Video for you if its a repost sorry.

www.youtube.com...

That can not be a balloon! The lights at the end around the "balloon" don't make sense! It is not a balloon it is an UFO. And it is not fake. Then what the hell was that?

Well, that is certainly very interesting; If it's a fake they must have some impressive resources to have made this.

Interesting vid.

It does have a striking resemblance to this balloon though.

At first I thought it was a blimp, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was a hot air balloon. The bottom looked like it could be a basket. It was moving slowly as a balloon would too.


Pie

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
The bottom looked like it could be a basket. It was moving slowly as a balloon would too.

I would have to agree.

There are also moments where it appears like you can see what looks to be a "pilot light" just above the "basket" as well.

Originally posted by redmage
It does have a striking resemblance to this balloon though.

Indeed it does have a resemblence, there are also differences however. Notice there are four rings of lights in the video (I had difficulty getting an adequate screenshot), whereas the balloon in the image seems to possess only one.

Looking carefully at the video again, there seems to be what could be a basket/fire towards the bottom...

Interesting.

I have found another picture of that balloon.

UFO?

Maybee this will help, maybe not, but I think that the video shows this balloon or maybe another version of it.

The way that the lights turn on and off looks like something done with a controller from a Christmas-tree lights.

I'd like to see a photo of a balloon like this with four rings of lights as in the video, rather than a single ring (as two people have posted now)... I'm not convinced it's a ufo, don't get me wrong; I'd just like to see a photo of a balloon with four light rings in that fashion.

I belive its a ballon as you can clearly see the box at teh bottom of the "craft"

Originally posted by Tombstone
I'd like to see a photo of a balloon like this with four rings of lights as in the video, rather than a single ring (as two people have posted now)...

Look more closely, the second photo of the balloon that was posted shows atleast two rings (similar to the screen capture).

There is also the chance that there are no "lights", but instead, that they are merely reflective panels in the balloon's material, or, that the "lights" were edited into the video later (since you don't see them durring the driving sequence).



[edit on 6/25/06 by redmage]

Is there any info' on who owns or owned this balloon?

sanc

having watched this a few times i think it is a hot air balloon because you can see the fire going up for a seccond or so if you zoom in!

but it is quite easy to see why there was confusion.

Here the two "rings" are circled.

Also, the small circles going up the "ribs" could be "reflectors/lights" as well, which (depending on the angle of view) could give you your "four rings" (or possibly even more).



sanctum

Not sure on who owns it, but I bet they have a blast every time they take it up/out.

[edit on 6/25/06 by redmage]

Originally posted by redmage
Look more closely, the second photo of the balloon that was posted shows atleast two rings (similar to the screen capture).

[edit on 6/25/06 by redmage]

Yep, two rings but not four as in the video, their difference is pretty distinctive I think... Also, those lights don't look edited into the video IMHO.

I'm inclined to agree with the rest of you, I think it's probably indeed a balloon, I just think it would be interesting to debunk the video with a legitimate photo of that type of balloon... Long time forum regulars have probably seen every type of picture there is so I wouldn't think it too difficult for someone to produce a photo of this particular type of balloon with four lighted rings around it .

Also as in the photo you posted, circling the light fixtures, you'll notice that the lower portion of the balloon is distinctively different, dramatically well lighted and visible. I can acknowledge the similarities, but the two are not one and the same IMHO. And in order to successfully debunk something, more is required than a mere similarity. Just my two cents.

[edit on 25-6-2006 by Tombstone]

Originally posted by Tombstone
Also as in the photo you posted, circling the light fixtures, you'll notice that the lower portion of the balloon is distinctively different, dramatically well lighted and visible.

(bolded by me)

That's because it's under "full flame".

Originally posted by redmage
That's because it's under "full flame".

And the other differences in the two balloons, are they because one is at "full flame" and one isn't? Interesting what a difference a change in lighting can make .

It's a shame that photo is of the underside of the balloon and doesn't depict a full side view; An adequate comparison isn't possible for those not easily persuaded.

If anyone finds a suitable photo, I'd still love to see it just to satisfy my own inquisitiveness. It doesn't look promising though that an adequate photo is going to produced based on what I'm seeing...

In any case, it's still an awesome looking video and thanks to the thread starter for posting it, I've saved the link.

Originally posted by Tombstone
And the other differences in the two balloons, are they because one is at "full flame" and one isn't?

Yup.

Originally posted by Tombstone
Interesting what a difference a change in lighting can make

.

Absolutely, when you shoot a 6-10 foot flame into a fabric balloon it creates quite the light show at night.

It's not efficient on fuel though, so it's only used during "filling" and during ascending/adjusting.

Originally posted by Tombstone
It's a shame that photo is of the underside of the balloon and doesn't depict a full side view; An adequate comparison isn't possible for those not easily persuaded.

My pic shows a "side view" and ArMaP's shows the underside.

So, you have two very comparable angles.

[edit on 6/25/06 by redmage]

Red I don't feel you've presented, described, depicted or portrayed anything worthwhile enough for me to be swayed towards seeing this through your simple perception of it.

The "side view" photograph is distinctively different...

The "upwards view" photograph, likewise has distinctive differences as well.

Perhaps if you have a more plausible approach by which to present your opinions, I'd be more willing to entertain them.

Originally posted by Tombstone
Red I don't feel you've presented, described, depicted or portrayed anything worthwhile enough for me to be swayed towards seeing this through your simple perception of it.

Perhaps if you have a more plausible approach by which to present your opinions, I'd be more willing to entertain them.

Wow!?!

"Anything worthwhile"...."simple perception", bit harsh don't ya think?

I realize it's your first day here, but with an attitude like that you won't get very far on this board.

While we may disagree on the object in the film (and you certainly have the right to your opinion) I beg to differ.

I feel it was quite "worthwhile", my perception is far from "simple", and my opinion was very "plausable" (In fact, I'd say it's not only plausable, but also highly probable).

Speaking of "plausable", I'd love to hear your "plausable approach/opinion" as to what is in the video.

In closing, I will agree that it's looking like you'll probably find nothing "enough for you to be swayed" though.

[edit on 6/25/06 by redmage]