1012 replies to this topic

[bee]

.
hey booN...

emphasising it in red doesn't make it true.....

there is no proof that the young man saw planes...just his word

he could have been after a bit of fame....or part of a set up to debunk the Phoenix Lights

who knows

.

[booNyzarC]

bee, on 10 October 2012 - 10:56 PM, said:

.
hey booN...

emphasising it in red doesn't make it true.....

there is no proof that the young man saw planes...just his word

he could have been after a bit of fame....or part of a set up to debunk the Phoenix Lights

who knows

.

Yeah, that's a compelling and convincing response to what he said....  


Sorry bee, but you're really grasping at straws here.  There is no question in what he stated.  And we're talking about a kid here.  Are you trying to suggest that he was a government disinformation agent or something?

This is bordering on ridiculous.  No, actually, it has long since surpassed ridiculous.

[bee]

booNyzarC, on 10 October 2012 - 11:04 PM, said:

  And we're talking about a kid here.  Are you trying to suggest that he was a government disinformation agent or something?

He was a young man, not a kid.

And who's to say he wasn't coerced....you must surely have considered that?

Which ever way you look at it...its very weak evidence at best.

sorry


.

[booNyzarC]

bee, on 10 October 2012 - 11:21 PM, said:

He was a young man, not a kid.

And who's to say he wasn't coerced....you must surely have considered that?

Something tells me that you wouldn't be saying this if he had reported seeing ET...

Your bias is showing through in spades today bee.

bee, on 10 October 2012 - 11:21 PM, said:

Which ever way you look at it...its very weak evidence at best.

sorry


.

I disagree.  It is extremely strong evidence.

You just don't like it because of the mundane implications.

[bee]

booNyzarC, on 10 October 2012 - 11:29 PM, said:

Your bias is showing through in spades today bee.

as is yours.......

[Slave2Fate]

bee, on 10 October 2012 - 11:21 PM, said:

He was a young man, not a kid.

And who's to say he wasn't coerced....you must surely have considered that?

Which ever way you look at it...its very weak evidence at best.

sorry


.

If he was coerced into this, why not more? If this was covered up we would have more than just a couple of people offering testimony, we would likely have a large amount with flight logs handily passed around for everyone to see and interviews with the pilots etc. etc. If the Phoenix lights were covered up then it was a pretty shoddy job done of it.

[booNyzarC]

bee, on 10 October 2012 - 11:31 PM, said:

as is yours.......

How so bee?

[TheMacGuffin]

TheMacGuffin, on 10 October 2012 - 10:27 PM, said:

I haven't made up my mind about every case. *snip*

I have good reasons to believe this was not just conventional planes or flares.

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 11 October 2012 - 01:04 AM.

[TheMacGuffin]

And what the governor of Arizona saw and thousands of others saw is not strong evidence?  I beg to differ.

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 11 October 2012 - 01:37 AM.

[booNyzarC]

TheMacGuffin, on 11 October 2012 - 01:37 AM, said:

And what the governor of Arizona saw and thousands of others saw is not strong evidence?  I beg to differ.

I can only assume that you are addressing me with this.

I agree that the eye witness testimony in this case is strong evidence, or at least legitimate and important evidence.  When comparing the eye witness testimonies given, I consider them all to be of value, even the ones that don't identify the earlier sighting as planes in formation.  I account for all of them and dismiss none of them.

Can you say the same?



Edit: Added a word.

Edited by booNyzarC, 11 October 2012 - 01:44 AM.

[TheMacGuffin]

And I am going to keep repeating that the "Phoenix Lights" were seen in Nevada and all over Arizona, so even the name of the case is wrong.  No "skeptics" want to discuss this because it further undermines the story about the flares, but it is the truth.

http://www.google.co...29,r:6,s:0,i:90

[TheMacGuffin]

booNyzarC, on 11 October 2012 - 01:44 AM, said:

I can only assume that you are addressing me with this.

I agree that the eye witness testimony in this case is strong evidence, or at least legitimate and important evidence.  When comparing the eye witness testimonies given, I consider them all to be of value, even the ones that don't identify the earlier sighting as planes in formation.  I account for all of them and dismiss none of them.

Can you say the same?

I don't think you do because you don't account for the witnesses in Nevada and other parts of Arizona who also saw the UFO, or even the people in Phoenix who saw more than one UFO, etc., etc.

The report I posted above accounts for much more of it than what has been posted on here by the "skeptics".

[booNyzarC]

TheMacGuffin, on 11 October 2012 - 01:51 AM, said:

And I am going to keep repeating that the "Phoenix Lights" were seen in Nevada and all over Arizona, so even the name of the case is wrong.  No "skeptics" want to discuss this because it further undermines the story about the flares, but it is the truth.

http://www.google.co...29,r:6,s:0,i:90

I didn't see anything whatsoever in that link which disagrees with the assessment of events that I have given.  If you see an inconsistency, please point it out.

TheMacGuffin, on 11 October 2012 - 01:54 AM, said:

I don't think you do because you don't account for the witnesses in Nevada and other parts of Arizona who also saw the UFO, or even the people in Phoenix who saw more than one UFO, etc., etc.

The report I posted above accounts for much more of it than what has been posted on here by the "skeptics".

I'm not sure where your confusion on this lies, but again I don't see any inconsistencies in that article from what I've been saying all along.  The author of your link appears to confirm that the 10 PM videos are of flares and that the one video of the earlier events is not.  That's exactly what I'm saying as well.

Is it just because I've been saying it that you are averse to the words, but when someone else says it you are willing to accept them?


Granted, my investigations into this appear to have yielded a bit more detail regarding the earlier sightings than the author in your link, but up to the point where he has figured things out I don't think I disagree with him after my initial cursory read.

[TheMacGuffin]

booNyzarC, on 11 October 2012 - 02:25 AM, said:

I didn't see anything whatsoever in that link which disagrees with the assessment of events that I have given.  If you see an inconsistency, please point it out.

I'm not sure where your confusion on this lies, but again I don't see any inconsistencies in that article from what I've been saying all along.  The author of your link

The so-called Phoenix Lights are just one small fraction of this entire UFO incident, since this large craft was seen in various places around Nevada and Arizona at that time.

It wasn't only "lights" either.

[TheMacGuffin]

And the area near Phoenix where the "flares" were seen had been having UFO reports for months beforehand, but that's another story--just not one that has been discussed very much.