would like you to show some type of supporting evidence for these theories.

reply to post by 0ne10

Another example of you completely ignoring almost everything I type... you have selective reading.

Here read my post again:

Ummm, I replied to that 5 minutes before you posted this.
I read fine and don't ignore.

Just another example of your unfounded insults me thinks

reply to post by 0ne10

Does it make sense now?

Not the same.

reply to post by scitpeks

In case you ignore my reply, here it is for you..

reply to post by 0ne10

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


You put forth the theory that the video was in color, you put forth the theory that the video was correctly focused, and you put forth the theory that the second video was not the same event.


Ummm, sorry but it was YOU that said the video was filmed (for some odd reason) in black and white.
It was YOU that said the video was out of focus and it was YOU that said your video was of the same event...

I think you are getting a little confused here.
YOU continue to put forth assumptions and then ask ME to prove them for you..
I think you need to step back for minute and take a good hard look at who you are argueing with, I think it's yourself...

I can go back and get quotes from your posts for all I have just stated if you really need me too..

Originally posted by 0ne10

Originally posted by monkeykillingmonkey
One problem I have with this being sky divers with flares is that when the lights all stop and hover this is apparently when the parachute is pulled correct?

Correct. But "flares" is not completely correct. More like "fireworks".

Originally posted by monkeykillingmonkey
But the "flares" are clearly still lit as the lights are still going. Now if that flare is attached to you shooting hot sparks above you would you want to pull your parachute send it flying through the sparks? Doesn't make sense to me.

Watch this video:

Does it make sense now?

Ok, i changed my mind. The thing in the sky is indeed skydivers.

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter


'Not the same' ? Are you havin' a laugh? It's exactly the same. The way they fall down vertically then split off in different directions. The same.

Yet another example of people getting carried away with themselves. There are logical, everyday explanations for all these things.

reply to post by Project-Sign


I agree its probably skydivers but did you join ATS just to debunk?
I ask because I note thats all your posts have been since you joined.

Originally posted by scitpeks
Ummm, sorry but it was YOU that said the video was filmed (for some odd reason) in black and white.

DUH... I know... and I put forward my evidence and reasons for thinking that.

1: The entire video is black and white, with no color. (very good reason)

2: The other video of the event shows color, and the original doesn't. (another good reason).

YOU said this:

Originally posted by scitpeks
lol, fine, it was filmed in color. Prove me wrong...

Now it is YOUR theory that it was in color... so why don't you show supporting evidence that it was filmed in color??

Originally posted by scitpeks
It was YOU that said the video was out of focus

DUH, and I explained my reasons for thinking that.

1: In the begining of the video you can clearly see the camera struggling to focus on the object.

2: You can see clear "blooming" effect caused by the lenses.

It was YOU the disagreed with me that it was out of focus... this must mean you think it is in focus... Now show us your supporting evidence that it is in focus....

Originally posted by scitpeks
and it was YOU that said your video was of the same event...

Yes, me and other people... duh... and I gave my reasons and evidence that supports that.

It was YOU that said it wasn't the same event.

Your only explanation for it not being the same event is because it didn't have the splitting part. Even though it is totally possible that the camera guy didn't film the beginning and only the end.... so that makes your only evidence invalid.

Show us your evidence for thinking it's not the same event!

Originally posted by scitpeks
I think you are getting a little confused here.

No, you are getting confused.. You are supporting certain arguments and not showing any type of evidence or reason to believe said arguments. Then you tell me I'm confused for asking you to show evidence and reasons for your arguments.

Originally posted by scitpeks
YOU continue to put forth assumptions and then ask ME to prove them for you..

What on Earth are you talking about? You are so confused it is hilarious.

I put forth the assumption that the video is not color... I proved two things, 1: the image contains no colors and 2: the other video of the same event contains color and the first video doesn't.

You said the video has color:

Originally posted by scitpeks
lol, fine, it was filmed in color. Prove me wrong...

So I am asking YOU to prove what YOU said....

Now do you see how confused you are?

Originally posted by scitpeks
I think you need to step back for minute and take a good hard look at who you are argueing with, I think it's yourself...

No sir. I think you have confused yourself.

Originally posted by scitpeks
I can go back and get quotes from your posts for all I have just stated if you really need me too..

Don't bother.... it's quite obvious I know more about what I am saying than you do.

reply to post by ch1n1t0


Well, I don't feel like repeating myself over and over, but a week before the sightings in NYC I had seen something similar that was a huge ball of light so circular and bright that just appeared out of nowhere and disappeared as fast,but as it went west and descended, it too seemed to break up into smaller spheres, and I thought maybe a comet, but for the spheres descending in front or behind it, can't tell now...but it does strike me that while we all may be seeing the same phenomena repeated everywhere, what does it all mean? It appears to be harmless, comes out of the blue, disappears, and is only a visual sighting. With so many of them appearing, it is likely there will be other sightings as well. So now what? What are we to make of it? What can you do?

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter


Prove that it is not the same.

...and why did you ignore my last post?

Are you going to prove what the witnesses said?

reply to post by scitpeks


No technically you didn't read what I said... you only read what you thought I said. Then went off in a confused rant.

reply to post by 0ne10


Thanks for posting that. It does make sense now seeing that. I was just picturing the sparks tearing through the nylon of a parachute The sky diving videos posted still don't really look the same to me but it is the most logical explanation and I guess as much as I would enjoy this being something more extraordinary then skydivers it isn't.

reply to post by 0ne10

Don't bother.... it's quite obvious I know more about what I am saying than you do.

Mate, thanks for the laugh.
You just admitted all three of them assumptions were started by you and yet still ask me for proof..
I nearlly choked on my beer.