Drone and orb over Phoenix, Arizona

Sure, but if a chunk of the heavier (or I guess "more dense") fuel block fell off, without the envelope of warm-but-cooling air your example had, it would fall fast. And be on fire, making for a falling light.
It seems more probable that the falling object is something that is already existing in the scene (the drone),
instead of something that must be imagined or theorized to be existing in the scene.
Not sure if you are replying to me, but there is no need to imagine there is the orange light there, the right color to be a Chinese fire balloon. They have solid blocks of fuel that can be knocked free, sometimes they even just fall off. Yeah, the drone is there, if it is a drone. So is the other object, the likely fire balloon. Something falls off of one of them, or the "drone" falls in totality. Looks more like the former to me, but I'd agree that it MIGHT be either (in an imagined theoretical way, maybe!) ;)

Do you think so? I try not to give in to conspiracy theories.
I don't think suspecting that a on-line video that is posted with a click-baity title claiming to be aliens, and which cuts before it might have been possible to see that it was not, in fact, aliens, has been edited that way on purpose. If for no other reason than a conspiracy generally involves more people...
 
...pretty much every time.
Tiktokification of society, shorter attention spans.

The woman who uploaded it looks like this type of thing is completely out of the ordinary for her typical content, I am inclined to believe her mom actually sent her this video.

I remain curious about the other aircraft in the sky, and the circumstances behind this sighting. The woman filming it seems surprised.

Could this thing be much larger than a lantern? At 0:20 I see the other aircraft near it, perhaps it is as large or larger than it. How could we know for sure?
 
I just saw a video of hundreds of drones falling during a drone show in China. I was surprised by how quickly they fall. I guess I thought there might be autorotation that would slow the fall, but they just kind of tumble down haphazardly.
A typical quadcopter's rotors don't cover as much area proportionally as a traditional helicopter's rotor. Also, without power, you have to fight the magnets of the brushless motors they use. It's not a huge force, but it's enough to keep them from turning freely without a lot of wind.
 
Screenshot at 0:15

craft.png


I wonder what kind of aircraft we are dealing with here, and what its doing near the orb. I see two navigational lights on it. How could we possibly know its size? It could be small, it could also be very large no?
 
Don't know if it helps you folks but here's the frame where the approaching red/green thing goes out of focus briefly, compared with the falling object also out of focus. When bright point lights are defocussed it can reveal their true colour more accurately because the energy is distributed over a wider area of the sensor and therefore doesn't overload it and clip to white or some other inaccurate colour.

I think it's fair to say the falling object is far more similar to the 'attacker' than it is to the 'defender' and looks more like LED red than orange flame.
Screenshot 2024-12-16 at 22.57.41.png
Screenshot 2024-12-15 at 22.24.41.png
 
At 0:20 I see the other aircraft near it,
you do not know the distance, so you should not claim it is "near"

the aircraft has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the scene, please do not try to manufacture mystery where there is none
 
you do not know the distance, so you should not claim it is "near"
This is why I used the words I, and see. Because.. I do! Lol.

Near is a word that cannot be quantified, otherwise known as a subjective term.

To me "I". I see it as near, because they share the same scene.
 
I think to say that this aircraft is unrelated to the scene requires some solid proof. And not the other way around.

I believe the burden of proof to be on the one who says the aircraft is unrelated.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Some models of drone will shut down if they are flipped over. Here's a video showing that in action. Though it doesn't seem to happen in this case it stands to reason that some drones may change the lights to red in such a circumstance.

This explains to me what didn't seem obvious at first - how could a drone take on a lantern and lose? In the OP's video it looks to me like the lantern gets sucked down onto the drone's rotors. If the lantern wire fouled one of the rotors that could flip the drone and shut it down.

 
wrong thread?
No, just pointing out that "in the same scene" does not really imply "near each other." Or perhaps it is a language issue? Perhaps you are meaning "near the same line of sight" rather than "in close proximity?" But in that case, the plane has nothing to do with the drone and fire-balloon (assuming that's what they are) as it is not "near" them in terms of occupying the same general space and able to interact with them -- it is much further away, though by chance it is close to the same line of sight.
 
I think to say that this aircraft is unrelated to the scene requires some solid proof. And not the other way around.

I believe the burden of proof to be on the one who says the aircraft is unrelated.

First there should be something to suggest the aircraft is in any way interacting with the 2 objects. There does not appear to be the case. Even if it's an aircraft the size of a small Cessna 172 or other small private aircraft and therefor closer to the 2 objects it still doesn't seem to be involved with them in any way in the short video clip we have.

If it's something much larger, perhaps an airliner heading into Sky Harbor (PHX) it would definitely be off in the distance. We don't know because there is little to no additional information concerning the video other than "My mom took this video" and the title "Aliens over Phoenix".

Here is a screen shot of the greater Phoenix metroplex with PHX in the center. There are aircraft all over the place:

1734401479423.png

https://www.flightaware.com/

As we have no idea where this video was taken or where the person was looking, it's likely the aircraft is just a random aircraft on the horizon unless someone can show an interaction between it and the 2 objects.
 
I wonder what kind of aircraft we are dealing with here, and what its doing near the orb. I see two navigational lights on it. How could we possibly know its size? It could be small, it could also be very large no?
This is pure speculation on my part, but regardless of the size of the aircraft, based on the speed we see the drone move we can estimate a distance and if a plane were at such distance, it would be way more visible. I don't think the plane is at all near the orb.

I'm not going to do the math on it, just how it looks like to me.

I think to say that this aircraft is unrelated to the scene requires some solid proof. And not the other way around.

I believe the burden of proof to be on the one who says the aircraft is unrelated.

The plane shows no sign of interacting or reacting to anything the drone or orb are doing, it even seems to be moving away from it based on how it seems to be getting lower on the horizon. If you share what in particular makes you think the plane is related, then it would be easier to see your point of view.
 
Yea norcal I hear you, and I can agree with anyone who has the nuts to say "we dont know". Thats why Im privileged to boldy say the stupid things everyone else knows better than :)
 
Calter I just still wonder what the heck is going on in the video period. I dont mean to make this all about the (third) visibly airborn object in the scene. it just wasnt even being mentioned.

Ive never seen something like this before..

Tell me drones arent being slapped out of the sky by orbs..

They already say they disable nukes, i mean gee wizz! Lol.
 
Yea norcal I hear you, and I can agree with anyone who has the nuts to say "we dont know". Thats why Im privileged to boldy say the stupid things everyone else knows better than :)

I assume your replying to me. As I just posted in another thread, best practice is to use the "reply" button or at least the "@" feature to keep things clear for us all. Using the "@" in front of a member alerts them that you're mentioning them, like this @substantials.

You can also hit the "reply" button on the post you're replying too:

1734404819483.png


That way everyone knows who you're talking too.
 
No dude you whipped out a picture of the "cathedral in ulm" to pick apart semantics is all. lol.
Now I am really confused -- it is not "just semantics," if you are claiming that two things in the same image are near each other, that is just wrong, as the cathedral picture shows. But THAT is so obvious, I wondered if it might have been a language issue, as I don't believe for a moment that you don't know that things can be in the same picture and not be anywhere near each other! But I extended you the courtesy of exploring the language option instead of wondering if you were just messing with us. So...

You DO understand that objects in the same picture are not necessarily near each other? If so, then you understand that the plane need not be anywhere near the other objects, right? I'm struggling to understand your position! It is not mandatory that I can understand, of course! ^_^ But I'd like to.
 
I think it's fair to say the falling object is far more similar to the 'attacker' than it is to the 'defender' and looks more like LED red than orange flame.
If the propellers get stopped on a quadcopter that can easily down it. It can flip or hit an angle it can't recover from. I had this happen once when my drone went into an unexpected automated emergency landing too close to some tree branches. The battery was draining faster than anticipated due to the extreme cold temps and wind, and it decided it needed to land immediately, and that happened to be in a very bad spot. Hit a branch and fell like a rock to the ground.
 
Calter I just still wonder what the heck is going on in the video period. I dont mean to make this all about the (third) visibly airborn object in the scene. it just wasnt even being mentioned.
I did mention at the start of the thread that the plane seems completely unrelated, and with nobody pointing out that claim (outside of you), I assume others agree.
It shows what looks to be a drone (based on the maneuverability) approaching an "orange orb" (could be a sky lantern but it seems too static for me, could also be a bigger drone but orange is an odd color). There's also a plane (two white dots) in the video but it seems completely unrelated.

I provided my reasons for thinking why it's not near, it would be useful to hear arguments for why you think it is.
I'm just curious as to what makes you think the plane is near the drone/orb, since to me they really don't look close at all (but gauging perspective of things in the sky can be very tricky and I could be wrong).


Ive never seen something like this before..
Neither have, though the drone does look remarkably like a drone and the orb looks like a sky lantern.
1734409873874.png


Tell me drones arent being slapped out of the sky by orbs..

They already say they disable nukes, i mean gee wizz! Lol.
People say a lot of things about orbs, I've never heard any story about taking them things down by headbutting them though.

I get the feeling you are just throwing ideas out there, but the way discussions work in this forum, it's generally better to either be more open ended about what you think ("Is the plane near the orb?" rather than "Why is the plane near the orb?") or be willing to provide your arguments when questioned about your statements

Making a statement and then deflecting instead of providing your reasoning will probably be met with frustration.
 
"Near" can mean that it is appears fairly close to another object in a 2D image that we are looking at.

"Near" can also mean that, in 3D, in real life, the two objects actually are close to each other.

Let's remember to give each other the benefit of the doubt & interpret words generously. It's the MB way. ;)
 
"Near" can mean that it is appears fairly close to another object in a 2D image that we are looking at.

"Near" can also mean that, in 3D, in real life, the two objects actually are close to each other.
the point is that the 2D "near" doesn't (by itself) support the notion that the entities are even aware of each other, as @JMartJr's "moon and cathedral" illustrates—the 2D nearness can result by chance from the position of the observer.

I wonder what kind of aircraft we are dealing with here, and what its doing near the orb.
the probable assumption is that the aircraft (which is not seen to maneuver) is flying from point A to point B, none of which are in the shot.
there is no evidence that there's anything special about this aircraft, nor does the video clip come with enough detail or data to allow us to identify it.
This means that there's absolutely nothing unusual about this aircraft that is randomly included in the shot, and while we can't identify it, there's nothing unexplainable or mysterious about its behaviour, nor any indication that it's at all related to the "drone and orb" narrative. This narrative is already highly speculative because the clip offers very little detail. It does not help the discussion to introduce even more speculation with even less evidence to support it. (Unless your aim is to manufacture mystery.)
 
"Near" can mean that it is appears fairly close to another object in a 2D image that we are looking at.

"Near" can also mean that, in 3D, in real life, the two objects actually are close to each other.

Let's remember to give each other the benefit of the doubt & interpret words generously. It's the MB way. ;)
While that's true,
I think to say that this aircraft is unrelated to the scene requires some solid proof. And not the other way around.

I believe the burden of proof to be on the one who says the aircraft is unrelated.
this quote heavily implies that they think the aircraft is related somehow, so I don't think it's a big leap to say that they think the aircraft is near in real life.
 
Good morning! :) My detailed replies are being reported and removed. To everyone who is trying to have a conversation with me, looks like I will be.. unable to continue participation in this thread. I know it is rude of me to just leave but I haven't a choice.

I think you will be better off without me in this thread btw! A consensus can be reached much easier I believe.
 
Last edited:
Good morning! :) My detailed replies are being reported and removed. To everyone who is trying to have a conversation with me, looks like I will be.. unable to continue participation in this thread. I know it is rude of me to just leave but I haven't a choice.
Your choice is to comply with Metabunk policies. You can review them under the "Info" tab in the nav bar.

Your reply following post #52 was not detailed, and having seen it, I understand why it was removed. It did not add to the discussion.

I did not catch your recent post (above post #63). You will have received a copy of it in your DMs, so you're free to edit it to comply with our guidelines, and repost it.
I think you will be better off without me in this thread btw!
If you are not willing to abide by our policies, I'd agree.
A consensus can be reached much easier I believe.
We are under no obligation to reach a consensus.
 
@Mendel Well said, someone should make you a moderator. I think you would be great at it.
I was trying to provide some context to your public complaint, since we've had a number of new members join us recently, who might be unaware of how Metabunk operates. (I post too much to be a useful moderator here.)
I had better not say anything else, I might be pushing my luck right now.
Feel free to DM me if you'd like my opinion on how to edit your posts to comply with policy.
 
"Near" can mean that it is appears fairly close to another object in a 2D image that we are looking at.

"Near" can also mean that, in 3D, in real life, the two objects actually are close to each other.

Let's remember to give each other the benefit of the doubt & interpret words generously. It's the MB way. ;)

the point is that the 2D "near" doesn't (by itself) support the notion that the entities are even aware of each other, as @JMartJr's "moon and cathedral" illustrates—the 2D nearness can result by chance from the position of the observer.
Which is why I wanted to clarify what was meant. I know I have posted things here that were ambiguous, I suspect we all have. It's no sin -- but it will often lead to attempts to clarify., since we want to understand each other as we try to understand what's going on in the case being discussed. I'd still like to understand. @substantials , this is not a slap at you, if it came across that way then I apologize that I didn't make MY intent and meaning more clear.
 
I still am unsure why anyone would destroy their drone by dive bombing it into a lantern like that.
Doesn't look like so much of a dive bombing, more like trying to bump it. The dive was a result of losing propulsion, maybe a damaged propeller.
 
Doesn't look like so much of a dive bombing, more like trying to bump it. The dive was a result of losing propulsion, maybe a damaged propeller.
With many hobby drones under the control of immature thrill-seekers, it would not surprise me at all if aerial "drone wars" are a thing.
 
With many hobby drones under the control of immature thrill-seekers, it would not surprise me at all if aerial "drone wars" are a thing.
You might want to work that idea up and sell it as a TV series, similar to the ones where people build and fight robots in an arena.

battlebots-abc-science-channel.jpg
 
Last edited:
You might want to work that idea up and sell it as a TV series, similar to the ones where people build and fight robots in an arena.

View attachment 74948
Ah, that was one of ghost raptor's finer moments:
180


But don't forget the moment it became an accidental multi-bot:
180

(larger detail of the aftermath here: https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/b...balt_KO.png/revision/latest?cb=20220218145130 )

Commercial interests, rather than mechanical damage, have almost killed the heavy-weight sport as seen above. Fortunately, a benevolent billionaire is keeping the 3lb, 12lb and 30lb classes more lively than ever: https://www.nhrl.io/ . I'm slowly working my way last week's finals (13 hours of footage), and the number of "wow!"s, expletives, and just plain silence I've been reduced to is impressive. (GSCRL is a good intro series, many of the top 3lb bots from NJ make it into NHRL, and many of the more-willing-to-travel top 3lb bots from NHRL will visit the NJ competitions. Texas has a pretty lively scene too. I rarely have to go longer than a month without some full-day event being uploaded to youtube. Production values vary, alas, but that's because production costs money, and most of the scene are volunteers.)
 
Back
Top