Double UFO Sighting During CSETI Meditation

a reply to: elevenaugust

Hey elevenaugust,

If they were flares, wouldn't they be brighter? I'm just asking. I guess there are different kinds of flares and such. I really don't know. The last camera on the video shows a more "naked eye" type view with some zoom and a lot of bad jiggling.

Also...smoke?

I'm just asking...please no one throw rocks or other things at me!!

ETA: I'm trying to learn here, that is my goal. I don't care if people don't like the source, and I'm well aware that it's more than 'dislike,' I'm looking at the material and trying to understand. I would love help with that. Flares seem to be the "most likely" according to folks, so I want to make sure I know precisely why and what to look for, as flares not something I've researched, and if it fits all the aspects of flares, or if "its Greer" is the reason this is so easily dismissed. I would love help with this!

- AB

originally posted by: 2Chainz
a reply to: Glassbender777

Soo if they are flares then what makes them levitate in the air for the duration of the video? Your theory kind of has a gaping hole in it.

Flares have small parachutes attached.

originally posted by: 2Chainz
Wow do they have anti-gravity parachutes now? I never would have known, thanks guys!

ITT: Skeptics in denial.

Do you know what lift is?

Do you know what air resistance is?

Do you know hot air rises?

Did you flunk physics class?

originally posted by: 2Chainz
a reply to: Shamrock6

So you're saying it was all a greedy plot by Greer, right?
Next someone will suggest he had a couple drone controllers next to him under his blanket.

Greer doesn't promise anyone anything. They do their typical meditation and usually nothing happens.
The only reason everyone is so butthurt about Greer and this video, is because his documentary was proven false.

Disregarding him, and the entire meeting/meditation, this is the most conclusive evidence of ETs i've ever seen.

I disregard him because he is a huckster who charges $2000 for gullible people to see flares, satellites, even invisible aliens. Oh yeah and a moth is an "alien light being".

GIVE IT A REST AND GIVE ME A BREAK!

originally posted by: Shakawkaw
Was this the same guy that was taking people into the woods to board a ufo or something? I'm sure I read that here awhile back.

Yes an invisible UFO....lols

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: elevenaugust

Hey elevenaugust,

If they were flares, wouldn't they be brighter? I'm just asking. I guess there are different kinds of flares and such. I really don't know. The last camera on the video shows a more "naked eye" type view with some zoom and a lot of bad jiggling.

Also...smoke?

I'm just asking...please no one throw rocks or other things at me!!

- AB

At a distance you wouldn't see smoke.

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: elevenaugust

Hey elevenaugust,

If they were flares, wouldn't they be brighter? I'm just asking. I guess there are different kinds of flares and such. I really don't know. The last camera on the video shows a more "naked eye" type view with some zoom and a lot of bad jiggling.

Also...smoke?

I'm just asking...please no one throw rocks or other things at me!!

- AB

I don't go much with the usual flares thing, although the colour [at a distance] could amount to the same thing like in this video,

But here this guy is being sensible, he is near full zoom and pulls back when out of any more focus, and at the end of the video you can see how far away he actually is.
I do think that the Greer video is a bit of hokem though, and it is also pretty distant since there isn't much attempt to do a zoom, except as you say the last wobbly cam shown. But then this is a given presentation video, how spontaneous is all of it? could be. Close encounter, it is not.

a reply to: 2Chainz

Sounds like they have been smoking too much weed...I would be getting right into the water to get a better video shot.

This sounds too fishy!

They do seem to lose altitude, like you expect in a parachute flare; they also blink out like a flare would...however, to be accurate, with the illumination evident by the glowing clouds in the vicinity, you would see the smoke trails left by flares. You would also see the parachutes, as there is enough definition here, and I think they would definitely be visible as well. Flares without parachutes do not work, they cannot maintain any altitude at all and would sink fast.

I do not know what they are, but they fail the flare test, in my book.

a reply to: charlyv

At 5:52 in the video, the camera with the worst ability to capture the lights, the view does not seem very bright to me - I'm sure it might have been brighter and clearer to the eye (I know how that is). In that video, do they look more or less like flares. I don't know what to look for as far as brightness/luminosity, etc.

I would appreciate your insight. Do you have experience directly with flares, or is it research??

Thank you!!!

a reply to: smurfy

I appreciate your reply! Thank you for the other example.

a reply to: JadeStar


Thank you for the reply as well... So, you are calling them flares based on 1) the way they are drifting down, and 2) you don't think seeing smoke would work at this distance so it is a moot point, 3) Greer. Ok, I put in number 3 because of your other posts, but strictly from "is it flares or not" does that cover what you see??

THANK YOU!

- AB

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: charlyv

At 5:52 in the video, the camera with the worst ability to capture the lights, the view does not seem very bright to me - I'm sure it might have been brighter and clearer to the eye (I know how that is). In that video, do they look more or less like flares. I don't know what to look for as far as brightness/luminosity, etc.

I would appreciate your insight. Do you have experience directly with flares, or is it research??

Thank you!!!

I was aircrew in the service. We dropped a lot of flares, with and without parachutes.
All I can say from my experience is that the smoke is very prevalent and is illuminated by the burning flare as it is white, and is noticeable at considerable distances.

Ok, admitting to my general ignorance in this area, but I could only find parachute flares on the market that burn for 40 seconds. The lights in the video are present for almost exactly 3 minutes each from their initial illumination to when they dissipate.

Link

Would someone show me the product that would burn for almost precisely 3 minutes, with a parachute? Is it possible there might be military grade flares that are better? Any links to that info??

Please help.

Thank you!

- AB

a reply to: charlyv

Thank you so much, charlyv. That is what I see on the youtube videos I've found, but they don't necessarily duplicate the circumstances of the ones in the video. I saw a lot of smoke, though...

Most appreciated,
AB

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: elevenaugust

Hey elevenaugust,

If they were flares, wouldn't they be brighter? I'm just asking. I guess there are different kinds of flares and such. I really don't know. The last camera on the video shows a more "naked eye" type view with some zoom and a lot of bad jiggling.

Also...smoke?

Hi AB,

The brightness of any lights in photos/videos and the visibility of smoke depends of many factors, such as:
- Intrinsic brightness,
- Distance between observers or photographers and lights/smoke,
- Sensitivity used (as demonstrated previous page) in camera settings,
- Contrast between the lights and the background: any white smoke will be more visible at night than in daylight.

This is perfectly demonstrated in the video posted by Bone_Z in the Phoenix Lights thread:



In the case here, these lights appears to be very far away, but nonetheless quite visible on the videos due to the sensitivity (ISO) used.

Very interesting video..I'm not buying flares,especially ones that dart horizontally.

These are reminiscent of the UFOs I have seen many times,certainly the darkened footage near the end.

There may be no real way of proving this video,at least not for the skeptics who cannot ever be swayed,well don't worry you will be meeting your masters soon!

How many years has this clown been running his "seminars" and this is the best proof he has to offer. I wonder why he isn't promoting his video of all his clients walking around an invisible spaceship or his picture of "mothra" the alien? (pro tip, it's a moth) The man is a fraud.

originally posted by: EndOfDays77
Very interesting video..I'm not buying flares,especially ones that dart horizontally.

A slow tandem drift/descent becomes a horizontal dart when you flash forward like Elevenaugust did [to illustrate the lateral, flare-like descent].

It actually looks to me like an oil rig burn off, or gas flare, from a couple rigs off the coast or something of the sort. This is the best bet on these as they likely do them at similar times every so often, so Greer could easily have figured out when that was and just had the people stay there for a while before the rig burn....simple. They are called flare stacks and rigs have to burn off every so often to relieve pressure and burn excess.

Oh, and Greer is an idiot, but the ones that follow him are the bigger idiots.

A gas flare, alternatively known as a flare stack, is a gas combustion device used in industrial plants such as petroleum refineries, chemical plants, natural gas processing plants as well as at oil or gas production sites having oil wells, gas wells, offshore oil and gas rigs and landfills.


North Dakota Flaring of Gas
In industrial plants, flare stacks are primarily used for burning off flammable gas released by pressure relief valves during unplanned over-pressuring of plant equipment.[1][2][3][4][5] During plant or partial plant startups and shutdowns, flare stacks are also often used for the planned combustion of gases over relatively short periods.

A great deal of gas flaring at many oil and gas production sites has nothing to do with protection against the dangers of over-pressuring industrial plant equipment. When petroleum crude oil is extracted and produced from onshore or offshore oil wells, raw natural gas associated with the oil is produced to the surface as well. Especially in areas of the world lacking pipelines and other gas transportation infrastructure, vast amounts of such associated gas are commonly flared as waste or unusable gas. The flaring of associated gas may occur at the top of a vertical flare stack (as in the adjacent photo) or it may occur in a ground-level flare in an earthen pit.

Source Wiki

a reply to: Vasa Croe

That was my first thought as well, Vasa, but when I started looking for flaring rigs at that location I stumbled across this.

I think deliberately released marine flares would be easier to "schedule" and corresponds well with the 3 minute burn time and gradual drift/descent apparent in the OP video.