6153 replies to this topic

[booNyzarC]

747400, on 26 April 2011 - 07:26 PM, said:

I don't suppose anyone is particularly interested, but just for my own interest, this is what i reckon about some of our regular friends. -->

Spoiler

Roswell (yes, i said it); this is one that I was reasonably satisfied about, that it was most likely a balloon and someone at Roswell AAF got over-excited and slipped a story to the press, and ended up with egg on their face.  But, lately I have been wondering if the more colourful elements (the tales about the bodies and so on) might not have been added alter to deliberately muddy the waters and discredit the original Story, and whether there might not have been something in the original story after all. But, perhaps, one day, we shall see, although, probably not.  

L.A., Battle Of: inexperienced and trigger-happy gunners getting over-excited in response to a false radar* echo, which may have been a balloon, or may not have been anything at all, I think.

The Belgian triangle: despite what I said about Triangles above, this one I think was most likely due to weather ocnditions causing, and I think this shouldn't be overlooked when people are arguing about the infallibility of much earlier systems, false radar echoes. The picture of the 'craft' looks very tantalising, but it does seem to be the only picture that was ever taken of it, and that, surely, is fishy.  

Japan Air Lines: I'm still open-minded about this one. I think it's probably most likely to be weather conditions and, once again, false radar returns, but I'm not coming down on one side or the other about this just yet.  

Rendlesham: Despite some seeming to be fairly certain, this is another that I'm staying on the fence about. I think Orford Ness lighthouse almost certainly played a part, but i do wonder if there wasn't more going on that was messing with their perceptions in some way or other. I wonder if the presence of a unit that specialised in Aerospace rescue & recovery on the base may or may have been significant.  So, another   .

The Phoenix Nights: Flares, probably.  

The DSP Satellite, or the Bivalve Clam Affair: This is another I'm not sure about. Maybe a meteor or space debris of some kind, but I don't think the evidence is conclusive.  


If I think of any more, I may let you know.


* RADAR, if you insist.

I was interested and I appreciate your opinions about these cases.

[DONTEATUS]

747400 always at least keeps one foot in the believers door,and a sharp eye to the sky.
As we all should do. Because if you dont Look up you may never see the Wonders of the Universe!
IT onlt takes one actual Landing and Factual meeting with E.T. soon to change all minds on this planet.
Im saveing up some special B.B.Q sauce and really good aged Oak,and Cherry wood for the Smoker ,The Babybacks will Knock there ?
Hum ! Ive never heard of E.T. wearing socks ,have you?
Well It will knock there walkmans outta there heads and Lip smackin Big Googoo eyed Nakie,Aliens will just Love the Texas B.B.Q I`ll
prepair for them!

Noow Who eles is in for the Party of the Century?
You know Mid will be there I know this for sure ! Seezya!justDONTEATUS

[quillius]

booNyzarC, on 26 April 2011 - 02:10 PM, said:

As fascinating and compelling as the Portage County case is for me, I'm not sure where else we can take the discussion with it.  It is a genuine unknown and with the time that has passed, the opportunity for finding new information about it seems unlikely.  Baring some kind of FOIA release of documents, if there are any, I don't think we are going to make much headway.

I appreciate we do not have the video evidence in this case, however many officers observing the object from close range and for a period of time, coupled with the other witnesses leaves few options IMO. The usual footage can be lanterns, balloons, planes, birds etc etc, all these usually possible, so sometimes these close range events can be more beneficial in narrowing down possibilities than video footage. Both is obviously far better, especially if close range footage. I do agree with your comments regarding the Colares case.

Conversely, the Colares case could be opened up a bit I think because as far as I know there is still quite a bit of unreleased documentation about it in the form of videos and photographs taken by the military during Operation Plato (Saucer).  This case has a barrier of its own, however, in that the majority of released information is in Portuguese.

booNyzarC, on 26 April 2011 - 02:10 PM, said:

Yeah, even some of the people who took those videos remain somewhat unconvinced regarding the flare explanation.  Whether that is because they are genuinely unconvinced or because they're now deriving income from the whole thing is hard to say.  Dr. Lynne Kitei who was the source of Maccabee's L video, for example, has abandoned her medical practice I believe so that she can write books, produce movies, and participate on the UFOlogy speaking circuit.  And Steven Blonder, another videographer from 3/17/97 (the source of the HAMILTON AND KING portion of Maccabee's analysis I believe.  His videos are here.), is pushing Kabala in relation to his videos.

Many of these witnesses have a vested stake in keeping this sighting alive and as mysterious as possible.

this video above.....

booNyzarC, on 26 April 2011 - 02:10 PM, said:

This is a tough question to answer because the descriptions by witnesses vary so much.  Anyone who has been following this discussion here is familiar with the testimony by Mitch Stanley, given after identifying the earlier sighting as a formation of aircraft (conventional, not extraterrestrial).  I probably don't need to remind people, but I will anyway, this was observed thru his Dobson telescope which makes his ability to identify the sighting significantly larger than someone using the naked eye.

Not many people seem to realize it, but there was footage captured from one of the earlier sightings as well.  This was shot by Jeff Willis, whose name you might recognize because he has been videoing UFOs for a very long time (amazing that he's managed to get as many videos as he has, don't you think?).  You can see his footage (reportedly shot around 7:30 PM on 3/13/97) at about 2:40 or so in this YouTube clip, he starts talking about it a bit earlier at like 2:20 or so:



Not too impressive is it?  Could be all kinds of things I suppose.  But alien space craft?

Also of note is the footage at 1:00.  Now what does that look like to you?  Looks like a formation of planes to me...

Suffice it to say, my personal opinion about the earlier sightings in Phoenix on that day were probably a combination of things and I strongly suspect that a great number of witnesses have embellished what they saw to the point that it became much larger in their minds than it actually was, either intentionally, or as a result of some kind of mass hysteria.  It reminds me of the proverbial fisherman's tale, "I caught a fish and it was THIS BIG!"  I can't guarantee this, of course, but just based on the intensive looking I've done into this case, it seems to fit the bill pretty well.

along with this video you posted have me hooked on phoenix lights  

Would this be a fair summary of the general concensus on Phoenix?

1) earlier sighting just planes leading to embellished stories.
2- night sighting (10pm) flares

If I may just one quick question, the witnesses from the ball park that said they saw object pass overhead, do you think this is also stretching out the 'fisherman' story?

[Paxus]

747400, on 26 April 2011 - 07:26 PM, said:

<SNIP>
Japan Air Lines: I'm still open-minded about this one. I think it's probably most likely to be weather conditions and, once again, false radar returns, but I'm not coming down on one side or the other about this just yet.  
<SNIP>

If this is the same one I'm thinking about I don't see how you can possibly say that....
How has weather conditions (and please bear in mind pilots know all about weather!) and false radar returns got anything to do with seeing a giant walnut-looking UFO manouvering around outside your windows???

LINK for psyche101 (my reply to your reply to my last reply )

I'd also like to mention something in-line with DONTEATUS' recent posts:
Anyone can come along and with much thought and analysis, planning and manipulation (keep in mind you have hundreds of variables to play with) and CONSTRUCT an explination for pretty much any sighting.

Edited by Paxus, 26 April 2011 - 10:10 PM.

[skyeagle409]

747400, on 26 April 2011 - 07:26 PM, said:

I don't suppose anyone is particularly interested, but just for my own interest, this is what i reckon about some of our regular friends. -->

Roswell (yes, i said it); this is one that I was reasonably satisfied about, that it was most likely a balloon and someone at Roswell AAF got over-excited and slipped a story to the press, and ended up with egg on their face.  But, lately I have been wondering if the more colourful elements (the tales about the bodies and so on) might not have been added alter to deliberately muddy the waters and discredit the original Story, and whether there might not have been something in the original story after all. But, perhaps, one day, we shall see, although, probably not.  

L.A., Battle Of: inexperienced and trigger-happy gunners getting over-excited in response to a false radar* echo, which may have been a balloon, or may not have been anything at all, I think.

The Belgian triangle: despite what I said about Triangles above, this one I think was most likely due to weather ocnditions causing, and I think this shouldn't be overlooked when people are arguing about the infallibility of much earlier systems, false radar echoes. The picture of the 'craft' looks very tantalising, but it does seem to be the only picture that was ever taken of it, and that, surely, is fishy.  

Japan Air Lines: I'm still open-minded about this one. I think it's probably most likely to be weather conditions and, once again, false radar returns, but I'm not coming down on one side or the other about this just yet.  

Rendlesham: Despite some seeming to be fairly certain, this is another that I'm staying on the fence about. I think Orford Ness lighthouse almost certainly played a part, but i do wonder if there wasn't more going on that was messing with their perceptions in some way or other. I wonder if the presence of a unit that specialised in Aerospace rescue & recovery on the base may or may have been significant.  So, another   .

The Phoenix Nights: Flares, probably.  

The DSP Satellite, or the Bivalve Clam Affair: This is another I'm not sure about. Maybe a meteor or space debris of some kind, but I don't think the evidence is conclusive.  


If I think of any more, I may let you know.


* RADAR, if you insist.

How about:

*  The Iranian UFO of 1976 was a Soviet Backfire bomber in afterburner

*  The 1952 Washington D.C. UFOs were radar glitches caused by temperature inversions.
Never mind that radar controllers were also confirming the objects on their scopes by simply looking out the windows, not to mention the exact positions of the objects on the radar scopes were also confirmed by commercial and military pilots in the area.

*  The Nellis UFO was a balloon.
Never mind that data had shown the object traveling at times at over 600 mph.

*  The UFO in the Lonnie Zamora case, was an experimental NASA moon lander.
Never mind the moon lander had no range to even reach the area from the nearest airbase.

*  In regards to the JAL incident, Mars and Jupiter were the UFOs responsible for that incident.
Never mind that both planets were not even in the same patch of sky as the UFOs, not to mention that the UFOs were also tracked on ground-based radars.

*   The Malmstrom AFB UFOs were not reported by ground security guards.
Never mind that not only did they report the UFOs overhead, but the folks at Hill AFB were still talking about the incident after I arrived at Hill more than a year later, as it was reported as an UFO incident involving Echo flight. On top of that, there was a reported landing in the area in one of those cases as well.

*   The  UFO encounter over Chile could not have taken place above 60,000 feet because the pilot was not wearing an astronaut flight suit.
Never mind that as long as the 90-second rule is observed, no astronaut suit is required for flights above 60,000 feet.

*   Astronomers have not seen or reported UFOs
Never mind that Sir Edmund Halley, discoverer of "Halley's Comet," and Clyde Tombaugh, discoverer of "Pluto," have also reported tracking UFOs. Never mind that there are many reports of astronomers tracking UFOs, not only in space, but within the vicinity of the moon as well.

*  The Rendlesham UFO incidents were caused by a security policeman in a battered  military patrol car.
Never mind the car never left the base and that the person who was claimed to have concocted a prank, later admitted that he was not  responsible after all.

*  The UFO hovering over Wright-Patterson AFB, which was photographed by an Air Force aircraft, was nothing more than a weather balloon at 30,000 feet.
Try getting a weather balloon to hover over a particular spot for a long period of time at 30,000 feet in high winds.

*  The C-54 could not land at Kirtland AFB because the runway was too short.
Never mind that the C-54, and larger and heavier B-29  were aircraft flying components of the first atomic bombs out of Kirtland AFB.

And, there's more as well.

Edited by skyeagle409, 26 April 2011 - 10:10 PM.

[skyeagle409]

lost_shaman, on 26 April 2011 - 07:15 AM, said:

Interesting that ALL three of your links quote the exact same sentence.

"They explained that the A-10 had released the flares at about 6,000 feet and that the flares had ignited at around 3,000 feet."

You clearly did not search far nor wide for your links. A Google search of the exact sentence above returns not only this thread (before my post here) but also your three links within the top 5 returns!

What is ironic is that you constantly accuse others of not "doing their homework" and using 'sites' that are biased. Yet you seem to think linking to the same sentence three times 'proves' something... It doesn't.

Nor does it 'prove' you can do "your homework", it proves you just searched for people who quoted Gazrok!  

Once again, I have seen flares in real life and those lights are not flares by any means.Not even close.

[psyche101]

skyeagle409, on 23 April 2011 - 12:19 AM, said:

Symington: I saw a UFO in the Arizona sky

AVIATION SAFETY
November 09, 2007

By Fife Symington Special to CNN

In 1997, during my second term as governor of Arizona, I saw something that defied logic and challenged my reality. I witnessed a massive delta-shaped, craft silently navigate over Squaw Peak, a mountain range in Phoenix, Arizona. It was truly breathtaking. I was absolutely stunned because I was turning to the west looking for the distant Phoenix Lights. To my astonishment this apparition appeared; this dramatically large, very distinctive leading edge with some enormous lights was traveling through the Arizona sky.

As a pilot and a former Air Force Officer, I can definitively say that this craft did not resemble any man-made object I'd ever seen. And it was certainly not high-altitude flares because flares don't fly in formation.

My link

You are just drawn to nutters aren't you.


Here is a picture if Fyfe, the man who saw a Triangle at Phoenix, revealing to the world just who it was over Phoenix that night.



This man's colourful interpretation and accompanying side show is more valid than Mitch Stanley how?

Dead set, you are freaking joking aren't you?

Perc, Boon, Cz and Perc really embarrassed you on this one, you should let it go, you look more credulous by the second.

[psyche101]

Slave2Fate, on 23 April 2011 - 12:26 AM, said:

There were two (or more, considering the testimonies) separate incidents, the 'flares' are not the same as the triangle shaped lights that were seen. Why do you persist in confusing the two?

Perhaps Sky is about to reveal that Gorillas were flying the triangle over Phoenix that night. A gogd mix of his admitted, failed, and incorrect tactics, that get nobody anywhere but foster much animosity.

[psyche101]

skyeagle409, on 23 April 2011 - 12:30 AM, said:

I already have, but it seems that there were very important hints that were definitely ignored..

Hints, reading between the lines, appeals to authority all pale into insignificant obscurity when presented with real evidence supported by math as has been shown in this forum.

[Hazzard]

I agree with DB, Boon, 747 and most of the skeptics here. That most of these cases are pure BS, lies, hoaxes, and/or retrospective falcifications... Not even to mention illogical reasoning and self-deception.



Having that said, my personal favorite case is the 1976 Tehran UFO Incident.

http://en.wikipedia....an_UFO_incident

[booNyzarC]

psyche101, on 26 April 2011 - 11:01 PM, said:

--
Dead set, you are freaking joking aren't you?

Perc, Boon, Cz and Perc really embarrassed you on this one, you should let it go, you look more credulous by the second.

Don't forget to mention Perc.

J/K, I'm confident you intended to include lost_shaman in this grouping considering the incredible information he's put together regarding this case.

[booNyzarC]

quillius, on 26 April 2011 - 08:57 PM, said:

--
this video above.....


along with this video you posted have me hooked on phoenix lights  

Would this be a fair summary of the general concensus on Phoenix?

1) earlier sighting just planes leading to embellished stories.
2- night sighting (10pm) flares

If I may just one quick question, the witnesses from the ball park that said they saw object pass overhead, do you think this is also stretching out the 'fisherman' story?

Fair summary for the most part, in my opinion.

If you are talking about the little league game, I'd say that they likely were embellishing their observation just a bit.  I wasn't there with them at the time, of course, so I could be totally wrong, but that is the feeling I'm getting for almost all of the witnesses.

Speaking of the witnesses...  when people talk about the significance of this they mention the thousands of witnesses.  I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of those thousands were for the later sighting and that there were really only a handful of people (respectively) who saw the earlier sightings.  Most who saw the earlier sightings, unless I'm mistaken, didn't report anything out of the ordinary until after the mysterious flare drop which had the whole greater Phoenix area buzzing.

[lost_shaman]

skyeagle409, on 26 April 2011 - 10:16 PM, said:

Once again, I have seen flares in real life and those lights are not flares by any means.Not even close.

At these distances Flares would only look like bright point sources to both your eyes and a Video Camera(0.50734 Seconds of arc). Therefore what K's Video shows looks exactly like what a Flare would look like at these distances. The resolution limit of your eye's w/ 20/20 vision is ~1 minute of arc.

What's sad is that you can't even get your own personal anecdote to coincide with the FACTS.

[lost_shaman]

quillius, on 26 April 2011 - 11:53 AM, said:

Has the evidence you have looked at point to any conclusion (even if you are speculating) so far?

Hey quillius,

No firm conclusions. This '77 Flap is one of the stranger Flaps IMO, though. I was first really interested in this Flap because there seemed to be quite of number of small UFO's reported (my own close encounter was a small UFO). Eventually while looking at this Flap I was led in the direction of Hessdalen... So if you are going to force me to speculate, UAP (Plasma) probably played a large role in the Flap. The Flap itself, while having high strangeness, doesn't convince me that E.T. was involved despite the few reports that state this was the case.

[skyeagle409]

psyche101, on 26 April 2011 - 11:01 PM, said:

You are just drawn to nutters aren't you.


Here is a picture if Fyfe, the man who saw a Triangle at Phoenix, revealing to the world just who it was over Phoenix that night.



This man's colourful interpretation and accompanying side show is more valid than Mitch Stanley how?

Dead set, you are freaking joking aren't you?

Perc, Boon, Cz and Perc really embarrassed you on this one, you should let it go, you look more credulous by the second.

How amusing when even those in the valley, saw the lights as well, which made their figures moot by that very fact., and I have been to Phoenix many times before to know their figures didn't add up and in fact, I will passing through Phoenix this weekend.

What are they saying?

Edited by skyeagle409, 27 April 2011 - 02:06 AM.