Best evidence for ET visitation - 3rd edition

[mcrom901]

(edit)

This was in response to mcrom, not LS... should be clear, but just in case...

(/edit)

cheers mate... no worries...

The Mountains block ~1.293 degrees of K's view.

in a straight line?

[lost_shaman]

Add these two numbers and we get 13,095ft as a minimum altitude for a Flare to be seen over BMGR from K's position.

Note what happens if we account for the rate of decent for a LUU-2 Flare. If at Altitude these flares fall at 9 ft per second, then Flare 7 in the video (Flare 8 if referring to Bruce M.) is visible for 180 seconds, which calculates to 1,620 ft of decent.

If we add that to the 13,095 ft, we get 14,715 ft for the Altitude that Flare 7 ignited.

[lost_shaman]

in a straight line?

Pretty much. The true Horizon from K's position is 23.2 miles behind the Estrella Mountains. i.e. the Horizon is more or less around where K's line of sight falls at the base of the Mountains.

ETA: Or stated differently, it is the base of the Mountains that first obstructs K's view of the Horizon.

Edited April 23, 2011 by lost_shaman

[skyeagle409]

In terms of whether sky is onto something... well, if he is, he has yet to produce anything substantial to back it up. I'm driven by evidence. If someone can present compelling evidence I'm all for accepting it. If all they can do is blow smoke up my hind end, I'm probably not going to be very forgiving. And if they ignore the compelling evidence which refutes their position, I might not be too cordial either.

Considering that many people within the city below the camera have seen the second session of lights as well,proves beyond any doubt the lights were not over the BGR at al, but passing over the City of Phoenix. In addition, such incidents were typical of what has been happening around Nevada and over Arizona.

Here is another example of many.

[skyeagle409]

Look at the Air Force's sloppy flare demonstration at timeline 5:26 to explain the "Phoenix Lights."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NRA5iA_xrw

So, is it any wonder then, why those who saw the lights that night, have scoffed at the Air Force's demonstration as well as myself?

Edited April 23, 2011 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

no... you're wrong... they addressed that....

Note the words, "mystery lights OVER Valley."

That simply means the lights were observed overhead by thousands of people in the valley and once again, the mountains would have blocked out any lights over the BGR at that time, so the plot thickens.

One of the reasons why I posted that photo of the Chicago skyline and the elevations of both, the BGR, and o Phoenix, but it seems that the dots have not been connected by what I have been reading.

At the time, the Air Force did not acknowledge that the lights were flares, which should have been suspect right at the beginning when the Air Force could produce no operational reports either to support any flare drops at that time. Not only that, the lights were also seen in Nevada as they headed toward Arizona, and similar sightings have taken place elsewhere.

Edited April 23, 2011 by skyeagle409

[booNyzarC]

Look at the Air Force's sloppy flare demonstration at timeline 5:26 to explain the "Phoenix Lights."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NRA5iA_xrw

So, is it any wonder then, why those who saw the lights that night, have scoffed at the Air Force's demonstration as well as myself?

Dr. Lynne D. Kitei says herself at 5:50 that the flare drop footage was a close up. It isn't a fair comparison to the original 97 footage by any means.

[odiesbsc]

Skyeagle, Good job debunking the Phoenix flare fantasy. Although I haven't seen the Phoenix lights in person, I have seen hundreds of flares dropped (close and long distances) while on my two tours of duty in South East Asia. (Danang area) From the videos I've seen of the Phoenix lights, they do not look like flares to me. I wonder just how many of the skeptics have actually seen flares dropped?

BTW Sky, Did you spend much time at the Danang AFB, at Marble Mtn?

Odie

[booNyzarC]

Skyeagle, Good job debunking the Phoenix flare fantasy. Although I haven't seen the Phoenix lights in person, I have seen hundreds of flares dropped (close and long distances) while on my two tours of duty in South East Asia. (Danang area) From the videos I've seen of the Phoenix lights, they do not look like flares to me. I wonder just how many of the skeptics have actually seen flares dropped?

BTW Sky, Did you spend much time at the Danang AFB, at Marble Mtn?

Odie

How exactly did skyeagle debunk the analysis of the videos? We have determined beyond any reasonable doubt that the videos are flares. I must have missed something because I didn't see him debunk anything at all...

[DONTEATUS]

Its not the debunking,nor the He says I says,Youz says !! Its that 10,000 plus people saw this event from many different angles and they wont say a Thing or release any actual data Now thats funny isnt it?

Like the Stephenville Texas event Not a bit of radar data will be released.

Odd that the Man is still covering all this up!

But the Good news is It all wont matter even a Little Bit In Twenty Years !

[lost_shaman]

Its not the debunking,nor the He says I says,Youz says !! Its that 10,000 plus people saw this event from many different angles and they wont say a Thing or release any actual data Now thats funny isnt it?

Like the Stephenville Texas event Not a bit of radar data will be released.

Odd that the Man is still covering all this up!

But the Good news is It all wont matter even a Little Bit In Twenty Years !

Hey D.,

Phoenix - No, no RADAR data. Seems that not a single one of those people, or UFOlogists, or Skeptics ever requested the RADAR data in the 30 day time frame before it was automatically erased.

Stephenville - Yes, the RADAR data was requested and released.

Edited April 24, 2011 by lost_shaman

[skyeagle409]

Skyeagle, Good job debunking the Phoenix flare fantasy. Although I haven't seen the Phoenix lights in person, I have seen hundreds of flares dropped (close and long distances) while on my two tours of duty in South East Asia. (Danang area) From the videos I've seen of the Phoenix lights, they do not look like flares to me. I wonder just how many of the skeptics have actually seen flares dropped?

BTW Sky, Did you spend much time at the Danang AFB, at Marble Mtn?

Odie

Seems to me those skeptics have never seen real flares, nor been to Phoenix, because if they had, they would plainly see why there was no way that anyone could see flares over the BGR from down in the valley and yet, that is where many of the sightings took place and the video camera was much higher than those in the valley and even from the camera location, there was no way anyone could see flares over the BGR from that location. Flares can be seen at long distances, but not if there is a mountain blocking the view.

They continue to insist that they are flares when in fact, they look nothing like real flares, and they are definitely not flares from more than 50 miles away, so it is of no surprise to me as to why those people, who saw both, the "Phoenix Lights" and the Air Force's flare demonstration, have said that the flares dropped by the Air Force, were nothing like what they saw in 1997. I have seen all of these numbers and figures floating around here in this thread, but, the numbers were not adding up. Also, a question should be asked as to why did it take the Air Force so long to come up with a cover story for the 'Phoenix Lights?

Such lights are not new and have been seen for decades.

And, a lot has been going on in Nevada over the years,which is where the craft was tracked from.

More on the "White Pine Lights."

On another note, I was stationed down south along the coast at Phan Rang airbase while serving in the Air force. I have never been to Danang, but my cousin served there in the Marines as an aid to General Cushman. .

Edited April 24, 2011 by skyeagle409

[S2F]

Seems to me those skeptics have never seen real flares, nor been to Phoenix...

I have done both, on many occasions. The lights over the Estrella mountains behaved exactly as a group of flares should. I notice you like to talk about seeing smoke from flares yet at the distance of these particular flares (70+ miles) the scant light reflected from the smoke would be practically invisible to the naked eye. Having been in the military and witness to a wide variety of flares through different operations both training and otherwise, I can attest that the lights over the Estrella mountains are not nearly as 'mysterious' as you would have us believe. Military experience or not the math doesn't lie. The only way you can argue with math is with better math and I haven't even seen so much as a hint of mathematical competence from your corner. If you know for a fact that these lights were not flares then the math should support that, so let's see it.

[lost_shaman]

Seems to me those skeptics have never seen real flares,

Ding! Ding! Ding!

We have a WINNER!

Video does not show what real 'Flares' look like in real 'Life', it shows what real 'Flares' look like on Video!

nor been to Phoenix, because if they had, they would plainly see why there was no way that anyone could see flares over the BGR from down in the valley and yet, that is where many of the sightings took place and the video camera was much higher than those in the valley and even from the camera location, there was no way anyone could see flares over the BGR from that location. Flares can be seen at long distances, but not if there is a mountain blocking the view.

I've addressed these points and 'Proven' you wrong, and I don't use the word 'Proven' lightly or often.

They continue to insist that they are flares when in fact, they look nothing like real flares,

Right. They only look like real 'Flares' as recorded on Video. There is a good reason why there is a bit of difference. That is your eyes are different than the camera.

I have seen all of these numbers and figures floating around here in this thread, but, the numbers were not adding up.

Well I beg to differ. The numbers do add up. You've presented nothing to refute the numbers.

Such lights are not new and have been seen for decades.

I agree that UAP have been observed in the State for a very long time, I just do not agree that 'K's' video shows UAP, but rather it shows 'Flares'.

[lost_shaman]

I have done both, on many occasions. The lights over the Estrella mountains behaved exactly as a group of flares should. I notice you like to talk about seeing smoke from flares yet at the distance of these particular flares (70+ miles) the scant light reflected from the smoke would be practically invisible to the naked eye. Having been in the military and witness to a wide variety of flares through different operations both training and otherwise, I can attest that the lights over the Estrella mountains are not nearly as 'mysterious' as you would have us believe. Military experience or not the math doesn't lie. The only way you can argue with math is with better math and I haven't even seen so much as a hint of mathematical competence from your corner. If you know for a fact that these lights were not flares then the math should support that, so let's see it.

Hey S2F,

You're right. There is even a way to calculate this "practically invisible" state of the 'Smoke'. The Human eye @ 20/20 vision can not distinguish anything less than 1 minute of arc as anything less than that is observed as a point source. At 77 miles this equates to ~118 ft.

What does this mean?

Well it means the smoke from a parachute 'Flare' must be at least 118 ft @ 77 miles before a Human eye could even notice this was not a point source! That equates to 13 seconds of decent before the Human eye w/ 20/20 vision would even notice this as anything other than a point source.

A Videocamera is not even the equivalent of a Human eye, never has been. However, that's really not the point. Both a Human eye and a Videocamera would see the same 'bright' point source of light if the point source is smaller then 1 minute of arc and the Zoom is not great enough to resolve less than 1 minute of Arc.

Astronomers deal with this situation all the time. The key here is Luminosity, as there is a direct relation between Luminosity and distance.

There is clearly more than one way to "skin this cat", so to speak.

[S2F]

Hey S2F,

You're right. There is even a way to calculate this "practically invisible" state of the 'Smoke'. The Human eye @ 20/20 vision can not distinguish anything less than 1 minute of arc as anything less than that is observed as a point source. At 77 miles this equates to ~118 ft.

What does this mean?

Well it means the smoke from a parachute 'Flare' must be at least 118 ft @ 77 miles before a Human eye could even notice this was not a point source! That equates to 13 seconds of decent before the Human eye w/ 20/20 vision would even notice this as anything other than a point source.

A Videocamera is not even the equivalent of a Human eye, never has been. However, that's really not the point. Both a Human eye and a Videocamera would see the same 'bright' point source of light if the point source is smaller then 1 minute of arc and the Zoom is not great enough to resolve less than 1 minute of Arc.

Astronomers deal with this situation all the time. The key here is Luminosity, as there is a direct relation between Luminosity and distance.

There is clearly more than one way to "skin this cat", so to speak.

Thanks for the technical clarification LS, for some reason I was having trouble finding the words to explain further in my post so I just left it as is.

If Sky has actually seen flares at a great distance he would know that the smoke reflection may not be visible, especially once you consider environmental conditions like cloud cover/fog, dust, ambient light, haze, etc etc which can all conspire to make the smoke even less visible at a distance. Not that the lack of visible smoke was a strong argument to begin with however the evidence in favor of flares just keeps mounting. Hopefully we can lay this particular sighting to rest although I'm sure there are those that will still keep bleating the ET horn over it for some time to come. Oh well, to each their own I guess.

[DONTEATUS]

So this is the best evidence thread ? A video? And DFW ATC ,and the DOD never released to the public.

[booNyzarC]

So I'm taking a stab at this math business in an effort to determine if one of the witnesses from within the city could have seen the flares over the BGR as well. From skyeagle's videos, we do have one witness who actually gave us a location to work with for these calculations. Tom Chavez stated that he was at the intersection of 27th Avenue and Van Buren. Using Google Earth to place the K, L, and R locations with much more precision (thanks for the idea Peri!) and triangulated to the positions of the same 3 lights that Bruce Maccabee focused on for comparison between the 3 videos (Lights 1, 2, and 9 from the K array which he referenced as Left Light, Right Light, and Middle Light respectively.) You can see this in Figure 18 on page 3 of Maccabee's analysis. I basically just added this to Google Earth to confirm, and sure enough it pretty much pans out just as Peri's previous post showed.

I didn't add in the other lights from the K array because I wanted to speculate and guess as little as possible. I might come back to this later in an effort to conclude the whole K array with estimated locations and altitudes, but for now this should suffice to prove the key point that flares dropped over the BGR can indeed be seen from where known witnesses reported their sightings.

From the initial confirmation of Maccabee's analysis regarding K, L, and R, I added a point for Tom Chavez and his location at the time of the sighting at 27th Ave and Van Buren and calculated the distance to the triangulated lights as well as the distance to the highest point of elevation in the mountain range along the track to each light. That information and the calculations are in the first Spoiler (using spoiler so that the math phobic among us don't need to look at it).

The short version is that Tom Chavez could have definitely seen some of the flares, but probably not all of them. I suspect that if I added the remaining flares from the K array that he would have been able to see several of the flares.

The long version:

Tom Chavez

Intersection of 27th Avenue and Van Buren

Elevation:

1070 ft.

Latitude:

33°27'3.91"N

Longitude:

112° 7'3.08"W

Distance to left light 60.04 Miles (317011.2'), at 204.59 degree heading

Distance to right light 64.38 Miles (339926.4') , at 210.26 degree heading

Distance to middle light 66.24 Miles (349747.2'), at 207.85 degree heading

Distance to Mountains at 3860ft elevation, 16.53 miles (87278.4') (track to left light) 24.49 degrees from mountain to Tom

Distance to Mountains at 3640ft elevation, 15.6 miles (82368') (track to right light) 30.18 degrees from mountain to Tom

Distance to Mountains at 3698ft elevation, 15.78 miles (83318.4') (track to middle light) 207.85 degrees from Tom to mountain

With this data I tried two different methods to calculate the minimum visible altitude from Tom's position to each of the three confirmed lights. First I calculated the angles by creating a right triangle from Tom to the mountains and then extended at the same angle to the full distance to each light which gave me an estimated altitude not including earth curvature (final values in red). To add the earth curvature I used estimates provided on this web page:

http://www.davidsenesac.com/Information/line_of_sight.html which lists height adjustment of 2380' for 60 miles and 3240' for 70 miles. This seems close enough of an approximation and I believe that it accounts not only for the curvature of the earth, but also the anticipated effect of ray diffraction.

Then I used a bastardized estimate from lost_shaman's previous calculations for each of these three lights (final values in green). The numbers came out somewhat higher using LS's calcs versus the approximations from the above web site, but regardless of that we can see that some of the lights in the array would indeed have been visible from Tom's position for a short period of time, but probably not all and probably not for very long.

My calcs are below, hopefully you can make sense of them.

Triangle from Tom to Mountains track to Left Light

side a = 3860 - 1070 = 2790

side b = 87278.4

side c = *87322.98

Angle A = 1.83093 degrees

Extend side b 60.04 Miles (317011.2') to Left Light at 1.83093 degrees = 10133.78251 feet, add 2380ft from estimate = ~12513.8' minimum visible altitude

or, using an estimation from LS's calcs:

Difference in elevation 2790 ft @ 87278.4 feet, then 2790/87278.4 = .031966672166309 arctan = 1.8309319 degrees add .6 degrees for ~curvature = 2.4tan x 317011.2 = 13286.7' minimum visible altitude

Triangle from Tom to Mountains track to Right Light

side a = 3640 - 1070 = 2570

side b = 82368

side c = *82408.084

Angle A = 1.78713 degrees

Extend side b 64.38 Miles (339926.4') to Right Light at 1.78713 degrees = 10606.18703 feet, add 2600ft from estimate = ~13206.2' minimum visible altitude

or, using an estimation from LS's calcs:

Difference in elevation 2570 ft @ 82368 feet, then 2570/82368 = .03120143745143745 arctan = 1.7871308 degrees add .6 degrees for ~curvature = 2.4tan x 339926.4 = 14247.1' minimum visible altitude

Triangle from Tom to Mountains track to Middle Light

side a = 3698 - 1070 = 2628

side b = 83318.4

side c = *83359.835

Angle A = 1.8066 degrees

Extend side b 66.24 Miles (349747.2') to Middle Light at 1.78713 degrees = 10912.60995 feet, add 2800ft from estimate = 13712.6' minimum visible altitude

or, using an estimation from LS's calcs:

Difference in elevation 2628 ft @ 83318.4 feet, then 2628/83318.4 = .031541652264 arctan = 1.8066046 degrees add .6 degrees for ~curvature = 2.4tan x 349747.2 = 14658.7' minimum visible altitude

Also from the videos, Lynne Kitei mentions calling the Air Traffic Controllers at Sky Harbor Airport and she stated that they also saw the lights, but nothing on RADAR. She mentions that they saw 6 points of light thru binoculars, behind South Mountain. So I decided to do the math from this location as well. Sure enough, they could definitely see the lights. In fact, they could definitely see the full array from the tower, no doubt about it.

The long version:

Sky Harbor Tower

Elevation at base 1121 ft

Elevation at top of tower 1303 ft

Latitude:

33°26'7.74"N

Longitude:

112° 0'35.82"W

Distance to left light 61.96 Miles (327148.8'), at 210.28 degree heading

Distance to right light 66.85 Miles (352968') , at 215.37 degree heading

Distance to middle light 68.46 Miles (361468.8'), at 212.92 degree heading

Distance to Mountains at 3139ft elevation, 20.55 miles (108504') (track to left light) 210.29 degrees from tower to mountain

Distance to Mountains at 3710ft elevation, 19.77 miles (104385.6') (track to right light) 215.35 degrees from tower to mountain

Distance to Mountains at 4130ft elevation, 20.34 miles (107395.2') (track to middle light) 212.91 degrees from tower to mountain

Triangle from Tower to Mountains track to Left Light

side a = 3139 - 1303 = 1836

side b = 108504

side c = *108519.5324

Angle A = 0.96941 degrees

Extend side b 61.96 Miles (327148.8') to Left Light at 0.96941 degrees = 5535.68843 feet, add 2400ft from estimate = ~7935.7' minimum visible altitude

or, using an estimation from LS's calcs:

Difference in elevation 1836 ft @ 108504 feet, then 1836/108504 = .016921035 arctan = 0.9694114 degrees add .6 degrees for ~curvature = 1.57tan x 327148.8 = 8966.67' minimum visible altitude

Triangle from Tower to Mountains track to Right Light

side a = 3710 - 1303 = 2407

side b = 104385.6

side c = *104413.3475

Angle A = 1.32093 degrees

Extend side b 66.85 Miles (352968') to Left Light at 1.32093 degrees = 8138.97022 feet, add 2800ft from estimate = ~10938.9' minimum visible altitude

or, using an estimation from LS's calcs:

Difference in elevation 2407 ft @ 104385.6 feet, then 2407/104385.6 = .023058736 arctan = 1.3209342 degrees add .6 degrees for ~curvature = 1.92tan x 352968 = 11832.5' minimum visible altitude

Triangle from Tower to Mountains track to Middle Light

side a = 4130 - 1303 = 2827

side b = 107395.2

side c = *107432.40159

Angle A = 1.50787 degrees

Extend side b 68.46 Miles (361468.8') to Left Light at 1.50787 degrees = 9515.07829 feet, add 3200ft from estimate = ~12715.1' minimum visible altitude

or, using an estimation from LS's calcs:

Difference in elevation 2827 ft @ 107395.2 feet, then 2827/107395.2 = .0263233366 arctan = 1.5078679 degrees add .6 degrees for ~curvature = 2.11tan x 361468.8 = 13317.63' minimum visible altitude

Here is a screen shot taken from Google Earth of the primary locations involved.

Here are the resources I used for analysis, just in case anyone else wants to try their hand at this or doublecheck my work.

Google Earth

White Pages

Arctan Calculator

Right Triangle Angle And Side Calculator

David Senesac's Visual Line of Sight Calculations for Earth's Curvature

So there you have it. So far everyone we've been able to peg down a sighting location for appears to be perfectly capable of seeing flares that were dropped at about 15,000 feet over the BGR. Assuming that I didn't horrendously screw up my calculations here anyway... And if I did, I'd love to be told where so that I can learn.

Cheers.

[someoldguy]

For guys that allegedly (according to one member) don't "do their homework", most of you really impress me with your knowledge and your passion for the truth. Sometimes I get impatient with the apparent dwelling on details, but that's just me. It's pretty easy for me (and no doubt others) to see who's actually done their homework and those who have only been reading comic books.

My hat's off to you gentlemen. (And ladies.) I've learned a lot lurking here.

[lost_shaman]

So there you have it. So far everyone we've been able to peg down a sighting location for appears to be perfectly capable of seeing flares that were dropped at about 15,000 feet over the BGR. Assuming that I didn't horrendously screw up my calculations here anyway... And if I did, I'd love to be told where so that I can learn.

Cheers.

Hey booN, nice work!

Here is the calculation I'm currently using to account for Earth's curvature... Distance in Miles (say 50 miles) squared (2,500') divided by 1.513 = 1,652.3'. That can then be converted to Angle in degrees (0.358528). Which would put your calcs. and my own much closer.

[booNyzarC]

Hey booN, nice work!

Here is the calculation I'm currently using to account for Earth's curvature... Distance in Miles (say 50 miles) squared (2,500') divided by 1.513 = 1,652.3'. That can then be converted to Angle in degrees (0.358528). Which would put your calcs. and my own much closer.

Sweet, thanks for the additional details!

After looking at all of this in fairly great detail with the additional contributions between you and Peri, it looks to me like the appearance of the flares is likely in an arc as the Warthogs were angling back toward Tuscon ((edit)As noted by Peri back in post #2058 - to give credit where it is due! (/edit)). That would make lights 2 thru 9 follow that arcing turn radius away from the point of view of the K video, explaining why lights 2 thru 4 have a tight grouping (flying away turning from right to left) lights 5, 6, and 7 the most distant (the furthest in arc) and 8 and 9 are slightly closer as the angle turns somewhat (but not much) toward the POV.

This quick and rough picture kind of helps to visualize I think. The intention here is that the outside edge of the red ellipse is a guestimation of the possible flight path from a top down view.

The light on the right is light 2 from the K video and the one on the left is light 9 (order of appearance, with light 1 not shown in this picture, but would be off to the left and below).

Granted, this is a very rough image hastily thrown together, but it seems to match up somewhat with the light grouping. The lights seem to appear about every 8 seconds or so (estimated from the K video), and they aren't equidistant despite commentary from the witnesses in skyeagle's posted videos (primarily Lynne Kitei).

I think with this and the speed/climb information that you and Peri have put together we could fill in the remaining lights on Google Earth with a fair degree of estimated accuracy for visibility calculation purposes.

Cheers.

Edited April 24, 2011 by booNyzarC

[arenee]

Hey guys,

Great job on the math stuff...not that it helps me in anyway and I'm reconsidering going back to school for my math degree now.

As per your correction of my typo BooN, it's Tucson, not Tuscon. It looks really funny to me when I see it written like that.

LS, Peri, Boon, I'm confused (as usual) as to what this all means. Is it just describing how the flares disappeared at certain angles/timelines/etc. behind the mountains? And if so, is this all based on speed of disappearance because I'm thinking eventually anything (not just flares) eventually cannot be seen after so long?

(Sighs in frustration/disappointment of never being able to follow this thread no matter how hard I try)

[booNyzarC]

Hey guys,

Great job on the math stuff...not that it helps me in anyway and I'm reconsidering going back to school for my math degree now.

As per your correction of my typo BooN, it's Tucson, not Tuscon. It looks really funny to me when I see it written like that.

LS, Peri, Boon, I'm confused (as usual) as to what this all means. Is it just describing how the flares disappeared at certain angles/timelines/etc. behind the mountains? And if so, is this all based on speed of disappearance because I'm thinking eventually anything (not just flares) eventually cannot be seen after so long?

(Sighs in frustration/disappointment of never being able to follow this thread no matter how hard I try)

Heya arenee, thanks for the correction. There are certain words that I always have problems with, and Tucson happens to be one of them.

To help clarify about the calculations, there are multiple things at play here, hopefully this helps to break it down a little...

1. Triangulation of the lights. This was achieved by Bruce Maccabee reviewing and comparing the footage from multiple video sources. This gave a general area for where the lights involved with the sighting actually were, and a fairly specific location for 3 of the lights in question which were mutually shared from all 3 video sources. And thru discussion, we've confirmed his initial analysis (with very minor adjustments) for the most part.

2. Visibility of the lights from various vantage points as reported by witnesses is dependent on whether those points of view could legitimately see the lights if they were where the triangulation put them. Or, the short explanation, could the people have seen flares dropped over the BGR? To determine this, we've been working on identifying the minimum altitude where such objects could be viewed from various reported locations in and around Phoenix. This calculation is not exactly simple because the curvature of the Earth and atmospheric diffraction opposingly impact the end results.

3. More precise positioning for the remaining flares in the array (3 thru 8) based on analysis of the prior information which helped determine not only latitude and longitude location, but also altitude, and the likely flight path of the A-10 Warthog which dropped the flares as it was arcing back in order to return to Tucson.

Hope that actually helps and doesn't add to the confusion.

[arenee]

2. Visibility of the lights from various vantage points as reported by witnesses is dependent on whether those points of view could legitimately see the lights if they were where the triangulation put them. Or, the short explanation, could the people have seen flares dropped over the BGR? To determine this, we've been working on identifying the minimum altitude where such objects could be viewed from various reported locations in and around Phoenix. This calculation is not exactly simple because the curvature of the Earth and atmospheric diffraction opposingly impact the end results.

Hope that actually helps and doesn't add to the confusion.

I read this post about fifty times. It's just me guys, I get confused easily.

This particular one #2...Are we/you guys actually, determining whether or not the people actually saw something based on their location?? As in they may have lied about witnessing something because of their location and the likely impossibility of seeing something when and where it was claimed?

[booNyzarC]

I read this post about fifty times. It's just me guys, I get confused easily.

This particular one #2...Are we/you guys actually, determining whether or not the people actually saw something based on their location?? As in they may have lied about witnessing something because of their location and the likely impossibility of seeing something when and where it was claimed?

No, not whether they actually saw something, but whether they could have seen the flares which were dropped over the BGR. Perhaps I should try to work up some graphics to help make a little more sense of it, but for now what I was trying to say with #2 was that when you are viewing something in the distance (over the BGR, specifically) and there is a tall object between you and the thing you are observing (the Estrella mountain range, specifically), there is a point at which you would no longer be able to view that thing (flares, specifically) because it has fallen behind the obstruction (the mountains). A big chunk of the calculations have been to determine at what specific altitude such an event would occur.

Or, when will a flare falling behind the mountains not be visible?

From there we can determine whether or not flares dropped at the reported 15,000 foot altitude would be visible from a given witness location.

Does that help clarify?

I haven't said that any of the witnesses are lying, mistaken, or that they didn't see anything.

I trust that each witness who came forward did in fact see something. Several of them, I believe, have probably embellished the sighting somewhat in an effort to validate their beliefs about the sighting, but I'd rather not get into that right now.

Does that clarify? Or should I put together a graphic?

(Edited to remove a minor, insignificant portion which I may or may not address in the future... )

Edited April 25, 2011 by booNyzarC