A very interesting case; conventional explanations can be debated easily. Such as flare arguements, even balloons. Perfect triangular shapes in the sky, some time lasting longer than 30 mins.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRAriEPlaJA&feature=related

hallucinations are easily....wait for it.....wait...wait.... the most parsimonious explanation

/lmao

I didn't watch the whole episode, mostly because I find that sort of television to be incredibly boring, but I did find this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nwTVtUdXu4) which is fortunate because it was much shorter. Unfortunately due to the poor lighting conditions and the truly awful video quality there's no way to tell what those things are.

Fortunately though I did a little digging and found this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCrtUXjdUng&feature=related). The type of lighting matches up quite nicely from what you can tell(again, it's youtube so quality is a slight issue). Also the altitude of the objects during the event was supposedly low, and the first time the lights appeared was on Halloween which is a notorious time for tricksters. I think that the Chinese Lanterns explanation works well here.

I didn't watch the whole episode, mostly because I find that sort of television to be incredibly boring,


Avoid examining the actual evidence. This allows you to say with impunity, "I have seen absolutely no evidence to support such ridiculous claims!" (Note that this technique has withstood the test of time, and dates back at least to the age of Galileo. By simply refusing to look through his telescope, the ecclesiastical authorities bought the Church over three centuries' worth of denial free and clear.)

A very interesting case; conventional explanations can be debated easily. Such as flare arguements, even balloons. Perfect triangular shapes in the sky, some time lasting longer than 30 mins.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRAriEPlaJA&feature=related

OK, I'm not sitting through 45 mins of padding, .. do you have just the actual video?

Even the short 4 min vid Arioch posted was mostly puff and filler. Notice how they never show the video in it's entirety? This is a ruse, if they chop it up and have segues of people discussing it, it implies we are just not looking at it while it's still happening, not that we have paused the video while we speak. That gives the impression of a longer period of elapsed time. It's a story telling trick.

Even the little bits of video contradicted what the eye-witnesses said, the lights changed position wrt each other. It's an excuse to say they maintained their relative positions, but we see the 'object' from a different angle,... as we haven't proven there's an object.

So, just the raw video please, no puff, filler, burger shots, commentary, or leading meta-analysis please.

Avoid examining the actual evidence.

The four minute vid Arioch linked to was mostly puff and filler. A 45 min video is going to be a real chore to watch, to see the actual content. Life is too short.

If believers want to convince us, just give us the raw data.

@Gustav --

You don't know how to form a valid criticism do you? I didn't watch the whole thing but I didn't have to because I already know that they didn't solve it. You see, while I was doing a little digging I ended up typing "Tinley Park Lights" into google and the wikipedia article as well as a UFO crank site and both said the same thing, that there was no concrete explanation. Instead I linked to a much shorter video that showed the lights just as well.

As there really was no explanation offered I decided to proffer my own. I found footage of a Chinese Lantern being sent off and towards the end the footage becomes nearly identical to the footage of the Tinley Lights. Is it proof that that's what happened? No, but it is an explanation for the lights that fits the known facts, and it's certainly better than no explanation.

I didn't watch the whole episode, mostly because I find that sort of television to be incredibly boring, but I did find this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nwTVtUdXu4) which is fortunate because it was much shorter. Unfortunately due to the poor lighting conditions and the truly awful video quality there's no way to tell what those things are.

Fortunately though I did a little digging and found this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCrtUXjdUng&feature=related). The type of lighting matches up quite nicely from what you can tell(again, it's youtube so quality is a slight issue). Also the altitude of the objects during the event was supposedly low, and the first time the lights appeared was on Halloween which is a notorious time for tricksters. I think that the Chinese Lanterns explanation works well here.


Please watch the last half hour. Chinese lanterns will not suffice the answer.

I will give you a quick summery.

The experts found that the lights where attached to a much larger construction. How, completely baffles them however. They tried to recreate the experiment, but with larger and larger support systems over given larger amounts of area's, it was concluded that it was near impossible.... hundreds, possibly thousands of balloons would have been needed to lift this thing in the air.

Furthermore, the structure moved in a very strange fashion in the air. It ''makes'' 360 degree flips creating the illusion that only one of the lights are moving at anyone time, which is a remarkable find.

The structure was absolutely massive as well. For your Chinese lantern explanation to work, the lights would have needed to have been attached to this structure, but Chinese lanterns can't lift up more weight than a helium balloon. The structure would have had to have been strong as well because the winds would have broke apart a flimsy structure.

Finally, in one of the footage, there was found to be a helicpter that has been accidently moving to a very close proximity of the structure. When the team investigated different pilots, they found the right one and asked if he saw anything. In reply, he could not divulge what he saw in case he lost his job!!!!

So no conventional explanation worked, and this team of experts where more confused now then ever before. Lanterns, flares, none of these explanations would properly suffice.

Please watch the last half hour. Chinese lanterns will not suffice the answer.

At 2.10 of Arioch's vid, the guy says:

"I was fortunate enough to film a commercial airliner cutting in front of it"

This is pure speculation! The airliner could well have been higher, and _behind_ the cluster of lights,... but as he's decided this object is solid, he thinks it must have been in front. There's no basis for that conclusion.

Also, they said the lights appeared to be larger than the aircraft lights,... because they were _closer_ maybe? This fits the idea the airliner was _behind_ the formation.

Also, the spacial arrangement at 2.10 is different to the beginning, so it's reasonable to assume the objects are _not_ connected.

So yet again, this is all puff and filler for a entertainment show. It's not science, and yet again you are wasting your life.

You expect me to watch half an hour of that? Thirty cunt-gargling minutes? Can't you find a clip of just the experiments you want me to see?

Besides, why would the structure need to be huge? A simple connector between the lanterns should suffice. Hell, even unconnected lanterns could move that way. Keep in mind that we have no idea if the lights in the video are even on the same plane, they could very easily be at different altitudes and positions.

Avoid examining the actual evidence. This allows you to say with impunity, "I have seen absolutely no evidence to support such ridiculous claims!" (Note that this technique has withstood the test of time, and dates back at least to the age of Galileo. By simply refusing to look through his telescope, the ecclesiastical authorities bought the Church over three centuries' worth of denial free and clear.)

Did you watch it gustav, I am a bit surprised with Arioch. If anything, I found this documentary gripping to say the least. Completely scientific and professional.

You expect me to watch half an hour of that? Thirty cunt-gargling minutes? Can't you find aclip of just the experiments you want me to see?

Besides, why would the structure need to be huge? A simple connector between the lanterns should suffice. Hell, even unconnected lanterns could move that way. Keep in mind that we have no idea if the lights in the video are even on the same plane, they could very easily be at different altitudes and positions.

A simple connecter? Like a bar maybe, a hollow one, over how far in distance?

Well, the distance of the object, forget the exact measurement, but it was over a mile long. That is huge in anyone's books.

See this is why you should watch the video Arioch, so you can be informed in on the discussion with hards facts. Not the usual loose nonesense you try and pull off. And unconnected lanterns wouldn't move that way; I base this on the fact of their hard scientific analysis. You are simply wrong.

The objects where proven to be connected, as unconnected objects simply don't work that way.

LISTEN

At 2.10 of Arioch's vid, the guy says:

"I was fortunate enough to film a commercial airliner cutting in front of it"

This is pure speculation! The airliner could well have been higher, and _behind_ the cluster of lights,... but as he's decided this object is solid, he thinks it must have been in front. There's no basis for that conclusion.

Also, they said the lights appeared to be larger than the aircraft lights,... because they were _closer_ maybe? This fits the idea the airliner was _behind_ the formation.

Also, the spacial arrangement at 2.10 is different to the beginning, so it's reasonable to assume the objects are _not_ connected.

So yet again, this is all puff and filler for a entertainment show. It's not science, and yet again you are wasting your life.

Yes, there was a helicopter there that passed by one of the films, and it turned out not to be speclatory as the pilot did see something, he just wasn't going to divulge in it.

Also, the spacial arrangement at 2.10 is different to the beginning, so it's reasonable to assume the objects are _not_ connected.

How can you understand the argument if you won't watch the facts?

The illusion of any spatial change is just that, an illusion. This was proven using state of the art computers!

@Mister --

I don't really like watching television, I get more entertainment(which, I might add, is the point of the telly in the first place) from reading. Though, I will admit to liking some shows(Doctor Who, Red Dwarf, and a few others).

Perhaps you could give me the timestamps for the experiments you want me to take a look at, that would let me cut out the boring stuff.

@Mister --

I don't really like watching television, I get more entertainment(which, I might add, is the point of the telly in the first place) from reading. Though, I will admit to liking some shows(Doctor Who, Red Dwarf, and a few others).

Perhaps you could give me the timestamps for the experiments you want me to take a look at, that would let me cut out the boring stuff.

If that would appease you better.

That means I need to watch over it again. Just to get the point across, and ignoring you are highly lazy, I will do it any way.

Thank you, because as of right now I can see no reason from their movements that they must be connected in any way.

Thank you, because as of right now I can see no reason from their movements that they must be connected in any way.

12:10 - 12:50

''The rigidity of the lights, can flares do the same thing?'' the investigator questions.

17:40- 18:10

The illusion, brought about by people thinking the lights where individually moving and then stopping in the sky.

19:40 - 19:53

After the lights disappeared, one of the lights reappeared later. An eyewitness was ready this time, armed with a powerful telecope, in which he could state ''to the eye it seemed like one light, through the telecope, it looked like there were 10 red lights situated around the object.'' not qouted exactly

19:53 - onwards till 20:08

The investigators are taking readings of approximated measurements of distance and height from the ground, ect for evaluation later.

20:45 - 21:26

The program speaks of the investigators getting ready to estimate size and speed. And near the end of this excerpt, a mention of a skeptic. He is important because later when the experiment is reproduced, the man realizes the fundamental differences to what he saw that night and what was being witnessed then. There was massive differences.

21:20 - 26:15

Enter the experts who will determine the work - their analysis shows the object is not shape shifting, but is in fact spinning, causing the illusion that the lights spatially-seperated distances are altering.

Also at the end, it shows the helicopter flying near the object

27:50 - 28:54

The actual calculations of size and distance. It is calculated at 1500 feet.So forgive me. There is a little over 5000 feet in a mile, so I must be getting my video's mixed up. Indeed, last night I watched the UFO hunters on Giant UFO's which would account for my muddling. Still a large structure nonetheless. He admits that he does not know any structure which could hold three lights 1500 feet apart.

33:00-15:30

Now the experiment, including the witness reports

Yes, there was a helicopter there that passed by one of the films, and it turned out not to be speclatory as the pilot did see something, he just wasn't going to divulge in it.

If the helicopter pilot didn't divulge, how do you know about that?


How can you understand the argument if you won't watch the [b]facts?

The facts are that the formation changes shape, and that the aircraft was most likely behind the formation, meaning it's not a solid object.

You have no facts to counter this.

Thanks again, I'll get back to you once I've taken a look.

If the helicopter pilot didn't divulge, how do you know about that?



The facts are that the formation changes shape, and that the aircraft was most likely behind the formation, meaning it's not a solid object.

You have no facts to counter this.

I have no absolute opinion on whether it was beams or a solid craft. All I can speculate is that beams seems unlikely, for two reasons:

A) turbelence would rip beams apart

B) what is their method of flight? As has been suggested, possibly over a thousand balloons would be required to keep such a structure afloat. Indeed, a small structure was hard enough to lift off the ground.

Also, the helicopter guy said he saw a strange object, but when asked for an interview, he declined.

Also assume that balloons where used. These objects where making 360 degree turns, which mean's the rope used to tie them to the beams would slowely be wound up on the bars, until eventually there would be little seperation between the balloons and the flares, which would cause them to explode.

Also assume that balloons where used. These objects where making 360 degree turns,

Or the camera was being rotated,.....

Or the camera was being rotated,.....

Lol

You're having a joke now, right?


Your persuasive powers in an arguement drop thin very quickly with idiotic statements like that. :bugeye:

I mean, you are the one yourself who said the distance between the lights change. That is I said caused by an illusion of the entire object being rotated. No amount of camera rotation will make that kind of illusion appear Phlog.

lol

Arioch, do you plan to watch it soon?

Likely by the end of the day.

Ok.

Arioch, I would like to remind you of this thread and not forget about it. I appreciate america is 6 hours behind, so I will assume you are working or something. Just please do not forget you oathed to answer the points given.

i believe alien spores induced mass hallucinations
the chinese lantern explanation is patently ridiculous as the incidents did not occur in china

I think funnily.... well, I heard, that maybe Fred Hoyle made a similar contention. I heard an alleged idea that he once said that our noses pointed downwards so we would not sniff spores...

I am sure this is wrong though lol

They are Chinese lanterns. Yeah I watched the last half hour, the two guys talking I analysed as having a contingency plan to make up stuff.

They aren't. If you knew the weight a chinese lantern could take, and you have honestly said you watched the video, (unless you are appealing to conspiracy) then the scientific evidence clearly shows helium balloons would have a better chance.

Catch is, you would need possibly thousands of them, as they could not even lift a small structure up!

I have also given evidence, assuming their high tech computer analysis is correct, then the entire structure would wind these objects up until there is no distance between the baloons or the flares, causing them to expload.

They aren't. If you knew the weight a chinese lantern could take, and you have honestly said you watched the video, (unless you are appealing to conspiracy) then the scientific evidence clearly shows helium balloons would have a better chance.

Catch is, you would need possibly thousands of them, as they could not even lift a small structure up!

I don't believe they lifted a structure. Like I said, the two guys made stuff up.

watch the video, and if not the whole thing, with the guided reference PLEASE.

You are ignoring the evidence like the rest of them now. I thought a psueodscience freak like you would have watched the vid atleast.

ATLEAST

not impacting any credibility of the video of course. Just because psuedo's usually follow any paper trail to serve their cause. In doing so, you will realize what is truth than remedial embedded thoughts of yourself.

I have given strong evidence behind professionals. I have been shown nothing in effect against it.

If you knew the weight a chinese lantern could take, ... you would need possibly thousands of them, as they could not even lift a small structure up!

What structure? There is no structure, just three individual points of light. Where do you actually _see_ structure? You don't, you infer it, even though a plane flew behind the lights and was clearly visible.

Lol

You're having a joke now, right?


Your persuasive powers in an arguement drop thin very quickly with idiotic statements like that. :bugeye:

There's nothing in the field of view as a reference point, so you can't say the camera wasn't moving.

Mister, in post #5, I asked just for the raw video. Have you found that yet?

watch the video, and if not the whole thing, with the guided reference PLEASE.

You are ignoring the evidence like the rest of them now. I thought a psueodscience freak like you would have watched the vid atleast.

ATLEAST

not impacting any credibility of the video of course. Just because psuedo's usually follow any paper trail to serve their cause. In doing so, you will realize what is truth than remedial embedded thoughts of yourself.

I told you I watched the video, and I told you that the guys made stuff up, there is no structure. Don't you think that a TV program is incentive to 'Make Stuff Up'.

I told you I watched the video, and I told you that the guys made stuff up, there is no structure. Don't you think that a TV program is incentive to 'Make Stuff Up'.

Is there any evidence to suggest they have fabricated any of their work, apart from you saying so?

They are extremely professional in any case I have watched them. I find your statement far too incredible to believe.

Mister, in post #5, I asked just for the raw video. Have you found that yet?

Go to youtube and look for one. Why are you wasting my time like this, or are you too lazy like arioch?

There's nothing in the field of view as a reference point, so you can't say the camera wasn't moving.

Yeah the camera was moving, from side to side, which is why the video was stabalized and then the trajectory of the lights were measured. Contrary to Pincho's elaborate claim, they actually conducted a reasonably good scientific test.

Your claim was that the object spun because the camera is moving. That is irrelevant anyway (even if it did make some sense) because the camera is stabalized using state of the art technology,

Your statements are wish wash of nonsensical arguements.

Is there any evidence to suggest they have fabricated any of their work, apart from you saying so?

They are extremely professional in any case I have watched them. I find your statement far too incredible to believe.

Yes, I saw the dots move out of shape, then the camera cut away.

Go to youtube and look for one. Why are you wasting my time like this, or are you too lazy like arioch?

I just want the video. You claim to the UFOlogist, YOU should have it.

Yeah the camera was moving, from side to side, which is why the video was stabalized and then the trajectory of the lights were measured. Contrary to Pincho's elaborate claim, they actually conducted a reasonably good scientific test.

Your claim was that the object spun because the camera is moving. That is irrelevant anyway (even if it did make some sense) because the camera is stabalized using state of the art technology,

Your statements are wish wash of nonsensical arguements.

Raw data to examine myself please. Nothing else will do.

Can't help you. I examine the raw data other's have collected.

I don't think many here actually go out there way to do that mind you.

@Mister --

Asking you to support your claim is not laziness on the part of others, the fact that you hadn't put a link to the raw video is a sign of laziness in you though.

i have a video, several actually, on my HDD of an object performing unexplainable maneuvers.
at the beginning of this video is a URL which led me to the following page:
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/archive/index.php/t-266981.html
apparently the first link in the post is the same video i have but since i haven't seen the one presented i don't know.
i have a couple more that i personally find intriguing to say the least.
most of what i've seen can instantly be dismissed due to various reasons.

the link i mentioned:
personal.netwrx.net/xalium/ufovideo.htm

If only any of those links was still valid,....

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6473154883007165539

I'll watch it tomorrow some time. Thanks!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6473154883007165539

Stop baiting the poor kid.

Leopold

Some STS video's are indeed intruiging. One is the Circle of Africa. A very interesting case.

Stop baiting the poor kid.
have any explanations for what was presented in the video?

strange stuff indeed.

Leopold, he will not entertain you, but if he does beware of any tripe explanations he may issue out. He is notorious for over-simplification and some dodgy investigation work.

to be honest, most of what was presented in the video has an explanation.
the first instance could very well be from shuttle thruster activity.
the three "objects" could be some type of "aurora" effect.
the third glowing object i cannot explain.

i have a couple more on my hard drive that i find impossible to describe.
one is of a faintly glowing object which increases luminosity by about a million times and a fainter glowing object flies into it and both disappear.
i also have some aircraft controller video that shows a trace of an object performing impossible maneuvers.
i'm still trying to source these other videos i have.

Yes, the activity does look suspicously like thruster activity, however there are some fair points raised in the video, such as the object accelerating faster and faster. You will notice below the said object, one of them does get effected by the thruster activity but acts completely different to the object above which in comparrison, speeds right away into the deep of the space and out of sight, much faster than the object below which was considerably closer. Also, in thruster activity, the entire spaceship should move --- as mentioned in the video, there is no evidence of this as the camera is completely stationary. Another problem raised by a professional is that the distant object, well, is just that... too far to even be comprehended as being influenced by a thruster influence.

I am still open though it was just thruster activity, but some questions loom over it, like the above. I'd like to see the rest of the video's. I have seen most of them, if not all.