It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
reply to post by Arbitrageur
I'd like to see those spec sheet, and aircraft launch times.
Additionally, I'd like to see the explanation for the daylight sighting on March 13th, what appears to be the same (or similar) 'lights' in the same area...
please let me know if you find it. I don't know what the tolerance range is on the 5 minutes (maybe plus or minus a minute...just guessing) but if it lasts much longer than 6 minutes then I too would begin to doubt the LUU2 explanation.
Additionally, the Phoenix lights event lasted longer than 5 minutes.
I just did a video search, and cannot locate video proving this
It's further interesting to note that the Governor of Arizona witnessed the event, contacted the military, and was informed that no US planes were in the area at the time...
Officials at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson, Ariz., would report that no military maneuvers were taking place that night at the Barry M. Goldwater Range to the west. (Air Force officials would change their story two months later, saying the person on duty that night failed to look at the proper logbook.)
The lights were flares, said the Air National Guard, dropped during nighttime exercises at the Barry M. Goldwater Range.
That's what they were, insists Lt. Col. Ed Jones, who piloted one of the four A-10s in the squadron that he says launched the flares.
Jones, in his first interview with the news media concerning the night 10 years ago, says he can't believe a decision to eject a few leftover flares turned into a UFO furor that continues to this day.
He now is assistant director of operations for the 104th Fighter Squadron of the Maryland National Guard.
Parachuted flares do not hover motionless in the sky. They fall, slowly, but the fall is perceptible as recent military flares over Phoenix demonstrated. If you've seen the video of the Phoenix lights, they are not descending at all. They are hovering.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Additionally, I'd like to see the explanation for the daylight sighting on March 13th, what appears to be the same (or similar) 'lights' in the same area...
On that link you posted, Willis posts this frame capture ...
And then he posts this artist's conception saying he thinks it's a sideways saucer?
Sorry but Mr. Willis seems to be hoaxing us with that claim, so he has little credibility with me. (He also claims the balloon travels at thousands of miles per hour but he conveniently fails to capture that maneuver on the video. It only moves like an ordinary balloon during the part he videotapes).
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
please let me know if you find it. I don't know what the tolerance range is on the 5 minutes (maybe plus or minus a minute...just guessing) but if it lasts much longer than 6 minutes then I too would begin to doubt the LUU2 explanation.
Here are the LUU2 specifications:
www.globalsecurity.org...
Weight: 30 lb (13.6 kg)
Length: 36 in. (91.4 cm)
Diameter: 4.87 in. (12.4 cm)
Light Output: 1,800,000 candlepower, 1,600,000 candlepower
Burn Time: 240 sec/300 sec
Descent Rate: 8.3 ft/sec (2.5 m/sec)
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Officials at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson, Ariz., would report that no military maneuvers were taking place that night at the Barry M. Goldwater Range to the west. (Air Force officials would change their story two months later, saying the person on duty that night failed to look at the proper logbook.)
I really have a hard time with that explanation, ESPECIALLY considering what happened in the 'two months' that it took the Air Force to supposedly fix this error.
The case made National News, including the Governors statements.
The case was investigated thoroughly, both here at ATS, and across the nation, by reputable individuals who claimed that no man-made aircraft could have been responsible for the event.
THEN, and only then, a full two months after the event, we get a 'correction' from the Air National Guard, blaming a solitary individual for innaccurately checking the log book, and NOBODY there in the two months this case was all over the MSM bothered to check up on this? Even after the Governor of the State went public?
I have a REALLY hard time buying that line...
I'm sorry. Perhaps this is a case where I'm too biased to be objective, but I don't believe this story, any more than I believe the first three explanations by the Air Force for the Roswell event...
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
If I recall correctly they were something like 60 or more miles away, which one could reasonably say is "not in the area" right?
If we determine the distance to the mountains we know the flares were further away than the mountains from this analysis:
And from such a great distance an 8.3 ft/sec descent rate would be barely visible, until the flare dropped behind the mountain range and was obscured from view.
I'd like you to really think about this Arby, for a moment...
Would an object weighing 30lbs, attached to a parachute, fall at the same rate as an object weighing 15 lbs., attached to an identical parachute?
How about an object that weighed 1 lb (at the time of the alleged flare's end of burn stage...)?
I'm having a real problem with the physics of the claim.
-WFA
[edit on 25-9-2009 by WitnessFromAfar]
Edited to add:
I give up, I can't get this post to format properly... Tried several times. Sorry for the ugly post!
_WFA
[edit on 25-9-2009 by WitnessFromAfar]
The video lasting 30 minutes on that sighting exists, and I thought that was relevant to this discussion.
Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
I'd like you to really think about this Arby, for a moment...
Would an object weighing 30lbs, attached to a parachute, fall at the same rate as an object weighing 15 lbs., attached to an identical parachute?
How about an object that weighed 1 lb (at the time of the alleged flare's end of burn stage...)?
Eventually, quantitative experiments revealed problems, including the fact that some metals, such as magnesium, gained weight when they burned
Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
The video lasting 30 minutes on that sighting exists, and I thought that was relevant to this discussion.
but 30 minutes of what? are we talking a continueous light for 30 mins or sporadic intermittent lights. We would need to see the footage to be sure.
Originally posted by Tifozi
reply to post by Heliocentric
"Experimental aircraft" by who? The military? They officially denied having any type of aircraft in the air, so if it's still them, they're lying their heads off.
Sure... Like they never did THAT.
Second, they would not fly their "experimental aircraft" over cities or populated areas, among regular air traffic (remember the airliner that flew by?). They would fly it over restricted areas, military bases, etc.
They can do it. And actually, they can tell airliners where NOT to go, but we can't tell them where they can't go.
Originally posted by Tifozi
reply to post by Heliocentric
Apparently something that flies very high (30 000 or 40 000 feet above the airliner, as estimated by Brad Drenning, the eye witness) but still stays motionless in formation for more than 11 minutes, and changes (!) formation during this time.
Completly wrong. If to Brad Drenning that was 30,000 of difference, he needs to go back to school, or at least, learn when to shup up and not talk about things he doesn't know.
So you can get a reference (and I never get tired of giving this one, because it's a good one), you can see the trails of a plane when he is above 18,000/20,000 feet. From the ground, to there, that's 20,000 feet of difference. Do you honestly believe that in THAT video the aircraft and the UFO's are 30,000feet apart?
Actually, they look closer than the aircraft. And it's not just because a dude on a phone is saying "oh, they are far" that I'm going to contradict what my eyes are seeing.
Originally posted by Heliocentric
One thing I'm very clear about is that what a witness sees with his own eyes and what turns up in a video is very much different. You will simply never have a better appreciation of detail, distance, etc than the one that actually looked up at the sky.
No, you can not make a reference as to distances between the airplane and the lights, because you don't know the actual size of them.
So do I take his testimony and statement that the lights were 30 000 to 40 000 feet above the airplane seriously? Yes, I do. Until proven wrong, which you didn't do.
Originally posted by mindpurge
Very interesting video to say the least!
But something caught my attention... something the Military "supposedly" said. Check it out...
"Military authorities stated that there were no planes flying at the time of Drenning's sighting." -CNN Reported in the description.
"There was a plane in the video that you can see; there was a plane but it was about 30 or 40 thousand feet lower than what we were able to... the lights were way up there, I don't know how to explain that." -Brad Drenning @ 1:42 in the interview.
So either CNN miss reported it, because the interviewer goes on to specify that the military said THEY had no plains, but the description of the video says something else. You'd expect the military to know exactly what plains were in the sky that night; even farmer Jack, crop dusting a field. So what could they be hiding, they obviously aren't stupid, they KNOW exactly what transpired that night, whether it's unexplainable, even to them, or not.
Um, did they tell this airliner not to go there? Apparently not. They did however officially state not having anything in the air? Yes, so that pretty much settles it.
No, you can not make a reference as to distances between the airplane and the lights, because you don't know the actual size of them. You simply assume that it can not be that way.
So you ignorantly declare that it has to be the other way around, that the lights are below, and that the witness must be mistaken.
Note that the witness is a CNN reporter, he's trained to observe, he's a bit more than just a "dude on the phone". He probably have a better judgement of the situation than you - even though I know it would be hard for you to admit.
So do I take his testimony and statement that the lights were 30 000 to 40 000 feet above the airplane seriously? Yes, I do. Until proven wrong, which you didn't do.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
And no I don't think it's fair if Sky and Telescope didn't know what exploded in the sky that looked like a meteor so called it a meteor, to compare that "claim" to Willis's claim that his balloon traveled thousands of miles per hour.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
I'd like you to really think about this Arby, for a moment...
Would an object weighing 30lbs, attached to a parachute, fall at the same rate as an object weighing 15 lbs., attached to an identical parachute?
How about an object that weighed 1 lb (at the time of the alleged flare's end of burn stage...)?
I don't have to think about it, I ran the numbers, it's a simple formula here:
www.pcprg.com...
Descent rate at:
30 lbs = 8.2 ft/s
15 lbs = 5.8 ft/s
7.5 lbs = 4.1 ft/s
3 lbs = 2.6 ft/s
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I doubt it gets much lighter than that (if it even gets that light) because the parachute weight itself is part of the mass calculation for descent. Sure it doesn't fall as fast but so what?
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
By the way, are you sure magnesium flares get lighter when they burn?
encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com...
Eventually, quantitative experiments revealed problems, including the fact that some metals, such as magnesium, gained weight when they burned
The fact that magnesium gains weight when it burns was part of the experimental evidence used to disprove the existence of phlogiston.
That's quite a contrast to other combustible materials that get lighter when they burn.
Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
How exactly is that comparison unfair?
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
How exactly is that comparison unfair?
Because #1 can demonstrate the 2 points in the air photographically and #2 can't, even though #2 was shooting video.
Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
Pretty please desist in insinuating that I am in any way suggesting the comparison is between the claim of the object's assumed velocity.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
Pretty please desist in insinuating that I am in any way suggesting the comparison is between the claim of the object's assumed velocity.
Sorry if I misinterpreted your comparison, I think it's irrelevant so let's just drop it. I don't find Willis credible and if you do then we can agree to disagree on that point.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The objects in the Willis videos look so much different than the objects in the subject of this thread to me that I'm not sure they if they are even relevant to this thread
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
which is another reason I would personally prefer not to even discuss the Willis videos further in this thread, though if others feel they are somehow relevant and wish to discuss them further, I have no objection, but just count me out of that part of the discussion.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I spent a lot more effort in that post trying to answer your questions about the flares and you didn't respond to that part of my post, are you buying the flare explanation or do you still see some reason not to?
Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The objects in the Willis videos look so much different than the objects in the subject of this thread to me that I'm not sure they if they are even relevant to this thread
I feel they are relevant because it shows that whatever this phenomenon is, it's happening in both daytime and nighttime, and has occurred on several occasions over a 10 year period.
Let me make myself clear here (as the grandson of a fire chief...) that IF indeed flares are being lit and either dropped or sent up on balloons, it is a SEVERE fire hazard, and it's against Arizona State Law.
I agree it's a fire hazard. I also think Chinese sky lanterns can be a fire hazard too in some areas but they seem to be quite popular. So nobody in the southwest should be sending up flares like this, but people shouldn't be speeding either. That doesn't mean that it didn't happen.
Here is some links to underscore the seriousness of the situation according to the law:
I will suggest however that you do some research on just how serious fire hazards like sending up a lit flare are to the American Southwest.
Surely a magnesium flare exists with a parachute rig somewhere where I can go and look at it, and pick it up in my hands.
I see a real danger here, even if all of these events DO turn out to be flares, either being dropped from planes or sent aloft with balloons
well instead of referring to it as my theory, you could refer to "the claim of Lt. Col. Ed Jones" who dropped them:
Your theory makes sense, but I can't confirm or deny it either way, and so I'm not done looking
The lights were flares, said the Air National Guard, dropped during nighttime exercises at the Barry M. Goldwater Range.
That's what they were, insists Lt. Col. Ed Jones, who piloted one of the four A-10s in the squadron that he says launched the flares.
.....
He now is assistant director of operations for the 104th Fighter Squadron of the Maryland National Guard.
Arby, I also spent a fair amount of time sourcing for you other incidents where similar lights have been seen over phoenix, and where the military does not claim to have dropped flares... Would you mind addressing these posts?
Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
Regarding other incidents of strange lights in Phoenix (which I do find relevant to this discussion) There is this video report:
Could you please do me a favor and copy the link from "this post" at the top of the relevant post so I know which post to look in? Sorry I'm not sure which post you're referring to, thanks for a little help in pointing it out and I'll gladly look at it.
I've additionally sourced the UFO Casebook reports from four cities, over a period of several hours here above, would you mind addressing these reports, as they pertain to the 5 minute magnesium flare explanation?