The Morristown UFO hoax
Red lights over New Jersey in 2009 drew police, news crews and a television investigation. Two men had tied road flares to helium balloons, five times, and were recording the response as an experiment.
Why this verdict
Confirmed by the confession of the two men who did it, published with photographs and method, and by their prosecution — they had set out to demonstrate how UFO evidence is produced and documented themselves doing it.
- Period
- Region
- Reading time
- Sources
01The claim
That a formation of unexplained red lights observed over Morristown, New Jersey on five nights in January and February 2009 was an anomalous aerial phenomenon, as reported by witnesses, local news and a cable television investigation.
02Where it came from
Chris Russo and Joe Rudy were sceptics who wanted to test a specific proposition: that UFO investigation would accept ordinary evidence uncritically if it arrived in the right form. They bought road flares and helium balloons, released them in formation from a field, and repeated it on five separate nights, varying the pattern.
03What the record shows
✓ CONFIRMED — It happened. The documents exist.
The two men documented their own operation as they ran it — photographs of the preparation, notes on each release, and a record of the response — and published the account in Skeptic magazine in April 2009 under the title 'How to Hoax a UFO'.
The response they recorded is the substance of the entry. Local and national news covered the sightings. Witnesses described craft rather than lights, some reporting structure and silent movement. A History Channel programme investigated and, on air, treated the sightings as unexplained; its analysts discussed and rejected the flare hypothesis among others.
The police response was real and is why the pair were prosecuted: they pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct for the hazard created by lit flares under helium balloons, and were fined and ordered to pay costs. They did not contest it.
The experiment has an obvious objection, which is that demonstrating that one sighting can be manufactured says nothing about any other sighting. That objection is correct and this entry does not overreach: nothing here bears on the residual military sensor cases documented separately in this archive. What the case does establish, with unusual rigour because the hoaxers kept records, is the reliability of a specific evidentiary chain — witness description, local reporting, televised expert analysis — which produced a confident conclusion of anomaly from five road flares.
04What it cost
Minor, and mostly reputational for the programme involved. The case has become a standard teaching example in how eyewitness description degrades: witnesses who saw lights described craft, and the descriptions became more detailed and more structured as the coverage continued. It also sits usefully against the Roswell entry, where a genuinely classified programme produced the same effect without anyone intending to.