Vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8BSERZdfnc
These objects don't appear to be marked like any standard aircraft, however, they don't display any flight characteristics that can't be replicated by standard aircraft.
If these were standard aircraft, then the lights we see would have to be landing lights, as they are the only lights standard aircraft have that are that bright and intense. However, if they were landing lights, then we would also see the navigation lights used during flight to help avoid collisions, but they are absent.
This could possibly be replicated using drones launched from an unobserved boat on the lake with some kind of light source attached, however, the way these things move don't seem to be consistent with the way drones fly.
Regardless, they don't appear to be standard aircraft of any type, be it civilian or military.
Thoughts?
>>17739982
I live near a fairly busy regional airport, almost under the approach path, and those look like the Dash 8 landing lights I see every night.
>>17740007
DISINFO OMG!!!!!!!11!!
>>17739982
I was expecting to see some goofy lights against a black background but then I watched the video and I admit it got my attention. It's interesting.
They definitely do not act like planes, but could they be helicopters?
>>17740007
Right, but if they were landing lights, we'd also be able to see the port and starboard nav lights, and the strobes, but we don't.
Vid of a Dash 8 on short final at night: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLCRcQLzM18
You can clearly see all 3 landing lights, a white strobe atop the fuselage, and both wing tip nav lights.
>>17740024
>They definitely do not act like planes, but could they be helicopters?
A helicopter could replicate the flight path of both objects, however, the lights aren't consistent with the standard nav lights of any helo.
Any standard aircraft operating in the area would be using their nav lights for collision avoidance, and because it's an FAA regulation. Military aircraft operating in closed airspace without their nav lights wouldn't be using their landing lights, and those are the only lights bright enough to replicate what is depicted on the video.
>>17739982
I'm certainly intrigued. Would like some more info on first hand reports, how often they're sighted, etc.
>>17740128
Apparently, people have been seeing that shit for a long ass time.
I'm just looking into it myself.
>>17740113
They don't all have the nose light, and landing lights are visible miles before the nav lights. Also if they show up on video depends on the camera quality. If I didn't have to pack for a weekend trip tonight I'd go go down to the beach and see if it looks comparable on camera.
Even if the lights were right, which they don't seem to be, how do you explain the craft's movements?
>>17740160
The very first post addressed the issue you're trying to discuss.
If you're not going to bother to read any of the posts, or if you're just going to ignore them, why bother posting, anon?
>>17740211
The first post was making assumptions. I know planes and I know cameras even better, and I'm making observations that the assumptions might not be valid. I was even willing to try and replicate the video since I'm done packing and the airport curfew isn't for half an hour. But if that's your attitude, have fun with your circlejerk.
>>17740345
>I know planes
No you don't, or you wouldn't be trying to explain away the absence of strobes and nav lights.
Do you know why they use strobes? Because they too, like landing lights, can be seen MILES before the nav lights on the wing tips.
>>17739982
uhmm. Those are cars
it's been going on there for quite a while, hasn't it? I wonder what they want from/like about that area. and am I right that it's a no-fly zone around the whole lake?
>>17740651
Have you ever looked arcross lake Erie or Ontario towards Canada?
There's only very specific conditions and certian times of year when extremely high tower lights can be seen from the US across Erie into Canada.
As for lake Ontario, from my experiences and what I've been told... light can somehow be reflected/refracted from the sources, atmosphere, and water. Then visible in Rochester at beaches like Charlotte.
I don't know. Looks interesting to me but I have almost zero knowledge of aviation.
>>17740692
but they are cars. Near my hometown we had a similar case, several ufos were seen three nights in a row, people were going crazy. We decided to investigate and it turned out to be military vehicles in a mountain during training.
If you look closely, you'll see those are cars headlights, even the way they move
>>17741676
>If you look closely, you'll see those are cars headlights, even the way they move
The intensity of the lights fluctuate, and this fluctuation isn't caused by atmospheric conditions or camera issues, due to the fact that such issues would have a uniform impact on both sets of lights and be easily recognizable, but that is not the case.
The lights in this video do not demonstrate the same kind of uniform intensity common to headlights.
>>17739982
>>17740007
>>17740113
>>17740160
>>17740211
Samefagging. This is what you call advanced disinfo. By fighting himself he can push his agenda far easierly
>>17739982
>>17740007
>>17740113
>>17740160
>>17740211
Samefagging. This is what you call advanced disinfo. By fighting himself he can push his agenda far easily
>>17739982
Aliens. It's like they're teasing us with thier existence
Pic related
>>17741767
The fluctuation is normal, atmospheric conditions, humidity in the air, distance, etc.
Look closely at the second "UFO" and you will notice how the lights match those of the first one. You can clearly see that it's a car coming down a curve
>>17742002
The lights match hen both cars are close and facing the same direction
>>17742002
The light fluctuations are not uniform, which they would be at the range the objects were filmed, and this indicates that they are not caused by atmospheric conditions.
A car driving down a road would create a different light signature than the signature displayed, due to the fact that there would be tail and side lights visible. There are no such lights visible on either of the objects in the video.
>>17742262
Nothing, i do not wish to die. And if i'd known, i'd accept.
Both sides can exist.
But so can none.
>>17741865
too many layers to this post. did disinfo guy get tired and post as a retarded person as a joke?
>>17743143
I scared him off... The CIA have kids to go home to at the end of the day too..
>>17742262
> The light fluctuations are not uniform, which they would be at the range the objects were filmed, and this indicates that they are not caused by atmospheric conditions
Explain. Light fluctuations are not supposed to be uniform. What range is this you're talking about? Atmosferic conditions don't depend on range
>>17742262
>A car driving down a road would create a different light signature than the signature displayed, due to the fact that there would be tail and side lights visible. There are no such lights visible on either of the objects in the video.
According to you, what light signature would a car create? Tail and side lights are not as bright as headlights, they could be heavily distorted by humidity.
>>17743474
>Explain. Light fluctuations are not supposed to be uniform. What range is this you're talking about? Atmosferic conditions don't depend on range
The distance the objects are filmed at means that both set of lights would be equally impacted by any atmospheric mirage, but we don't see that in the video. If atmospheric conditions were responsible for causing the lights to waver, as if in mirage, than both lights would be impacted simultaneously, but that's not what we observe.
>>17743698
>>17743493
>>17743474
I'll defend the disinfomen. It was over a clear to few ocean.. wanna Sony vega that on me? Prove it
>>17743716
>DUDE! DUDE! DUDE!
>>17743493
>According to you,
No, not according to me, according to auto industry standards.
Pic related: demonstrates how the light signature of any given 4 wheel vehicle will change as it turns exposing different lights.
We don't observe this in the video.
oh shit. this nigga's armed with infographics.
>true believers 1
>pseudo-skeptics 0
All me
As much as I love attention. I think it's way passed your bedtime (Try type out any government agency in your post as it should be, It'll consider spam)
Should make a thread sometime to verify all the supposed spam thats disallows
>>17743779
Nobody reads them anyway....
Hell, the very first post goes over all the arguments against the lights being landing lights, WITH pictures, and the very first fucking reply we get from some retard is what?
"They look like landing lights to me.......".
>>17741865
>>17741859
>>17741865
>>17743450
All me >>17743799
Please talk to me mister CIA
>>17743800
nice dubs. btw, i read them, bro and i appreciate your efforts to present a compelling and carefully considered regarding these unusual lights. that being said, of course it's understood that UFO = alien spacecraft. however, that can never be proven based on the supplied data.
>>17743818
>alien spacecraft. however, that can never be proven based on the supplied data.
We often times make decisions based on the evidence we have, not the evidence we want. There's been enough evidence gathered through human and technological sources that, at this point, it's simply unreasonable to conclude these vehicles are anything other than alien in design. It would be nice to have a body, or a craft to examine, but we don't....in the civilian sector at least. It would be nice to have an electron to examine, but we don't have one of those either because they're too small.
Regardless, I agree that there are a lot of cases, like this Lake Erie incident, that could be easily replicated by human objects, like a drone or some shit.
I just don't like people pulling shit out of their ass that is obviously false to explain away these kinds of incidents.
>>17743799
why that pic ? Lol
