The Tinley Incident

phlogistician said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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, 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.
 
Mister said:
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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
Mister said:
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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top