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

reply to post by zilebeliveunknown


Maybe because it came down in a place and at a time they didn't predict they don't want to talk about it because it looks a bit uncontrolled and unprofessional .

Just a thought

reply to post by Bybyots


Whenever I see a video with "lights" at night that are moving at constant speed and they all stay in relation to each other, I tend to think "wind".

So I would have to say Chinese Lanterns on this one. A lot of them released at one time, but still looks like Lanterns to me.

Originally posted by LiberalAlert
reply to post by Bybyots

 

Whenever I see a video with "lights" at night that are moving at constant speed and they all stay in relation to each other, I tend to think "wind".

So I would have to say Chinese Lanterns on this one. A lot of them released at one time, but still looks like Lanterns to me.

It's a good going-in hypothesis, especially when the direction and speed of the wind can be ascertained from meteorological records.

In this case, with the same phenomenon being observed within a few minutes, hundreds of miles apart, the wind-born angle sort of withers away.

And add in the known satellite reentry -- the tracking data is public -- and the visual cues fall into place.

In this case.

The event underscores an unpleasant reality -- the range of potential prosaic stimuli for UFO reports is far wider, and far less well defined, than UFO proponents would like to admit. When you argue from elimination -- it can't be anything ELSE -- you must start from the basis of KNOWING each and every one of the prosaic alternatives, and eliminating each and every one. If you don't even know them all, of course, you can't do that.

It's why the existence of amazing unsolved stories -- the Alaska Japan airliner, for example -- don't bother me. Real life is just like that. You never get to find out ALL the causes of most stuff. It just doesn't mean aliens. It COULD be them -- can't disprove it -- but it doesn't HAVE to be them [the requirement of 'proof'].

reply to post by gortex

It would be unprofessional of them not to tell people, because very easily that ammount of debris could have cause a catastrophy if landed on populated areas.
At least they owe an apology to the people of Argentina and Chile.

Originally posted by zilebeliveunknown
reply to post by gortex

 

It would be unprofessional of them not to tell people, because very easily that ammount of debris could have cause a catastrophy if landed on populated areas.
At least they owe an apology to the people of Argentina and Chile.

I've just got off the phone with a company spokesman, I'll be using his material in an NBC story this afternoon. He explained, and proved to my satisfaction, that the payload had been designed from the start with total reentry disintegration in mind -- which could explain why so many pieces were seen. And that their own flight dynamics team was anticipating the reentry -- no surprises. Details to appear on my paying client's site, but will be shared immediately thereafter.

Very, very interresting. Finally a recent video of UFO sighting that really seems legit. There is no way this is a meteor, you clearly see that the lights are always at the same distance and obviously part of the same object.

reply to post by JimOberg

And that their own flight dynamics team was anticipating the reentry -- no surprises.

Well they would say that wouldn't they
Look forward to reading the report .

Hey,

I found an article at Wired that talks about Orbital Sciences and the CMS.

The main payload was the mass simulator, a dummy payload that weighs as much as the Cygnus spacecraft that will deliver cargo to the ISS.

It is made largely of aluminum and designed to burn during reentry roughly two weeks from now.

The simulator was heavily instrumented to measure acceleration, temperature, vibration and sound, providing engineers with data about the launch conditions the payload will experience. Cygnus also is designed to burn during reentry.

www.wired.com...

Edited: Ignore my crazed ramblings.

Here is the estimated ground track by Chilean astronomer Luis Barrera, based on ground reports, compared to the calculated -- based on orbital flight data -- path, from the Cygnus owners:

Here is the internal structure of the Cygnus 'mass simulator', constructed deliberately to fragment and fully burn up during reentry, for safety. And boy did it EVER fragment into fireballs!

To remind ourselves what fireball swarms can sometimes fool observers into thinking they are seeing, here are sketches from the October 30, 1963 Kiev mass sighting. The first shows one observer's accurate view of the fireball swarm, the second shows the fireballs arranged in tight groups with some sort of envelopes, and the last two are clealr hard-structured objects. But all the witnesses were looking at the SAME startling apparition, even as they "SAW" different things.

reply to post by Bybyots


It is interesting to see how easily a cover-up could be put in place.

None of us saw those lights with our own eyes. None of us saw them in daylight. None of us touched the remains that came down. So it could be an alien craft in those movies just as easily as it could be a man made sat coming down.

Though a sat makes more sense than ET parading their giant craft slowly overhead for everybody to see.

Oh wait... they did that in Phoenix didn't they...

But anyway, if it was an alien craft the thing to do would be for a paid disenfo agent to get on the phone right away and concoct a cover story with some government sponsored agency that would best fit the scenario and put the thing to rest right away.

Since we had no official confirmation at the time, it looks like they did not know when and where their junk was coming down and on whose head it was coming down on? This makes the whole affair seem a bit suspicious. [I still have received no answer to all those e mails I sent Orbital].

So a cover up could be in place and as we all want to believe that these space agencies are telling us the truth, few of us would know any better.

Until the real sat comes down on Friday.

But of course the cover-up gives them time to send an F18 up there to blow it into tiny pieces when it enters the atmosphere. That way they will not need ANOTHER cover story, but just a simple answer instead.

“Friday? Oh that was just a meteor shower.”

Originally posted by spiritualarchitect
reply to post by Bybyots

 

It is interesting to see how easily a cover-up could be put in place.

What color is the sky on your planet, s-a? Just curious.

reply to post by spiritualarchitect

So it could be an alien craft in those movies just as easily as it could be a man made sat coming down.

The thing is we know the Gygnus existed .

But of course the cover-up gives them time to send an F18 up there to blow it into tiny pieces when it enters the atmosphere.That way they will not need ANOTHER cover story, but just a simple answer instead.

There's none so blind as those who will not see .

Originally posted by JimOberg
When you argue from elimination -- it can't be anything ELSE -- you must start from the basis of KNOWING each and every one of the prosaic alternatives, and eliminating each and every one. If you don't even know them all, of course, you can't do that.

Nope. You can't prove a negative, and you can never account for all the things you don't know about. There will always be a big "X" in the list of possible explanations. The hard thing to face is that the "X" is always going to be higher on the list than "aliens," because aliens of any kind are unproven to begin with:

* Weather phenomenon including meteorites
* Known satellite or space junk re-entry
* Black project aircraft
* Hoaxes
* Misidentifications or delusions
* X
* Aliens
* Jesus (or Krishna or the supernatural deity of your choice)
* Leprechauns

Originally posted by n3mesis
i think our main problem is that we so desperately want to "believe" subconsciously or not we accept anything we see and are willing to defend to the death that it is definitive proof ET is finally here at last.

Et is here, and always was here, even before this model of human. And I've experienced ET.

This is either a human craft, or an et one, with many lights on it.

ET and human crafts can suddenly disappear, and the lights suddenly go out.

reply to post by gortex




"Though a sat makes more sense than ET parading their giant craft slowly overhead for everybody to see."

We know it existed, we just have no proof yet that it came down.

Speaking of blind, you would be the easiest to decieve, and you may need some glasses, as you missed the whole point of my post.

2nd.

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by Bybyots

 

Ok. Don't beat me up for saying it.

Large Kite with fiber optics?

Just a guess.

It's way too straight for a kite. Also meteors leave a trail, even in absolute darkness (the flaring up from the heat lights the debris they leave behind).

Perhaps it started out as a large, solid meteor, but then broke apart into smaller fragments (due to the intense heat and friction) as it entered our atmosphere?