Hudson Valley 1983

[DONTEATUS]

I so want to see a Three mile wide Triangle floating over head someday ! Like the one in Stephenville !

[DBunker]

It has been written off and forgotten about.

Granted there are still some hard core believers speculating/wishing that this was ET buzzing the locals,... but to the rest of the world this is a non-event.

So true.

Edited June 7, 2012 by DBunker

[zoser]

So true.

I do accept the problem with the semi-circular object in the photograph compared to the chevron that many witnesses described and the same thought did cross my mind. I think what this is pointing to is that to be too surgical when analyzing the testimonies 30 years on is fraught with problems, but more importantly the real mistake we are making is thinking that the witnesses all saw the same thing. They most probably didn't.

The experts all say that this was a wave that lasted for the best part of the decade. If the hoax was perpetrated by a group of pilots, flying in formation would they have got away with it for so long? How come it has not leaked out? This explanation fails anyway because most people described the craft as silent. That only leaves some huge blimp or balloon hoax. It would have to be very expensive, manned, and powered internally by some generator in order to create the illumination levels witnessed, maintain the air pressure and control the guidance system. How did they get away with it for so long? How could they have known that they were not to be attacked by the security personnel at the reactor or even some scared resident with a shotgun? There are just too may questions to support the hoax theory.

For it to be a hoax would require quite a sophisticated level of technology from the size point of view, and I just don't see how it could have been achieved; remember the cold war was not even over and people were jittery to say the least.

[Rafterman]

Yes regarding the Phoenix lights, if the event could be explained by flares then the case would have been written off and forgotten by now. It's clearly not that simple.

It can be and it has been. And yes, it clearly is that simple.

[Rafterman]

I do accept the problem with the semi-circular object in the photograph compared to the chevron that many witnesses described and the same thought did cross my mind. I think what this is pointing to is that to be too surgical when analyzing the testimonies 30 years on is fraught with problems, but more importantly the real mistake we are making is thinking that the witnesses all saw the same thing. They most probably didn't.

The experts all say that this was a wave that lasted for the best part of the decade. If the hoax was perpetrated by a group of pilots, flying in formation would they have got away with it for so long? How come it has not leaked out? This explanation fails anyway because most people described the craft as silent. That only leaves some huge blimp or balloon hoax. It would have to be very expensive, manned, and powered internally by some generator in order to create the illumination levels witnessed, maintain the air pressure and control the guidance system. How did they get away with it for so long? How could they have known that they were not to be attacked by the security personnel at the reactor or even some scared resident with a shotgun? There are just too may questions to support the hoax theory.

For it to be a hoax would require quite a sophisticated level of technology from the size point of view, and I just don't see how it could have been achieved; remember the cold war was not even over and people were jittery to say the least.

Which "experts"?

[zoser]

Which "experts"?

The people who have studied the wave over the years; made the documentaries and gathered all of the testimonies. You can find them as easy as I can!

[Hazzard]

The people who have studied the wave over the years; made the documentaries and gathered all of the testimonies. You can find them as easy as I can!

You are talking about those charlatans that have no problem making money of the gullible. Forgive me if Im not jumping up and down with excitement.

Edited June 7, 2012 by Hazzard

[woundman]

Boomerangs have a point.

Some might think, well, close, but what would chinese whispers do to this "recollection"?

For one, two people who were describing different things are now thought to be seeing the same thing.

I am so sorry for referring to a 1/2 circle as a boomerang, even though it is a pretty similar 1/2 circle shape, should I have said horseshoe or would that be too narrow for you? I dont see your post as helpful or related, other than to simply be abrasive.

That picture is what we saw that night, albeit from a different angle

These are also boomerangs (they don't all have points if that was your point)

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=boomerang&start=86&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1048&bih=498&addh=36&tbm=isch&tbnid=4L7bhAtdf0ZOIM:&imgrefurl=http://openclipart.org/detail/Boomerang.svg&docid=5h-rAkUY_br0vM&imgurl=http://openclipart.org/people/stevepetmonkey/Boomerang.svg&w=446&h=261&ei=j6nQT4XiL-Ts6gHr3r17&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=253&sig=104203139592374634397&page=7&tbnh=104&tbnw=178&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:86,i:7&tx=59&ty=19

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=boomerang&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1048&bih=498&tbm=isch&tbnid=DJTwCM2AaHRYaM:&imgrefurl=http://cp.c-ij.com/en/contents/2023/03296/index.html&docid=Ze5kURLFkIyC9M&imgurl=http://cp.c-ij.com/en/contents/2023/03296/images/boomerang_thl.jpg&w=295&h=295&ei=2KjQT5WzMo_M6QGWrP17&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=782&vpy=177&dur=605&hovh=225&hovw=225&tx=148&ty=151&sig=104203139592374634397&page=5&tbnh=137&tbnw=137&start=57&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:14,s:57,i:299

[psyche101]

The experts all say that this was a wave that lasted for the best part of the decade. If the hoax was perpetrated by a group of pilots, flying in formation would they have got away with it for so long? How come it has not leaked out? This explanation fails anyway because most people described the craft as silent. That only leaves some huge blimp or balloon hoax. It would have to be very expensive, manned, and powered internally by some generator in order to create the illumination levels witnessed, maintain the air pressure and control the guidance system. How did they get away with it for so long? How could they have known that they were not to be attacked by the security personnel at the reactor or even some scared resident with a shotgun? There are just too may questions to support the hoax theory.

For it to be a hoax would require quite a sophisticated level of technology from the size point of view, and I just don't see how it could have been achieved; remember the cold war was not even over and people were jittery to say the least.

Zoser

For goodness sakes man, have the guts to address my post directly! It looks like you are hiding from me, am I that scary to your fantasy? If I am, there can only be one reason.

No sophisticated technology was needed for the hoax flights, skill was needed. The pilots told you how they did it, I bet you refused to read what they had to say huh. What I want you to be able to tell me is how many genuine sightings are left now that the flights are involved? 1? Any? What is your proof, who is your "star witness" how do you know that the pilots did not create a mindset that had people expecting to see UFO's? Because the mindset was there, jittery nerves were not required, and there was no major panic like the BOLA case, it's an expectation, not a fear reaction.

You are trying to dismiss an outright confession. It shows that you are not after truths, just dirt to use. And Aztec is the biggest example of this to date. Hard to take you seriously when you grasp at straws like this Zoser. Some cases are real head scratchers, you do not seem to have come up to those ones yet. God help you when you find them! It will blow your head apart! The examples you have presented to date are not the most compelling cases IMHO.

But no doubt, you will keep trying to convince yourself, just do not be too surprised at an overall lack luster reaction to what you seem to find amazing. This is obvious when you outright refuse direct hoax confessions.

[psyche101]

I am so sorry for referring to a 1/2 circle as a boomerang, even though it is a pretty similar 1/2 circle shape, should I have said horseshoe or would that be too narrow for you? I dont see your post as helpful or related, other than to simply be abrasive.

That picture is what we saw that night, albeit from a different angle

These are also boomerangs (they don't all have points if that was your point)

http://www.google.co....:7&tx=59&ty=19

http://www.google.co...r:14,s:57,i:299

A Horseshoe would definitely be better. You only find my post abrasive because it affected you directly. I am not interested in you, just the evidence. Can you not see my point that two people describing different things are now seen to be describing the same thing? How can that help resolve an honest answer?

Your example still has an apex, your semi circle does not. Nor does a Boomerang "curl" around like your light example. I am afraid your example does not suffice I feel. It is not accurate.

Edited June 8, 2012 by psyche101

[psyche101]

The people who have studied the wave over the years; made the documentaries and gathered all of the testimonies. You can find them as easy as I can!

TV Presenters, journalists and the average person in the street?

[DONTEATUS]

TV Presenters, journalists and the average person in the street?

You forgot Bob Lazar and Billy Myers and a few other experts ! LOL !

Cheers mate ITs getting Hot Up over here in Big-D

Hows it Down under ?

[zoser]

Zoser

For goodness sakes man, have the guts to address my post directly! It looks like you are hiding from me, am I that scary to your fantasy? If I am, there can only be one reason.

No sophisticated technology was needed for the hoax flights, skill was needed. The pilots told you how they did it, I bet you refused to read what they had to say huh. What I want you to be able to tell me is how many genuine sightings are left now that the flights are involved? 1? Any? What is your proof, who is your "star witness" how do you know that the pilots did not create a mindset that had people expecting to see UFO's? Because the mindset was there, jittery nerves were not required, and there was no major panic like the BOLA case, it's an expectation, not a fear reaction.

You are trying to dismiss an outright confession. It shows that you are not after truths, just dirt to use. And Aztec is the biggest example of this to date. Hard to take you seriously when you grasp at straws like this Zoser. Some cases are real head scratchers, you do not seem to have come up to those ones yet. God help you when you find them! It will blow your head apart! The examples you have presented to date are not the most compelling cases IMHO.

But no doubt, you will keep trying to convince yourself, just do not be too surprised at an overall lack luster reaction to what you seem to find amazing. This is obvious when you outright refuse direct hoax confessions.

I consider myself rebuked

One week detention and loss of privileges.

Edited June 8, 2012 by zoser

[psyche101]

You forgot Bob Lazar and Billy Myers and a few other experts ! LOL !

Cheers mate ITs getting Hot Up over here in Big-D

Hows it Down under ?

Hehe, they are experts alright, what in is anybodies guess!

Mate, it's getting chilly down under, had the heater on most nights of late.

[psyche101]

I consider myself rebuked

One week detention and loss of privileges.

I did not rebuke you, I said grow a pair.

How do the pilots affect the incident? You say they are irrelevant, yet we have an outright confession. What makes the incident compelling when we know that a bunch of hoaxers have admitted to trying to fool people?

[zoser]

I did not rebuke you, I said grow a pair.

How do the pilots affect the incident? You say they are irrelevant, yet we have an outright confession. What makes the incident compelling when we know that a bunch of hoaxers have admitted to trying to fool people?

Maybe the confessions just are not convincing enough? People know what planes look like and sound like. This was different.

[mrjolly]

Google

Stormville Flyers Hudson Valley.

Ohh heck, gonna have to do that myself arenlt I? I know if a site does not start with UFO you wont click the link.

LINK

There's a few problems with the Stormville flyers or microlites flying in formation theories:

A good majority of the witnesses stated they either heard no sound, or a low humming noise, planes & microlites are pretty loud and you'd know if one was flying low overhead.

On some occasions, the sightings were taking place when there were high winds would have made formation flying impossible

Planes & microlites can't hover which many of the (sometimes multiple) witnesses said the object did.

On some nights of the sightings, Stormville airport had no reports or evidence of plans taking off or landing, in addition investigators were watching the airport on the night of one group of sightings and said no planes arrived or departed.

There were a few cases in Hudson valley at the time that were known to be light aircraft flying in formation as a prank but these were easily identified.

[zoser]

There's a few problems with the Stormville flyers or microlites flying in formation theories:

A good majority of the witnesses stated they either heard no sound, or a low humming noise, planes & microlites are pretty loud and you'd know if one was flying low overhead.

On some occasions, the sightings were taking place when there were high winds would have made formation flying impossible

Planes & microlites can't hover which many of the (sometimes multiple) witnesses said the object did.

On some nights of the sightings, Stormville airport had no reports or evidence of plans taking off or landing, in addition investigators were watching the airport on the night of one group of sightings and said no planes arrived or departed.

There were a few cases in Hudson valley at the time that were known to be light aircraft flying in formation as a prank but these were easily identified.

I think this is a common argument for skeptics, that because some wag pulls a stunt this is then cited as evidence that the whole phenomena is a joke. The classic example of all time occurred with the crop circle phenomena in England when two old timers named 'Doug' and 'Dave' came forward claiming credit for all the formations that had ever occurred.

It was part strategy to try and kill the public's interest and part delusion; they genuinely believed that they had created them.

It's a classic strategy and easy to spot.

[psyche101]

There's a few problems with the Stormville flyers or microlites flying in formation theories:

A good majority of the witnesses stated they either heard no sound, or a low humming noise, planes & microlites are pretty loud and you'd know if one was flying low overhead.

On some occasions, the sightings were taking place when there were high winds would have made formation flying impossible

Planes & microlites can't hover which many of the (sometimes multiple) witnesses said the object did.

On some nights of the sightings, Stormville airport had no reports or evidence of plans taking off or landing, in addition investigators were watching the airport on the night of one group of sightings and said no planes arrived or departed.

There were a few cases in Hudson valley at the time that were known to be light aircraft flying in formation as a prank but these were easily identified.

Can any one of the claims such as hovering or silent be verified, or are we talking some random recollections? Parallax error can account for height and noise easily. But all in all the sightings were varied and many, and obviously not all could be the pilots, just the larger majority of reports. After all, this is not misidentification, the pilots pulled a deliberate hoax.

And with the pilots gone, my question to Zoser is how many reports are now left, and what can be considered credible? Zoser is saying that this is a good case fo Alien, but I just do not see how. We had a professional group deliberately organising a hoax, therefore leading to hype, and as such, every light in the sky would be reported as a UFO.

The point I am trying to make is can you trust one single sighting after knowing this? And if so, how can one claim a light in the sky is an Alien ship? With the Pilots confessions, we know for certain that many made this basic mistake. Is that all it ook to create the Hudson Valley flap? Can any single person honestly say "no"?

[psyche101]

Maybe the confessions just are not convincing enough? People know what planes look like and sound like. This was different.

And some people believe they can determine a spaceship from a red blue or green light in the distance can they?

How this was different is we have an outright confession. No guessing games, no wondering, a large part had to be the deliberately set up hoax. Do you think a few confused people are more likely to be right than a bunch of pilots directly involved with the incident?

[psyche101]

I think this is a common argument for skeptics, that because some wag pulls a stunt this is then cited as evidence that the whole phenomena is a joke. The classic example of all time occurred with the crop circle phenomena in England when two old timers named 'Doug' and 'Dave' came forward claiming credit for all the formations that had ever occurred.

It was part strategy to try and kill the public's interest and part delusion; they genuinely believed that they had created them.

It's a classic strategy and easy to spot.

I think the only person having a lend of anyone is you to yourself. Wags? It is a profesional flying group man.

Can you be somewhat clear Zoser? What are you talking about now? Some lights in the sky, or are you saying that was every sighting between '82 and '95 a giant triangle?

You are dismissing outright confessions and claiming they are irrelevant because some people did not believe what they saw were planes, you do not give human error a second thought and cannot explain the length of the so called flap but talk about triangles.

Who is the wag now?

BTW, WAG means wives and girlfriends here.

[zoser]

I think the only person having a lend of anyone is you to yourself. Wags? It is a profesional flying group man.

Can you be somewhat clear Zoser? What are you talking about now? Some lights in the sky, or are you saying that was every sighting between '82 and '95 a giant triangle?

You are dismissing outright confessions and claiming they are irrelevant because some people did not believe what they saw were planes, you do not give human error a second thought and cannot explain the length of the so called flap but talk about triangles.

Who is the wag now?

BTW, WAG means wives and girlfriends here.

Just watch the clip that's all I can suggest to you really. The discussion shouldn't involve me arguing with you; it should be about what did the hundreds of witnesses see, and where did it come from. What were the guys at the research reactor so worried about? This is a big case, and a mass sighting. DYOR

'Wag' in this context to mean a non-entity. It's probably English slang.

[psyche101]

Just watch the clip that's all I can suggest to you really. The discussion shouldn't involve me arguing with you; it should be about what did the hundreds of witnesses see, and where did it come from. What were the guys at the research reactor so worried about? This is a big case, and a mass sighting. DYOR

This is not me arguing with you, it is you refusing to accept that a prosaic explanation exists and can explain a larger portion of the sightings, leaving the rest to be misinterpretation influenced by the hype that the Stormville flyers created. That is evidence presented Zoser, not a personal standpoint. In fact, I do not think you are a bad person, I think you are just another hopeful new to the scene that is treading the same path so many of us already have. It's when you get uppity that I will treat you in turn, I always say, I treat people how they treat me.

You have not acknowledged the outright confession, and seem to think for some personal reason the flying group is irrelevant. It is not, and puts a major dent in the Hudson Valley sightings that you simply refuse to accept and acknowledge. We cannot have a one way conversation that assumes this was an alien encounter when there are quite reasonable explanations, heck outright confessions! All I can get from you continually returning to the hopefuls is that you simply want this to be an alien encounter. It just does not work like that Zoser, despite the many assurances of an abundance of new age types that "ask the universe" for what they need.

The guys at the reactor? I would love to ask them personally. Where are they in the clip you presented? That has a bloke with his son in his backyard, a female police officer and a computer salesman. The Stormville flyers did not get much of a say in that program, just a mention at the beginning no interviews or anything. Why do you suppose that might be?

Just what do you think the odds are of a professional flying group perpetrating a hoax at the exact time that an Alien species decided to visit earth?

And why did the Stormville Flyers not have anything to report, when they woud have been in the skies more often than the claimants looked up at the sky?

You posted two clips, one is a TV show. Goes by a similar name to this place. It has some recollections and dramatisations to make the claimants seem more believable. It is not only biased to an alien conclusion, it is created for the primary purpose of entertainment, not proof. The second clip does not identify one single object, and could well be the formation of planes as described, and I am sure hoping you are not saying there is no sound on that one, the planes are obvious distant, and not close to the ground as per some claims. Why can that second footage not be the Stormville flyers?

And how are dramatisations of a television show more convincing than real people with a confession in their hands?

Zoser, it's a poor case, admit it. Very poor in fact. Far more compelling instances exist. It is big because so many people were fooled, it is more famous for the hoaxing aspect than any mysterious aspect.

'Wag' in this context to mean a non-entity. It's probably English slang.

Exactly! Lest say that a species exists on Alpha Centauri, what do you think it might mean there?

Point being, look at how different we speak just across oceans, why would a species come here and risk a bad first encounter when we can start with some communications with basic fundamentals, such as math and astronomy? Is it not sensible to build a repoire first?

[preacherman76]

Wish you coulds spend a day in my shoes psy. I personaly know several people who saw this craft. This isnt even close to a poor case. There are over 5000 witnesses, from all walks of life. Not one describing what could even be close to loud ultralight formations over on of the most windy valley's in the country. Personaly I dont care what anyone says. I know for a 100% fact this happened. And Im not even close to alone.

[Hazzard]

Wish you coulds spend a day in my shoes psy. I personaly know several people who saw this craft. This isnt even close to a poor case. There are over 5000 witnesses, from all walks of life. Not one describing what could even be close to loud ultralight formations over on of the most windy valley's in the country. Personaly I dont care what anyone says. I know for a 100% fact this happened. And Im not even close to alone.

Still, there is not one shread of credible evidence that any of this is real. Dont you find that a little strange? All we have are peoples accounts.

UFOology is built on opinions, wishful thinking and belief.

Sure, I consider it more then likely that there are advanced alien races somewhere "out there," and I remain open to the possibility that, unlikely as it may seem, one or more such races could be visiting Earth. But if so, where are they?

Sure, Scientist and Engineers, Commercial and military aircrews, Radar experts, Senior military and intelligence officials around the world, Astronomers, Astronauts and cosmonauts, Presidents, Kings, and many other credible folks around the world have all observed strange things in the sky... But, in the end, they merely describe objects observed which defy identification based upon standards which we know regarding aerodynamic performance or characteristics.

UFOs are observed unidentified flying objects. There is nothing else attached to them. Evidence is not something you can observe. That is called an observation.

If they possess the technology capable of traveling interstellar distances, then they are so far ahead of us that there can be no reason for them to be afraid of us. If they wish to hide from us, they could do that, easily, if they dont wish to, then they have no need to play games with us and only show themselves to a few unwitting individuals. I need them to reveal themselves to humanity at large, to our scientists, and to me.

Thats when Ill know that we are not alone.