It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in


posted on May, 11 2013 @ 05:01 PM
reply to post by Bybyots

No doubt swamp gas or space gas, or space junk or them Chinese lanterns. I would not worry about it, even if it is aliens there not clear to land in this sector. And if they do, well expect something like in the mars attacks movie.

ak ak ak ak ak ak. As we know movies are always right, and as every movie has shown, they may come in peace, but if the # goes down then they will leave in pieces. And if you cant trust movies to be right about this sort of thing, then what and whom can you trust?

posted on May, 11 2013 @ 05:08 PM
reply to post by galadofwarthethird

Here is an obvious fake saucer abducting a human from his home and pulling him up with its tractor beam.

posted on May, 11 2013 @ 05:12 PM
Lol this is just skydivers doing a night jump. Probably with wing suits given the flat glide ratio. You have to wear LED lights when doing night jumps.

posted on May, 11 2013 @ 05:13 PM

Originally posted by K-PAX-PROT
So no definite proof or evidence that determines these lights as meteors, only speculations but hey ho , its the meteorites explanation that is being "forced fitted" , regardless of definite proof or evidence showing that its meteorites.All as i can say is those that are pushing the meteorite explanation thank god you are not in any position of of either law prosecution ect cause there would be a lot of people found guilty and in jail with inadequate evidence to commit them.

edit on 15/07/2010 by K-PAX-PROT because: (no reason given)

I don't think anything needs to be "force fitted". It seems that some reentries can look pretty much exactly like this. If the phenomenon in question looks exactly like a known phenomenon, why not accept it as a plausible explanation? I think Jim Oberg is probably right on this one. If you doubt his suggestion, ask yourself what aspects of the phenomenon in the video cause you to rule it out. If you can't think of any, you probably don't need to look any further.

posted on May, 11 2013 @ 05:26 PM

posted on May, 11 2013 @ 05:29 PM
Back in the 90's in Virginia, I had no clue what the perseoids or any of the large scale meteor showers where, I got to witness something I had never seen and probably will never see again at the magnitude I did with my bare eyes, the thing looked like an asteroid, it was so close I could see what to me seem to be green or dark blue colored flames dotted all over the object some areas larger and easily seen, at the time I could not believe it, so I ran into a hospital where I was actually visiting someone and told them I thought maybe it was some UFO, but then the next day the newspaper explained that it was a meteor (to me this object looked like an asteroid and it was so big I really could not judge the distance but the detail was very amazing)

I remember the month being September as someone close to me had a very horrible accident in that month I once found news clippings online but again what I saw was so awesome and unbelievable.

Now looking at this video I do not think this is the same sort of thing as these look like symmetrical lights all nicely aligned appearing to part of some larger shaped object, anyhow this was a great video and to have actually seen what I saw back in the 90's (91 or 92)August to September I can imagine how exciting these lucky witnesses were.
edit on 11-5-2013 by phinubian because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 11 2013 @ 05:31 PM

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Hate to burst a bubble, but there is no set speed on how fast meteors, asteroids, etc. can travel.

Actually there is:

How fast do they travel through space?

As they enter Earth’s atmosphere at velocities from 11 to 70 km per second, friction slows them down and heats them up, so that their outer surface starts to burn (ablate). This is also what happened to the heat shields of Apollo crew capsules. This means that the space rock glows brightly.

Source: Armagh Planetarium

It should be noted that this is in reference to objects orbiting the Sun (which is the category that the vast majority of meteors fall into). Objects with extra-solar orbits will be much faster!

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
The smaller the object, the slower it will go once it hits the friction of the atmosphere.

True, but once again there is a set (minimum) speed below which a meteoroid will cease to undergo ablation and will therefore not produce light any more, making it effectively invisible.

8. Can a meteorite dropping fireball be observed all the way to impact with the ground?

No. At some point, usually between 15 to 20 km (9-12 miles or 48,000-63,000 feet) altitude, the meteoroid remnants will decelerate to the point that the ablation process stops, and visible light is no longer generated. This occurs at a speed of about 2-4 km/sec (4500-9000 mph).

Source: The American Meteor Society Fireball FAQs

posted on May, 11 2013 @ 05:37 PM

Originally posted by spacedoubt
Looks like it WAS Satellite debris. In this case it looks like a payload from the commercial spaceflight company
Orbital Sciences Corporation.

It’s with some relief I can say that’s not a fleet of alien spaceships bent on either enslaving the human race or possibly eating us. It's not even a swarm of meteors: what you're actually seeing there is a satellite dramatically breaking up as it re-enters the Earth’s atmosphere. And it’s even been identified: it was the Cygnus mass simulator, a payload lofted into space by the Antares rocket in April!

Read the article here:
Slate: Sat re entry looks like UFOs

Read the entire article, there's a nice tip 'o the hat to Jim Oberg at the end.

Thank you spacedoubt,

Could you please help me to understand how to reconcile what you have posted there with this?

Both Antares and the Cygnus simulator are expected to remain in orbit for several months until they accumulate enough drag to reenter the atmosphere.

Cygnus Mass Simulator
Space Command ID: 39142
Mass: 3,800kg
Dimensions: 5.06 by 2.90m (Cylindrical)
Re-Entry Prediction: April 27, 2013 - 12:19 UTC +/-22 Minutes
Re-Entry Zone: Pacific or Indian Ocean

I'm not trying to be a roadblock to progress here, I just get a little confused and can be a little slow on the uptake, at times.

How is it that the CMS burned in on the 10th of may instead of in 'several' months or April 27th, as stated in the two articles above?

Thanks in advance.

posted on May, 11 2013 @ 05:40 PM
Great vid.. The multiple witnesses and camera points makes this very interesting!..

posted on May, 11 2013 @ 05:42 PM

Originally posted by Ilovemygreatdanes
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

Oh I *defiantly* agree we are not alone

Meant to say Definitely* Doh. Can't edit it /blush

edit on 11-5-2013 by Ilovemygreatdanes because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-5-2013 by Ilovemygreatdanes because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-5-2013 by Ilovemygreatdanes because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 11 2013 @ 05:49 PM
It looks like one object with lights that are flashing at different intervals. I'm sure someone out there knows what this but I'm sure there will be a big spin on it.

posted on May, 11 2013 @ 05:59 PM
It would be really good if this can be investigated. Usually you don't see UFO sightings with this many witnesses and there are likely to be many, many more. Do we know if there was any other natural phenomena apart from the annual eclipse, taking place in the area when these videos and pictures were taken? This is certainly a very intriguing sighting.

posted on May, 11 2013 @ 05:59 PM
reply to post by Bybyots

Hi bybybots

I think the keyword here is "expected"..
From my understanding of this payload. It was a dummy payload,meant to be a pretend version of a real spacecraft.
In order for Orbital sciences to understand the dynamics of sending a REAL Cygnus craft into space. The real craft will eventually deliver supplies to ISS.
So they sent a dumb chunk of stuff up in the Antares rocket. Once in orbit, it had fulfilled it purpose. There was nothing invested in this payload to keep it aloft. No way to thrust, or correct any aberrations.

This was a low orbit craft, that can be disturbed by even the tiniest amount of atmospheric friction.
The amount of friction a low altitude craft is hard to predict, because our atmosphere is dynamic as well.
Our atmosphere can be disturbed by heating, cooling, solar winds, etc. So sometimes our atmosphere's influence can reach up a little higher into the orbits of the low craft. In this case, I think it was a little thicker. Therefore decaying the orbit of this "Mass Simulator" earlier than predicted.

Does that make sense?

posted on May, 11 2013 @ 06:04 PM

Originally posted by n3mesis
the "lights" went out. lights from terrestrial, extraterrestrial crafts do not go out.

So i take it you have been contacted and have been doing maintenance on this ufo?
how long of a life do they get out of a light? do you change them from like a service record? like once every 5 years or something?
what do different colors of the lights represent?

posted on May, 11 2013 @ 06:07 PM

Originally posted by JayinAR
They don't resemble meteors in any way. At least not in my estimation. The glow of lights was too steady. Meteors burn at varying consistencies when traveling through our atmosphere. Flaring up. Going out. Explosions. Etc.
I didn't see any of that. I saw blinking, and/or, steady lights.

Whilst these are not natural meteors (but they could be described as "man-made meteors"), some natural meteors can be surprisingly steady in brightness (apart from the "fade in" when the meteoroid enters the atmosphere and the "fade out" when the meteor has either "burnt up" or slowed down to the point where it stops emitting light). Earthgrazers (meteoroids that enter the atmosphere at very low angles and skim the outer edges of the atmosphere where the air is very thin) are like this quite often in my experience.

Here for example is a green Leonid earth grazer that I photographed in November 2001 during the build up to the Leonid storm that year.

Note Orion in the bottom left hand corner for scale. I saw much longer and just as constant grazers the same night.

You are not the first to make an erroneous assumption about meteors. Without a great deal of experience of a subject like meteors it's easy to fall into a trap like this one, as so many have done in the past, and will continue to do so. The saying "a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing" definitely applies here!

posted on May, 11 2013 @ 06:08 PM

Originally posted by gortex
I think the chances are that it's reentering space junk like this , there's a lot of it up there .

Or it could be a Meteor like this .

Or it could be a shot down ET space ship .... Who knows

edit on 11-5-2013 by gortex because: (no reason given)

Has it been mentioned that these are EXACTLY THE SAME video? So are they space debris or a meteor?

posted on May, 11 2013 @ 06:12 PM
For Our Information:

Operator: Orbital Sciences NASA
Major contractors: Orbital Sciences
Mission type; Demonstration
Launch date: 21 April 2013, 21:00 UTC (17:00 EDT)[1]
Launch vehicle: Antares 110[2] A-ONE
Launch site: MARS LP-0A
Mission duration; 603 seconds[3]
COSPAR ID; 2013-016A
SATCAT: 39142
Mass: ~3800 kg
Orbital elements:
Regime: Low Earth
Inclination: 51.64°[4]
Apoapsis: 260 kilometres (160 mi)[4]
Periapsis: 241 kilometres (150 mi)[4]

The Antares A-ONE is the maiden flight of Orbital Sciences' Antares rocket with a boilerplate payload, the Cygnus Mass Simulator, which was launched April 21, 2013. It was launched from Pad 0A at the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS) on Wallops Island, Virginia, USA. The boilerplate payload simulates the mass of the Cygnus cargo spacecraft. This dummy payload was sent into an orbit of "approximately 150 by 160 miles" (240 km x 260 km) with an inclination of 51.6 degrees.

Four Spaceflight Services CubeSat nanosatellites were deployed from the dummy payload.

This launch along with several other activities leading up to it, are paid milestones under NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program.

edit on 11-5-2013 by Bybyots because:

posted on May, 11 2013 @ 06:16 PM
reply to post by spacedoubt

Does that make sense?

Yes, absolutely. I figured that it might have something to do with that.

Do you think that it is safe to assume, then, that the article that mentioned 'several months' was talking about the actual device and not the dummy?

edit on 11-5-2013 by Bybyots because:

posted on May, 11 2013 @ 06:16 PM
reply to post by Bybyots

That's good info.
One thing that does surprise me, is that there is no mention yet of the re entry on the Orbital Science website.
After all, it appears to be their junk.

posted on May, 11 2013 @ 06:19 PM

Originally posted by Bybyots

edit on 11-5-2013 by Bybyots because:

Bybyots any luck with finding the original of the last part of that video? I want to see that one for the length of time and constancy of the lights.

To me a debris or meteor break up is likely but that last clip puts this in doubt for me as they seem to stay on and flash longer.

new topics

<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in