The Phoenix Lights revisited

[TheMacGuffin]

You can see from the maps where the UFO was moving, and where it was spotted, all the way to Tuscon, Arizona. I once lived there too for a short time, so I have a sense of the geography and how this thing was moving, which is why I don't call it the "Phoenix Lights" at all and don't even like the name.

It was also flying over a lot of empty space in Nevada and Arizona, which I am very familiar with.

I bet if someone checked Bullhead City and Kingman, Arizona there would have been more witnesses.

Edited October 11, 2012 by TheMacGuffin

[TheMacGuffin]

One of the A10 Pilots has testified to dropping flares that night. What craft are you suggesting was sent up in pursuit?

F-15 interceptors from what I've heard, and at least one of them got pretty close to the UFO, which was huge.

[TheMacGuffin]

Some people even suggested that it came out of Nellis Air Force Base near Las Vegas, or was at least seen there, but I don't know that for sure. That might tie it to Area 51 and all that, but I still get the impression that the military didn't know what this was.

[booNyzarC]

Then it was seen in Prescott, Arizona, still moving south-southeast, as it had been all along.

Pretty map, but so what? Prescott is north of Phoenix. Aircraft flying south from there would end up... in the vicinity of Phoenix...

You don't talk about how it was seen outside of Phoenix for one thing. I've have mentioned many times on various threads that it shouldn't be called the Phoenix Lights at all.

That's nice and all, but so what? I've been discussing the witnesses who were in and around Phoenix. I've been discussing the sightings that took place in and around Phoenix. Why? Because most people refer to this incident as "The Phoenix Lights." If there were additional sightings outside of this region, they're no longer "The Phoenix Lights." If you look at the name of this thread you might notice that it is also named after "The Phoenix Lights."

So far I haven't seen you substantiate that this sighting that was supposedly outside of that area. Saying that it was and substantiating that it was are not the same thing. By the way, I'm not presenting any kind of counter claim to this, I'm just asking you to substantiate your own claim. If you can substantiate it I'm willing to look at your information. Supposing you do substantiate it, so what? At that point it isn't "The Phoenix Lights." At that point it's just another UFO, and you'll need to somehow tie this other UFO to the sightings which took place in the Phoenix area.

Do you think that you can do that?

I'm still not seeing any contradictions with anything I've stated.

[psyche101]

I've never heard of anyone trying to suppress Mitch Stanley, not in any way. As if we could even if we wanted to.

I've never even paid much attention to him because I just don't think what he said is that big a deal, one way or the other.

I guess I take him more seriously as I know what he was using, how it works, and that his reports are accurate with regards to specs.

He is definitely being suppressed, and was attacked for presenting his side of the story. If he is such small potatoes, one has to wonder why all proponents fear him greatly and try to bury him.

When Barwood made her appeal and the story began to appear in local newspapers, Jones attempted to let people know of Stanley's sighting. He called Richard de Uriarte, reader advocate at the Arizona Republic, as well as Barwood, directly. To both, Jones said that a local amateur astronomer had examined the lights through a large telescope and had seen that they were airplanes.

Jones says both promised to have someone call back who would take down his story and contact Mitch Stanley.

Neither one did.

"They really don't want to know," Linda Stanley says. "Here was a person who had seen it and [barwood] never bothered to contact us at all."

LINK

After his sighting, Stanley tried to contact a Phoenix city councilwoman who was making noise about the event, as well as a couple of UFO flim-flam men working the local scene, but he was rebuffed.

LINK

When Stanley first gave an account of his observation at the Discovery Channel Town Hall Meeting with all the witnesses there he was shouted down in his assertion that what he saw was what other witnesses saw

LINK

Some obviously "want to".

[TheMacGuffin]

Pretty map, but so what? Prescott is north of Phoenix. Aircraft flying south from there would end up... in the vicinity of Phoenix...

That's nice and all, but so what? I've been discussing the witnesses who were in and around Phoenix. I've been discussing the sightings that took place in and around Phoenix. Why? Because most people refer to this incident as "The Phoenix Lights." If there were additional sightings outside of this region, they're no longer "The Phoenix Lights." If you look at the name of this thread you might notice that it is also named after "The Phoenix Lights."

So far I haven't seen you substantiate that this sighting that was supposedly outside of that area. Saying that it was and substantiating that it was are not the same

Do you think that you can do that?

I'm still not seeing any contradictions with anything I've stated.

Okay, I don't know anything more than what I've said. That's all I can say. Forget it.

Edited October 11, 2012 by TheMacGuffin

[booNyzarC]

Okay, I don't know anything more than what I've said. That's all I can say. Forget it.

Okay, fair enough. Thanks for the discussion.

[psyche101]

F-15 interceptors from what I've heard, and at least one of them got pretty close to the UFO, which was huge.

The Bill Hamilton Claim.

Problem being that Luke does not have any F15's Never did. That makes the claim hard to resolve.

[Bionic Bigfoot]

There are times when a person has a good reason to be skeptical and question things, any normal and rational person would. There does come a point though in special cases such as the 'Phoenix Lights' and many other very unexplainable and controversial UFO cases where sometimes the enormous amout of conflicting facts speak for themselves.

Why is it that every time there is a UFO sighting that is harder to explain to the masses, it's always followed by a PR nightmare. The flip flopping of statements issued, the changing of stories, slow disclosure and all leading to more confusion. And why is it that the details are always shrouded in mystery and so difficult to corroborate? This shouldn't have turned into such huge and ongoing mystery if there was a simple explanation. If it was an individual or the government that was responsible for the lights over Phoenix, then why wasn't there a press conference about that? Not a little admission, but a full out press conference divulging every last detail of how this sighting apparently fooled nearly 10,000 people.

Since this event was seen by so many witnesses, why didn't those in power set up a live demonstration to show the citizens of Phoenix EXACTLY how the lights were accomplished. Instead, maps and models were used, computer similated graphics and ridiculous explanations by dubious inviduals were presented. Why didn't they recreate the event, as it was seen, to show the public once and for all. Wouldn't this put an end to all the cristism and speculation? To me, this would be the perfect way to assure the city that there was nothing unusual seen in the skies over Phoenix back in 1997. But no, they couldn't and they can't because they wouldn't be able to recreate the event and because it wasn't conventional and earthly technology.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

Arrogance has got nothing to do with it. People will believe whatever they think backs up their belief & discard the rational if it doesn't, hell it happens on this forum a hundred times a day. Americans are much more susceptible to the idea of alien visitation than other places around the world simply because of modern american sci-fi culture seen in hollywood films & t.v. UFO & alien stories have always followed the hollywood ideas of the time. During the 40s & 50s most sightings were of 'saucer shaped' craft, after Close encounters we had the emergence of 'the greys' & now after the 'X-Files' we have the 'triangle'.

All these things can be connected with the cultural fiction of it's time, ...no great mystery.

IMO, arrogance has *everything* to do with it. Your "people will believe whatever backs up their belief and discard the rest" - is the exact arrogance that I refer to.

Case in point right within this thread....

Several Phoenix witnesses saw an actual *craft*,,, triangular - not just "lights".

the so-caled flares (lights) apparently traveled hundreds of miles, according to witness accounts.

the skeptics here look at those evidences (and many more) and just blow them completely off because the evidences do not support the belief that the arrogant ones cling to and refuse to let go. Simple as that.

Sitting right in this UM board, skeptics will say the eye witnesses that saw the craft (it flew over a married couple, who had pulled over in their car) are crazy, delusional etc etc. CASE CLOSED! Who needs evidence to defeat their assertion, HA!

They actually use their conclusion as evidence that backs up their conclusion. Since it is FACT that winesses saw no craft (an evidence based *only* on their conclusion), those witnesses had to be delusional people, right?

And witnesses that support their view...? Hey - no need to vet them for their sanity, they're obviously in their right mind, RIGHT?

see how it works? Just whisk those dumb-dumbs away by fiat. That's how you "win"!

To me, that is the epitome of arrogance.

[psyche101]

There are times when a person has a good reason to be skeptical and question things, any normal and rational person would. There does come a point though in special cases such as the 'Phoenix Lights' and many other very unexplainable and controversial UFO cases where sometimes the enormous amout of conflicting facts speak for themselves.

I only run with what I can see actually corroborated. Math does that. The only film captures that exist show what look exactly like flares, and do not indicate one giant craft. What we do have as hard evidence does not point at ET. If we forget all press conferences, opinions, and personal claims, and just look at the data we have, this is what it tells us. Triangulation puts the flares over the mountain, and the pictures show individual lights falling. Personal opinion is all the ET claim has going for it. No hard data agrees with that conclusion.

I find comfort in math. It resolves nicely.

I certainly trust math more than I trust testimony.

Why is it that every time there is a UFO sighting that is harder to explain to the masses, it's always followed by a PR nightmare. The flip flopping of statements issued, the changing of stories, slow disclosure and all leading to more confusion. And why is it that the details are always shrouded in mystery and so difficult to corroborate? This shouldn't have turned into such huge and ongoing mystery if there was a simple explanation. If it was an individual or the government that was responsible for the lights over Phoenix, then why wasn't there a press conference about that? Not a little admission, but a full out press conference divulging every last detail of how this sighting apparently fooled nearly 10,000 people.

There were several press conferences. It changed nothing. People who started the UFO story are not going to drop it for anyone, no matter what proof is available. The old "I know what I saw!"

You have to ask yourself, if 10,000 people saw this, how is it we only have a handful of legible pictures that look just like flares? And why would all the pictures be over the BGR as the military said, and not one photo of a V formation of lights hovering over the city, which would corroborate the witnesses?

Since this event was seen by so many witnesses, why didn't those in power set up a live demonstration to show the citizens of Phoenix EXACTLY how the lights were accomplished. Instead, maps and models were used, computer similated graphics and ridiculous explanations by dubious inviduals were presented. Why didn't they recreate the event, as it was seen, to show the public once and for all. Wouldn't this put an end to all the cristism and speculation? To me, this would be the perfect way to assure the city that there was nothing unusual seen in the skies over Phoenix back in 1997. But no, they couldn't and they can't because they wouldn't be able to recreate the event and because it wasn't conventional and earthly technology.

They did. Half the people when, Ohh, OK, the other half went NO WAY, that is NOT what I saw!! How can one win? Take out the human equation and rely on data, it does not lie, is not influenced and has no opinion. It is what it is.

Link - The Alien Invasion of Phoenix, Arizona.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

Arrogance has got nothing to do with it. People will believe whatever they think backs up their belief & discard the rational if it doesn't, hell it happens on this forum a hundred times a day. Americans are much more susceptible to the idea of alien visitation than other places around the world simply because of modern american sci-fi culture seen in hollywood films & t.v. UFO & alien stories have always followed the hollywood ideas of the time. During the 40s & 50s most sightings were of 'saucer shaped' craft, after Close encounters we had the emergence of 'the greys' & now after the 'X-Files' we have the 'triangle'.

All these things can be connected with the cultural fiction of it's time, ...no great mystery.

IMO, arrogance has *everything* to do with it. Your "people will believe whatever backs up their belief and discard the rest" - is the exact arrogance that I refer to.

Case in point right within this thread....

Several people saw an actual *craft*,,, triangular - not just "lights".

the so-caled flares apparently traveled hundreds of miles, according to witness accounts.

the skeptics look at those (and many more) evidences and totally blow them off because they do not support the belief that the arrogant ones cling to and refuse to let go. simple as that.

Sitting right in this UM board, skeptics will say the eye witnesses that saw the craft (it flew over a married couple, who had pulled over in their car) are crazy, delusional etc etc. CASE CLOSED! who needs evidence of their assertion, HA!

they actually use their conclusion as evidence that backs up their conclusion. Since it is FACT that winesses saw no craft (an evidence based on their conclusion), those witnesses had to be delusional people, right?

and witnesses that support their view...? hey - noneed to vet them, ther RIGHT!

see how it works?

to me, that is pure arrogance.

[psyche101]

IMO, arrogance has *everything* to do with it. Your "people will believe whatever backs up their belief and discard the rest" - is the exact arrogance that I refer to.

Case in point right within this thread....

Several Phoenix witnesses saw an actual *craft*,,, triangular - not just "lights".

the so-caled flares (lights) apparently traveled hundreds of miles, according to witness accounts.

the skeptics here look at those evidences (and many more) and just blow them completely off because the evidences do not support the belief that the arrogant ones cling to and refuse to let go. Simple as that.

Sitting right in this UM board, skeptics will say the eye witnesses that saw the craft (it flew over a married couple, who had pulled over in their car) are crazy, delusional etc etc. CASE CLOSED! Who needs evidence to defeat their assertion, HA!

They actually use their conclusion as evidence that backs up their conclusion. Since it is FACT that winesses saw no craft (an evidence based *only* on their conclusion), those witnesses had to be delusional people, right?

And witnesses that support their view...? Hey - no need to vet them for their sanity, they're obviously in their right mind, RIGHT?

see how it works? Just whisk those dumb-dumbs away by fiat. That's how you "win"!

To me, that is the epitome of arrogance.

Come on mate.

10,000 people, and we only have pictures of flares? How can that be? What would you do if a giant craft slowly ambled across your airspace?

You are choosing testimony over data. I do not see any value in that. What about the people who say planes, and individual lights? Why are they incorrect? It is not just the Government saying that, heck the Government has had stuff all to do with it, a pollie was one screaming Alienz! You are trusting a politician are you? That seems out of character for you?

[Hazzard]

Come on mate.

10,000 people, and we only have pictures of flares? How can that be? What would you do if a giant craft slowly ambled across your airspace?

You are choosing testimony over data. I do not see any value in that. What about the people who say planes, and individual lights? Why are they incorrect? It is not just the Government saying that, heck the Government has had stuff all to do with it, a pollie was one screaming Alienz! You are trusting a politician are you? That seems out of character for you?

[bee]

I guess I take him more seriously as I know what he was using, how it works, and that his reports are accurate with regards to specs.

He is definitely being suppressed, and was attacked for presenting his side of the story. If he is such small potatoes, one has to wonder why all proponents fear him greatly and try to bury him.

When Barwood made her appeal and the story began to appear in local newspapers, Jones attempted to let people know of Stanley's sighting. He called Richard de Uriarte, reader advocate at the Arizona Republic, as well as Barwood, directly. To both, Jones said that a local amateur astronomer had examined the lights through a large telescope and had seen that they were airplanes.

Jones says both promised to have someone call back who would take down his story and contact Mitch Stanley.

Neither one did.

"They really don't want to know," Linda Stanley says. "Here was a person who had seen it and [barwood] never bothered to contact us at all."

LINK

After his sighting, Stanley tried to contact a Phoenix city councilwoman who was making noise about the event, as well as a couple of UFO flim-flam men working the local scene, but he was rebuffed.

LINK

When Stanley first gave an account of his observation at the Discovery Channel Town Hall Meeting with all the witnesses there he was shouted down in his assertion that what he saw was what other witnesses saw

LINK

Some obviously "want to".

your third link contradicts the first two.....

now we have an un-named 'companion' in the mix...

and as for being 'shouted down'....we don't know how this came about. Seeing and listening to someone in person is very different

to reading the printed word. Perhaps Mitch (at top of post) wasn't at all convincing and didn't inspire confidence in what he said.

Perhaps the people there thought he was lying?....or attention seeking? or part of a cover-up?....and didn't like that.

Mitch Stanley, an amateur astronomer, observed high altitude lights flying in formation using a Dobsonian telescope giving 43× magnification. After observing the lights, he told his mother, who was present at the time, that the lights were aircraft.^[18] According to Stanley, the lights were quite clearly individual airplanes; a companion who was with him recalled asking Stanley at the time what the lights were, and he said, "Planes". When Stanley first gave an account of his observation at the Discovery Channel Town Hall Meeting with all the witnesses there he was shouted down in his assertion that what he saw was what other witnesses saw. Some have claimed that Stanley was seeing the Maryland National Guard jets flying in formation during a routine training mission at the Barry M. Goldwater bombing range south of Phoenix. His account as to the nature of the lights that moved in formation that night is contradicted by several thousand Phoenix residents without high powered telescopes, however, and no military or civilian aircraft formations were known to have been flying in the area at that time.

[Bionic Bigfoot]

Flare theory debunked easily and any person with a set of functioning eyes could tell the difference between illumination flares and the lights in the videos taken over the sky in Phoenix in 1997.

[psyche101]

your third link contradicts the first two.....

I do not see how.

Jones says both promised to have someone call back who would take down his story and contact Mitch Stanley.

Neither one did.

"They really don't want to know,

People do not want the bubble burst.

now we have an un-named 'companion' in the mix...

And the claim of "thousands" all have names? They seem perfectly valid......... from a certain perspective!

and as for being 'shouted down'....we don't know how this came about. Seeing and listening to someone in person is very different

to reading the printed word. Perhaps Mitch (at top of post) wasn't at all convincing and didn't inspire confidence in what he said.

LOL, pretend what you want. People were not happy to have a conventional explanation and got upset, just like the believers do in here. What they did not do was talk to Mitch and ask him about what he saw did they? Skeptics questions witnesses, but I do not think there is more than one answer that many are willing to hear on this one!

Like I said, I have a Dob at home, I know Mitch is on the ball with what he said. And that to me is more convincing than a thousand personal interpretations. Not one claimant can say they had the perspective Stanley did. He had the best view in town. What a shame he does not have a camera on his scope.

Perhaps the people there thought he was lying?....or attention seeking? or part of a cover-up?....and didn't like that.

They nearly lost a loved one is more the case I would say.

Cover up? LOL, you have got to be kidding me. Mitch Stanley 21 year old MIB. Good God Bee.

[psyche101]

Flare theory debunked easily and any person with a set of functioning eyes could tell the difference between illumination flares and the lights in the videos taken over the sky in Phoenix in 1997.

[media=]

[/media]

If that is the case, it should be a snap to falsify the triangulation math, and find a picture that is not flares

Not much to ask?

[psyche101]

[Bionic Bigfoot]

Oh goody, it's picture sharing time.

[itsnotoutthere]

http://oracleofreason.com/2012/06/24/the-phoenix-lights-were-flares/

"This past March 13th marked the 15th Anniversary of the infamous Phoenix Lights.

The event occurred on March 13th, 1997 in which colored, unidentified flying orb-like objects that allegedly hovered over the Valley of the Sun.

Unfortunately, to this day, the local media stations still pitch this as an unexplained phenomenon.

However, the facts about this speak for themselves. The Phoenix Lights were not unexplained and are not unexplainable at all.

The moment that each light disappeared on the videotapes and photographs used to document the event shows that the lights meet the horizon line of the Sierra Estrella mountains, proving that the objects were not over Phoenix but, in fact, were behind the mountains.

In reality, the orb-like colored objects seen that night were nothing more than extra military flares jettisoned by a group of A-10 ground attack planes on maneuvers at the Barry Goldwater firing range from Luke Air Force Base that evening.

A young man saw the planes through his telescope the night this event occured and a couple who were flying a plane near the site where this took place came forward and asserted the lights seen that evening were flares.

In March 2007 Lt. Col. Ed Jones, confirmed that he had flown one of the aircraft in the formation that dropped flares on the night in question."

link :- http://oracleofreason.com/2012/06/24/the-phoenix-lights-were-flares/

[quillius]

Contrey and Ley were suppressed by the promoters of the incident. They confirm Stanley's observations but their evidences and testimonies were buried by the likes of Symington. Yet Symington is screaming for the truth? Could he be a bigger hypocrite?

Hey Psyche,

how were they suppressed?

[psyche101]

Oh goody, it's picture sharing time.

SNAP.

[bee]

I do not see how.

http://www.skeptic.c...eptic/08-05-21/

And he had a witness: he had told his mother, who was standing nearby, that the lights were planes.

note..witness...only his mother...no 'companion'...

http://www.phoenixne...t-ufo-cover-up/

That night Mitch and his mother, Linda, were in the backyard and noticed the lights coming from the north. Since the lights seemed to be moving so slowly, Mitch attempted to capture them in the scope. He succeeded, and the leading three lights fit in his field of vision. Linda asked what they were.

"Planes," Mitch said.

http://en.wikipedia....hts#First_event

After observing the lights, he told his mother, who was present at the time, that the lights were aircraft.^[18] According to Stanley, the lights were quite clearly individual airplanes; a companion who was with him recalled asking Stanley at the time what the lights were, and he said, "Planes".

hope that helps.. ...Funny how you didn't see the bit about the 'companion' when you quoted the very next bit in your post.

I would have thought an additional 'witness' to the hallowed WORDS of Mitch would have been useful to you...

What a shame he does not have a camera on his scope.

isn't it just.....and very convenient....

You believe Mitch if you want to....his mum did...

[Hazzard]

If that is the case, it should be a snap to falsify the triangulation math, and find a picture that is not flares

Not much to ask?

One would think not. But then again, "Greek" wasnt exactly his cup of tea.

I wonder what is?