UFOs Hover Over Fresno for Four Hours

reply to post by WASTYT


we have limited video footage...how to make a determination on this thing but at a minimum I'm going man made...

(TLDR; Not 4 hours in the sky, not perfectly stationary, unreliable witness = unreliable UFO story)


Well most of you have been asking the right question, but not really thinking about the answer correctly.

The most important question popped up in the 2nd post of the thread. "Why is there only a low quality video, when it was in the air for 4 hours?".

Then everybody gets hung up on the poor quality, and why the dude hasn't got decent equipment etc.

If it was there for 4 hours, then it is beyond doubt there would be many more videos, probably from news crews etc filming it. There are no other videos to my knowledge, so I'm suggesting that the whole 4 hours thing was fabricated by the guy filming, for his own personal gain.

"But the news crew said 4 hours!" Yes they did. What wonderful reporters they are. Were they at the scene? No they weren't, otherwise we'd have some professional footage. So where did they get their information from? I'm guessing the same guy who filmed the "UFO". It's lazy and bad news casting to say the least, and this is why they no doubt pulled their embarrassing story.

I also love the way wind speed, national guard, FAA have all been thrown into the story for dramatic effect. Has anybody actually checked what the winds were like that day? Has anybody heard from this guardsman? etc etc etc.

Originally posted by pyrodude
The ridges appear to be some sort of 360 degree propulsion system, pretty neat whatever it is. Does not look like a balloon at all.

The ridges appear to be some sort of 360 degree propulsion system

really? care to elaborate on that?
worst reply i ever heard

So what? News crew happy to go sensasionalist upon ratings and record a fly of a pearl white transparent baloon with some ballast or gear dangling with prior knowledge.
...under very luminous sun setting sunbeams must ad.

reply to post by crazyewok

I would have to say the reason there is no high quality images from the "news" channel is more than likely because ...ummm..well...you know...i'm sure their bosses didn't want it ...and no,i'm not talking about the t.v. station....if ya know what i mean

I find the irony in this claim rather funny, as I do believe for the first time it actually IS a weather baloon , ohhh I feel all dirty

reply to post by _BoneZ_


yes...indeed it does appear to be a simple parachute..but ..two things bother me about that,first...if it was a parachute..why does it not flutter in the wind?...wind speed of 30 m.p.h. I would think would make that thing jump around pretty good second...that would have to be a pretty long rope holding all of the chute lines perfectly tight....all the time..so that it didn't move.... oh...my bad...forgot something....parachutes are made to slow an object falling to fast ....what holds this one up in the air...especially with a hole in the middle...kinda like having a submarine with a screen door

Originally posted by pigsy2400
I find the irony in this claim rather funny, as I do believe for the first time it actually IS a weather baloon , ohhh I feel all dirty

A weather balloon that remains stationary in strong winds for four hours? You don't mind violating laws of physics as long as you can see a simarity to a man-made object?

Yes, you SHOULD feel dirty.

If a balloon was rising and also traveling with the wind, it could appear from certain locations not to be moving. It would appear to get smaller in that case though.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
And, this thread is a duplicate, already posted 2 days ago:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



To end this thread where the other one ended, Google could be testing out their internet balloons:

Since Google headquarters is only around 160-miles away from Fresno, I think this is the final answer. Either way, not a UFO with detachable orbs in their own docking ports, or 360-degree propulsion units.

edit on 19-7-2013 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)

Well, no.

Not to be rude, but have you read up on that explanation?

They (The Loon Project guys) stress that a) their test balloons are, for obvious reasons, not tethered, b) invisible without a telescope due to the altitude, and c) moves bloody fast.

I don't think it would even be allowed to tether anything at that altitude to something on the ground. You would surprisingly need a fairly strong cable to withstand the forces, and you wouldn't want that to mess with an airplane engine.

To me the most plausible explanation is that this for once really IS a weather balloon and that the time span of four hours simply isn't true.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Right... When was the first time a parachute did a four hour drop..???

Weird. I mean, yeah it does look like a parachute but 4 hours is a long time. There's a post way way up on the first page that pretty much sums it. It was up there for four hours and no one could manage to get closer to it or get footage better than this web cam quality shot?

can we be sure it was 4 hours?
who is that info coming from?
if it definitely is 4 hours, then surely that dispels the parachute/balloon theories?

I find that most people are saying, "Well if its been up there for 4 hours, how come we got bad footage???"
Do even a third of these posters have High Quality camera's? I know that I don't. Infact the only picture/recording device I do have is, Mytouch 4G slide utilizing an 8MP camera and can record HD videos.
So really, I find it funny that somebody would even suggest that, WE ALL DON'T HAVE NO HIGH QUALITY CAMERA LAYING AROUND, is it a requirment? Are we all professional photographers? Hmmm think about it.
If it was reported as 4hrs, then its probably 4hrs. It may very well be a ballon, but the altitude and wind is a huge factor.

Originally posted by FireDragonDan
The fact it looks very similar to other objects filmed by NASA, leads me to believe that it's a living entity in the earths atomposhere, a bit like jelly fish but much larger. Could explain star jelly etc. just a thought!

The space critters aka Amoeba lifeforms or spirit forms to. Either i dont think its an weather balloon, i have seen weather balloons before and that is not an weather balloon.

I would agree with you there its a life form.

The galactic federation of light are here. only 5 years late.

Who else remembers 10-14-08?

But regards to the footage. I'm at a complete loss as to what it is. I won't hear it's a parachute or any balloon etc. Unless they can confirm it was moving quicker than believed and it wasn't there for 4 hours.

If it was sat there(ish) for 4 hours then i call mystery. solve it!! now!

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Spacespider
looks like the spheres around the edge of the craft were detachable . looked like they had their own individual docking port

I'd like to know what could possibly possess you to say something like that? How can you possibly tell from these low-quality images that there are detachable "orbs", or how you can even miraculously tell that these "orbs" have their own individual docking ports?

Originally posted by pyrodude
The ridges appear to be some sort of 360 degree propulsion system, pretty neat whatever it is. Does not look like a balloon at all.

360-degree propulsion system? Seriously?


It truly boggles logic when people make such unbelievable and fantastical claims.




Ladies and gentlemen, you're looking at a simple parachute:

Ripples around the perimeter: check.

Hole in the middle: check.


I doubt it was there for four hours. But if it was, it was likely tethered to the ground. That explains why the news station deleted their UFO story. Because it's not a UFO. Come on, people. This stuff isn't that hard.

edit on 19-7-2013 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)

How this thread even continued after this guy's demonstrated explanation is beyond my level of human understanding.

The fact that even after shown exactly what it was people still jump up and down and scream aliens.
Forget aliens and UFO's if you want a real mystery why not jump in the deep end take a look at why 90% of all people are dumber than a gnat

Originally posted by Spacespider
Here are some better footage of the UFO

looks like the spheres around the edge of the craft were detachable . looked like they had their own individual docking port

edit on 19-7-2013 by Spacespider because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-7-2013 by Spacespider because: (no reason given)

Maybe these are the UFO's which drop orbs

Originally posted by Nomad451

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Spacespider
looks like the spheres around the edge of the craft were detachable . looked like they had their own individual docking port

I'd like to know what could possibly possess you to say something like that? How can you possibly tell from these low-quality images that there are detachable "orbs", or how you can even miraculously tell that these "orbs" have their own individual docking ports?

Originally posted by pyrodude
The ridges appear to be some sort of 360 degree propulsion system, pretty neat whatever it is. Does not look like a balloon at all.

360-degree propulsion system? Seriously?


It truly boggles logic when people make such unbelievable and fantastical claims.




Ladies and gentlemen, you're looking at a simple parachute:

Ripples around the perimeter: check.

Hole in the middle: check.


I doubt it was there for four hours. But if it was, it was likely tethered to the ground. That explains why the news station deleted their UFO story. Because it's not a UFO. Come on, people. This stuff isn't that hard.

edit on 19-7-2013 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)

How this thread even continued after this guy's demonstrated explanation is beyond my level of human understanding.

The fact that even after shown exactly what it was people still jump up and down and scream aliens.
Forget aliens and UFO's if you want a real mystery why not jump in the deep end take a look at why 90% of all people are dumber than a gnat

Only one problem, well several actually..

Wheres the guy/payload under the parachute, it should be visible?

What about the cross winds reported to be high ?

It was sitting there static for 4 hours ?

Where did the parachute land ?

Just doesn't add up, A square is a square but we can't simply call everything a simple square for being square if you catch my drift

reply to post by Nomad451

Don't you have any common sens?It does not take 4 HOURS to land in a parachute...no where near it.