Exploding ufo caught on tape

It looks exactly like a rocket or missile that was filmed from its six-o-clock postion and then suddenly exploded...or perhaps it was remote detonated. It certainly is not an alien spaceship as some are trying to suggest.

[edit on 18-2-2007 by MooneyBravo]

Originally posted by eaglewingz
The hot air rising from the object as pieces slowly drift down are perfectly consistent with a hot air/fire balloon. Also, the small object (heat source?) hanging below the sphere would support this possibility.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Why can't it be a bright balloon, reflecting starlight (since they are apparently using a nightmode on their camera), that bursts and looses material?

Originally posted by shots
I would tend to think it was some kind of plastic or mylar

Originally posted by almeister 5000
I actually think its a balloon. firstly to me it looks like ther is something very small underneath it, secondly the speed of the object and thirdly in the dark after the explosion it seems like most of the debris is floating down.

Originally posted by The Cyfre
At about 57 seconds is where it seems to get smaller for a split second, then it seems to explode.

I agree with the folks above, it’s a hot air balloon. Most of what I first saw in the video has already been pointed out above, so I quoted them to give the proper due, if I missed anyone I apologize.

1) The object shows very little motion, its just hanging there.
2) There is a small heat source at the bottom of the circle which is apparent in the night vision video.
3) The airbag catches the wind right at the end, it distorts the airbag causing it to hit the heat source and ignite.
4) If you notice on the left side there is flickering that can be seen from the fire of the heat source.
5) The object breaks up pretty much like a home made hot air balloon made of reflective plastic material.


This used to be a very old trick, you can do it with a dry cleaners bag, some straws, fishing line, and something to use for the heat source.

Defcons disclaimer:
DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME
Building and releasing something like this is illegal in most states, it is certainly illegal in states that are prone to forest fires. Once released you cannot control where the object is going to land or what it might ignite when it does either land or burn up (as in the video). I would suggest that the person that is making these video’s make darn good and sure they are not breaking the law in their area. Below is a site that shows similar devices, again don’t try this yourself without checking local laws as you might get into a batch of trouble.

UFO Balloons UK

[edit on 2/18/2007 by defcon5]

Originally posted by defcon5
Defcons disclaimer:
DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME
Building and releasing something like this is illegal in most states, it is certainly illegal in states that are prone to forest fires. Once released you cannot control where the object is going to land or what it might ignite when it does either land or burn up (as in the video). I would suggest that the person that is making these video’s make darn good and sure they are not breaking the law in their area. Below is a site that shows similar devices, again don’t try this yourself without checking local laws as you might get into a batch of trouble.
[edit on 2/18/2007 by defcon5]

One nice thing about it, however, that it generally does burn up, obliterating any trace of where it came from or who did it.

I'm not your Mom, so my advice is to go ahead and try it, and film it, to see what you come up with. Just don't come whining to me when the cops track you down and beat your head with big sticks for being an inferno-starting jokester.

Originally posted by defcon5
I agree with the folks above, it’s a hot air balloon. Most of what I first saw in the video has already been pointed out above, so I quoted them to give the proper due, if I missed anyone I apologize.
1) The object shows very little motion, its just hanging there.
2) There is a small heat source at the bottom of the circle which is apparent in the night vision video.
3) The airbag catches the wind right at the end, it distorts the airbag causing it to hit the heat source and ignite.
4) If you notice on the left side there is flickering that can be seen from the fire of the heat source.
5) The object breaks up pretty much like a home made hot air balloon made of reflective plastic material.
This used to be a very old trick, you can do it with a dry cleaners bag, some straws, fishing line, and something to use for the heat source.
[edit on 2/18/2007 by defcon5]

Sigh.. ok... this down and dirty disclaimer is intended for everyone with no intent towards malice .. So if I offend someone, I'll apologize now as that is not my intent.

I'm going to say this upfront right now.. anyone starting to get uncivil with myself or other members in this thread or argumentative (as I see so often) will result in my reporting it, and my ceasing to be cooperative. Sorry, but I have a life and I think many of you waste way too much time with the "digital-ego" as Springer calls it. I've been a avid skywatcher/researcher for over 25+ years, yes thats right, while many of you are downloading from YouTube, I'm outside for up to 10 hours at a time actually trying to capture something on top of a hill that I drove three hundred miles to because someone in that area said they saw something! Add to that my personal researching and.. well you get the idea.. I have a bit more than an average interest in it. So any hint by anyone suggesting this to being a hoaxed capture, and you can plan on my cooperation ending.

With that said, below is the original preliminary report I sent.

Here's the original report I submitted to Brian Vike

Please read the above first before you get all engrossed into trying to figure it out.

I will say this. I highly doubt that this was a cleaning bag/balloon hoaxed ufo. The object would have been way too big for that. Now how can I make such a claim as that? Well none that will quench your thirst as :

One: you were not there to observe the 20+ minutes of observation both with the naked eye and through the camera lense. The Location and brightness of this thing made me first believe that I was seeing a extremely large celestial body (prior to sunset) the size of Venus. In fact this was my first logical preliminary deduction, that this 'had to be' Venus. The illumination was constant and did not flicker, strobe or worble. The brilliance was extremely bright by the naked eye and this was during the day with no other celestial bodies visible for at least another 13 minutes at the most.

Two: as a former broadcast cameraman working with any number of pro and yes even consumer model videocameras with a beyond average knowledge of focal pov's, I can guesstimate that at the optical focal range I had my camera at this thing was quite large. If I were to conjecture a size based on jets and blimps I've videotaped at the same settings but from a great distance, I'd have to say that it comes close to being the size of perhaps a 'Cul-De-Sac' of a standard residential area.

Three: the object did not move more than a snail's pace and as it got into the sunset minutes, I actually shut the camera off trying to convince myself, 'this has to be Venus'!

Four: after the Sun had set and I was able to now view a bit of Orion's Belt along with the object and noticed that although the speed seemed consistent with the stars, it's trajectory was different. Hence I started taping again. The object appeared (to my pov) to be 15-17 times larger than the surrounding stars, and that is a underestimate in my opinion.

Five: As time continued, I zoomed into the object past the optical zone and into the digital zone, (which because of pixelization I detest on camcorders). It was then I noticed the secondary smaller object which seem to have dropped (or perhaps was released) and it moved away to the bottom of the larger object.

Six: I had stopped taping once again (bad habit of mine of wanting to save tape), but as the stars were getting more pronounced and were above the object, I zoomed back to include them in the shot.

Seven: shortly after the realignment, the object exploded (or more than likely imploded) at which time I quickly jumped towards the camera (as I was about a foot away just viewing occasionally at the 4" viewscreen since nothing was happening).

Eight: I followed the debris as it careened downward back to earth for another few minutes, occasionally switching from 'NiteShot' to a regular mode. My reasoning for this was to check and see if it was visible in the normal light spectrum. This wasn't apparent at any of the times I did so. And though it seems to you that the debris just hangs there, it is traveling downward at a decent pace and "yes", I'm that good at following an object with a $600.00 Bogen/Manfrotto fluid-head tripod.

I'll stop there with the recap.

Now before anyone hops on the conjecture war-path, I will add this. To date, I still do not know what this was. But after an intense amount of research and using the "occam's razor" theory (don't know what that is?.. It's worth looking up.. Google it), I still lean towards this more than likely was a High-Altitude (possibly military) test. Could it have been a balloon such as in the supposed Project Mogul? Sure.. why not.. sounds as good to me as just about any of the other countless theories and ideas I've heard.

Did I try contacting airports and law enforcement? Yes,, and you guessed it, no one saw or reported anything.

Did I check with NASA's J-Track to see if it was perhaps a orbiting object? Yes, it was the first thing as a skywatcher that I do after an observation to confirm that I may have really captured something.

Did I try and find where the debris might have dropped to? This is the one thing I didn't do but I did check with fire departments as far as 50 miles away to see if there had been any reports or odd fires.

Did I check with the local and regional media outlets for any news or reports of the sighting? Yes, in fact a number of the outlets wanted to interview me on what I taped, I turned them down. Now why on earth would I do something like that? Because it's a UFO...! And the report was (and as far as I'm concerned still is) in a fact-finding arena.

Did I contact the military about this event? No, I did not. I have contacts that did for me.

Can I say without a doubt what it wasn't? Well yes, it wasn't a plane or helicopter, I doubt very much that this was something ET related, and I can say with 99.99% certainty that this wasn't a helium-filled cleaning bag that ignited. And several Air Force pilots, numerous ufologist and one scientist from the ESA agrees with me... nope, no cleaning bags here...





[edit on 19-2-2007 by JohnnyAnonymous]

JohnnyAnonymous
I am not quite understanding this, are you claiming to be the person that captured the video shown by the OP? If so and you have been registered since 2005, why didn’t you post it?

Secondly its not possible to judge the distance of a single point of light against a dark sky, without knowing the distance you cannot judge the size. Also light will radiate out a certain distance from the source depending on the intensity of that source possibly making the size appear larger then it actually is.

The presence of the smaller light source defiantly make this suspect of being a balloon with its heat source reflecting into the hot air bag. Even in your star chart if you add wires between the large circle and the small circle you have a classic balloon configuration.

I appreciate your thoroughness and professional approach to this Johnny.

But for me, it looks like a regular fire balloon that does what most eventually do - catch fire and drop globs of burning plastic to earth.

Size and distance of aerial objects can be deceiving, I'm sure you know that and will argue that your experience precludes you from making a novice mistake like that. But I've also had experience as a camera operator and vision mixer for a television station and still made the same mistake when seeing a burning object in the sky. I once watched a huge fireball appear in the night sky that I was convinced was only a few miles away and at the same height as aircraft I could see in the area. The next morning I found out that it was a satellite that had fallen in the gulf of mexico, more than 400 miles away.

Watch the debris falling in your video. There are only a few small pieces that quickly burn out and can only be seen by the IR filter. It really can't have been an object as large as a cul-de-sac or there'd be house sized chunks burning all the way to the ground. In fact there's not enough debris for it to have been a solid object regardless of scale. In my opinion, it looks exactly like a plastic bag burning - it quickly melts into small globs and burns for a few moments, then poof it's gone.

Looks like a balloon, with a sparkler tied to it. When the sparkler burns down it lights the fuse to a small fire-cracker which pops the balloon. A 12 year old could probably rig that in 5 minutes.

If it displayed some anomalous/erratic behavior then I'd be voting UFO.

Nice video, however, I am not fully convinced it's an extra-terrestial ufo. I would say its probably a hot air ballon that burst after possibly being struck with some laser device. If you look at the video closely you can see the following:

1)Object glows brightly but does not move at all or moves extremely slow!

2)Underneath the object something seems to be hanging possibly a carriage/passenger basket for the balloon. Also, there seems to be some heat source eminating from this location, possibly a burner.

3)Some "radiation" seems to be striking the object on the left side for quite some time before the explosion. You must look very closely to notice this!

4)After the explosion, the debris of the object seems to gently fall down or just glide down like a feather. This brings me to the conclusion that the material composition of the object is very lightweight. Obviously, if the composition was metallic the fall rate would be much greater!


My personal conclusion is that either it is:

(1)a hot air ballon that was attacked by a laser emmiting source or (2)a ufo whether terrestial or extra-terrestial! I rule out all other explanations including planes! Planes do not stand still!

airplanes are not round.
airplanes dont stand still in mid air.
airplanes dont glow like the sun.

and demolitions are supposed to be done out of the publics eye. you know in a secret area so as to not draw attention?

why take something so high up so everybody can see it then blow it up? it sounds stupid.

the only reasonable explenation is that its something extraterestrial. i dont know about you... but i have never seen a giant glowing ball explode in the night sky.

Originally posted by misterfantastic
airplanes are not round.

I don’t see anyone here saying they believe it to be an airplane, for the most part folks seem to feel it’s a balloon.

Originally posted by misterfantastic
airplanes dont stand still in mid air.

Airplanes can have a zero groundspeed, they can also appear to have a zero groundspeed when flying toward the camera. Either way though, it’s a moot point as again the majority of folks here seem to believe this is a balloon, which can hover in place.

Originally posted by misterfantastic
airplanes dont glow like the sun.

Aircraft have very bright landing lights which can appear like the single light in the photo. What gives this object away as a balloon though is the small heat source directly under it. That heat source will reflect into the hot air bag and light that up quite brightly, especially if reflective materials were used in the airbag.

Originally posted by misterfantastic
and demolitions are supposed to be done out of the publics eye. you know in a secret area so as to not draw attention?

I have seen them do demolitions in the middle of a big city if need be, unless you mean military demolitions. The military does stuff like that at a bombing range, not so much for the sake of secrecy, but more so for safety. Either way though again most folks here seem to concur that this is not some type of demolition, but rather the hot air bag accidentally being ignited by the heat source. It is known that over 50% of these balloons end their existence this way, so many folks know what it looks like.

I mean this is not a new trick, its been around since the ancient Chinese after all.

Originally posted by misterfantastic
why take something so high up so everybody can see it then blow it up? it sounds stupid.

An unmanned balloon will continue to increase in altitude until the heat source runs out, it runs into something, or it catches on fire.

what do you think it is defcon? do you think its a natural occurance?

This is just another courtesy post, as if I don't respond to the thread, it will be assumed that I may be hiding something. And I'll add that I'm attempting to be as forthright as possible in my explanation of the event and the processes used to try and reach some type of answer. Yes Defcon5, I shot the footage & I visited the UK link that you posted as proof:
www.ufoballoons.co.uk...
The site claims these balloons last for 8-10 minutes. My sighting lasted over 20+ minutes. The balloons are amber in color and are oblong. My capture is more luminous than a daytime moon and is spheroid shaped. Your balloons flicker and it's gradient from amber to dark upwards. My object is a constant & uniform nonflickering bright white, I see absolutely no similarities.

A Bit More Background


I'd like to interject a few things. When this report was first submitted to the Astronomer/UFO researcher Brian Vike, I was asked for some type of name and location. After consultation with family members, it was decided to try and be as generic as possible as no one was eager to have a number Looky-Loo's showing up and asking a ton of question's. Not to mention the surrounding neighbors getting upset and talking beneath their breath, "there goes the family that see's little green men". So it was decided to just name it: "40 Miles Southeast Of Sonora, California Exploding Object". It was after Astronomer Vike had viewed it that he posted it with the additional phrase, "Amazing Video Footage". I've never placed any captures on YouTube or Google or any of the other number of video hosting sites. Anything I've ever been involved with has only been sent to reporting agencies (albeit several associates that asked permission to have a few on their UFO website). I'm not selling my captures nor am I writing a book or putting my captures in anyones DVD for sale. This should answer the query as to why after being a member here for several years, I don't offer the captures here. Well, perhaps in the future that may become a reality as the ATS Owners will be implementing soon a "UFO reporting section" for those that do witness something unusual.

Being in this hobby/field for such a long time, I know that without some type of actual data especially in terms of items/objects/reports that I was leaving myself open to a barrage of uninvited conjecture and theories that would be repetitive as the footage would be copied and pasted to God knows where. So I sought all my constituents & contacts, called in favors for various past projects I had worked on, any and everything I could do to help get some tidbit of a revelation of what I had captured. Now in my searches for similar objects for comparison, I looked for weather balloons, rocket stage releases, meteors, and yes even at certain manmade aerial hoaxes. I pulled out all my footage of planes, blimps and yes weather balloons too. At one time I would shoot anything in the air (including balloons, bugs, birds) at different locations, at different times, of the same type of aircraft, some within solely the clear optical range, some within the zoomed digital interpolated range. I had literally hours and hours of material that I used for reference to help me conclude or at least help bring me closer to an answer. Speaking of reference...

With Regards to Figuring Size and Distance

Triangulation is by far one of the most useful tools in a skywatcher's toolbox. It helps answer a multitude of questions. But rarely outside of perhaps a few rare occasions and/or mass sightings by several folks witnessing the same event does the single witness (such as myself in this case) get a chance to have that added data. Being what I always considered a "out-of-the-box" backyard scientist, I decided to create some type of data that I could resort to in a few of the areas that I frequented. I engaged the help & assistance of several trusted friends to help me accomplish this. In many of the areas that several of us frequented was at times right below the general flight path trajectory of commercial airliners flying at altitudes between 30,000 and 36,000 feet. We proceeded to drive in increments of 5 miles (and sometimes 10) from the observation area (ground zero) till we could position ourselves below the flight path looking up towards the jet. Using Cell phones, long range radios and GPS, each person would verbally say when the jet was overhead, all the while we (two of us) are videotaping (which included recording their audio cues). We'd follow the jet by means of the camera at the lense's optical clean maximum (my camera), the 2nd camera at 25% Digital Interpolated Zoom. After several weeks we had been able to produce a grid of various increments giving us a visual reference of the jets. There was no adjustment to the zoom, just the focus (auto-mode off). We did this starting from the East working our way to the South and finally ending with the West. We then repeated the process at night (with NitsShot on) so we could have that as reference also for nitetime captures. To help verify our short distances, one of my associates Grandfather had a Vintage WWII British Rangefinder Afstandsmåler M/54 rangefinder. For those unfamiliar with such a antique, it's a military rangefinder that was designed by the Danish (I believe) and used by the British to target distant objects and it's increments start at 230 meters & reads up to 20,000 meters (about 12.5miles). I'll also add that during the griding process if the chance for another observer to accompany one of our "spotters" and set up a camera to follow the jet from their vantage point which help add to the calculations for distance as it includes one more point of reference. The whole process was a bit laborious.

With the use of this grid we were now able to get more of an accurate perspective of the distance of the jets from our observation point. And this has proven to be a very effective advantage when capturing an event. We then could analyze and compare a capture at the same focal range for comparison. It's not a perfect system, but its better than eyeball guessing as was mentioned by a member in an earlier post.

Throw in a Little Math, Mix Thoroughly

One of my associates is a math wizard. He eats and sleeps calculus and geometry. And he keeps us all in check when we need to calculate and crunch numbers, I swear he's a human calculator. So rather than bore you with a ton of numbers and equations let me just fiddle with the altitude side.
Because we know that one foot equals 0.00019 miles. If we assume that the airliners are traveling at a standard altitude of between 30,000 & 36,000 feet then that equates to 5.7 & 6.84 miles up. We know this to be a constant variable. But as mentioned by a previous member's post, distance especially with the lack of reference target points to compare with is a headache and virtually impossible. This is where our recorded footage of the jets taped in one constant focal area helps a bit. We are able to compare previous and future object footage at the same focal range as our reference footage, and get a rough idea of the distance and size. No, this is far from an exact science (what in ufology is), but it does offer a rough best guesstimation. Do we rely on it exclusively, no, it's just another tool. This probably doesn't make much sense to some. But during our UFO flap, we witnessed a number of unusual objects near the jets (and in the contrails themselves). Most of them were Unidentified Aerial Phenomena as some seem to be without structure and form. More like witnessing mini auroras or bright discharges of some form.

Now I'm probably not winning any awards with my brief information here, but it should shed some light as to the lengths I (and my associates) went to in trying to increase the accuracy of our capture reports. As I said in my very first post, I have a more than a average interest in skywatching and ufology.


[edit on 20-2-2007 by JohnnyAnonymous]

Distance and Size (Continued From Above)

If you took four grains of rice and looked at them head-on, you would have a close approximate of what I could see by the naked, perhaps the size of a small copper BB would be closer. And it's appearance was sudden, as I had just looked up in that general area, (I seem to look skywards often). There wasn't any airtraffic at the time but an airliner was off in the distance as I was running in to grab the camera and binoculars from the house.

Now I mentioned earlier about how much I detest the Digital Interpolated Zoom. But it has been very helpful at times (obviously not for the visual quality aspect), but in helping again to judge the size of an object. Because the size of the pixels get interpolated to a larger and boxier shape, it does help in the comparison department. For example I posted that I don't believe this to be any type of "cleaning bag" balloon and that I guesstimated that the object could be the size of a residential "cul-de-sac". Now that may sound quite fantastic to some (and unbelievable to a few others). This wasn't a random guesstimation, but one based on conversations with various people that looked and did their own analysis of the footage. When the footage was matched against airliners of the same focal range and POV direction with the same size pixels, a rough size was (which seem to vary about 25-50 feet with some folks) to be about half of that to an airliner seen in the comparative footage. Hence I still feel strongly about it not being a cleaning bag. But I'm an open-minded guy, so if anyone can show me footage of one of these type of spheroid-shaped balloons at varying distances that has the same type of constant luminosity during the presunset hours, you will score big points as far as I'm concerned. To date, I and my constituents have not seen or found anything but maybe we missed something that you know about. Yes anyone can make a announcement that it is this or it is that. But no one has yet to show the rest of the group any concrete data or video proof to back up those statements thats your challenge and I will rally positively your results. With that request made, lets move forward.

Concerning the Luminosity of the Phenomenon

It is normally difficult to go beyond subjective statements to obtain reliable quantitative estimates of the luminosity of any phenomenon. In my case the initial naked eye view was at such an intensity that it caught my attention promptly during the daylight. One minute clear unobstructed skies, the next minute here's this bright luminous object I perceive as possibly Venus. Now was it self-illuminating or a mere reflection of the Sun? Well that was answered as sunset approached and it seem to glow against the dark background. It's appearance for all intent purposes was as bright (if not brighter) as the moon's luminosity during the night. I would like to point out that once a cameraperson switches to a IR mode, there will be a slight distortion and difference on the perceived focal plane.

Trajectory Path and Location

The trajectory path of this object was at a snail's pace (which was uniform and constant with the stars pace as they later became visible) and if I hadn't had the binoculars and camera in a locked position I may never had noticed movement at all. This includes all degrees of the X-Y-Z, it appeared to never deviate from it's altitude or as said before it's slow path to the South. One thing I found curious is that it appears to be in the general flight path of the commercial airliners. It was suggested to me by a friend that has some military background and meteorology that he thought this could be a military test and that this could be one of the newer balloons that can carry extremely heavy payloads. When I asked why it would be in the same general area of the standard commercial-liners path he said he thought that it was much further up than I was perceiving. His idea was that it was probably somewhere on the edge of the Tropopause and Stratosphere. This would take it from anywhere from 18km to possibly 47km. He re-enforced the high altitude theory again to me as we watched all the debris tumbling downward (which you only see about 1/20 of in the clip that was first posted). The debris was falling quite fast which was evident by my having to tilt down quite quickly in a zoomed position (not an easy task when trying to stay smooth) and it took several minutes till it was no longer visible from my vantage point. He also suggested that perhaps something went very wrong as there shouldn't have been a collapse. Then again he said he could not rule out the possibility that it wasn't shot down as part of a military test.

Now here's where it gets a bit off-kelter. Another analyst swears up and down that he sees an object nanoseconds before the explosion/implosion/collapse (whatever you want to call it) hit it.

This might give some credence to the being shot down theory. I for one can't see it, and I've watched it probably now 400 times under any number of different graphical filters and enhancements.

In all over 15 folks all with their special abilities and/or military specialties (and one ESA scientist) viewed, analyzed and shared their thoughts on the event. Their ideas were all diversified. And not one mentioned once anything close to a small bag balloon. Rather, they all agreed this object was of some large size (the size though did vary with each).

In Conclusion

So as you can see, a year later and it's still a bit of a conundrum. I don't think it was ET at our doorstep, or a Mothership dropping off baby ships Yes, theres one guy that thinks that, and that balloon bouquets are Motherships too.

www.world-destiny.org... scroll down and look for Mother ships.

The only thing again that I lean towards is that this probably was a test of some form.

Yes it's an interesting video, at the time it was a compelling capture that made me mumble "Holy Mackeral" and "Woah" enough for a lifetime. But I think there are other exciting captures that a few people are getting. I'd like to strongly suggest that everyone get out of their chairs and away from YouTube and try watching the skies a few hours a week (or even a month). You'll be helping the UFO community a whole hell of lot more good than just sitting.

And with that said, I bid this a fond farewell



[edit on 20-2-2007 by JohnnyAnonymous]

Sorry, but I have a life and I think many of you waste way too much time with the "digital-ego" as Springer calls it.

Well, now--

There will be a few more of you who are not going to like me very much when I get done with this post. Guess what? I don't actually care! If this was the ONLY thread on the whole of ATS that held this sort of ignorant rhetoric, I wouldn't complain. But, alas, I am complaining and with good reason. That good reason is that this crap continues to be repeated, almost verbatim, every time new UFO /Paranormal, or 911 Conspiracy, info is posted anywhere up here. First thing you know, and the Village Skeptics are all over it---with the exact same "answers"---tried and true---that always solve the issue. Only---they don't. [moderator deletion] Bottom line: The better part of Denying Ignorance begins with denying your own. Give me a break!

Johnny never claimed any sort of ET connection with his footage. He didn't even claim UFO, even tho it is, and remains, "unidentified".

Agreed, 85% of sightings either have conventional explanations, or they are hoaxed. That leaves 15% that are not explained. 10% of those are likely secret aircraft. That leaves 5%. In my 60 years on this planet, like Johnny, I have seen some strange stuff in the skies that qualify in that 5%.

Is Johnny's footage of a Hoax Balloon (in which he was not involved)? I don't know. Neither do any of you--for sure. It's a simple formula--assumption + assumption does NOT = Truth. Interestingly, when I viewed the film, I almost immediately caught 2 features no one has mentioned in this thread. I won't either. Johnny, I will U2U you about that.

If the shoe fits, folks, wear it--with pride.



[edit on 20-2-2007 by Ed Littlefox]

`````````````````````````
Edited 'name-calling' incident

[edit on 20/2/07 by masqua]

Not for anything but I have seen something similar to this here in san diego. The difference is that there was no debree falling like in the video. The only thing that you could see is a cloud of smoke and a little light/orb falling at a slow speed then disappeared. After that happened, two "chem trail" planes flew by the exact location were this was. The weird ting was that these planes were black. I even reported it to NUFORC.

This object seems to be stationary if you observe the position of stars around it. Also we should be able to calculate its possible altitude, we know an average speed an object will fall to earth with and by calculating how long it takes for the debris to fall down we will know the objects altitude.

a hot air baloon? have you ever tried to light a hot air baloon on fire and send it up to the sky? what do you think would happen? you have to look at this from a feasable standpoint.

it would burn up in around 10 seconds and nothing would be left of it. this "object" burns, if you wanna call it burning, for several minutes.

No, but I have suspended candles below a hot air balloon and sent it into the sky. Worked pretty darn well and lasted much more than 10 seconds, I can tell ya!

Then the flame caught the suspension cords/balloon and the whole thing burst into flames and drifted down in pieces. Much like the object does at the end.


[edit on 2/21/2007 by eaglewingz]