Swarm of Lights Appear Over Argentina and Chile And Is Filmed From Six Cameras.

reply to post by greyer

Are you that narrow minded, that you think everyone you are talking to is the same way? Go find someone else to make accusations to.

I just quoted you and your quote.

For a Satellite breaking up, it's moving rather slowly, and horizontally, so I don't think that works because the "debris" would arc to a degree, and the light's wouldn't stay on like that and, there would be trails too which there are not.

reply to post by spacedoubt


I am sorry but i am doubting that its an satellite debris re entry from the 7 videos that i had seen it doesn't look nor even compare to it.

Falling satellites all of them have and leave a trail behind this one doesn't how does one explain that?

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
For a Satellite breaking up, it's moving rather slowly, and horizontally, so I don't think that works because the "debris" would arc to a degree, and the light's wouldn't stay on like that and, there would be trails too which there are not.

Even phage would agree to this.

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter

And yet the same thing was seen over two South American countries - was it the same night?

Very VERY interesting indeed.

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter


You surely don't have to be sorry!

I'd love for there to be a superlegitimate piece of media that showed something conclusive.
I think though, for all of our sakes, we should completely exhaust all of the things that it isn't, before we conclude what it is.
In this case, there seems to be a relationship between a known launch, and a piece of debris that came down later due to it being essentially abandoned in space at a really low orbit. So I'm supporting this theory for the time being.
I just seems to make the most sense. But again, I would like to see Orbital Sciences Corp. to claim it as their stuff!

reply to post by Komodo


Well, it IS re entering. From LEO to ZEO (Zero Earth orbit).
So at some point in re entry, it would be a 15k feet, and eventually no feet at all.

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by spacedoubt

 

Since its from slate and they claim that it was an satellite from April? thats rather impossible. So now in order to clam the down the fears. Its ok everyone its just a satellite from April.From satellites to Meteors this is how our MSM is trying to dumb us down, yet again.[

Two of my favorite quotations:

“Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.”
Nietzsche

“The greatest obstacle to discovering the shape of the earth, the continents, and the oceans was not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge."
Daniel Boorstin


What I've seen here from many posters is a thrown-up smokescreen of imaginary "MUST-HAVES" for what a shallow-angle fireball swarm HAS to look like -- none of which are reality-based at all. They look, in many cases, like gimmicks to protect peoples' minds from conclusions they have pre-decided they don't want to reach.

There have also been a series of sensible, reality based comments on NOT ruling out some explanation based on criteria which have no basis in fact.

This question needs more than knee-jerk proclamations of convenient fact. Please study the drawings from the 1963 entry of the Kosmos-20 rocket booster. Please study the lengthy discussion of the Yukon 'mother ship' sightings from 1996. And there are other cases of exactly this origin -- with exactly these perceptions.

Let's not retread and retread some of the same questions that earlier ATS threads had illuminated very well.

It is NOT going to be easy, BUT in my view this particular kind of stimulus/perception may be the 'Rosetta Stone' to unlock, after half a century of pointless fruitless squabbling, the real range of human perception and misperception based on definable stimuli such as fireball swarms.

Come on, let's try it. How well has the old approach really been working out?

This stuff isn't obvious and it isn't 'common sense', because it's no longer earthside everyday life. It's outer space, not Kansas any more. It's HARD. If it were EASY, it would already have been reported in LIFE magazine.

What are some of the specific open questions I need to respond to, please?

I think it's one super large airship. There is a pattern with the lights in all of videos. Its man made for sure and it does look like an airship the gig line on the light pattern has a curvature to it. There was a thread on here a few weeks back where someone described this Airship, but it was on the ground unloading tanks in some sort of test " it was as big as a walmart and black" posted from someone who's relative was part of the testing. Now I see these videos and it appears this very well may just be the walmart size Airship. I have to search for that post.

Its not a cluster of meteors. I see that stuff weekly to know the difference. Space junk maybe but all the space junk I seen burn up will have a bright green trail behind it, but does fall in a similar pattern. I see that stuff about three times a year. You see allot in the desert, eventually you can tell the difference after a couple years. Whatever this is its not meteors ,.space junk is a reach, only because the Ufo in the video shows the object moving horizontal. Much to slow for space junk.

I'm sure it's man made whatever it is. last time I seen something strange flying out in the distance of the new mexico desert I took my binoculars out the truck. 8-10 minutes later an f14 out of nowhere buzzed me at about 500 feet right over my head then came back for another pass much lower and banked into a turn. It could have been this thing I seen. It was very big. but I wasn't going to stick around not to mention my ears were ringing. It was there way of telling me move-on nothing to see here or we will JDAM you. My dogs showed no fear towards the F14 .jumping up amd down wanting to take a piece of that pilots behind. LoL. Strange thing is an F14 in the middle of the nm desert, Flying low over private ranch land. There are big restrictions in nm about high speed low flying, some beak the sound barrier. That tomcat was not from a nm base. I keep a full size nikon in my truck now.

reply to post by spacedoubt

I just seems to make the most sense. But again, I would like to see Orbital Sciences Corp. to claim it as their stuff!

Thank you for the posts on this thread. I agree, space debris makes the most sense.

Good luck with early admissions by the company that is "responsible" for maybe an injury or damage from said payload. Maybe their lawyers are advising them to wait a while before making it official?

Sadly this isn't a UFO or a cluster of UFO's. The people who REALLY want UFO's to come are seeing things that overrides their sense of logic. Pretty soon, every photo or every video is a UFO. I'm sorry to say, but these are NOT UFO's.

This is either a satellite burning upon reentry into the atmosphere or a meteorite. I will say the latter, since a falling satellite is usually a controlled burn over a body of water (or if they want recovery as an option it'll be over a remote portion of land mass ) and not over land. When a meteorite reenters into our atmosphere, they flare up (I won't get into the whole chemistry and makeup of how and why this happens) where they get brighter and dim then extinguish --sparkle and fade if you will.

These are meteorites. They look "big," but when you combine night time with many dust particles or stones that are thousands of degrees heated, they look bigger than they are. Them getting brighter and extinguishing clinches our correct conclusion here.

reply to post by intrptr


That's a good point. What are the rules?
In this case we have a private launch company, of which there will be more in the future. What kind of insurance do they have to carry? In what ways are they responsible for their leftovers?

reply to post by spacedoubt

In what ways are they responsible for their leftovers?

Well if they openly admit it, there goes Plausible Deniability. I am not sure about the legality of it. Dumping stuff from orbit into the oceans is the best way to do it, but something always survives. Like fuel tanks and nozzles.

reply to post by OneNationUnder

These are meteorites. They look "big," but when you combine night time with many dust particles or stones that are thousands of degrees heated, they look bigger than they are. Them getting brighter and extinguishing clinches our correct conclusion here.

Again how can they be meteorites if they had a light at the bottom of the hull in one of the videos?

Well people i´m argentine and what ever question about this you´d like to make i´ll say the best info is right here, right now...we often see this kind of meteoroids in our country, but we also see a lot of UFO phenomeae here also, even at the Uritorco, in Córdoba province, there is one of the most active UFO places in the world...in Entre ríos also (Victoria city)...if any of you would like to have the best sightings in the world, deffinitely Argentine is a place to visit....and the most beautiful women in the world tooo....but this are just meteoroids or at least space junk...peace 2 all
NAMASTE

Originally posted by spacedoubt
reply to post by Komodo

 

Well, it IS re entering. From LEO to ZEO (Zero Earth orbit).
So at some point in re entry, it would be a 15k feet, and eventually no feet at all.

so you've determine that it's a sat and it's in ZEO.. or what? because' to me .. ALL sat's are in either HEO or LEO.. NOT ZEO.. and in the video ...toward the end.. that is clearly not 15,000 ft...

reply to post by SJE98

Much to slow for space junk.

and metors.. as for the airship, totally plausible and I'm going with airship for now, if you can find the thread of the member stating such, plz link it here

I haven't studied this enough but all I can say is, this does not look like UFO formation if that's what some are up to. It may not be meteor shower as well, since it does not fly like that. Thus it is either someone's trick - some set of kites or balloons with lights, or the whole video is fake. Now it says 6 cameras but maybe even 6 cameras can lie, prove me wrong.

It is beyond me how 80% of people say it's a "meteorite or space junk"...I can almost certainly exclude BOTH explanations.

There are at least two different videos where the object clearly makes turns, burning up space junk or a meteorite doesn't make turns and changes the angle as seen on the video. A meteorite doesn't slowly drift, turn and then stays for many seconds, the speed is not right, the fact that it's multiple lights and that they might appear to be blinking. NOTHING indicates a "broken up" meteorite and space junk which burns up would IMO also look entirely different.

For me it's clearly an "object" although the size is hard to discern, it could be as large as a small RC flyer/glider or Ir could be bigger. I can't tell from the footage. At first I would have said kite (first few seconds of footage look VERY MUCH like a kite)....but now tend to say it's some RC plane with LEDs.

Furthermore it looks this was filmed at some event (?) with people cheering and clapping, this would be a MAJOR hint what's going on rather than blindly saying it's an UFO (well, technically it well is )...but the meteorite/space junk explanations are equally silly.

I personally think it's something man-made/normal (certain kind of fireworks? RC plane/performance?) which was known when it was filmed and the UFO story was added later.

Originally posted by spacedoubt
JrDavis

I do see a difference.
They are two different objects. So I would expect different behavior on reentry.

The time of day doesn't effect the fact it creates a contrail everytime. The contrail is due to the friction in the atmosphere the object encounters.

Please Note : Satellites, Meteors, Debris create tails behind them as they burn up. If the objects split apart the object(s) separate and usually go in all different directions, Lose velocity, Break up, and create their own tails until they burn up.

It depends on how the pieces come off the main body. Each piece has it's own unpredictable set of aerodynamic properties.

Correct, are you seeing this with the video in question? If so please point it out to me.

Some pieces may present a broad surface to the atmosphere, and could be made of very light materials.
Those would slow down quite a bit, compared to the main body, and appear to peel away.

That's what I am saying the object(s) always stay together. They don't separate like the other videos show.

Regardless of the objects material, it should be separating. Not staying together in Formation. When I mean separate I mean move away from each other not break apart.

It's a free fall thing.

Just because they are two different objects doesn't account for the fact that there is no trail behind this object.

However, something that has very few parts and is uncomplicated, may break apart into pieces that have the same density, and similar air resistance as the main body. Well, those would probably come close to matching the speed of the main body, for a lot longer. Therefore appearing to come down as if they were tied together, even if they aren't

We can count the objects that are illuminating and there is a fair amount. I would not say there is enough to all be the same mass and to all be experiencing the same resistance, etc.


No Trail


No Trail


No Trail


No Trail


Trail

Please lets at least agree this thing is traveling with no trail like some are noticing.