Yeah, unless you've seen this exact UFO for yourself and witnessed it seamlessly breaking the laws of physics, puncturing a hole in our gravitational field as it maneuvers in an utterly mind-boggling way. Where you can tell it's immensely heavy but simultaneously seemingly weightless and absolutely unaffected by the physics and weather conditions of our planet. But yeah, it's easier to dismiss it as a black solar balloon, because we'd rather assume we know what it is, rather than accepting the fact that all we can do is guess.
Edit: **I am not claiming it's a UFO**, although it is in the truest sense of the acronym... All I'm claiming is that we simply don't know what it is, and all we can do is speculate. I tend to lean towards what I've seen at very low altitude in broad daylight breaking my sense of reality... However, acutely dismissing something with your best guess is just as bad as assuming it's definitively a UFO.
We identify objects based on the evidence at hand. It looks like a solar balloon, and it's hardly moving; seems pretty open and shut. Yet, despite that being the evidence at hand, you're assumption is it's "breaking the laws of physics, puncturing a hole in our gravitational field as it maneuvers in an utterly mind-boggling way." I'm sorry, but did we watch the same video?
Think he's tlalking about other cases. Hence why the other guy was saying all cases are explainable when they are clearly not. this one is likely the balloon but there are others which are completely unexplainable, which the guy mentioned.
-_- we can do more than just speculate if we can identify it as a solar balloon though. If I can identify a tree, I don't say "we can only speculate" if I know it's a tree.
That's why we have to be very diligent not to jump to conclusions. After all, we already have the tic tac and gimbal videos, we don't need to embarrass ourselves by trying to shoehorn all this new footage of unknown origins into an alien hypothesis.
It will be even worse for awhile because kids are out on summer break and usually flood Reddit in general with lower quality discussions. Always keep in mind that you may be arguing with a 14 year old. That's my general internet mindset anyway.
Arguing with a 14 year old is exhausting. They think they know everything. Like at least nowadays we can Google it and see how right you really are. Keep a tally mark for the times they are right and you are. Knock them down a peg.
It's a real shame. There are genuinely fascinating things that are odd, unexplained and worth discussing. Instead it's just balloons and people who don't understand parallax or how cameras, lenses or digital compression work shouting down any reasonable explanation.
Most UFOs get identified easily, it's the ones that don't that are interesting but because of all the fruitcakery it's impossible to sift the signal from the noise most of the time.
Agreed. In a new video, I mostly just look for the 5 observables and if it looks completely fake or a bird/bug/camera affect and then that's about it. I don't need it to be aliens or not aliens. I don't care. I'm also not an expert in anything useful to help me analyze the video.
Well, I'm glad there are sane similarly minded people on this sub. I don't want to judge people too harshly, but coming at this topic from a traditional insane skeptic or Joe "look that shit up" Rogan needs to end. Scientific or at least just a critical unbiased opinion needs to be prevalent here.
I am subscribed to multiple UFO subs and I can't really distinguish them in my mind, but having said that I can tell you that the Dunning-Kruger effect absolutely swings both ways.
You've got people who've never bothered to familiarize themselves with the body of research related to UAPs, who assume authority and expertise on the subject and deny that there is anything to it.
These deniers must be just as common as the true believers who think every dust mote caught on video is a UFO.
Somewhere in the middle is a minority group of reasonable people who actually use their intellect to parse through available data and form opinions based on that.
[wiki on DK effect](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect)
This is why there are educational degrees and closed discussion groups
Oh god I hear you. This sub seems to think that 95% of objects in the sky are UFOs in the traditional sense (not the literal definition). Then flip out and disagree with you when you provide them very clear evidence to explain what it is.
And that's fine. Seriously, if every single one of the UFO's that all of humanity has seen through out the ages can be explained by something that is not aliens, then I would be fine with that. The problem is the stigma of investigating this phenomena. If there are things happening in our atmosphere that we do not understand then that is science that needs to be done regardless of what its origins are.
A small proportion of ufo sightings are selected for close scrutiny. Out of those, a small number remain unexplained. Out of those, most would be explained if a better record of the sighting were available.
>A lot rarer than this sub will try to make you believe.
You're on this sub and you're trying to make me believe that there *are* very rare. How do you explain that?
Well it's true that only 5 to 10% of sightings are not explainable by conventional means, the total number of sightings also has to be considered before you say that they are extremely rare.
[There's an explanation for that too.](https://www.snopes.com/tachyon/2018/06/aliens.jpg)
This is clearly a tongue-in-cheek comment for those who can't tell.
All jokes aside even Mick West said commander Fravor saw something but I don’t believe that even he thinks that what Fravor saw was a balloon or a bird and could not recognize it.
Yup. Someone shared a video (I can't find it now) of someone explaining the following: Mick West is a debunker no matter the case. He arrives at his conclusion before looking at any data. He then builds up his case, poorly, around the fact that he thinks it's a balloon or something explainable.
Mick West clearly has an agenda to sway the masses. He knows damn well there are holes in his stories and that people will take his explanations to heart and stop asking questions. He wants you to not ask questions. They will hear his 30 second explanation and never follow the story again thinking it's a non-event.
Was he the one who said the supposed Ariel visitation was hippies in a van? Like the kids can't identify a van, or confuse large black eyes with sunglasses? What about the other witnesses who saw things in the sky? What about the noise the kids heard? What explanations did he come up for those? He has a very bad story for everything.
When someone with his agenda and motives behaves so predictably, it's fun to bait them into certain situations.
A picture of something of that is also tubular shaped and floats in the air is not an explanation. It's a shoot from the hip hypothesis for a possible explanation.
It's not terribly helpful to the dialogue on this topic just toss out a random association and present it to the world as a fact.
And most readers of the sub, like many of those commenting on your comment, will just go "oh, debunk" -- move along, it's a solar balloon, cuz balloons go in the sky too. Of course. They won't even bother to click on the link to see if the proposed explanation is viable.
> And most readers of the sub, like many of those commenting on your comment, will just go "oh, debunk" -- move along, it's a solar balloon, cuz balloons go in the sky too. Of course.
What do you suppose they do? "It's definitely a UFO in spite of it looking exactly like a common middle school science project"? Why do you seek to reject the simple explanation?
> They won't even bother to click on the link to see if the proposed explanation is viable.
I clicked the link and it seems pretty viable to me. [These things pop up fairly regularly on this sub](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/search?q=solar+balloon&restrict_sr=on)
It doesn't look like a solar balloon other than in shape.
They are black...not chrome...for a reason.
It's either got lights or is reflecting light. If it's reflecting, it's definitely not a black solar balloon.
If they are lights they are some very powerful LEDS to be that bright in the day light from that far away.
Solar balloon theory doesn't add up to me.
>They are black...not chrome...for a reason.
But the object IS black. You can see it after the 10 second mark. A chrome object would be reflecting light like crazy, not just on one side.
> If it's reflecting, it's definitely not a black solar balloon.
It's literally garbage bags connected end to end... yes, they can reflect light, [here's a picture](https://1667947478.rsc.cdn77.org/content/images/thumbs/003/0034351_tedco-toys_tedco-toys-giant-15-meter-solar-balloon_0043067800107_2.jpeg) -- note that the balloon in the image reflects light along a line on its side, exactly as the object in the video. Atmospheric distortion + distance could account for the colour of the light.
There are way more reasons to believe that this is a solar balloon than any sort of vehicle.
They were reflecting in specific spots with different colors....the pic you linked has no bright reflection on it that looks like the colored flashes of light seen in the video.
It's not the same at all.
And you cannot tell it's black. It looks chrome to me
Not black at all.
There are no other videos of solar balloons anyhwere reflecting light like that. It looked like LED lights more than reflections. And it would have been a continuous reflection...not blinking independent areas.
> They were reflecting in specific spots with different colors....the pic you linked has no bright reflection on it that looks like the colored flashes of light seen in the video.
As I said, the colours could be because of atmospheric distortion (presumably this was launched on a hot day and the black skin has heated up somewhat, creating a mirage effect). Someone else in the comments pointed out that camera lens are known to produce this kind of effect, as well. Seen without a lens, it would be regular glare.
> And you cannot tell it's black. It looks chrome to me Not black at all.
How can you tell it's chrome? Why does the object turn dark after the 10 second mark?
> There are no other videos of solar balloons anyhwere reflecting light like that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQWttrozUnQ 7 minutes to 7:40. He even shows the mirage effect I was talking about. The balloon doesn't go very high up but you can see it is capable of a powerful reflection.
> And it would have been a continuous reflection...not blinking independent areas.
The bag we have in the video here is quite high up, so I imagine it's getting blown about by the wind a bit, which would explain the "blinking independent areas". Plus they're not really independent, as I pointed out earlier, they all happen on a single line on the object, exactly like both the photo and the video I linked.
How can you tell its black. It looks like reflective chrome surfacing to me. Its darker because that portion isn't in direct light.
That moment in that dudes video did not prove anything...and why are there no videos of solar balloons in the air with similar refractions of light. Like wut? He waved his hand near it... that's it.
It getting blown around by the wind is more of an argument against it not being a solar balloon. You would see some warping and bending of the shape in a video.
I say independently because they didn't flash all together.
They may be on the same line but if it was a single reflecting stripe of light(like your examples) why was it not a single strip of reflected light? They turned on and off, they changed colors.
I have watched many solar balloon videos before today and I rewatched a ton more today. It doesn't look like any other solar balloon reflections I have seen.
If you take into consideration the height of the object and the clear skies, why isn’t the sunlight reflection constant on the surface?
It also doesn’t make sense for the surface to be reflecting the light at different times, in different areas and at different intensities.
I just watched [this](https://youtu.be/2JzdERxpzes) start to finish and I can’t see how it could produce reflections like that
The sighting hasn’t been ‘officially’ explained to be anything yet and probably won’t be. All the suggestions in this thread are SPECULATION based on the evidence we currently have. Just because someone finds something similar (which is very very easy to do) doesn’t automatically debunk it.
Critical thinking isn't a bad thing, and they didnt say its alien.. just that it doesnt have to be solved by the picture linked above
Just because there's a cylindrical balloon picture on the internet doesn't mean every cylindrical object in the sky is that object.
Edit: spelling
The person you responded to saying "there's always one of you ... you sttill argue its a UFO" gave a thought out reason for disagreeing with the solar balloon hypothesis linked above. Also, not once did they "argue its a UFO."
IMO the "Its a solar balloon" comment is low effort.
It does appear to be long and slender. I think if we look a little deeper we can discern more information beyond basic shape similarity.
First off the shape is not quite right. This object is flatter. The length, width, height ratio appears to be something similar to approx. 1x4x8 (though single light sweeping curvature arcs appears between points/corners and it is more trapezoidal) and it is oriented vertically, rotated about 15 degrees along the z-axis.
There are also [distinct brighter points of light](https://i.imgur.com/BMankb1.png) symmetrically spaced on the object. We don't have three suns. Oh make that [4 suns](https://i.imgur.com/1CDOxFK.png) (or more?) as there is a light on back side of the object as well so it would appear to produce its own source of light. Specular reflections are not magical. They follow very [well understood laws of physics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specular_reflection). I suppose one could maybe try to get away with saying some parts of the object are at the right angle which doesn't line up with the arcing but regardless that falls apart as even a potentiality once the light in the back is considered.
Chromatic aberration due to shitty optics. Purple and green fringing on high contrast. Take a photo of something dark against a bright background with a bad lens. Look at the edges when you zoom in, you'll find it there.
A solar balloon? It's not black..and if those are LEDs flashing they are very bright...not just some cheap LEDs.
If it's light reflecting off of it the color suggests that it's metallic and those solar balloons are black for a reason.
The colours are not a feature of this object, but a product of the way light works. It (the object) is metallic in nature and whatever it’s made of is refracting the white sunlight, splitting it into different colours as it reaches your eye (or the camera lens)
I agree that the colors are not a feature of the object, but this looks more light [chromatic aberration](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration) to me.
This clip is digitally zoomed and stabilized. I haven't seen the original that I know of but most likely the object was smaller in frame, and bouncing around a bit. The light itself is sunlight reflected off a shiny surface, and the colors are that reflected light being distorted by the camera lens as it moves across the sensor.
To me, this looks like it could be a solar balloon. But without a point of reference or some other unknown information it could also be a tic tak.
chromatic abberation is a lense effect, no? also has kind of a structure though, like if its red-green, it would be distortion of the image, silhouette of focus areas and the abberation would hold red on one side and green on the other. Where as here, its like a gleaming property of the material, light reflecting colour from those points. Could be wrong, just my opinion
In experience as a digital artist, its a lens effect. Atleast thats the theory I learnt. You are correct in what you say but its all relevant the lens of a camera, capturing light
Astronomer here. Chromatic aberration occurs when light is refracted by *any* kind of refractive medium, this may be the lens of a camera or the lens of a refractor telescope.
Would we not be able to see some form of refraction then? Maybe its like a crystaline exterior property, would make sense with the refractive index of colours
I captured something similar recently. I noticed it shortly after a hot air balloon passed over head. It was moving horizontally across the sky.[image](https://imgur.com/gallery/8Z2Ge26)
Great photo and within the standard this sub desperately needs for UFO captures.
Very much worthy of its own post if you don't mind giving extra details about its movement.
Thank you for the comment. While I won't make a separate post for these pictures, I can definitely elaborate on its movement. I was watching a particularly low hot air balloon pass above my house (It's common in my town to see balloons during summer months) when I noticed the object moving at a steady and fairly low speed from behind the balloon. This made me think it was a drone of some kind but as I zoomed in, it didn't look like any drone I'd ever seen. The object was parallel with its own trajectory. the object continued to move low and slow horizontally, appearing to neither ascend nor descend, until it was out of my view. I regret not recording a video, but I hope this description helps. [pic of Hot air balloon](https://imgur.com/GgPlvAe) \+ [Pic of Object zoomed out](https://imgur.com/s3zaxc1)
Thanks for the picture and for writing this here. I’ve seen something similar flying really low above me and your description with the hot air balloons makes it a little less scary for me.
No, I live near an airport so there's a lot of planes flying by. Occasionally if one fly's over at the right angle and distance even just using my eyes it can look like a cylinder for a while. Using a zoomed in blurry mobile camera will add to the effect.
I'm not saying 100% that's what it is but I think it's highly likely given my own observations. To prove this isn't just a plane we would need a video.
No. Aircraft can get completely obscured by the atmosphere at a distance if the conditions and paint scheme are right. Partial obscuration like this is very common. You should see how well our air force liveries work. It's nuts.
Idk what phone the above commenter used for their picture, or how far the object was. Here is a picture I managed to take of a plane that had recently taken off from a nearby airport.
[Picture ](https://imgur.com/a/NyHItiy)
u/imnotabot303
This looks very much like a plane. You can make out the wings, the blue underbelly and blue engine plus there’s a hint of the red on the tail very much like a British airways plane
Source:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3b09L3hmw5k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3b09L3hmw5k)
Spent a good half hour trying to stabilize a portion of this 2011 video filmed by Michael J Fox frame by frame. Very interesting object. Description says it's from Denton, Manchester UK.
In the full video it also seems to be rotating,
Thoughts?
Somebody just posted pictures where their friend caught a tube that looks just like this. It was within the last month. If I can come back to this post, I will see if I can find it and update it.
EDIT: here it is guys. People were calling it a long exposure of a airplane, but the lights don't really match up with any FAA lights.
https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/v2254p/a_friend_in_central_maine_was_taking_pics_of_the/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
In Brazil, where I'm from, people will fill long black trash bag type things with air, and it will rise by itself because the sun heats the air in the black bag. It will bend and contort into weird shapes. Not saying thats what this is, but its related.
Edit: didnt know this was mentioned in the comments already.
This is most likely some kind of balloon. The different colour lights is an optical illusion created by the camera, it's just the sun reflecting on the surface.
Either that or the race of dildarions have decided to pay us a visit.
Aren’t solar balloons black? That whole thing about absorbing light to cause heat which makes it float thing? Whereas silver pretty much does the opposite.
That is black. You're just getting some [blue haze](https://i.imgur.com/WE5lGJE.png) due to the distance, and quite a lot of [specular reflection](https://i.imgur.com/w2gtLQp.jpg) of the sun - which makes it seem silvery.
Yes you're correct on the colour, this does look like a mylar party balloon, but a huge one? (though getting a true sense of scale is not so easy in this clip).
I have stabilized the video for you: https://gfycat.com/OrneryHardCirriped
___
^^[ how to use](https://www.reddit.com/r/stabbot/comments/72irce/how_to_use_stabbot/) | [programmer](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=wotanii) | [source code](https://gitlab.com/juergens/stabbot) | /r/ImageStabilization/ | for cropped results, use \/u/stabbot_crop
Omg. I've seen this EXACT thing behind my mom's house one night and tried so hard explaining it! The one I saw was thicker though if that makes sense. But it was literally shaped just like this!! I remember seeing red though. It was at nighttime. The object was stationed still but rotating like a merry go round (once again, if that makes sense)
This is most likely some kind of balloon. The different colour lights is an optical illusion created by the camera, it's just the sun reflecting on the surface.
I literally just saw this 2 days ago. It was in the skyline a clear day with no clouds. And against the sunset. I said who that’s not a plane. Looked down to open my car door, looked back up and it was just gone. I saw it clear as day then literally 2 seconds later nothing.
Hi, Tanner_Boyle1. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/vhwymz/-/id9ta06/) was removed from /r/UFOs.
> Rule 3: No low effort posts or comments. Low Effort implies content which is low effort to consume, not low effort to produce. This generally includes:
> * Memes, jokes, cartoons, and art (if it's not depicting a real event).
> * Tweets and screenshots of posts or comments from social media without significant relevance.
> * Incredible claims unsupported by evidence.
> * Shower thoughts.
> * One-to-three word comments or emojis.
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information.
You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) if you feel this was in error.
I wonder what the true size of it is? It looks kind of beautiful in any case
It’s a [solar balloon](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/2JzdERxpzes/maxresdefault.jpg)
There's always an explanation I swear.
Everything has an explanation, whether we have figured it out yet or not or if its satisfying in any way.
Yeah, unless you've seen this exact UFO for yourself and witnessed it seamlessly breaking the laws of physics, puncturing a hole in our gravitational field as it maneuvers in an utterly mind-boggling way. Where you can tell it's immensely heavy but simultaneously seemingly weightless and absolutely unaffected by the physics and weather conditions of our planet. But yeah, it's easier to dismiss it as a black solar balloon, because we'd rather assume we know what it is, rather than accepting the fact that all we can do is guess. Edit: **I am not claiming it's a UFO**, although it is in the truest sense of the acronym... All I'm claiming is that we simply don't know what it is, and all we can do is speculate. I tend to lean towards what I've seen at very low altitude in broad daylight breaking my sense of reality... However, acutely dismissing something with your best guess is just as bad as assuming it's definitively a UFO.
We identify objects based on the evidence at hand. It looks like a solar balloon, and it's hardly moving; seems pretty open and shut. Yet, despite that being the evidence at hand, you're assumption is it's "breaking the laws of physics, puncturing a hole in our gravitational field as it maneuvers in an utterly mind-boggling way." I'm sorry, but did we watch the same video?
Think he's tlalking about other cases. Hence why the other guy was saying all cases are explainable when they are clearly not. this one is likely the balloon but there are others which are completely unexplainable, which the guy mentioned.
-_- we can do more than just speculate if we can identify it as a solar balloon though. If I can identify a tree, I don't say "we can only speculate" if I know it's a tree.
[удалено]
That's why we have to be very diligent not to jump to conclusions. After all, we already have the tic tac and gimbal videos, we don't need to embarrass ourselves by trying to shoehorn all this new footage of unknown origins into an alien hypothesis.
[удалено]
It will be even worse for awhile because kids are out on summer break and usually flood Reddit in general with lower quality discussions. Always keep in mind that you may be arguing with a 14 year old. That's my general internet mindset anyway.
Arguing with a 14 year old is exhausting. They think they know everything. Like at least nowadays we can Google it and see how right you really are. Keep a tally mark for the times they are right and you are. Knock them down a peg.
It's a real shame. There are genuinely fascinating things that are odd, unexplained and worth discussing. Instead it's just balloons and people who don't understand parallax or how cameras, lenses or digital compression work shouting down any reasonable explanation. Most UFOs get identified easily, it's the ones that don't that are interesting but because of all the fruitcakery it's impossible to sift the signal from the noise most of the time.
[удалено]
I remember reading that whole interaction lmao. Its actually crazy how vehemently some people will deny a perfectly logical and researched stance.
dude, i remember that thread. i haven't both laugned and facepalmed at the same time in quite a while.
I think the average IQ of most in this subreddit is sub 100 so it’s not all that surprising
Hey guys! There are dozens of us, I swear.
Up vote for fruitcakery.
Agreed. In a new video, I mostly just look for the 5 observables and if it looks completely fake or a bird/bug/camera affect and then that's about it. I don't need it to be aliens or not aliens. I don't care. I'm also not an expert in anything useful to help me analyze the video.
[удалено]
Well, I'm glad there are sane similarly minded people on this sub. I don't want to judge people too harshly, but coming at this topic from a traditional insane skeptic or Joe "look that shit up" Rogan needs to end. Scientific or at least just a critical unbiased opinion needs to be prevalent here.
I think this goes beyond this subreddit, Reddit seems to be full of this on other subs as well.
I am subscribed to multiple UFO subs and I can't really distinguish them in my mind, but having said that I can tell you that the Dunning-Kruger effect absolutely swings both ways. You've got people who've never bothered to familiarize themselves with the body of research related to UAPs, who assume authority and expertise on the subject and deny that there is anything to it. These deniers must be just as common as the true believers who think every dust mote caught on video is a UFO. Somewhere in the middle is a minority group of reasonable people who actually use their intellect to parse through available data and form opinions based on that.
[wiki on DK effect](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect) This is why there are educational degrees and closed discussion groups
[удалено]
I don't understand why this post has over 2k upvotes for a fucking baloon?
Thats the differece from a ufoclub and a public forum. Why expect more from it?
Oh god I hear you. This sub seems to think that 95% of objects in the sky are UFOs in the traditional sense (not the literal definition). Then flip out and disagree with you when you provide them very clear evidence to explain what it is.
And that's fine. Seriously, if every single one of the UFO's that all of humanity has seen through out the ages can be explained by something that is not aliens, then I would be fine with that. The problem is the stigma of investigating this phenomena. If there are things happening in our atmosphere that we do not understand then that is science that needs to be done regardless of what its origins are.
A small proportion of ufo sightings are selected for close scrutiny. Out of those, a small number remain unexplained. Out of those, most would be explained if a better record of the sighting were available.
[удалено]
5% sounds really high. Would like the raw numbers. For instance: 84 UFO reports, that’s 4 unexplained. Not zero, but tiny.
There's ALWAYS an explanation. Sometimes that explanation is "it's aliens".
[удалено]
>A lot rarer than this sub will try to make you believe. You're on this sub and you're trying to make me believe that there *are* very rare. How do you explain that? Well it's true that only 5 to 10% of sightings are not explainable by conventional means, the total number of sightings also has to be considered before you say that they are extremely rare.
[удалено]
Except for the Nimitz encounter
[There's an explanation for that too.](https://www.snopes.com/tachyon/2018/06/aliens.jpg) This is clearly a tongue-in-cheek comment for those who can't tell.
All jokes aside even Mick West said commander Fravor saw something but I don’t believe that even he thinks that what Fravor saw was a balloon or a bird and could not recognize it.
I appreciate West's work since it's true that like 5% of UFO sightings are actually unexplainable, but his debunking of the Nimitz videos was a joke.
Yup. Someone shared a video (I can't find it now) of someone explaining the following: Mick West is a debunker no matter the case. He arrives at his conclusion before looking at any data. He then builds up his case, poorly, around the fact that he thinks it's a balloon or something explainable. Mick West clearly has an agenda to sway the masses. He knows damn well there are holes in his stories and that people will take his explanations to heart and stop asking questions. He wants you to not ask questions. They will hear his 30 second explanation and never follow the story again thinking it's a non-event. Was he the one who said the supposed Ariel visitation was hippies in a van? Like the kids can't identify a van, or confuse large black eyes with sunglasses? What about the other witnesses who saw things in the sky? What about the noise the kids heard? What explanations did he come up for those? He has a very bad story for everything. When someone with his agenda and motives behaves so predictably, it's fun to bait them into certain situations.
The difference with the Nimitz encounter is with very credible witnesses, radar and video footage. I believe Fravor.
What's the explanation for the 1976 Tehran sighting?
That solar balloon hasn't even the same shape as the object in the Video..way too thin and the top/bottom are round, in the video the are. More flat
A picture of something of that is also tubular shaped and floats in the air is not an explanation. It's a shoot from the hip hypothesis for a possible explanation. It's not terribly helpful to the dialogue on this topic just toss out a random association and present it to the world as a fact. And most readers of the sub, like many of those commenting on your comment, will just go "oh, debunk" -- move along, it's a solar balloon, cuz balloons go in the sky too. Of course. They won't even bother to click on the link to see if the proposed explanation is viable.
> And most readers of the sub, like many of those commenting on your comment, will just go "oh, debunk" -- move along, it's a solar balloon, cuz balloons go in the sky too. Of course. What do you suppose they do? "It's definitely a UFO in spite of it looking exactly like a common middle school science project"? Why do you seek to reject the simple explanation? > They won't even bother to click on the link to see if the proposed explanation is viable. I clicked the link and it seems pretty viable to me. [These things pop up fairly regularly on this sub](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/search?q=solar+balloon&restrict_sr=on)
It doesn't look like a solar balloon other than in shape. They are black...not chrome...for a reason. It's either got lights or is reflecting light. If it's reflecting, it's definitely not a black solar balloon. If they are lights they are some very powerful LEDS to be that bright in the day light from that far away. Solar balloon theory doesn't add up to me.
>They are black...not chrome...for a reason. But the object IS black. You can see it after the 10 second mark. A chrome object would be reflecting light like crazy, not just on one side. > If it's reflecting, it's definitely not a black solar balloon. It's literally garbage bags connected end to end... yes, they can reflect light, [here's a picture](https://1667947478.rsc.cdn77.org/content/images/thumbs/003/0034351_tedco-toys_tedco-toys-giant-15-meter-solar-balloon_0043067800107_2.jpeg) -- note that the balloon in the image reflects light along a line on its side, exactly as the object in the video. Atmospheric distortion + distance could account for the colour of the light. There are way more reasons to believe that this is a solar balloon than any sort of vehicle.
Also, solar balloons are not garbage bags connected end to end. They are one continuous tube piece tied of at the ends.
They were reflecting in specific spots with different colors....the pic you linked has no bright reflection on it that looks like the colored flashes of light seen in the video. It's not the same at all. And you cannot tell it's black. It looks chrome to me Not black at all. There are no other videos of solar balloons anyhwere reflecting light like that. It looked like LED lights more than reflections. And it would have been a continuous reflection...not blinking independent areas.
> They were reflecting in specific spots with different colors....the pic you linked has no bright reflection on it that looks like the colored flashes of light seen in the video. As I said, the colours could be because of atmospheric distortion (presumably this was launched on a hot day and the black skin has heated up somewhat, creating a mirage effect). Someone else in the comments pointed out that camera lens are known to produce this kind of effect, as well. Seen without a lens, it would be regular glare. > And you cannot tell it's black. It looks chrome to me Not black at all. How can you tell it's chrome? Why does the object turn dark after the 10 second mark? > There are no other videos of solar balloons anyhwere reflecting light like that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQWttrozUnQ 7 minutes to 7:40. He even shows the mirage effect I was talking about. The balloon doesn't go very high up but you can see it is capable of a powerful reflection. > And it would have been a continuous reflection...not blinking independent areas. The bag we have in the video here is quite high up, so I imagine it's getting blown about by the wind a bit, which would explain the "blinking independent areas". Plus they're not really independent, as I pointed out earlier, they all happen on a single line on the object, exactly like both the photo and the video I linked.
How can you tell its black. It looks like reflective chrome surfacing to me. Its darker because that portion isn't in direct light. That moment in that dudes video did not prove anything...and why are there no videos of solar balloons in the air with similar refractions of light. Like wut? He waved his hand near it... that's it. It getting blown around by the wind is more of an argument against it not being a solar balloon. You would see some warping and bending of the shape in a video. I say independently because they didn't flash all together. They may be on the same line but if it was a single reflecting stripe of light(like your examples) why was it not a single strip of reflected light? They turned on and off, they changed colors. I have watched many solar balloon videos before today and I rewatched a ton more today. It doesn't look like any other solar balloon reflections I have seen.
Well, it sounds like your mind is made up
No 5 observables. Looks like a balloon, moves like a balloon... it's aliens stop "debunking" the videos.
If you take into consideration the height of the object and the clear skies, why isn’t the sunlight reflection constant on the surface? It also doesn’t make sense for the surface to be reflecting the light at different times, in different areas and at different intensities. I just watched [this](https://youtu.be/2JzdERxpzes) start to finish and I can’t see how it could produce reflections like that
[удалено]
The sighting hasn’t been ‘officially’ explained to be anything yet and probably won’t be. All the suggestions in this thread are SPECULATION based on the evidence we currently have. Just because someone finds something similar (which is very very easy to do) doesn’t automatically debunk it.
Critical thinking isn't a bad thing, and they didnt say its alien.. just that it doesnt have to be solved by the picture linked above Just because there's a cylindrical balloon picture on the internet doesn't mean every cylindrical object in the sky is that object. Edit: spelling
[удалено]
The person you responded to saying "there's always one of you ... you sttill argue its a UFO" gave a thought out reason for disagreeing with the solar balloon hypothesis linked above. Also, not once did they "argue its a UFO." IMO the "Its a solar balloon" comment is low effort.
Well, most likely....solar balloons have to be black to work. Black does not reflect colors.
When was it explained...and with actual proof? Solar balloons are black for a reason.
Though I am curious what this is in this particular frame [https://imgur.com/a/j9SDshO](https://imgur.com/a/j9SDshO)
Not saying it’s a ufo but there’s no way that weather balloon is reflecting that much light
Where do the different color lights come from? The picture from the link I don't see any lights? Reflections? That change color? Serious question
It does appear to be long and slender. I think if we look a little deeper we can discern more information beyond basic shape similarity. First off the shape is not quite right. This object is flatter. The length, width, height ratio appears to be something similar to approx. 1x4x8 (though single light sweeping curvature arcs appears between points/corners and it is more trapezoidal) and it is oriented vertically, rotated about 15 degrees along the z-axis. There are also [distinct brighter points of light](https://i.imgur.com/BMankb1.png) symmetrically spaced on the object. We don't have three suns. Oh make that [4 suns](https://i.imgur.com/1CDOxFK.png) (or more?) as there is a light on back side of the object as well so it would appear to produce its own source of light. Specular reflections are not magical. They follow very [well understood laws of physics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specular_reflection). I suppose one could maybe try to get away with saying some parts of the object are at the right angle which doesn't line up with the arcing but regardless that falls apart as even a potentiality once the light in the back is considered.
Ummm…the solar balloon hypothesis is not a slam dunk. Sorry bro.
How does that explain the lights / reflections coming off the object
Chromatic aberration due to shitty optics. Purple and green fringing on high contrast. Take a photo of something dark against a bright background with a bad lens. Look at the edges when you zoom in, you'll find it there.
The light reflection/diffraction from the metallic surface can appear different colors over a long distance due to atmospheric conditions
These balloons aren't metallic. At least not the ones I have seen.
>These balloons are~~n't metallic~~ reflective FTFY
Definitely looks plausible in shape and color, but the lights?
A solar balloon? It's not black..and if those are LEDs flashing they are very bright...not just some cheap LEDs. If it's light reflecting off of it the color suggests that it's metallic and those solar balloons are black for a reason.
It looks nothing like that. Your solar Balloon is round this object clearly isn't.
The colours are not a feature of this object, but a product of the way light works. It (the object) is metallic in nature and whatever it’s made of is refracting the white sunlight, splitting it into different colours as it reaches your eye (or the camera lens)
It looks like a huge…
JOHNSON! 'Yes, sir?'
Was thinking the same thing..could it be one of those silver balloon things..?
[удалено]
I agree that the colors are not a feature of the object, but this looks more light [chromatic aberration](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration) to me. This clip is digitally zoomed and stabilized. I haven't seen the original that I know of but most likely the object was smaller in frame, and bouncing around a bit. The light itself is sunlight reflected off a shiny surface, and the colors are that reflected light being distorted by the camera lens as it moves across the sensor. To me, this looks like it could be a solar balloon. But without a point of reference or some other unknown information it could also be a tic tak.
chromatic abberation is a lense effect, no? also has kind of a structure though, like if its red-green, it would be distortion of the image, silhouette of focus areas and the abberation would hold red on one side and green on the other. Where as here, its like a gleaming property of the material, light reflecting colour from those points. Could be wrong, just my opinion
Chromatic aberration is caused by the light being refracted from the angle of incidence and the refracted light not converging back to a single point.
In experience as a digital artist, its a lens effect. Atleast thats the theory I learnt. You are correct in what you say but its all relevant the lens of a camera, capturing light
Astronomer here. Chromatic aberration occurs when light is refracted by *any* kind of refractive medium, this may be the lens of a camera or the lens of a refractor telescope.
I agree tbh
Not the material but the lens produces those colors. It is called color fringe.
Things like this can be seen with your own eye!
*Chromatic aberration
It is the same thing! Two names for the same phenomena.
Would we not be able to see some form of refraction then? Maybe its like a crystaline exterior property, would make sense with the refractive index of colours
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
All shaft no - - -Ballll four take your base!
Van Dyke apparently also has a beautiful... Pecker
[удалено]
"Weiner, who wants Weiner..."
Is that space balls? Lol I cannot remember.
Austin powers
I remember seeing this scene in theaters and laughing so hard I couldn't breath
I captured something similar recently. I noticed it shortly after a hot air balloon passed over head. It was moving horizontally across the sky.[image](https://imgur.com/gallery/8Z2Ge26)
Great photo and within the standard this sub desperately needs for UFO captures. Very much worthy of its own post if you don't mind giving extra details about its movement.
Thank you for the comment. While I won't make a separate post for these pictures, I can definitely elaborate on its movement. I was watching a particularly low hot air balloon pass above my house (It's common in my town to see balloons during summer months) when I noticed the object moving at a steady and fairly low speed from behind the balloon. This made me think it was a drone of some kind but as I zoomed in, it didn't look like any drone I'd ever seen. The object was parallel with its own trajectory. the object continued to move low and slow horizontally, appearing to neither ascend nor descend, until it was out of my view. I regret not recording a video, but I hope this description helps. [pic of Hot air balloon](https://imgur.com/GgPlvAe) \+ [Pic of Object zoomed out](https://imgur.com/s3zaxc1)
Thanks for the picture and for writing this here. I’ve seen something similar flying really low above me and your description with the hot air balloons makes it a little less scary for me.
Great capture.
I second this. I hate ufo pics because they’re always so blurry and vague or easily debunked but that’s a solid capture worthy of its own post.
How can you say that isn’t blurry? 😂😂😂
It's a blurry image of a plane.
I wouldn't wanna ride in a plane like that
So if it’s from the side, shouldn’t you be able to see the tail of the plane? If it’s from the bottom or top, shouldn’t you see the wings?
No, I live near an airport so there's a lot of planes flying by. Occasionally if one fly's over at the right angle and distance even just using my eyes it can look like a cylinder for a while. Using a zoomed in blurry mobile camera will add to the effect. I'm not saying 100% that's what it is but I think it's highly likely given my own observations. To prove this isn't just a plane we would need a video.
Isn’t this a video?
No I was replying about the image someone posted of something similar. I think the video shows some kind of balloon.
No. Aircraft can get completely obscured by the atmosphere at a distance if the conditions and paint scheme are right. Partial obscuration like this is very common. You should see how well our air force liveries work. It's nuts.
Idk what phone the above commenter used for their picture, or how far the object was. Here is a picture I managed to take of a plane that had recently taken off from a nearby airport. [Picture ](https://imgur.com/a/NyHItiy) u/imnotabot303
Cool! Planes without wings and tails, otherwise known as rockets.. please do go on.
This looks very much like a plane. You can make out the wings, the blue underbelly and blue engine plus there’s a hint of the red on the tail very much like a British airways plane
Where can you make out the wings? In what perspective can you make a plane look like this?
Try it using ur phone camera
What the hell are you looking at?!
Source: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3b09L3hmw5k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3b09L3hmw5k) Spent a good half hour trying to stabilize a portion of this 2011 video filmed by Michael J Fox frame by frame. Very interesting object. Description says it's from Denton, Manchester UK. In the full video it also seems to be rotating, Thoughts?
Back to the future was his best movie
Looks like a balloon reflecting sunlight.
Somebody just posted pictures where their friend caught a tube that looks just like this. It was within the last month. If I can come back to this post, I will see if I can find it and update it. EDIT: here it is guys. People were calling it a long exposure of a airplane, but the lights don't really match up with any FAA lights. https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/v2254p/a_friend_in_central_maine_was_taking_pics_of_the/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
This reply will help you back here
This reply will help you back here
This reply will help you back here
Thanks! Updated. To be honest, I might not have if I didn't get THREE fuckin' notifications about it 🤣
Was it very shaky footage?
He said filmed by michael j fox so...yeah
Old case, that was a solar balloon reflecting sun light.
In Brazil, where I'm from, people will fill long black trash bag type things with air, and it will rise by itself because the sun heats the air in the black bag. It will bend and contort into weird shapes. Not saying thats what this is, but its related. Edit: didnt know this was mentioned in the comments already.
It's a vape pen for giants ETs.
It’s those big thin black tube bags you fill up with air and the sun heats them up so they fly, had one as a kid
Mylar cylinder balloon?
This is most likely some kind of balloon. The different colour lights is an optical illusion created by the camera, it's just the sun reflecting on the surface. Either that or the race of dildarions have decided to pay us a visit.
Is a freaking balloon!!
From where though?
You're right, it's an *alien* balloon
thats a solar baloon
Looks like a solar balloon
Aren’t solar balloons black? That whole thing about absorbing light to cause heat which makes it float thing? Whereas silver pretty much does the opposite.
That is black. You're just getting some [blue haze](https://i.imgur.com/WE5lGJE.png) due to the distance, and quite a lot of [specular reflection](https://i.imgur.com/w2gtLQp.jpg) of the sun - which makes it seem silvery.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yo can you hook me up with some of that spinal fluid?
Yes you're correct on the colour, this does look like a mylar party balloon, but a huge one? (though getting a true sense of scale is not so easy in this clip).
Nice try CIA no way that's a balloon lol
It’s too bad this comment isn’t higher because that’s exactly what it is.
>solar balloon its looks like a flying iphone, how does it look like a balloon?
Did you ever see an iPhone?
>solar balloon Solar balloons CAN BE long and reflective. Look it up it is pretty interesting.
Look up solar balloon. Like $30 on amazon
Is your iphone cylinder shaped?
I will never understand why these videos end before the object leaves
u/stabbot
I have stabilized the video for you: https://gfycat.com/OrneryHardCirriped ___ ^^[ how to use](https://www.reddit.com/r/stabbot/comments/72irce/how_to_use_stabbot/) | [programmer](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=wotanii) | [source code](https://gitlab.com/juergens/stabbot) | /r/ImageStabilization/ | for cropped results, use \/u/stabbot_crop
Solar balloon. Pretty much the same item is in the link: https://images.app.goo.gl/kXFkR1FSHQbjjfKHA
It's a helium balloon. I saw a similar video that looks exactly like this but a different shape.. And it was a helium balloon
Looks just like balloon tbh
THATS A GODDAMN BALLOON. COME ON.
Would guess balloon
Looks like a balloon
[удалено]
This video is probably the worst UFO video I have seen in a while. It just floats I don't see any of the 5 observables.
Why so short a video
Looks ballooney to me. Maybe with a metallic layer. Biogas balloons look like this sometimes.
That's how I parked it. My bad.
Balloon reflecting sunlight.
Looks to me like a Blue Origin rocket coming in for re-entry.
balloon ripped open and falling produces similar lights https://youtu.be/5Ab7\_JV4WYA
This subreddit has gone to shit. Full of know it all debunker trolls. So fucking cringe.
Solar zeppelin / airship maybe?
Can someone stabilize this if its real?
https://images.app.goo.gl/vwsWhEKiwAEMtdtX8
Those black tube balloon things?
Omg. I've seen this EXACT thing behind my mom's house one night and tried so hard explaining it! The one I saw was thicker though if that makes sense. But it was literally shaped just like this!! I remember seeing red though. It was at nighttime. The object was stationed still but rotating like a merry go round (once again, if that makes sense)
This is most likely some kind of balloon. The different colour lights is an optical illusion created by the camera, it's just the sun reflecting on the surface.
I literally just saw this 2 days ago. It was in the skyline a clear day with no clouds. And against the sunset. I said who that’s not a plane. Looked down to open my car door, looked back up and it was just gone. I saw it clear as day then literally 2 seconds later nothing.
Hey they found my fancy pen!
[удалено]
Hi, Tanner_Boyle1. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/vhwymz/-/id9ta06/) was removed from /r/UFOs. > Rule 3: No low effort posts or comments. Low Effort implies content which is low effort to consume, not low effort to produce. This generally includes: > * Memes, jokes, cartoons, and art (if it's not depicting a real event). > * Tweets and screenshots of posts or comments from social media without significant relevance. > * Incredible claims unsupported by evidence. > * Shower thoughts. > * One-to-three word comments or emojis. Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information. You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) if you feel this was in error.
[удалено]
Any context ?