Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

'UFO fleet' caught on camera off US coast


UM-Bot

Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, Skulduggery said:

While I agree with you, I would refrain from saying something like “these are _____” as if it is conclusive. I’d say likely. These probably are lanterns. But without 100% proper ID, I would only hazard an educated guess rather than making a declaration of absolute.

Quite correct.

Then again I was having fun by stating this as absolute like those claiming that these objects are 2 to 3 miles away when it is impossible to make such a statement.

I would correct myself to state that these objects are likely to be within the atmosphere. These objects would have to be mysterious and incredibly luminous objects is they were outside of the atmosphere. It's possible right?

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't think they are sky lanterns...

Quote

... releasing a lit sky lantern is also illegal in N.C.  These mini hot air balloons have caused fires across the world including structure fires and wild land fires. Once lit and airborne a sky lantern can travel over a mile.  Wind can affect the flight causing this flaming lantern to be sent back to the ground potentially causing a fire.

https://www.ashevilledowntown.org/fireworks-safety-avl-fire-dept

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Golden Duck said:

I just don't think they are sky lanterns...

https://www.ashevilledowntown.org/fireworks-safety-avl-fire-dept

Florida most fireworks are illegal that fly or go bang,

and any holiday that people light stuff tents set up in parking lots and charge 5 to 10 times what firework legal states charge, the loophole, you sign a paper saying you are using the firework to scare away birds, no kidding.

and the good old boys i hung with years back had expressions like "hey y'all watch this" or "shut up and hang on" these guys didnt mind shooting off huge illegal fireworks, fl is full of those types.

i have no clue if sky lanterns are illegal here, i never floated one, common sense says bad idea send a burning payload up under a paper bag, but it's a rare night that someone doesnt float a few over at the beach, so just because something like this is illegal or careless doesnt in my view rule them out in this case at all.

i guess im too skeptical but so many times "most likely" is the correct answer, sky lanterns, flares, a human based event is from all the evidence i have the most likely answer here,

and i have no doubts some folks believe these are huge craft from other words i just see zero to colabarate that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

I just don't think they are sky lanterns...

https://www.ashevilledowntown.org/fireworks-safety-avl-fire-dept

If only there were some other potential explanation proposed, perhaps 6 or so posts ago..haha

In seriousness though that's a good find.

I agree with 13bats though that the fact something is illegal is no reason to think people wouldn't do it - it would hardly be the first time someone broke the law and the police aren't exactly watching the skies for illegal lanterns..

Launching 14 of them at once is a bit bold if it's illegal, then again do you know your local areas stance on Chinese lanterns? I can't say I do and it's quite possible these were launched without even realising they were doing anything wrong

Or the rules are different in other parts of the state, or neighbouring states, or they were released at sea.. There are many possible explanations, it certainly can't be ruled out as a strong possibility, but I'm still going with flares

 

Edit: Also, this:

Commenters on YouTube are divided as to whether the lights are UFOs or just flares used by the military. The latter is plausible, given the proximity of the Outer Banks to multiple military facilities, including Camp Lejeune and Fort Bragg in Eastern North Carolina.

“I know what those lights are,” posted Derrick Chennault on YouTube. “As a former Marine based at the 2nd Marine Air Wing in Cherry Point, N.C. ... we used to regularly drop flares out of the back of our plane in the evenings for military exercises... Glad to see the Marines are still spooking people.”

Hardly conclusive, but interesting all the same

Edited by Chewie1990
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Chewie1990 said:

If only there were some other potential explanation proposed, perhaps 6 or so posts ago..haha

In seriousness though that's a good find.

I agree with 13bats though that the fact something is illegal is no reason to think people wouldn't do it - it would hardly be the first time someone broke the law and the police aren't exactly watching the skies for illegal lanterns..

Launching 14 of them at once is a bit bold if it's illegal, then again do you know your local areas stance on Chinese lanterns? I can't say I do and it's quite possible these were launched without even realising they were doing anything wrong

Or the rules are different in other parts of the state, or neighbouring states, or they were released at sea.. There are many possible explanations, it certainly can't be ruled out as a strong possibility, but I'm still going with flares

 

Edit: Also, this:

Commenters on YouTube are divided as to whether the lights are UFOs or just flares used by the military. The latter is plausible, given the proximity of the Outer Banks to multiple military facilities, including Camp Lejeune and Fort Bragg in Eastern North Carolina.

“I know what those lights are,” posted Derrick Chennault on YouTube. “As a former Marine based at the 2nd Marine Air Wing in Cherry Point, N.C. ... we used to regularly drop flares out of the back of our plane in the evenings for military exercises... Glad to see the Marines are still spooking people.”

Hardly conclusive, but interesting all the same

I definitely know the local rules here in Australia. Sky Lanterns are banned for a number of reasons including bushfires and civil aviation.

But why are they dropping flares before nightfall?

Edited by Golden Duck
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

But why are they dropping flares before nightfall?

Why not? Can you see them? Yes, so why wait until it's full dark? I'm not going to pretend to understand military training exercises but why operate in the middle of the night if you don't have to?

 

And to put things in context, what's more likely: the air force popping flares in an air force training range in perhaps sub-optimal conditions or an armada of alien craft congregating off the coast of NC for no obvious reason for no more than 90 seconds before vanishing without a trace? (And nobody else felt strongly enough about it to post videos online, there was no apparent military response etc. etc.)

 

Also in the comments of the original video there are quite a few locals saying it's not uncommon to see flares like that in the area.

There's also a lot of people asking 'difficult' questions that he tends to ignore. He's very quick to respond to the news channels asking for permission to talk about him and make him internet famous though..

 

And if anyone was wondering the full video is apparently a minute and a half long but he wasn't able to upload the whole thing so he had to edit it down to 30 seconds or so. When asked to upload the rest of the video in pieces to get around his internet restrictions he responds he's on an island with bad internet but will try when he gets back to the mainland..that was 2 days ago

He was apparently working on Ocracoke island and returning to Swan Quarter on the mainland when he recorded the video so I'm not sure why he couldn't upload the full video that night but might be able to in the future?

Also according to visitocracokenc.com:

The island is equipped with Internet service and all of the hotels and B&Bs have Wi-Fi (either as part of the room charge or with a nominal fee) as do almost all of the rental houses. However, for those who do not find Internet offerings within their accommodations, several locations on the island offer free Wi-Fi: Ocracoke Coffee, the Magic Bean Coffee Bazaar, the Ocracoke Gas Station, the Slushy Stand, and the Ocracoke Community Library (open to the public weekday evenings from 3 to 7 p.m. and 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. on Saturdays).

Now I can't speak for the speed of the internet, but I can't imagine a 90 second video would be much of a problem. 

TLDR - he could totally provide the supporting evidence to his claim of UFO's, but curiously he doesn't seem to want to..

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Chewie1990 said:

Why not? Can you see them? Yes, so why wait until it's full dark? I'm not going to pretend to understand military training exercises but why operate in the middle of the night if you don't have to?

 

And to put things in context, what's more likely: the air force popping flares in an air force training range in perhaps sub-optimal conditions or an armada of alien craft congregating off the coast of NC for no obvious reason for no more than 90 seconds before vanishing without a trace? (And nobody else felt strongly enough about it to post videos online, there was no apparent military response etc. etc.)

 

Also in the comments of the original video there are quite a few locals saying it's not uncommon to see flares like that in the area.

There's also a lot of people asking 'difficult' questions that he tends to ignore. He's very quick to respond to the news channels asking for permission to talk about him and make him internet famous though..

 

And if anyone was wondering the full video is apparently a minute and a half long but he wasn't able to upload the whole thing so he had to edit it down to 30 seconds or so. When asked to upload the rest of the video in pieces to get around his internet restrictions he responds he's on an island with bad internet but will try when he gets back to the mainland..that was 2 days ago

He was apparently working on Ocracoke island and returning to Swan Quarter on the mainland when he recorded the video so I'm not sure why he couldn't upload the full video that night but might be able to in the future?

Also according to visitocracokenc.com:

The island is equipped with Internet service and all of the hotels and B&Bs have Wi-Fi (either as part of the room charge or with a nominal fee) as do almost all of the rental houses. However, for those who do not find Internet offerings within their accommodations, several locations on the island offer free Wi-Fi: Ocracoke Coffee, the Magic Bean Coffee Bazaar, the Ocracoke Gas Station, the Slushy Stand, and the Ocracoke Community Library (open to the public weekday evenings from 3 to 7 p.m. and 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. on Saturdays).

Now I can't speak for the speed of the internet, but I can't imagine a 90 second video would be much of a problem. 

TLDR - he could totally provide the supporting evidence to his claim of UFO's, but curiously he doesn't seem to want to..

Why are you raising Aliens? I never said aliens; not even once in the more than 10 years I've been here.

I reckon it's sunlight reflecting off something like balloons and the boat is in the right area to see it at sunset.

While sky lanterns and drones are more likely than aliens they still don't make a lot of sense.

If flares is a possibility there's still questions to be answered. Just because it's more likely than aliens doesn't make it so. That's the same fallacy peddled by true believers.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Why are you raising Aliens? I never said aliens; not even once in the more than 10 years I've been here.

I reckon it's sunlight reflecting off something like balloons and the boat is in the right area to see it at sunset.

While sky lanterns and drones are more likely than aliens they still don't make a lot of sense.

If flares is a possibility there's still questions to be answered. Just because it's more likely than aliens doesn't make it so. That's the same fallacy peddled by true believers.

But although I was responding to your comment I am discussing the story as a whole and the options seem to have been narrowed down to balloons, lanterns, flares, aliens or just 'a UFO' *shrug*

Your previous posts seemed to be suggesting it couldn't be lanterns because they're illegal, now it seemed you were dismissing flares because it's not dark enough

You typically get those kinds of dismissals from those true believers you are referring to. Now I know your actually stance I can say I think we agree on the broad strokes, but at the time it seemed to me like you were trying hard to shoot down every alternate theory proposed (Not that there's anything inherently wrong with that, all theories should face the same level of scrutiny).

I've not been here long so I dont know your posting history, I was just trying to cover all the bases. If I've misconstrued your point then I apologise, but out of context I'm sure you can see where I'm coming from

The reality is none of us can know for sure and there are pros and cons to all our theories until presented better evidence

Flares don't perfectly fit as I'd expect to see a smoke trail and more relative movement between the objects, but given the quality and duration of the footage we can't really say if they were present. But given the setting of an air force training range and testimony of locals that it looks like flares that are regularly dropped there the context fits nicely

As for balloons they are just as plausible, I just think (IMO) it doesn't look like reflected sunlight

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

I had a quick look for any organised events around Pimlico but I couldn't find anything.

I guess it's reflected sunlight because you don't get a sense of the size of the reflector (mirror) when the light hits you. And, the boat might be in the ideal spot to see reflected light.

The objects are moving yet the changing angle never eliminates "glare" so it is not glare. Also, there is no "shaded" section of the balloon/lantern that would exist if sunlight was the source of light. Brightness and color of light are not right for sunlight either. I'm fairly certain they are self illuminated.

 

10 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

Does the USA have rules on launching Chinese Lanterns?


Chinese Lanterns banned in 29 states including North Carolina   and every state on the east coast.

I don't put any stock at all that Chinese lanterns are banned in NC, people will still use them if they want. But check this out:

Image result for Laws Regarding Chinese Lanterns Flying

 

 

 

They are beautiful, eh?
Note the lanterns have a bright section, the bottom near the candle, and a dim section, the top. The NC objects in the vid have an entire homogeneous brightness and different color, white.

Also, if this pic of the Chinese lanterns was taken in the day, you'd likely not see the light of the candle at all.
And of course, there is the ongoing problem of how it is that these objects maintain their constant juxtaposition throughout. 

In my mind, I have eliminated any kind of balloon, lantern, or flare. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

In my mind, I have eliminated any kind of balloon, lantern, or flare. 

Im with you on the lanterns but how did you eliminate military flares?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

In my mind, I have eliminated any kind of balloon, lantern, or flare.

Well that's good for you I guess. You have pointed out the same reasons I have a hard time believing its balloons or lanterns and I agree with most of your points. But flares?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Chewie1990 said:

But although I was responding to your comment I am discussing the story as a whole and the options seem to have been narrowed down to balloons, lanterns, flares, aliens or just 'a UFO' *shrug*

Your previous posts seemed to be suggesting it couldn't be lanterns because they're illegal, now it seemed you were dismissing flares because it's not dark enough

You typically get those kinds of dismissals from those true believers you are referring to. Now I know your actually stance I can say I think we agree on the broad strokes, but at the time it seemed to me like you were trying hard to shoot down every alternate theory proposed (Not that there's anything inherently wrong with that, all theories should face the same level of scrutiny).

I've not been here long so I dont know your posting history, I was just trying to cover all the bases. If I've misconstrued your point then I apologise, but out of context I'm sure you can see where I'm coming from

The reality is none of us can know for sure and there are pros and cons to all our theories until presented better evidence

Flares don't perfectly fit as I'd expect to see a smoke trail and more relative movement between the objects, but given the quality and duration of the footage we can't really say if they were present. But given the setting of an air force training range and testimony of locals that it looks like flares that are regularly dropped there the context fits nicely

As for balloons they are just as plausible, I just think (IMO) it doesn't look like reflected sunlight

I'm not dieing in a ditch for reflected sunlight, it's my favoured guess. That's why I looked for what a survival mirror looked like.

I'm guessing at evening the breeze will be on-shore so sky lanterns might be blown inland. A ban makes sense. Sky lanterns just seems a bit of a go to answer without much reason.

When flares are mentioned without differentiating I tend to think illuminating flares.  Maybe they're defensive flares but I'm not familiar with them.  

PS. My guess for balloons was made back in #40.

Edited by Golden Duck
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno. The 'things' in the OP don't seem to waver around like these one but I guess distance, wind etc could play a part in that effect.

Very similar though.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Chewie1990 said:

 

 

11 hours ago, Chewie1990 said:

I went back and looked closely at the still pic, that is the best enlargement we have in the article.

True - still a terrible quality image though that gives away literally nothing about the shape, size or distance of the objects. They could be orbs of light, or objects at a distance emitting a bright light that makes the rest of the object hard to see - for example planes on approach to an airport look pretty similar to that until they get close enough where details like the wings become apparent

I would guess the distance to these objects is about 2-3 miles.

Based on what out of interest? There are no landmarks or points of reference - these could be tiny objects close to the lens or huge objects a long way away. Lack of relative movement suggests the distance is greater rather than shorter but anything is possible based on the image alone I'm certain they are self illuminated because of the brightness.

Hard to explain. You do have the boat for reference in parts. Can't really explain it. just a sense.

11 hours ago, Chewie1990 said:

With that said, it makes the objects to be about the size of a hot air balloon or less. But I see no appendage hanging off of the "balloons" so, no, not hot air/helium balloons. 

Again, how can you judge scale without reference? Much like the plane example above I very much doubt you could make out the basket at a distance if the light is that bright.

If it is a balloon, you can google pics of balloons at a distance in still see the basket. Here we have 14 objects, you are bound to see the appendage off of ONE of them at SOME point.

11 hours ago, Chewie1990 said:

Then again, why would an air balloon glow like that?

Yeah. and brightly too. Imagine what that looks like at night?

11 hours ago, Chewie1990 said:

Next, these objects are not round as you would expect. Their shape is non descript and it seems, and shape and size, variable.

Many variables could affect this, many involving the camera itself and the video quality. It doesn't help that the photographer doesn't really point directly at the objects and whips from side to side and it appears the camera struggles to actually focus on the lights a couple of times. All of this can skew the shapes we perceive. Especially when taking a still image from a video like that. I'd wager if you isolated other frames from the video the shapes would look different again

When he pans, you can see the boat. It seems to be decent enough quality to be able to discern a round object. Google hot air balloons and you 'll see that even distant balloons look quite round and you can see the basket dangling beneath.

11 hours ago, Chewie1990 said:

Then we see that there is no shading on any side of any balloon that one would expect if the sun was responsible for lighting them and we don't see that. I am pretty sure these objects are self illuminated.

You'd expect to be able to see that from that kind of distance? (Whatever distance that is..)

Of course, Be careful of the double-edged sword here. You can say the objects are 10 miles away for example, but then the objects would be HUGE. If shading was taking place here, again, google it, you'd see it. 14 objects, you'd notice it.

11 hours ago, Chewie1990 said:

Personally I'm not convinced. Though in fairness if I had to guess I'd agree the objects are self-illuminated.  Not enough to rule out a reflection, but that's my gut feeling

K.

11 hours ago, Chewie1990 said:

And the objects never drift out of position. It is as if they were fixed to each other some how and their relative distance to each other just does not change.

Or they're a long way away and relative movement of tens or even hundreds of feet is barely perceptible as you would expect? If the video went on for another 5 minutes or so with no change I might agree with you. Then again, short of forensically deconstructing the clip frame by frame I can't even say for sure there is no relative movement, the jerky camera work puts paid to that..

Again, be careful. How far away do you want to place them? 20 miles? then the objects are as big as a mountain. 

11 hours ago, Chewie1990 said:

Then again

My judgement says, not balloons.

I'd tend to agree

The objects are too big to be flares and also no parachute device to hold said flare air born is visible. Plus the distance between them being fixed, never any sway suggests the same thing, not flares.

..but here's where I disagree. We can't judge the scale to rule out flares. The parachutes probably wouldn't be visible due to the distance and overwhelming brightness of the flares. The lack of relative movement seems to line up with flares in relatively still air. Winds can move them around but if you get a still night they could hang there like that for a while

Remember, this is day time and flares are almost always used at night. But if you could google a pic of flares in the daytime, I'm sure you'd see the parachute. Also, the size of the objects - if flares, suggest they are very close. not sure at all about that.

11 hours ago, Chewie1990 said:

No idea what they are.

Me neither for sure, but gun to my head I'm saying flares makes the most sense

 

The idea of 14 UFO's converging in the middle of the Sound, all brightly lit and maintaining perfect formation for.. some reason, isn't compelling enough to make it a viable option for me I'm afraid.

Is it possible? Sure, I guess

Is it more likely than flares? (Or even Chinese lanterns?) No way

Good up, Chewie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

One video of of what signal mirror looks like

 

 

GD, see what I mean about "changing angle"?  The glare in that vid by the mirror goes dim, gets bright, many times. The NC objects never do that, they are a constant bright white. Not reflection, IMO.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

 

GD, see what I mean about "changing angle"?  The glare in that vid by the mirror goes dim, gets bright, many times. The NC objects never do that, they are a constant bright white. Not reflection, IMO.

That example was to show the glare appears bigger than the reflector. If high enough it would still be direct line with the sun and may be perceived brighter during twilight. But, I get the point and I'm going off balloons.

https://www.metabunk.org/is-this-sparkling-effect-a-known-ccd-or-lens-aberration.t10845/

Defensive flares maybe...

54ca815c51730_-_ufo-f16-flares-470-0309.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

 

Hard to explain. You do have the boat for reference in parts. Can't really explain it. just a sense.

How can you use an object in the foreground to gauge the scale of an object in the background? Theres no relationship between the two at all. That's not really how scaling works.

If it is a balloon, you can google pics of balloons at a distance in still see the basket. Here we have 14 objects, you are bound to see the appendage off of ONE of them at SOME point.

That's true, but it depends on the distance and whether the balloon is brightly illuminated. If you see this image (hopefully it works) the basket is barely visible on the distant balloon despite it being a lot closer to the camera and not at all lit

https://images.app.goo.gl/Pxd5QNdTEnsh17Tx5

Further to that, see this image of planes on approach much closer to the camera again. They all have wings but the furthest away is hard to make out. Now crank up the brightness on that headlight and you'll get a kind of halo effect around it concealing what little wings or basket you could make out at that range

https://images.app.goo.gl/baryrp6gFPqVSdndA

 

1 minute ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Of course, Be careful of the double-edged sword here. You can say the objects are 10 miles away for example, but then the objects would be HUGE. If shading was taking place here, again, google it, you'd see it. 14 objects, you'd notice it.

Agreed, but I wasnt suggesting it was closer or further, merely it's impossible to accurately tell and any speculation would be pure guesswork

 

1 minute ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Remember, this is day time and flares are almost always used at night. But if you could google a pic of flares in the daytime, I'm sure you'd see the parachute. Also, the size of the objects - if flares, suggest they are very close. not sure at all about that.

Go on youtube or google images and type in air force flares, about 10 per cent of the videos show night time flares, the rest are day or evening. In combat? Absolutely they'd be used at night. In training or when signalling for exercises? They use them whenever they need to

(And I realise that a good proportion are from air displays, but there's still more daytime than night even excluding the airshows)

And again, size scaling is irrelevant, by design they give off a lot more light than their physical size so that the lights appear bigger, an effect exaggerated by out of focus camera work

Good up, Chewie.

I have no idea what this means, so.. thanks?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Im with you on the lanterns but how did you eliminate military flares?

Hi Farmer.

  •  Flares would exhibit a light that is not constant. Excuse the pun but flares "flare up" once in a while. Not once do we see this for 14 objects.
  •  Flares would need a parachute that clearly is not visible ever in the vidI for all 14 objects.
  •  Flares would not produce such a large area of light. It would be a small light source. At this size you'd have to have the flares very close 
  •  Flares will fall and these objects do not. Flares are subject to ocean breezes. these objects maintain constant velocity and direction
  •  Lastly, the ongoing problem of the objects never changing their orientation/juxtaposition throughout. Virtually, impossible.

I can't see it, Farmer. There is no aura of light around an intense light that you see in flare lights. Too many negatives. I can't see "flares". You have  the ocean breeze that simply does not seem to affect the objects at all. 

It's kinda like painting these objects onto a clear piece of plexiglass and moving it through the air. Nothing moves relative to each other.

Can't see flares.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Stiff said:

I dunno. The 'things' in the OP don't seem to waver around like these one but I guess distance, wind etc could play a part in that effect.

Very similar though.

 

 

That's awesome. Me like. Now let's analyze that. 

Clearly, you can see that the lower portion of the l lantern is bright and the upper portion dim. I have pointed this out already. The NC objects are the same brightness throughout. Homogeneous.  Also, you can see the candle fluttering in the breeze. No way you see any fluttering in the NC objects.

And the generic big problem for just about anything... these Chinese lanterns waver in and out from one another all the time. The objects in the NC vid maintain perfect relative juxtaposition throughout. How does that  even happen for *anything*? Color is way off, too.

thanks for reaffirming my belief, not Chinese lanterns in the NC vid. :)  Smile, bub

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

That example was to show the glare appears bigger than the reflector. If high enough it would still be direct line with the sun and may be perceived brighter during twilight. But, I get the point and I'm going off balloons.

https://www.metabunk.org/is-this-sparkling-effect-a-known-ccd-or-lens-aberration.t10845/

Defensive flares maybe...

54ca815c51730_-_ufo-f16-flares-470-0309.

 

Interesting that the light can be that intense in the day. Of course, the smoke is a dead giveaway. If we had a level view, would we see parachutes?

I'd love to see a daytime flare drop like this in a vid. I think we'd see these flares drifting in and out from one another. 

But good pic, thanks.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Chewie1990, I'll get to your post, but I am out for a while. You've put up good stuff. and yes, "Good up" is a compliment LOL It means you did good on your tune at bat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are some basic falsehoods suggested in the thread:

  1. The shape of the objects can be determined.
  2. That flares exhibit changing intensity - the Phoenix Lights event #2 shows that is false. Flares do not necessarily "flare up" as suggested.
  3. The video is of high enough quality to determine intensity of the source
  4. That it is possible to determine distance to the light
  5. That the similarities in brightness cannot be due to reflection of the Sun.
  6. That the objects are moving in the video.
  7. That the objects are larger than a pixel hence would show anything other than a single dot of light. They can't show shading. They can't show shape. They can't show anything other than a single dot of color.
  8. That lanterns only use a candle for a heat source and illumination
  9. The parachutes of flares and the smoke of flares are not seen at distance.
  10. The size of the objects is unknown in this video and therefore claims of flare sizes are without merit. Remember they are single pixel objects.
  11. Any claims of these objects exhibiting any motion is false - dead wrong. The video is too short to show ANY motion for anything on a parachute or blloon.
  12. Any claims about the video showing or not showing orientation changes is wrong since the objects are single pixel.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The video provides very little to go on. There really is no way anyone can determine what these are when they are single pixel.

 

So what could it be?

 

A flare on a balloon has been used to fool people in many places. Here a string of lights showing no relative motion could be 10 miles away or 300 miles away. They are bright - possibly. We have no idea if that video is shot with a crummy camera and it simply shows a capped brightness. In other words, after a certain brightness it continues to show the same brightness. The brightness might change but above a certain brightness the video does not record changes.

 

The single pixel recording of these dots is seen in the smeared out horizontal lines in the video. The objects are not in focus in the video. They are blurred to the point of uselessness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since no one seems interested in the place where this happened other than Ocracoke island please examine the video.

 

Instead of showing us the lights and focusing on that the person shows us what is probably sunset. Look at the ferry schedule. They don't leave before sunrise. They do leave before sunset.

 

That means the person is showing the sun in the west. They jabber on about whatever and then pan to the southwest. These lights are to the southwest of the ferry route.

 

A check of online maps showing there are a number of military bases in that direction including the following.

https://www.cherrypoint.marines.mil/

 

 

That base is 40 miles away. Any off shore activity at that base would be seen as single pixels. It is is the range where it could easily be seen by the people on the ferry. It would show something similar to what was seen as event #2 at Phoenix.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.