Best evidence for ET visitation - 3rd edition

[booNyzarC]

Hey Pericynthion,

Yeah, running the numbers with K's position @ 26 miles from the Mountains and at 77 miles from the lights then I get ~208 mph. However, if this also means K's position is 4 miles closer to the lights as well then @ 73 miles I calculate 197.4 mph. Which again this is the minimum Air speed needed if Flying perpendicular to the camera to cover the angular distance of 1.377 degrees. Therefore if I revise my original estimates of true Air speed up this much then I estimate something around 214 mph - 244 mph. However that may be somewhat unconvincing as a guess so the true Airspeed depends on the angular offset from perpendicular to the camera that the Aircraft was flying so then @ 15,20,25 degrees offset I get 204.3 mph, 210 mph, and 217 mph respectively. At 30 degrees 227.9 mph and at 35 degrees 240 mph.

So we are definately in close agreement using K's revised position.

Just to clarify LS, the difference in distance from K to the mountains doesn't impact the triangulation positioning of the final light at ~77 miles. Peri's revised distance to the mountains (I believe) stemmed from his looking up K's actual address. My 30 mile estimation was from eyeballing the map and using Maccabee's positioning descriptions, Peri was far more precise by looking for the guys actual address.

Still, awesome calculations. I've decided that I need to learn how to make these kinds of calculations. My brain hurts from the study, but it is doing me some good I think.

[lost_shaman]

booN said:

Just to clarify LS, the difference in distance from K to the mountains doesn't impact the triangulation positioning of the final light at ~77 miles. Peri's revised distance to the mountains (I believe) stemmed from his looking up K's actual address. My 30 mile estimation was from eyeballing the map and using Maccabee's positioning descriptions, Peri was far more precise by looking for the guys actual address.

Hey booN,

BM estimates K's distance to be between 71 - 77 miles, after that he just uses the higher number, but 73 miles is still nicely tucked into his range estimate.

But if you want to know the offset angle to speed range @ 77 miles is 215.6 mph @ 15 degrees and 254.2 mph at 35 degrees.

Edited April 21, 2011 by lost_shaman

[booNyzarC]

Do you even know why I posted the link of the Chicago skyline from 50 miles? I guess you didn't. You know, there is this tihing about skeptics falling into traps because they don't do their home right and here is yet another example.

A bit difficult when at the time that video was taken, the A-10s were stilling on the ground at DMAFB. Ever wondered why the Air Force initially denied its involvment in the "Phoenix Lights" involvment?

If you don't know the rest of the story,, then it is time to take a seat and watch the action on the sideline. Seems. you have never seen real flares in real life. If you are going to post in a debate, for goodness, sake, at least understand what it is, that you are posting about.

Why did I post that Chicago skyline from 50 miles away? And,

How long would it take a flare, that suspended from a parchute, to fall 1400 feet?

Oh, you edited. I suppose I should have waited...

Let's hear it skyeagle. What is your latest bit of drivel going to consist of?

Edit:

But to answer your question... the LUU2B flares which were dropped that night have a descent rate of roughly 8.3 feet per second, so if we were to take an average estimate it would take about 168.67 seconds to drop 1400 feet, or about 2.8 minutes.

Considering that this estimate can have some variation, it may take a little more or a little less time. How long was it between the appearance of the lights in the K video and their disappearance? Well, I didn't clock them all, just the last light.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdIdDpJYSOM&feature=player_embedded

It appeared at about :48 seconds and disappeared at about 2:49. So about 2 minutes of camera time. Would make sense when you consider that the flare dropped for some distance before the parachute would have deployed.

Your point?

Edited April 21, 2011 by booNyzarC

[skyeagle409]

I should add that the 180 mph figure represents the shortest path @ 77 miles needed to cover the 1.19 degrees cited. The video, if an A-10 dropping flares, shows the flight path was not perpendicular to the video camera. So 180 mph is the minimum Air speed needed and the true Air speed this Angle represents likely falls into a range of maybe around 190 mph - 220 mph.

At 50 miles, and if we are using the distance scale between the two outermost lights, there is no way that an aircraft would be traveling anywhere near 180-220 mph when the time factor is used.

Edited April 21, 2011 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Wow... you didn't even read what he wrote there did you? And if you did, you certainly didn't appear to understand it.

I read what you posted and noted your mistake when you posted:

"The video, if an A-10 dropping flares, shows the flight path was not perpendicular to the video camera. So 180 mph is the minimum Air speed needed and the true Air speed this Angle represents likely falls into a range of maybe around 190 mph - 220 mph."

Do you even know why? Your mistake is very evident and significant.

Edited April 21, 2011 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Oh, you edited. I suppose I should have waited...

Let's hear it skyeagle. What is your latest bit of drivel going to consist of?

Edit:

But to answer your question... the LUU2B flares which were dropped that night have a descent rate of roughly 8.3 feet per second, so if we were to take an average estimate it would take about 168.67 seconds to drop 1400 feet, or about 2.8 minutes.

Considering that this estimate can have some variation, it may take a little more or a little less time. How long was it between the appearance of the lights in the K video and their disappearance? Well, I didn't clock them all, just the last light.

http://www.youtube.c...player_embedded

It appeared at about :48 seconds and disappeared at about 2:49. So about 2 minutes of camera time. Would make sense when you consider that the flare dropped for some distance before the parachute would have deployed.

Your point?

You can post all you want about the LUU2B flares, but at this point, you are trying to throw away the laws of physics. Do you know why? Use the time/distance method at 50 miles, and you will find that there is no way those lights are falling at the rate of speed of flares more than 50 miles away,and once again, use the reference scale in regards to the Chicago skyline.Yo u will find that hardly any movement would be noticed from that distance and yet, look at the rate of movement in regards to the "Phoenix Lights."

How long would it take a suspended flare to fall 1400 feet? You skeptics are completely missing the point in regards to time/distance factor , and range distances and it seems that none of you have even figured it out, so I am giving you a hint of the rate of movement of 1400 feet from 50 miles away.

Edited April 21, 2011 by skyeagle409

[booNyzarC]

At 50 miles, and if we are using the distance scale between the two outermost lights, there is no way that an aircraft would be traveling anywhere near 180-220 mph when the time factor is used.

I'm no math expert, but when the figures were so clearly explained by LS and Peri even I could understand. I sure hope that your day job doesn't require complex math.

I read what you posted and noted your mistake when you posted:

"The video, if an A-10 dropping flares, shows the flight path was not perpendicular to the video camera. So 180 mph is the minimum Air speed needed and the true Air speed this Angle represents likely falls into a range of maybe around 190 mph - 220 mph."

Do you even know why? Your mistake is very evident and significant.

I'm sure that you'll try to tell me even though I didn't say that. If you are talking about speed capabilities of the A-10 and stall speed, I'm ahead of you (as usual) and even if Peri and LS have the estimate wrong on the low end the planes wouldn't have stalled. I checked for that after reading their analysis. And no, I don't think their analysis is wrong. Nor do I think you are capable of putting numbers together which defend your position.

You can post all you want about the LUU2B flares, but at this point, you are trying to throw away the laws of physics. Do you know why? Use the time/distance method at 50 miles, and you will find that there is no way those lights are falling at the rate of speed of flares more than 50 miles away,and once again, use the reference scale in regards to the Chicago skyline.

How long would it take a suspended flare to fall 1400 feet? You skeptics are completely missing the point in regards to time/distance, and range distances and it seems that none of you have even figured it out, so I am giving you a hint of the rate of movement of 1400 feet from 50 miles away.

I don't really care about your Chicago skyline picture, although I probably know more about that picture than you do as well.

I've already answered the descent rate question. If you didn't understand that basic bit of math, there is little hope for you understanding the superior calculations that Peri and LS have put together and I honestly question whether you should ever be allowed to pilot an aircraft again.

[psyche101]

At 50 miles, and if we are using the distance scale between the two outermost lights, there is no way that an aircraft would be traveling anywhere near 180-220 mph when the time factor is used.

Perc and LS have posted some impressive calcs to show us their perpective on the case, and how they came to their agreeing information there, where are yours?

[skyeagle409]

Hi LS,

Very nice bit of work you've done here. I've been playing around with a slightly different method tonight and am getting basically the same answers you worked out. I'll post my details shortly. I'm getting a slightly higher speed of about 210 knots (240 mph), but that's mostly because the distance from observer "K" to the mountains is actually about 26 miles, not 30 miles. I think Bruce Maccabee either rounded off or overstated the distance in his analysis. "K" is listed in the phone book, so his location can be pinpointed almost exactly.

Using 26 miles instead of 30 miles, your method comes up with a speed of about 180 knots (210 mph), so we're in very good agreement -- well within the margin of error for this sort of analysis. I think it's pretty safe to say that the target is doing somewhere in the ballpark of 200 knots which, as you said, is comfortably within the capability of an A-10.

Redo your figures because an aircraft moving along at 220 mph will not transverse the distance between the two outermost lights if those lights were 50 miles away. You go to any international airport at night and watch with your own eyes from 10 miles away that an aircraft flying along at 250 mph is not tranersing such a distance within the timeframe of the video.

[Czero 101]

Sky... No one is impressed with your unsubstantiated geandiose declarations and open-ended questions.

If you want people to pay attention, do what LS and Peri have done and SHOW SOME ACTUAL EVIDENCE AND CALCULATIONS.

We all know what your opinions are and guess what? NO ONE CARES WHAT YOU THINK... JUST WHAT YOU CAN PROVE.

The sooner you get that through your head, the better off we all will be because so far all you have proven is that you are prone to "fabrication", believe only that which confirms your fairy tale beliefs (also called Confirmation Bias), ignore facts that prove you wrong, are incapable of admitting errors / mistakes, and your best talents include dancing around the topic and blowing smoke out your hind quarters.

Cz

[skyeagle409]

Perc and LS have posted some impressive calcs to show us their perpective on the case, and how they came to their agreeing information there, where are yours?

No, and it is very evident that they have no real experience in the air when identifying real aircraft at certain distances and airspeeds as tagged by ATC.

That is one of a few reason why I posted that photo from 50 miiles away from Chicago but they are not getting the message. AT 50 miles, the rate of movement will hardly be noticeable. At 25 miles away, flares were seemed to be hovering in the sky iover the mountains of Vietnam.

Edited April 21, 2011 by skyeagle409

[booNyzarC]

No, and it is very evident that hey have no real experince in the air at identifying real aircraft at certain distances and airspeeds as tagged by ATC.

That is one of a few reason why I posted that photo from 50 miiles away from Chicago but they are not getting the message.

You have totally convinced me sky. I'm convinced that you are *SNIP*.

Edited By (Insert Any Moderator Name Here): Reason: No Ad Hom Attacks!

(I self moderated... I hope that counts for something...)

[skyeagle409]

You have totally convinced me sky. I'm convinced that you are *SNIP*.

I guess I am just not making myself perfectly clear.

Let me put it this way,. There is no way those lights were flares falling at the rate of decent' of only 8.3 feet per second between 6000 and 3000 feet AGL from 50 miles away. At such a distance, the falling rate would hardly be noticed, yet there is no problem noticing the movement of the lights over Phoenix. That is why I have said those lights were only a few miles away and were also seen as they headed toward the Tucson area afterward.

Question:

Would you notice the rate of movement of a jogger from more than 50 miles away?

That was another hint handed out for free.

Edited April 21, 2011 by skyeagle409

[booNyzarC]

No, and it is very evident that they have no real experience in the air when identifying real aircraft at certain distances and airspeeds as tagged by ATC.

That is one of a few reason why I posted that photo from 50 miiles away from Chicago but they are not getting the message. AT 50 miles, the rate of movement will hardly be noticeable. At 25 miles away, flares were seemed to be hovering in the sky iover the mountains of Vietnam.

If they "seemed to be hovering" as you say, it would "seem" to me to support the idea that the Phoenix lights were also flares which "seemed to be hovering." Are you now arguing for flares sky? Because you are honestly doing one of the worst possible jobs imaginable for arguing against flares as far as I can tell.

[booNyzarC]

I guess I am just not making myself perfectly clear.

Let me put it this way,. There is not way those lights were flares falling at the rate of decent' of only 8.3 feet per second between 6000 and 3000 feet AGL from 50 miles away. At such a distance, the falling rate would hardly be noticed, yet there is no problem noticing the movement of the lifghts over Phoenix. That is why I had said those lights were only a few miles away and were also seen as they headed toward the Tucson area afterward.

Would you notice the movement of a jogger from more than 50miles away?

Your argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. None. Not even a single iota.

The math has been put forward to prove, beyond any doubt at all, that the performance of the Phoenix Lights K video adheres completely, totally, and entirely to the descent of LUU2B flares.

When are you going to grasp this? Ever?

Your empty arguments, devoid of anything but blathering conjecture, will never be able to refute the evidence which overwhelmingly proves that the K video is of flares. Are you completely mad?

[psyche101]

No, and it is very evident that they have no real experience in the air when identifying real aircraft at certain distances and airspeeds as tagged by ATC.

That is one of a few reason why I posted that photo from 50 miiles away from Chicago but they are not getting the message. AT 50 miles, the rate of movement will hardly be noticeable. At 25 miles away, flares were seemed to be hovering in the sky iover the mountains of Vietnam.

What is evident is that these two fellows have presented a good case backed by mathematics that gives anyone a clear overview of what they are wishing to convey, and how they arrived at their conclusions.

You have siad ambiguous quotes that do not make sense, and offered an appeal to authority.

It is evident that LS and Perc do indeed have much experience and that you have none. They tell us how to do a thing, you just tell us you have done it and everyone is doing it wrong. Anyone can see your information is far from valuable, and has no substance. In fact, we saw the depth of your experience in recent RADAR exchanges. Take a page from LS and Perc, and try to match their standards. See how you go with that.

You have been owned Skyeagle. Big time. Try colluding with these fellows and impress someone for a change. If you can point out error in their calculations, then do so, but leave the personal analogies behind please.

It is you who is not getting the message, time and again. Why do you always have to be the know it all? These fellows obviously are light years ahead of you, why do you try to put them down without so much as a valid argument? You are a faceless Internet identity with a credulous outlook, it might pay to take that into account on a forum as it does not bolster confidence.

Edited April 21, 2011 by psyche101

[skyeagle409]

Really? I was quite stunned at the impressive work from LS and Perc. That the calcs matched up close enough to match is a significant push forward with the Phoenix lights, they have now determined the speed, which was an ETH argument against the My first thought? This

I feel such would be an amazing sight, and probably not what one would expect to see. Firing from beneath the waves could have many advantages in war. I have little doubt much research is placed in this arena.

See your PM.

Those missiles leave a long smoke trail, which makes it obvious they are missiles

[psyche101]

I guess I am just not making myself perfectly clear.

Let me put it this way,. There is no way those lights were flares falling at the rate of decent' of only 8.3 feet per second between 6000 and 3000 feet AGL from 50 miles away. At such a distance, the falling rate would hardly be noticed, yet there is no problem noticing the movement of the lights over Phoenix. That is why I have said those lights were only a few miles away and were also seen as they headed toward the Tucson area afterward.

Question:

Would you notice the rate of movement of a jogger from more than 50 miles away?

That was another hint handed out for free.

Isn't the very slow falling rate the reason some (without telescopes) decided that it was one object?

[skyeagle409]

What is evident is that these two fellows have presented a good case backed by mathematics that gives anyone a clear overview of what they are wishing to convey, and how they arrived at their conclusions.

Their mistake was the lacking for the rate of decent for an object falling at the rate of less than 9 feet per second as observed from more than 50 miles away. An object falling as such a rate would hardly be noticed from 50 miles way, much less from 77 miles away.

Go to any international airport at night and track the rate of movement of airliners moving along between 140-220 mph from 10 miles away and you will see what I mean.

Edited April 21, 2011 by skyeagle409

[psyche101]

Those missiles leave a long smoke trail, which makes it obvious they are missiles

I must say - good point Skyeagle. Keep it up.

[skyeagle409]

If they "seemed to be hovering" as you say, it would "seem" to me to support the idea that the Phoenix lights were also flares which "seemed to be hovering." Are you now arguing for flares sky? Because you are honestly doing one of the worst possible jobs imaginable for arguing against flares as far as I can tell.

Using the scale as provided, if from 50 miles way, they would not be moving around 9 feet per second, but of a much higher velocity. they would be moving along at aircraft airspeeds. If those lights were falling at 9 feet per second, that would indicate that they are only a few miles away from the camera.

Edited April 21, 2011 by skyeagle409

[Pericynthion]

Let me put it this way,. There is no way those lights were flares falling at the rate of decent' of only 8.3 feet per second between 6000 and 3000 feet AGL from 50 miles away. At such a distance, the falling rate would hardly be noticed, yet there is no problem noticing the movement of the lights over Phoenix. That is why I have said those lights were only a few miles away and were also seen as they headed toward the Tucson area afterward.

Just so we're clear here, are you talking about the descent rate as shown in this clip?

[booNyzarC]

Their mistake was the lacking for the rate of decent for an object falling at the rate of less than 9 feet per second as observed from more than 50 miles away. An object falling as such a rate would hardly be noticed from 50 miles way, much less from 77 miles away.

Go to any international airport at night and track the rate of movement of airliners moving along between 140-220 mph from 10 miles away and you will see what I mean.

You have explained why so many people have been mystified by this sighting, good job! To the naked eye, without proper analysis, the flares did give the appearance of hovering just as you describe; despite the fact that they were gently floating down as explained. You are now officially working for the other side skyeagle!

[lost_shaman]

Their mistake was the lacking for the rate of decent for an object falling at the rate of less than 9 feet per second as observed from more than 50 miles away. An object falling as such a rate would hardly be noticed from 50 miles way, much less from 77 miles away.

Nonsense Sky! Even if we use booN's number of 8.3 ft/p/second x 180 seconds @ 77 miles this would be 0.21 degrees. That's ~15% of the distance between light 8 and light 4 and/or light 8 and the base of the Mountains. i.e. More than enough drop to be not only visible but place the light behind the Mountains.

[psyche101]

Their mistake was the lacking for the rate of decent for an object falling at the rate of less than 9 feet per second as observed from more than 50 miles away. An object falling as such a rate would hardly be noticed from 50 miles way, much less from 77 miles away.

Go to any international airport at night and track the rate of movement of airliners moving along between 140-220 mph from 10 miles away and you will see what I mean.

I live about 30 miles from the closest International Airport, but if I get the opportunity I will take this into account. Do you have any way of confirming this claim here and now? I have seen a white light from my window at night moving across the sky, and it would have been about ten miles out, and it seemed to be moving quite rapidly, and not in a commercial flight path. I assumed it was a jet of some type.