'UFO fleet' caught on camera off US coast

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

I have seen videos of flare drops. Yes, you can see smoke in all of them. Yes, they all DROP in altitude. Yes, you can see parachutes when the wind tips the flare out from under the chute and does not hide the parachute. google yourselves.

Just want to drop this pic into the mix.

These flares were dropped by C-130's. It is crystal clear in this still that the flares are smoking and dropping in altitude.

 

Off to see my undefeated Patriots. GO PATS!!  But this  is a good thread, be back lay-tah

Edited October 6, 2019 by Earl.Of.Trumps

[stereologist]

What we know is that smoke is NOT seen in all videos. That is simply false.

No videos of the Phoenix Lights showed smoke. Flares seen at a distance show NO smoke.

Trying to equate  day time video of a nearby flare of a DIFFERENT type has no bearing on the current situation.

This notion can be added to the 12 other mistakes I listed earlier in this post.

 

 

[Chewie1990]

6 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I have seen videos of flare drops. Yes, you can see smoke in all of them. Yes, they all DROP in altitude. Yes, you can see parachutes when the wind tips the flare out from under the chute and does not hide the parachute. google yourselves.

Just want to drop this pic into the mix.

These flares were dropped by C-130's. It is crystal clear in this still that the flares are smoking and dropping in altitude.

(I'm assuming this is in response to me even though it's not really in context of what I was saying, but I'll respond either way..)

I have seen the same in many photos and videos, hence my comments in post 60 about expecting to see smoke and more relative movement.

The problem with all these image comparisons is we're comparing apples to oranges - that photo is crystal clear, in focus, in better lighting conditions and taken with a better camera - completely unlike the footage we are looking at

Looking at your image specifically the only things I will take issue with are 1) I still see no parachutes (just like the image in #68) and 2) the drop in altitude will obviously be more pronounced when it initially falls out of the plane, it's only later that they tend to 'stall' and hang in the air

A point I guess we have all failed to mention is the 'flares' seem to last quite a long time relative to most you see in videos - I'm sure they have different grades of flare with different durations for various purposes but I'm no expert..

As I mentioned before and has been pointed out again by @stereologist, any comment relating to the movement or lack thereof of the objects is moot given that we don't get a good enough or long enough focus on the objects themselves. All we can say with any degree of confidence is there was something there

Now if Mr Guy manages to upload the rest of the video (nobody hold your breath) and the lights descend before blinking out they're probably flares. If they stay where they are then they are probably distant balloons or similar

The fact that the video cuts off so suddenly could be quite telling but I guess the only people who know for sure were on that boat..

 

[Stiff]

The comments on youtube are quite telling...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8NbyVzXoqc

 

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

On 10/6/2019 at 1:03 PM, Chewie1990 said:

(I'm assuming this is in response to me even though it's not really in context of what I was saying, but I'll respond either way..)

I have seen the same in many photos and videos, hence my comments in post 60 about expecting to see smoke and more relative movement.

The problem with all these image comparisons is we're comparing apples to oranges - that photo is crystal clear, in focus, in better lighting conditions and taken with a better camera - completely unlike the footage we are looking at

I thought the NC vid was fine. When he panned I could see the boat, and then the clouds over the sunset on the right. Looked good to me.

 

Quote

Looking at your image specifically the only things I will take issue with are 1) I still see no parachutes (just like the image in #68) and 2) the drop in altitude will obviously be more pronounced when it initially falls out of the plane, it's only later that they tend to 'stall' and hang in the air

Sure, the smoke obfuscates the chutes. In other photos I have seen, the wind pushes the flare to one side and the chute is quite visible.
But you introduced another problem here. The flares will descend to the ground in just a few minutes. So where were the flares lit off from? 
Remember, this is out to sea.

Quote

A point I guess we have all failed to mention is the 'flares' seem to last quite a long time relative to most you see in videos - I'm sure they have different grades of flare with different durations for various purposes but I'm no expert..

Here is what I got in Wiki:

Quote

Handheld flares must burn for at least 1 minute at an average luminosity of 15,000 candela, while aerial flares must burn for at least 40 seconds with 30,000 candela average luminosity.^[7] Both should burn in a bright red colour. Nations which are members of SOLAS require vessels to carry visual signals on board.

Quote

As I mentioned before and has been pointed out again by @stereologist, any comment relating to the movement or lack thereof of the objects is moot given that we don't get a good enough or long enough focus on the objects themselves. All we can say with any degree of confidence is there was something there

If you had a still photo you could at least look  at it and make some kind of determination. It would be better that there be a longer vid just to show that these objects are not descending because they are not flares. I hope the guy gets the rest of it up

Quote

Now if Mr Guy manages to upload the rest of the video (nobody hold your breath) and the lights descend before blinking out they're probably flares. If they stay where they are then they are probably distant balloons or similar

The fact that the video cuts off so suddenly could be quite telling but I guess the only people who know for sure were on that boat..

 

Anyway, I'm off of it. I have given flares a spin and found that it simply can never be. No smoke, no parachutes = no flares.You may believe it but what can I say. 

Edited October 8, 2019 by Earl.Of.Trumps

[the13bats]

When i look at an experience or "sighting" like this i feel its important to weigh all the very limited information in provided,

i have a basically impossible task to give this example much or any credibility or intregrity due to the down right cheesiness of the cameraman,

let's say i just painted my car a wild cool color so im all proud i want to show it off to my gearhead buddies, i wouldnt go to an empty parking lot under crap lights and pan my phone cam back and forth showing far more footage of it than the car spewing in a labored voice, look at this parking lot,

yet, this guy sees something hes trying to sell as odd and its in frame about 10% of the video, an empty sky is just that we have zero interest in it, yet he deliberately doesnt get a good shot of the lights.

reminds me of that frosted flake who kept yelling during his bf video, that's not a man, that's not a man.

then there is zero to gauge distance or size of objects to make claims otherwise is of no scienctific value, just pointless guessing,

i have seen both sky lanterns and flares and this has the look or both or either, but no way to prove with the information given these are flares or lanterns or to prove they are not,

 

Edited October 8, 2019 by the13bats

[Golden Duck]

18 minutes ago, the13bats said:

When i look at an experience or "sighting" like this i feel its important to weigh all the very limited information in provided,

i have a basically impossible task to give this example much or any credibility or intregrity due to the down right cheesiness of the cameraman,

let's say i just painted my car a wild cool color so im all proud i want to show it off to my gearhead buddies, i wouldnt go to an empty parking lot under crap lights and pan my phone cam back and forth showing far more footage of it than the car spewing in a labored voice, look at this parking lot,

yet, this guy sees something hes trying to sell as odd and its in frame about 10% of the video, an empty sky is just that we have zero interest in it, yet he deliberately doesnt get a good shot of the lights.

reminds me of that frosted flake who kept yelling during his bf video, that's not a man, that's not a man.

then there is zero to gauge distance or size of objects to make claims otherwise is of no scienctific value, just pointless guessing,

i have seen both sky lanterns and flares and this has the look or both or either, but no way to prove with the information given these are flares or lanterns or to prove they are not,

 

If we had date and time we could start with a few educated guesses.

The weather will give us the cloud base height.

If smoke, from flares, is not visible I'm guessing that would make the flares out of direct sunlight.  This would give you another limit.

I don't get the single pixel thing however.

PS.  Where's our former Navy REO?

[Chewie1990]

6 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I thought the NC vid was fine. When he panned I could see the boat, and then the clouds over the sunset on the right. Looked good to me.

You're right, the boat was in focus, but we have already identified it as a boat. The problem is half the time the unidentified objects were completely out of focus and the rest of the time they were just blobs of light.

Now this could mean that the objects are actually floating blobs of light, or it could mean they are really small and really far away and their brightness is giving a false impression of their true shape and size

6 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Sure, the smoke obfuscates the chutes. In other photos I have seen, the wind pushes the flare to one side and the chute is quite visible.

Exactly! Different pictures show different things, so making any kind of blanket statement about what should or shouldn't be visible is a waste of time. And that's true in optimal conditions, but even more so at the distance we are looking at here.

Again, I agree that the lack of smoke and relative movement is an issue for me, but who knows what the next few seconds would have shown if the guy had pointed the camera at this supposedly incredible event instead of admiring the horizon

6 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

But you introduced another problem here. The flares will descend to the ground in just a few minutes. So where were the flares lit off from? 
Remember, this is out to sea.

Ok now you have me a little confused. Firstly it's not out to sea - there is literally land on all sides of the ferry route.

When I think of flares I typically think boats or planes, neither of which would be ruled out by being over water. Now if you are asking "why don't we see or hear the aircraft that dropped the flares?" Then that's more like it!

The only real options for this are:

1) a low, fast plane that is out of earshot by the time the video starts - I'd say no as this would hardly be very subtle and I don't see anyone calling this a UFO if a fighter jet just passed them (unless they're being wilfully ignorant for video clicks..)

2) a C130 or equivalent at a relatively high altitude. Perhaps there is even a delay on the point of ignition for some kinds of flares meaning they fall for a while before lighting (again, not an expert! But this would make sense for military applications so as not to draw a ton of attention to the plane from the ground until it is already out of range)

Or of course 3) the flares are really far away and so is the plane, so we can neither see nor hear it

6 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Here is what I got in Wiki:

Good find. So aerial flares last upwards of 40 seconds and the video is 30 seconds long. I was concerned there was a chance they might not last that long based on videos online but I guess they do. Probably the difference between different types of flares for different applications - I guess no point in using illumination or marker flares that disappear in 10 seconds..

6 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

If you had a still photo you could at least look  at it and make some kind of determination. It would be better that there be a longer vid just to show that these objects are not descending because they are not flares. I hope the guy gets the rest of it up

You and me both, and I'll happily switch to team balloon in the unlikely event that he uploads it

But he won't

Or he would have done so already

6 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Anyway, I'm off of it. I have given flares a spin and found that it simply can never be. No smoke, no parachutes = no flares.You may believe it but what can I say. 

Fair enough, to each their own.

I think we have identified a few potential weak points in the theory (as with all of the others), but I certainly dont see how you could conclude "it simply can never be".

But it's not my job to try and persuade you of anything and I certainly can't conclusively prove anything so we've done about all we can with it. Good talk!

 

But just out of curiosity, what's your favoured theory?

[stereologist]

9 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

If we had date and time we could start with a few educated guesses.

The weather will give us the cloud base height.

If smoke, from flares, is not visible I'm guessing that would make the flares out of direct sunlight.  This would give you another limit.

I don't get the single pixel thing however.

PS.  Where's our former Navy REO?

The single pixel issue is that this eliminates any possibility of seeing any detail.

There is smearing due to several factors including the objects being out of focus, the camera motion, and the interlacing of the video.

 

[stereologist]

The view time of the lights is so small that it is not possible to:

1. Determine if there is relative movement between the lights
2. Determine if the lights are even close to each other

The photographer purposely shows the lights only for a few seconds in a 30 second video. That was on purpose. For what reason?

Is this to prevent identification of the lights?

Maybe these lights are a line of planes. For all we know this is a number of planes strung out over miles that due to the angle of viewing appear to be close to each other when in fact they are not. In this case the lights would be landing lights turned on at sunset.

For whatever reason we see these lights for 14 seconds. Part of that 14 seconds the camera is zoomed out.

Can these be flares? Of course they can. There could be smoke and parachutes that cannot be resolved.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

9 hours ago, Chewie1990 said:

But just out of curiosity, what's your favoured theory?

UFO, of course. And I do mean in the sense of "intelligently designed and flown" - yet otherwise Unidentified Flying Object.

As usual with you, good up.

[Big Jim]

Obviously a fleet of alien ships on their way to retrieve cocoons from the Bermuda Triangle.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

I'll post my evidence here for UFOs being the objects.

We start out with an old still black and white pic, from July 16, 1952, right around the same time that the UFOs over Washington DC event took place. Four UFO's  are suspended like Christmas tree lights over the Coast Guard Station in Salem, Massachusetts (Witch City).

The objects here are nondescript in shape, however bright. The objects hovered for some time, allowing US Coastguard photographer, Shell Alpert, to run and get his camera. When Alpert came back to a window to take the picture, he noticed the lights on the UFOs went dim. So he waited and in short order, the UFOs went bright. That is when Shell Alpert snapped this classic UFO picture.

The event was witnessed by many people including about 40 workers in the factory in the background of the pic, the Salem Power Plant. And there were many people who came forward in the months that followed giving their accounts of the event to the local newspaper, The Salem Evening News (still in production)

We can see that the objects in this 1952 photo could reasonably be passed for the objects in the NC vid of this thread. Also, the objects in the NC vid - when first captured on vid, were bright. Then, all 14 objects suddenly went a bit dim. Seconds later, the objects got bright again.

This simultaneous oscillation between bright/dim is the same characteristic of the 1952 UFOs over Salem Coast Guard Station.

For now, I'm on UFOs as my choice as to what those objects in the NC vid of this thread are.

[the13bats]

4 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I'll post my evidence here for UFOs being the objects.

We start out with an old still black and white pic, from July 16, 1952, right around the same time that the UFOs over Washington DC event took place. Four UFO's  are suspended like Christmas tree lights over the Coast Guard Station in Salem, Massachusetts (Witch City).

The objects here are nondescript in shape, however bright. The objects hovered for some time, allowing US Coastguard photographer, Shell Alpert, to run and get his camera. When Alpert came back to a window to take the picture, he noticed the lights on the UFOs went dim. So he waited and in short order, the UFOs went bright. That is when Shell Alpert snapped this classic UFO picture.

The event was witnessed by many people including about 40 workers in the factory in the background of the pic, the Salem Power Plant. And there were many people who came forward in the months that followed giving their accounts of the event to the local newspaper, The Salem Evening News (still in production)

We can see that the objects in this 1952 photo could reasonably be passed for the objects in the NC vid of this thread. Also, the objects in the NC vid - when first captured on vid, were bright. Then, all 14 objects suddenly went a bit dim. Seconds later, the objects got bright again.

This simultaneous oscillation between bright/dim is the same characteristic of the 1952 UFOs over Salem Coast Guard Station.

For now, I'm on UFOs as my choice as to what those objects in the NC vid of this thread are.

That was reaching, seems this pic was well explained and debunked as reflection or lenes flare, can it be proven its not?

Can you prove its 4 objects in the sky can you prove it has any connection to the threads crap video?

can you prove the threads lights are intelligently controlled?

if you have no proof of your claims thats expected, I accept that and that makes them just your opinion which is fine.

Edited October 9, 2019 by the13bats

[ThereWeAreThen]

4 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I'll post my evidence here for UFOs being the objects.

We start out with an old still black and white pic, from July 16, 1952, right around the same time that the UFOs over Washington DC event took place. Four UFO's  are suspended like Christmas tree lights over the Coast Guard Station in Salem, Massachusetts (Witch City).

The objects here are nondescript in shape, however bright. The objects hovered for some time, allowing US Coastguard photographer, Shell Alpert, to run and get his camera. When Alpert came back to a window to take the picture, he noticed the lights on the UFOs went dim. So he waited and in short order, the UFOs went bright. That is when Shell Alpert snapped this classic UFO picture.

The event was witnessed by many people including about 40 workers in the factory in the background of the pic, the Salem Power Plant. And there were many people who came forward in the months that followed giving their accounts of the event to the local newspaper, The Salem Evening News (still in production)

We can see that the objects in this 1952 photo could reasonably be passed for the objects in the NC vid of this thread. Also, the objects in the NC vid - when first captured on vid, were bright. Then, all 14 objects suddenly went a bit dim. Seconds later, the objects got bright again.

This simultaneous oscillation between bright/dim is the same characteristic of the 1952 UFOs over Salem Coast Guard Station.

For now, I'm on UFOs as my choice as to what those objects in the NC vid of this thread are.

We've been through this billions of times. UFOs does not mean aliens. It means we don't know.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

1 hour ago, the13bats said:

That was reaching, seems this pic was well explained and debunked as reflection or lenes flare, can it be proven its not?

If it was "proven", then how come the "prover" can't tell if it's lens flare OR reflection? If he can't decide why should I care what he says?

The project bluebook did say "reflection" - until the photographer Alper informed the investigator that the glass was removed from the window for the summer. 

Reflections and lens flares are not seen by many many people. People saw real objects in the sky

you cannot debunk reality, you can only tell a bunch of bunk to hide reality. The photo has never been brought into question by project bluebook, your "story" of debunking is bunk, IMO.

 

1 hour ago, the13bats said:

Can you prove its 4 objects in the sky can you prove it has any connection to the threads crap video?

can you prove the threads lights are intelligently controlled?

if you have no proof of your claims thats expected, I accept that and that makes them just your opinion which is fine.

That ends that

[the13bats]

6 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

If it was "proven", then how come the "prover" can't tell if it's lens flare OR reflection? If he can't decide why should I care what he says?

The project bluebook did say "reflection" - until the photographer Alper informed the investigator that the glass was removed from the window for the summer. 

Reflections and lens flares are not seen by many many people. People saw real objects in the sky

you cannot debunk reality, you can only tell a bunch of bunk to hide reality. The photo has never been brought into question by project bluebook, your "story" of debunking is bunk, IMO.

 

That ends that

lol  his answer was the glass was not in the window so that rules out reflection, not for me it doesnt.

i have no clue where the thread is but this case you posted us discussed and adaqutly explained in down to earth prosaic terms, you can say aliens i will say nope,

that does end that

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

2 hours ago, the13bats said:

lol  his answer was the glass was not in the window so that rules out reflection, not for me it doesnt.

i have no clue where the thread is but this case you posted us discussed and adaqutly explained in down to earth prosaic terms, you can say aliens i will say nope,

that does end that

No idea what you are talking about. I ran the thread. Nobody said the photo was fake, nobody suggested lens flare or reflection or said "debunked".

All of that nonsense goes out the window because the verification that the photo gives a true image is the fact that many people got a visual on them.
My father was one of the many working in that powerplant that day and that saw the UFOs. Many others saw them, too.

You can convince yourself with made up scenarios but you have no chance to sway me because I know the reality.

I understand that there is no UFO incident you will ever agree has a chance to be true. So with that frame of mind and bias, I know better than to try to reason it out with you. All I'm saying is, don't try to convince me of "fake" or "lens flare" or anything else because I already know the truth of it all.

[Chewie1990]

8 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

UFO, of course. And I do mean in the sense of "intelligently designed and flown" - yet otherwise Unidentified Flying Object.

As usual with you, good up.

Ok thought as much, just thought it was important to make sure we know where everyone stands.

It's really easy for people to poke holes in others theories without taking the risk of presenting one of their own. I have more respect for people who are transparent than those who are merely here to criticise and refuse to open themselves to the same kinds of scrutiny. And though I typically come down on one side of the debate that goes for both skeptics and believers.

7 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I'll post my evidence here for UFOs being the objects.

We start out with an old still black and white pic, from July 16, 1952, right around the same time that the UFOs over Washington DC event took place. Four UFO's  are suspended like Christmas tree lights over the Coast Guard Station in Salem, Massachusetts (Witch City).

The objects here are nondescript in shape, however bright. The objects hovered for some time, allowing US Coastguard photographer, Shell Alpert, to run and get his camera. When Alpert came back to a window to take the picture, he noticed the lights on the UFOs went dim. So he waited and in short order, the UFOs went bright. That is when Shell Alpert snapped this classic UFO picture.

Ok, so I'm familiar with the photo and the case but a bit rusty on the details. To save me some research time (and avoid straying too far off topic) I'll just take that evidence at face value rather than trying to disprove a 60+ year old case.

But therein lies my first problem. Your evidence of a 2019 case being real is a vaguely similar case from 1952? Even if the original photo was conclusively proven to be aliens (which it wasn't) that's not very stable ground on which to build a case.

Don't take this the wrong way but if a judgment on a case is to be taken even remotely seriously it should be based on evidence related to the case itself. Otherwise you can say "all alien stories are real because I read about Roswell once". If you want to believe that then fine, just dont be surprised if people treat you like a fool. No offense intended, just some unsolicited but friendly advice..

7 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

The event was witnessed by many people including about 40 workers in the factory in the background of the pic, the Salem Power Plant. And there were many people who came forward in the months that followed giving their accounts of the event to the local newspaper, The Salem Evening News (still in production)

Ok I know I said I wasn't going to get into the old case and I haven't looked to verify the quantity or quality of these witness accounts but my generic response to this would be:

 - Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable

- These cases often state that dozens or hundreds of witnesses have come forward but we can only take their word for it, these witness statements or the names of witnesses are rarely made available

- Witness testimony after the fact will always be questionable as once an event is in the papers or online there's nothing to stop anyone from claiming to be a witness for attention. This is a bit of an awkward one as you could use this to dismiss pretty much any account (which I don't think is fair) but at the same time it means nothing should be accepted at face value

7 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

We can see that the objects in this 1952 photo could reasonably be passed for the objects in the NC vid of this thread. Also, the objects in the NC vid - when first captured on vid, were bright. Then, all 14 objects suddenly went a bit dim. Seconds later, the objects got bright again.

This simultaneous oscillation between bright/dim is the same characteristic of the 1952 UFOs over Salem Coast Guard Station.

For now, I'm on UFOs as my choice as to what those objects in the NC vid of this thread are.

Ok, I'll agree the objects look similar which could hypothetically mean they have the same explanation (be that extra-terrestrial or otherwise).

At a glance I would say the lights in the photo look less likely to be physical objects than our video, but I'm not going to get into that without reading up a little.

I do take issue with your assessment of the bright/dim characteristic in the video however. If you look closely the bright periods coincide with the objects being out of focus. Once the image sharpens they appear to dim. In reality you could replicate this effect with pretty much any bright light source and it says a lot less about the objects than the footage.

1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

If it was "proven", then how come the "prover" can't tell if it's lens flare OR reflection? If he can't decide why should I care what he says?

They are both lighting phenomena that are different but not a million miles apart. Without being there it's not really possible to conclude which is more likely. I'd question their credibility more if they stated it was X as a fact, since we can't know for sure.

That said, what evidence is there its aliens? Even if we trust the eyewitnesses that they saw something, unless it landed and aliens climbed out who's to say what it was?

1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

The project bluebook did say "reflection" - until the photographer Alper informed the investigator that the glass was removed from the window for the summer. 

Reflections and lens flares are not seen by many many people. People saw real objects in the sky

Project bluebook was a long time ago. Science has moved on and honestly, UFO evidence really hasn't - the photo you've posted is as compelling as anything I've seen presented but it's in no way conclusive.

To play devil's advocate here, what if the event actually happened AND the photo only shows lens flare? In theory both COULD be true. Obviously the theory of lens flare only addresses the photo and wouldn't work for eyewitnesses.

1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

you cannot debunk reality, you can only tell a bunch of bunk to hide reality. The photo has never been brought into question by project bluebook, your "story" of debunking is bunk, IMO.

That ends that

"You cannot debunk reality, you can only tell a bunch of bunk to hide reality" cuts both ways though, just be careful you don't step over that line. I'm not going to go all in and say alien UFO's are proven to be 100% fake, I just havent seen anything that 100% proves they are real either. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

If we ever see evidence good enough to prove aliens it will be beyond the work of skeptics to debunk it - that's what makes it good evidence. If little green men turn up on the White House lawn and ray gun the president I promise you nobody will try to pass it off as a trick of the light

 

Whew, now I need to go for a lie down..

[the13bats]

35 minutes ago, Chewie1990 said:

Ok thought as much, just thought it was important to make sure we know where everyone stands.

It's really easy for people to poke holes in others theories without taking the risk of presenting one of their own. I have more respect for people who are transparent than those who are merely here to criticise and refuse to open themselves to the same kinds of scrutiny. And though I typically come down on one side of the debate that goes for both skeptics and believers.

Ok, so I'm familiar with the photo and the case but a bit rusty on the details. To save me some research time (and avoid straying too far off topic) I'll just take that evidence at face value rather than trying to disprove a 60+ year old case.

But therein lies my first problem. Your evidence of a 2019 case being real is a vaguely similar case from 1952? Even if the original photo was conclusively proven to be aliens (which it wasn't) that's not very stable ground on which to build a case.

Don't take this the wrong way but if a judgment on a case is to be taken even remotely seriously it should be based on evidence related to the case itself. Otherwise you can say "all alien stories are real because I read about Roswell once". If you want to believe that then fine, just dont be surprised if people treat you like a fool. No offense intended, just some unsolicited but friendly advice..

Ok I know I said I wasn't going to get into the old case and I haven't looked to verify the quantity or quality of these witness accounts but my generic response to this would be:

 - Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable

- These cases often state that dozens or hundreds of witnesses have come forward but we can only take their word for it, these witness statements or the names of witnesses are rarely made available

- Witness testimony after the fact will always be questionable as once an event is in the papers or online there's nothing to stop anyone from claiming to be a witness for attention. This is a bit of an awkward one as you could use this to dismiss pretty much any account (which I don't think is fair) but at the same time it means nothing should be accepted at face value

Ok, I'll agree the objects look similar which could hypothetically mean they have the same explanation (be that extra-terrestrial or otherwise).

At a glance I would say the lights in the photo look less likely to be physical objects than our video, but I'm not going to get into that without reading up a little.

I do take issue with your assessment of the bright/dim characteristic in the video however. If you look closely the bright periods coincide with the objects being out of focus. Once the image sharpens they appear to dim. In reality you could replicate this effect with pretty much any bright light source and it says a lot less about the objects than the footage.

They are both lighting phenomena that are different but not a million miles apart. Without being there it's not really possible to conclude which is more likely. I'd question their credibility more if they stated it was X as a fact, since we can't know for sure.

That said, what evidence is there its aliens? Even if we trust the eyewitnesses that they saw something, unless it landed and aliens climbed out who's to say what it was?

Project bluebook was a long time ago. Science has moved on and honestly, UFO evidence really hasn't - the photo you've posted is as compelling as anything I've seen presented but it's in no way conclusive.

To play devil's advocate here, what if the event actually happened AND the photo only shows lens flare? In theory both COULD be true. Obviously the theory of lens flare only addresses the photo and wouldn't work for eyewitnesses.

"You cannot debunk reality, you can only tell a bunch of bunk to hide reality" cuts both ways though, just be careful you don't step over that line. I'm not going to go all in and say alien UFO's are proven to be 100% fake, I just havent seen anything that 100% proves they are real either. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

If we ever see evidence good enough to prove aliens it will be beyond the work of skeptics to debunk it - that's what makes it good evidence. If little green men turn up on the White House lawn and ray gun the president I promise you nobody will try to pass it off as a trick of the light

 

Whew, now I need to go for a lie down..

In a very fair very open way you really made the points loud and clear but so what?

your replies were made to a person who has a closed mindset to any opinion other than their own, a little mic drop, "that ends that" seals the deal,

no, it doesnt, calling things debunked or fact is a in this a personal thing to that true believer, like the 1952 pictures a person can make up there were 5 , 10 , 500 witnesses, i can say my dad was there and saw light reflection on the glass, i can't prove he was there  and these people basing what they believe on alleged witnesses from decades ago cant prove any of their witnesses were really there, even if they were its just stories it is not evidence and far from proof, its only their version of their reality.

that does end that.

 

 

 

[Chewie1990]

6 minutes ago, the13bats said:

In a very fair very open way you really made the points loud and clear but so what?

Well isn't that all we can do? If we only talk to the people we agree with nobody will ever change.

I agree it's unlikely we will ever change the mind of a true believer but all we can do is present the facts as honestly and civilly as possible and let them speak for themselves.

If somebody on the fence reads my posts, thinks things through and agrees with me then I'll consider that a win. Meanwhile if I can prompt a true believer to accept just one small part of what I've said (even if it doesn't change their mind on the case overall) then that a win for us all. Baby steps.

The reality is we can debunk every bit of alien evidence there is but it still doesn't prove there are no aliens, that's a losing battle. I'd just like people to believe whatever they want but not dismiss science and common sense to get there.

6 minutes ago, the13bats said:

your replies were made to a person who has a closed mindset to any opinion other than their own, a little mic drop, "that ends that" seals the deal,

no, it doesnt, calling things debunked or fact is a in this a personal thing to that true believer, like the 1952 pictures a person can make up there were 5 , 10 , 500 witnesses, i can say my dad was there and saw light reflection on the glass, i can't prove he was there  and these people basing what they believe on alleged witnesses from decades ago cant prove any of their witnesses were really there, even if they were its just stories it is not evidence and far from proof, its only their version of their reality.

that does end that.

For any number of witnesses to an event like this there are bound to be some liars, some exaggerations, some are mistaken, some were drunk or high, some had issues with mental illness and some genuinely believe what they're saying - the proportions will change on a case by case basis but we shouldn't accept or reject them across the board without question. Eyewitness testimony is not worth nothing, it's just not worth very much

We should be careful about branding witnesses as liars so readily though as it will only widen the divide between 'us and them' and turn believers even more against skeptics - it's just more evidence that can't be corroborated

Speaking from experience for many years I had a memory of an event playing out a certain way and only on reflection at a later date I realised it never happened - it's amazing how the human brain works but it's a real problem with cases like this.

Long story short - you can't fight closed-mindedness with closed-mindedness. I dont want to come across as insulting and say "don't stoop to their level" but.. yeah, that

[the13bats]

13 minutes ago, Chewie1990 said:

Well isn't that all we can do? If we only talk to the people we agree with nobody will ever change.

I agree it's unlikely we will ever change the mind of a true believer but all we can do is present the facts as honestly and civilly as possible and let them speak for themselves.

If somebody on the fence reads my posts, thinks things through and agrees with me then I'll consider that a win. Meanwhile if I can prompt a true believer to accept just one small part of what I've said (even if it doesn't change their mind on the case overall) then that a win for us all. Baby steps.

The reality is we can debunk every bit of alien evidence there is but it still doesn't prove there are no aliens, that's a losing battle. I'd just like people to believe whatever they want but not dismiss science and common sense to get there.

For any number of witnesses to an event like this there are bound to be some liars, some exaggerations, some are mistaken, some were drunk or high, some had issues with mental illness and some genuinely believe what they're saying - the proportions will change on a case by case basis but we shouldn't accept or reject them across the board without question. Eyewitness testimony is not worth nothing, it's just not worth very much

We should be careful about branding witnesses as liars so readily though as it will only widen the divide between 'us and them' and turn believers even more against skeptics - it's just more evidence that can't be corroborated

Speaking from experience for many years I had a memory of an event playing out a certain way and only on reflection at a later date I realised it never happened - it's amazing how the human brain works but it's a real problem with cases like this.

Long story short - you can't fight closed-mindedness with closed-mindedness. I dont want to come across as insulting and say "don't stoop to their level" but.. yeah, that

i wasn't poking at you but rather an idea,

Im right there with you well I'm a bit less smooth than you, okay, a lot less smooth, i have allowed myself to get jaded from embeliments, fabrications, and outright BS,

I seldom call anyone an outright liar, i dont like the sound of it but it doesnt change the fact i have seen a lot of true believers replace facts with close minded blustering arrogance they are right everyone else is wrong, no proof doesnt work that way.

the idea of witness testamony, you are right its not 100% worthless but it's worthless to me as "proof" its just a piece of a story, and the first hurdle is a nameless alleged witness real or made up? and with cases especially ones decades old that witness value drops further for me with the reasons witness accounts are weak and when its hearsay trickled down through who knows how many retelling, no names, just "a witness saw this, a witness claimed that" its just nothing i take as proof,

So do I go into anything with a closed mind? if you ask a true believer they will say of course bats does, but asking for proof, or even evidence, tangible, testable evidence isnt being closed minded but rather very open to be shown that what the person is telling is truth and facts, they cop out there.

it also depends on the person, if a person who acts looney says they have tea with a purple unicorn of course i need that proof but if you said bats i took my trash out and think i saw a fox then I'll believe you on your word alone, why not, it's not extrodarnary and you are believable,

i find nothing proving of scientific merits when a person says they believe it and that makes it fact, for them perhaps but not for me for me its just their belief their story.

back to the threads topic, guessing and speculating aside, i place a lot of weight on the crap cameraman he is telling to me of a person pulling a hoax, outright liar? i didn't say that, but he did every trick to conceal the subject matter of his video and misdirect to pointless empty sky, his voice sounds like he is hoaxing to me and knows what it is, has he released more footage? nope.

i have no clue what he filmed but never with the info provided would i jump to anything otherworldly and if a person does you bet i want to see their proof why they made that jump, no shell games, but many times they have no proof its just what they want to believe, so sure that's not science and wastes my time, i move on.

no, I'm not as smooth as you...

[flabbins]

On 10/4/2019 at 11:49 AM, Buzz_Light_Year said:

Chinese Lanterns

Yup... a fleet of chineese lanterns

[Chewie1990]

13 minutes ago, the13bats said:

i wasn't poking at you but rather an idea,

Im right there with you well I'm a bit less smooth than you, okay, a lot less smooth, i have allowed myself to get jaded from embeliments, fabrications, and outright BS,

Oh I know, and nor was I referring to you specifically - I mean people of a similar mindset to us. A lot of people who would consider themselves a skeptic tend to be quite abrasive, dismissive and maybe a little elitist.

In truth it is probably the result of becoming jaded after years of hitting your head against a brick wall and I can definitely sympathise with that. Usually my inner monologue is a hell of a lot less smooth I can tell you!

13 minutes ago, the13bats said:

I seldom call anyone an outright liar, i dont like the sound of it but it doesnt change the fact i have seen a lot of true believers replace facts with close minded blustering arrogance they are right everyone else is wrong, no proof doesnt work that way.

No you didn't (and I'm sure you don't) but if EoT says a family member saw something and you are sceptical of it then the natural progression is for him to accuse you of accusing his dad of being a liar and then this turns into a youtube comments section..haha

You are right though and too many when faced with a lack of supporting evidence tend to fall on the crutch of belief or rely on witness sightings without consideration for their reliability. And don't get me started on the idea that police, military or pilot testimony is inherently above suspicion..

13 minutes ago, the13bats said:

the idea of witness testamony, you are right its not 100% worthless but it's worthless to me as "proof" its just a piece of a story, and the first hurdle is a nameless alleged witness real or made up? and with cases especially ones decades old that witness value drops further for me with the reasons witness accounts are weak and when its hearsay trickled down through who knows how many retelling, no names, just "a witness saw this, a witness claimed that" its just nothing i take as proof,

Exactly, the point is it's supporting evidence at best. If your whole case hangs on witness testimony you don't have much of a case. This can be improved if you have multiple named witnesses with their account on the record at the time of the event (pre-media) and gets weaker the longer you wait after the event.

13 minutes ago, the13bats said:

So do I go into anything with a closed mind? if you ask a true believer they will say of course bats does, but asking for proof, or even evidence, tangible, testable evidence isnt being closed minded but rather very open to be shown that what the person is telling is truth and facts, they cop out there.

 

13 minutes ago, the13bats said:

it also depends on the person, if a person who acts looney says they have tea with a purple unicorn of course i need that proof but if you said bats i took my trash out and think i saw a fox then I'll believe you on your word alone, why not, it's not extrodarnary and you are believable,

True, and I didn't mean to suggest you were closed-minded. I guess I just mean I try to make it very clear I'm not and give a little slack as some people don't see the distinction between "I'll believe it when I see evidence" and "I'll never believe it la la la.."

At some point you have to cut your losses and walk away but if you don't at least attempt to have the discussion in the first place then we might as well just all keep our opinions to ourselves.

Again, not suggesting you're overly hostile or anything, just saying that some people can be and they run the risk of driving people further into their wedge to the point where they immediately dismiss everything you say. People really don't like to be told they're wrong (and yes, that goes for both sides..)

13 minutes ago, the13bats said:

i find nothing proving of scientific merits when a person says they believe it and that makes it fact, for them perhaps but not for me for me its just their belief their story.

Well because it is neither proof nor scientific. But if hearing something like that reinforces a person's world view then the bar for acceptance tends to be pretty low. Unfortunately it's not just a problem for paranormal research but for mainstream news and politics too..

13 minutes ago, the13bats said:

back to the threads topic, guessing and speculating aside, i place a lot of weight on the crap cameraman he is telling to me of a person pulling a hoax, outright liar? i didn't say that, but he did every trick to conceal the subject matter of his video and misdirect to pointless empty sky, his voice sounds like he is hoaxing to me and knows what it is, has he released more footage? nope.

i have no clue what he filmed but never with the info provided would i jump to anything otherworldly and if a person does you bet i want to see their proof why they made that jump, no shell games, but many times they have no proof its just what they want to believe, so sure that's not science and wastes my time, i move on.

Yeah even if the guy is honest and sincere his camerawork and the way he handled his youtube comments have done him no favours. Much like witness testimony it doesn't conclusively prove anything on it's own but it sure doesn't look good

13 minutes ago, the13bats said:

no, I'm not as smooth as you...

Haha perhaps not, but at least you won't waste as much time replying to messages as I do!

[the13bats]

0I think I'm a skeptic as skeptics i believe are open for evidence, scoffers seem to be the ones that no evidence is accepted, i have an "unexplained" file scoffers do not.

I fully grasp that rock and hard place, Fred says i have purple unicorns come to tea, and its real because my great aunt fanny saw it to,

both are just eyewitness accounts and one is hearsay, old at that, we know the mind is failable memories are not cut in stone, and yes just saying aunt fanny isnt hear telling it in her own words does set off some true believers,

which is another thing, some true believers no matter what they say are angry and attack skeptics right out of the box because skeptics do not blindly believe.

if I walk up to you show you a dollar, let you hold it and you examine it, you are sure its a dollar, i put it back in my pocket and say, that wasn't a dollar, it was a ghost, a bigfoot, a alien, whatever, you know your thought whether it's voiced or not some belivers refuse to accept that dollar is just a dollar, and in those cases i do move on.

this thread is at its end with what's provided, i see lights in the sky that weighed with the whole case are likely prosaic to me, others see the mother ship, from what planet, i dont know and others have their own opinion,

it likely wont be but could be solved 100% if we had date and time, that alone might be enough,