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
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 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. 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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
