3 Mystery Light Videos Up Close

I was actually preparing another thread (hopefully better documented than this one) when I came across these three videos - among many others - which to me show more or less the same phenomenon just in different settings and conditions.

It is risky to lump these videos together, because I don't know more about this phenomenon than you and I can only go on physical appearance and behavior to form an assessment. They could be related, they could also be a similar manifestation of different types of phenomenon (weather phenomenon, electromagnetic phenomenon, etc). Not only could they be objects from an other-worldly intelligence, they could all be from different worlds of different making and serve all together different purposes.

As said, they look and behave similar. The phenomenon tend to consist of luminous orbs or balls of various size and coloring, that comes in different numbers, anything from one to hundreds, but often in two's or three's. They place themselves in formation - but can brake off from the formation at any time - and keep their position in the formation while stationary or moving, often giving the night time observer the impression that he/she's looking at a structured craft - which perhaps they form while linked together (what do I know, these balls could be coordinate points for an extra-dimensional presence to form).

All three videos are from 2008. One night time video, two day time videos. One from Kaunas, Lithuania, One from Bedfordshire, UK, and one from Okanagan, BC, Canada, just to show that the phenomenon is global. Some of these videos have probably already been posted in one or several threads (such as the Bedfordshire video), so this is a chance to look at it from another perspective:



"Filmed in Kaunas, Lithuania, at around 00h15 on 8 June 2008. Three silent moving orange spots moving in formation. Two similar lights had been sighted a few minutes before."



"Leading paranormal enthusiasts have called for an inquiry following a spate of claimed UFO sightings across Bedfordshire this summer."




"I filmed this right after a rainbow, which is why I had grabbed my camera to begin with. The rainbow was gone by the time I had my camera, but these countless orbs filled the sky"


A few speculative explanations that we can perhaps exclude right from the start :

Flares

Highly unlikely if not impossible. Flares have a variable light intensity, they leave smoke trails, they slowly descend to earth, their trajectories are affected by wind and they cannot stay in formation.

Chinese Lanterns

Well... this is what Chinese Lanterns look like when they go up in the sky, in threes:
UFOish? Perhaps. Comparable? Place your bets...




NOSS

The Navy Ocean Surveillance Satellite NOSS has long been a favorite explanation for any type of triangular light phenomenon, simply because NOSS is the only type of satellite (cluster satellite) consisting of three different components - travelling at a distance of 30km to 240km from each other and incapable of being stationary or form a perfect triangular formation. Unfortunately for the debunkers, NOSS is no longer (and in my POW never was) an option, since the satellite system no longer travel in threes since the 1990's.

Helicopters

Make noises, and should somehow manifest themselves as helicopters at one point or another, since they are big, bulky machines that not even a strobe light can block out completely.

Birds

Give me a brake, unless we're talking Dodos of course...


So, let's approach this in an intelligent way.

Opinions?



[edit on 5-7-2009 by Heliocentric]

Excellent Videos, Thank you.

The first video looks like it could be a triagular UFO.

[edit on 5-7-2009 by FoxMulder91]

Originally posted by FoxMulder91
The first video looks like it could be a triagular UFO.

Well, it forms a triangle and it is unidentified.

My comment on that would be that the triangular UFO made famous in the Belgian UFO wave of 89-91 seem to have big, round light settings inside each vertex, like this one (I've got serious doubts about this video's authenticity, but it illustrates well what I'm saying):



While orbs seem to form triangular formations too, and look more like the Kaunas UFO (which I doubt anyone will debunk successfully, but who knows?)

And here it is again, over London.



The same type of spheres forming the same type of triangle formation. Obviously under intelligent control.

So what are the alternatives?

Either a conspiracy of video hoaxers who all happen to make the same silly sphere animations, or wild flying weather balloons who mysteriously manage to fly prefectly in formation, which of course would be dangerous for air traffic and totally unacceptable.

Or we have a real phenomenon.

OP... I rate the second video in bedfordshire the best one of the three... not lanterns for sure because the way they move and i don't think air balloons could move that fast!!

reply to post by TruthxIsxInxThexMist


Yeah i agree, definitely looks like something is there to me.

Hopefully new videos like these will keep turning up, what would be even more useful would be someone taking a hi-res image with a digital camera.

Who know's? We live and wait

Looks like they might be cloaked TR-3Bs. An image of what is above the craft is projected on the bottom making it hard to see, looks like 3 orbs in a triangle formation but more than likely 1 triangular craft. (The US gov. won't admit they exist but are seen regularly)

Reminds me of the HOAX video done by these guys in New Jersey.



Making them is easy and perhaps that is what these people caught.

For the better video go to livescience.

LIVE SCIENCE. The Great New Jersey Hoax

personally, I think it is close to the same. But then again I could be wrong. It could be a military experiment

[edit on Jul 10th 2009 by TheMythLives]

reply to post by Heliocentric


I think the second video was posted some time ago and some people said that what is seen on the video is aeroplanes nearing the airport, apparently there is an airport in that direction.

Originally posted by TheMythLives
Reminds me of the HOAX video done by these guys in New Jersey.

Making them is easy and perhaps that is what these people caught.

personally, I think it is close to the same. But then again I could be wrong. It could be a military experiment

Let me explain to you why I think you're wrong.

The video you posted is nothing but a silly prank made by two guys with more teenage hormones than brains.
It's badly made. My eleven year old kid immediately identified them as flares, my five year old kid saw them as flying candles, which is what they are.

It's a poor shame that this kind of nonsense gets media attention while some truly amazing footage don't.

But since you had to bring it to the table, here it goes;

Chinese lanterns or flares attached to balloons cannot stay stationary in the air.

Chinese lanterns or flares attached to balloons cannot stay stationary in formation, even if attached by strings.

Chinese lanterns or flares attached to balloons cannot stay in perfect formation while they slowly travel.

When you have accepted - intellectually and emotionally - that this is what the orbs do, then you will have to look for another explanation than lanterns or balloons. It's as simple as that.

A 'military experiment' is an explanation as far-fetched as any. Why military? Do you have any kind of information that leads you to believe that? If military, what military? Remember that it is a global phenomenon, they are seen and documented on every continent in every country. Would you fly a military experiment over just about every country in the world, sometimes in tens and even hundreds (as in Mexico), and simply wait for the day when one of them malfunctions and drop to the ground, so that your technology (which is truly amazing) is compromised?

You would fly them over restricted military zones IMO, not by the hundreds over densely populated Mexican cities.

Originally posted by ArMaP
I think the second video was posted some time ago and some people said that what is seen on the video is aeroplanes nearing the airport, apparently there is an airport in that direction.

"People said that..."

Think for yourself ArMaP, and question what does not seem logical and reasonable.

What "people" apparently said in that thread is that since this phenomenon took place near an airport, the simple explanation should be that it is aircraft, of some sorts. It's a half-assed sort of reasoning that only goes half way, since it does not explain why these lights behave the way they do.

I too live near an airport, Charles de Gaulle Airport outside Paris. One of the biggest in Europe. Every time I look out through my window, I see dozens of aircraft coming in for landing and taking off, day and night.

Airplanes are equipped with a multitude of navigation, positioning, beacon and strobe lights. They are there so that other airplanes and ground personnel will be able to identify them, as aircraft, what size, what type, etc. They cannot simply 'change' lights and glow like intense strobe lights for more than 4 minutes. That would be unacceptable for air traffic control.

A commercial airliner generally approach landing at a 140 knots. They are moving objects, they cannot stay stationary in the air (even though it can seem that way for a short while, if the angle is right), and three of them cannot stay stationary in formation since they're all moving on their individual trajectory. Harriers, F-35B's (jets that can hover) are only stationary in theory. They move around all the time in order to stabilize themselves.
Never, ever, during five years, have I seen three homogeneous lights stay suspended in a perfect triangular formation for more than four minutes. You know why? Because airplanes cannot do that.

Think it through and make your own conclusions.



[edit on 11-7-2009 by Heliocentric]

reply to post by Heliocentric

No, landing aircraft cannot "change" their lights but they can and do turn on their landing lights. An airplane with its landing lights on, flying directly toward you will appear stationary in the horizontal. The You'll notice that the lights in the second video do descend, they are not stationary.

If you really pay attention you'll also notice that we're not seeing the same lights for the entire length of the video. We see planes that are flying directly toward the camera for a while. They then turn toward the left of the frame. As they do this the accelerate to the left at the same time the lights dim because they are no longer pointed directly at the camera. We see other planes appear out of the fog or turn on their lights, heading straight toward the camera and follow a similar pattern.

Yes, planes can appear to be stationary or move very slowly when they are flying directly toward the camera.




Triangles? Three of anything will form one of two geometric "shapes"; a triangle or a straight line (usually a triangle). They don't have to be controlled or joined to each other. They don't have much choice in the matter.

You left out a possibility, helium balloons.

[edit on 7/11/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


I don't believe these are aeroplanes approaching a runway.... of course aircraft will appear stationary for long periods if they are coming towards you and at first i thought they were planes doing exactly that but then when they turn and supposedly head towards the runway they don't land... they turn back again to where they were first positioned.... there are no planes that do that.... only craft that could do that is a helicopter and that's most likely what they are....

reply to post by Heliocentric

Here’s my take on the videos:

Video 1: Lanterns (you can even see the flickering & the colour)

Video 2: Aircraft on approach to landing (that video has been discussed previously)

Video 3: Those objects don’t appear to have any particularly special appearance or behaviour. Could it be showing something simple like balloons? There’s a weather station there. Perhaps they release balloons to make observations.

Originally posted by Heliocentric
"People said that..."

Think for yourself ArMaP, and question what does not seem logical and reasonable.

Always!

What "people" apparently said in that thread is that since this phenomenon took place near an airport, the simple explanation should be that it is aircraft, of some sorts. It's a half-assed sort of reasoning that only goes half way, since it does not explain why these lights behave the way they do.

What people said was exactly that, what people said.

I did not made any research about that video, I only remember seeing it in that thread, so I thought I should say what I knew about a previous apparition of this video on ATS, just that.

Meanwhile, I have found that thread, it's this one.

I too live near an airport, Charles de Gaulle Airport outside Paris.

I live some 10km from the Lisbon airport, and I see the aeroplanes coming in from over the Atlantic ocean, and when they have their landing lights on they are visible for a long time before they get close enough for the smaller navigation lights to be visible.

I have been waiting for three or four years for an opportunity to film them doing just that, but that only happens during the Summer, and not everyday, but I have seen them doing exactly that type of movement.

First they come directly toward to airport, then they make a slight curve to the right, then another slight curve to the left (this one is made some 10km from where I am, they do it over the beach and I have seen that happened several times while I was at the beach), then they head straight to the airport from a distance of some 18 km.

So, while it's not possible for a commercial aeroplane to keep stationary in the air, it's not only possible but very common for them to look like that.

Hey Phage, thanks for posting the videos.

It might not have been your intention, and you might not agree, but I think they prove the point I was making. Especially the first one.

Here we see a jet coming at us at a approximately 260km/h. At that speed, it takes about a minute for a blimp of light to grow into an airplane passing over our heads. That gives us a fair appreciation of the distance travelled.

Originally posted by Phage
If you really pay attention you'll also notice that we're not seeing the same lights for the entire length of the video. We see planes that are flying directly toward the camera for a while. They then turn toward the left of the frame. As they do this the accelerate to the left at the same time the lights dim because they are no longer pointed directly at the camera. We see other planes appear out of the fog or turn on their lights, heading straight toward the camera and follow a similar pattern.

Phage's referring to the second video I posted, the Bedfordshire orbs.
We see the lights for 4 minutes and 15 seconds, and during this time the lights neither seem to grow nor diminish. They remain constant in intensity until they fade out.
All except one light, that does not fade out.
Phage assumes that the airplanes dive in and out of a fog, that allows him to explain why the supposed airplanes coming straight at us simply fade away.
The only problem is, one light is there from the start and hangs in there to the end. One light that - according to Phage - flies straight at us for 4 minutes and 15 seconds.

Considering that - according to this theory - it was pretty foggy that day and visibility therefore was restricted, then this light should have been rather close from start.
Still in four minutes it cannot inch any closer, take shape and make itself recognizable as an airplane.

My assessment; the light is stationary.

Then we have the mystery light appearing right in the image below the other lights at 1:57. It flies left horizontally for 4 seconds, until it simply disappears. There one instant, gone the other.
That was one quick dive into the soup of fog, wouldn't you say?
Or perhaps the pilot turned his lights off. But, what happened to the airplane? Shouldn't it be there, lol?

Then we have mystery light number two at the end of the video, travelling at ease from left to right, while its landing lights indicate that it's coming straight at us.

They're flying very low, these airplanes, wouldn't you say? Except of course if they're far away. But then your fog theory doesn't work, because that's one thick fog that make airplanes disappear, so with that fog how could you se what's far away?
They must all be rather close.

People, please be scientific enough to admit that the reasoning doesn't add up.

By the way Phage, what's your theory on the Kaunas triangle (the first video)?

Give it your best debunker shot...

Originally posted by Phage
Triangles? Three of anything will form one of two geometric "shapes"; a triangle or a straight line (usually a triangle). They don't have to be controlled or joined to each other. They don't have much choice in the matter.

You left out a possibility, helium balloons.

[edit on 7/11/2009 by Phage]

Funny you should mention it. They do seem to form one particular type of triangle, an Isoceles triangle, where two sides are of equal length and have two equal angles that are opposite of the equal sides.

Check the Kaunas video and the London video , both triangles are the same.

I didn't leave out helium balloons as a possibility Phage, I excluded it as a possibility.

Helium balloons cannot float in perfect formation, even if attached to each other. Only some type of frame structure could keep them in a perfect formation.

As hard as I look, I cannot detect any.



[edit on 11-7-2009 by Heliocentric]

Originally posted by Sam60
reply to post by Heliocentric

 

Here’s my take on the videos:

Video 1: Lanterns (you can even see the flickering & the colour)

Video 2: Aircraft on approach to landing (that video has been discussed previously)

Video 3: Those objects don’t appear to have any particularly special appearance or behaviour. Could it be showing something simple like balloons? There’s a weather station there. Perhaps they release balloons to make observations.

Video 1: No, not lanterns. Lanterns cannot move in perfect triangular formation. Check the Chinese lantern video I posted. THAT'S what lanterns fly like.

Video 2: See my comments on Phage's comments.

Video 3: Weather balloons just drifting around in high numbers? You know, they're part of scientific experiments, released under controlled circumstances. If there were that many of them just drifting around in the sky, like jellyfish season in August, they would become a hazard to air traffic.

reply to post by Heliocentric

I did not say the lights disappear into the fog I said the planes make a right turn causing the lights to no longer point at the camera and thus disappear. Observe at the 1:30 mark, the light on the aircraft in the center fades and accelerates to the left of the frame. The plane has turned to the right and the landing light(s) no longer point directly at the camera and appear to dim. The plane is no longer flying straight toward the camera so it moves across the frame. As it progresses into its turn, the light finally disappears.

Re: "light number two", the plane does not have to be flying directly at us for the landing lights to be visible. They are not laser beams, they are not pinpoints of light. There is a certain amount of spreading of the beam.

There is no way to judge the altitude of the planes or the distance. You are making assumptions on distance and altitude with insufficient information. My reasoning is based on the only information we have, the apparent motion and visibility of the landing lights within the frame. Using that information, what we see is consistent with the lights being aircraft landing lights.

I believe the Kaunas "triangle" is sky lanterns. I do not see an isoceles triangle.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/14a0e2aea3e7.jpg[/atsimg]

I see no organized formation in the Canada video, just random groupings. It is common at celebrations such as wedding for large numbers of balloons to be released.

In the London video. I do see at various times; an isosceles triangle, an equilateral triangle, and a scalene triangle. Demonstrating that three points, moving at random will always produce various triangular shapes.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/37ad6d124e73.jpg[/atsimg]

I just realized I missed a third mystery light in the Bedfordshire video.

It flies into the picture from the lower right at 3:32, pass behind a pole at 3:36 never to emerge on the other side.

That must be one messy fog to fly through,

There one second, gone the other.

Originally posted by Phage
I did not say the lights disappear into the fog I said the planes make a right turn causing the lights to no longer point at the camera and thus disappear. Observe at the 1:30 mark, the light on the aircraft in the center fades and accelerates to the left of the frame. The plane has turned to the right and the landing light(s) no longer point directly at the camera and appear to dim. The plane is no longer flying straight toward the camera so it moves across the frame. As it progresses into its turn, the light finally disappears.

I'll tell you what I see.

I see a stationary light that - around 1:34 - starts to move backwards left and disappears out of the picture at around 1:50.

At no point (in its supposed turning as a supposed airplane) do I spot any other airplane lights - and they should be there - at no point do I spot any form that allows me to identify the object as an airplane, which a new angle should offer, in fact I don't detect any form to it at all, just light.

Too bad you didn't comment on the mystery light appearing in the video roughly half a minute later, at the lower right in the frame at 1:57.

But I can understand that, since it is a tougher nut to crack.

Here we have a light that is equal in luminosity to the others lights. It should therefore be - according to the reasoning - in the same position as the other lights, landing lights more or less head on. Only, it is travelling side-ways, from right to left. Can we therefore see the wing-lights or the tail-lights? Can we make out an airplane body, however faint? Nope, still just this one ball of light.

At 2:01 something happens. It simply disappears. It doesn't turn, it doesn't fall to the ground. It's like if someone hit a light-switch.

Someone might want to explain this in a way that since the light is no longer head-on (wait a minute, it wasn't head on since it was moving sideways), we cannot see it any longer.

Luckily, Phage comes to my rescue;

"Re: "light number two", the plane does not have to be flying directly at us for the landing lights to be visible. They are not laser beams, they are not pinpoints of light. There is a certain amount of spreading of the beam"

So the plane should still be visible, but it is no longer there.

This mid-air disappearance should make you go "wtf?", unless your mind-set is deadlocked on trying to explain this footage as a an everyday scene close to an airport.

And I still have no explanation to why this one light hangs there for 4 minutes and 15 seconds without making any way. Here's what a 747 looks like when it comes at you from far away at regular landing speed. It needs less than a minute, while Phage's supposed airplane can't get any closer in more than 4 minutes.


And this is what it looks like when an airliner comes in for landing a hazy day with the landing lights on.



Is the whole plane engulfed in a ball of light simply because the landing lights are on? No, you can distinctly see the different landing lights, the wing lights and the airplane itself.

Originally posted by Phage
You are making assumptions on distance and altitude with insufficient information. My reasoning is based on the only information we have, the apparent motion and visibility of the landing lights within the frame. Using that information, what we see is consistent with the lights being aircraft landing lights.

My only assumption was that since this purportedly was a day with reduced visibility, the objects you call airplanes should be rather close in order to be seen. I think that statement is correct if your reasoning is correct.

And no, what we see is not consistent with aircraft landing lights.

Finally, thanks for measuring the triangles. I didn't actually say they were Isosceles triangles, but that they seemed to be. You cleared that up!





[edit on 12-7-2009 by Heliocentric]