1012 replies to this topic

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Earl.Of.Trumps, on 22 October 2012 - 07:58 PM, said:

hot dang, you have a lot of posts. I tip my hat, sir!

Perhaps if you were to make it a bit clearer what it is you're trying to say, people might find it a bit easier to understand what it is you're trying to say. What is it you're trying to say exactly?

Edited by 747400, 23 October 2012 - 08:28 AM.

[quillius]

psyche101, on 23 October 2012 - 01:44 AM, said:

Gidday Mate

I do not think they have to be bright. Just last night when I arrived home I saw an unusual light in the sky. It was very bright, and too high to hear, and I could only see one light. It caught my attention because it was crossing what is a normal flight path at about 30 degrees. Speed indicated to me that it was likely a plane. I see lights before I hear planes all the time, I do not think it has to be extremely bright, as they are by default. But merging one light into two I think would be easily accomplished with failing eyesight (which is everyone in Phoenix pretty much over 40 at least) or parallax error would more than compensate for many more claims. And considering the claims come from all corners of Phoenix, I do not see how parallax error is not a factor?



It depends on what he saw, Some are saying he saw military, but Mitch seems to think what he saw was private. SOme claims say the lights were in the direction of the Phoenix airport, if the planes were private as Mitch suggested, and on approach to the airport, I would presume they are in a landing pattern, the height would then be between 3,000 and 300 feet roughly wouldn't it? Again, dependant in individual claims based on vantage points.

gidday mate,  well I have seen the term small and private banded about but as I have said many times I havent seen anything directly from Mitch, apart from the small snippet from the town hall meeting Boon posted. That said, the comment about 'private' could be incorrect, as could comments about 'wingtip to wingtip' as could 'squarish wings' as could direction and ofcourse the ellusive time frame which I still cannot find.  One other quick point 3000-300 feet doesnt quite work with the 19000 needed as a minimum.....(Printys estimations)

psyche101, on 23 October 2012 - 01:44 AM, said:

That's the one. the Hack and the Quack article. I gave the link

It was plain to see, Stanley says. Under magnification, Stanley could clearly see that each light split into pairs, one each on the tips of squarish wings. Even under the telescope's power, the planes appeared small, indicating that they were flying high. Stanley says he followed the planes for about a minute, then turned his telescope to more interesting objects.

again this highlights a problem as I indicated above...what did Mitch actually say?, the comment about planes appeared small indicating they were flying high is NOT correct....they could have just been in the distance hence looking small it doesnt mean they were high as suggested.

psyche101, on 23 October 2012 - 01:44 AM, said:

Frances Emma Barwood has an agenda, I think she is a hyped up nutter. Looking at what she offered:



Spiteful, nasty, and offeres no more than an appeal to authority. Another who qualifies "thousands" as solid "evidence" I'd really like to see her back that up. This is the sort of crackpot who stifled Mitch. From a personal perspective, I do not believe her for a second that she had no number to call, and she stated that she knew Mitch was a friend of Ortegas, whom she could have easily called to get Mitch's details. Frances Emma Barwood is one of the people that make this subject a tin foil hat one. I think UFOLogists should be more wary of hooking up with dodgy people like this to be honest.

To be honest she does not do anyone any favours and I can see how she could easily be 'destroyed' especially by your good self.....

[quillius]

Saguaro Astronomy Club
Metro Phoenix, Arizona
SACNEWS
December 1997 | Issue #251
v11.24
Grasslands Observatory
by Jack Jones
Dark of the moon, Mitch Stanley, a new SAC mem-
ber, and I were invited to Grasslands Observatory near
Tucson to meet astronomer James McGaha and talk about
Mitch’s experience of seeing the \Phoenix Lights" through
his 10-inch Schwaar re ector. On March 13, Mitch was in
his backyard checking things out and at 65 power caught
a V-shaped formation of airplanes slowly creeping across
the sky over Scottsdale. He quickly moved on to other
things, since he’d already seen way too many airplanes
since getting the scope a year ago. He had no idea what a
big foo-farrah would develop in the coming months after
this one sighting, but that’s another story.
Grasslands Observatory is located about 60 miles
southeast of Jim McGaha’s house in the Sabino Canyon
suburbs of Tucson just south of a little town called Sonoita
in the Santa Rita mountain range at 5000 feet. I’ve never
gotten to 5000 feet so quickly in a car from a major
metropolitan area, but starting from Tucson’s 2400 feet
sure helps! The observatory houses a two-ton 24-inch re-
ector under a roll-o roof. A warming room housing a
computer and library is adjacent. After dinner in Sonoita,
the three of us arrived about 10 PM, and Jim had the
scope ready minutes after unlocking the doors. As the
roof rolled back, it seemed to take the heat of the day
with it and a cool breeze came over. He would have been
even quicker setting up but the telescope was out tted for
CCD work and he had to convert to observing mode for
us amateurs

[Hazzard]

DONTEATUS, on 23 October 2012 - 02:34 AM, said:

WHere did it all Go So! wrong ?

I think it all started when people forgot to turn on their critical thinking ability. Logic and reason goes a long way.

Not saying that fantasy is all bad,... Im a sucker for everything sci-fi. But sometimes it can be important to be able to separate fact from fiction and opinions.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Hazzard, on 23 October 2012 - 10:55 AM, said:

I think it all started when people forgot to turn on their critical thinking ability. Logic and reason goes a long way.

Not saying that fantasy is all bad,... Im a sucker for everything sci-fi. But sometimes it can be important to be able to separate fact from fiction and opinions.

Indeed so. Just as long as such stringent standards are also applied to "rational" explanations.

[booNyzarC]

747400, on 23 October 2012 - 08:23 AM, said:

They're an Aerobatic team. Their operations aren't exactly a secret. the point I keep trying to say is that it should be easy enough to verify whether or not their were any Canadian squadrons in the area for exercises at the time. Someone must still have a record of that, and there's no reason why that would be secret.

Did you miss my hypothetical scenario in post #857?  Does that not provide one possible and plausible scenario that could have easily taken place by a group of pilots who's very intention may have been to perpetrate a hoax?  The planes don't need to be Tutors and the pilots don't need to be Canadian.  The bottom line here is that some witnesses positively identified the fact that the formation consisted of planes, and some other witnesses positively identified the fact that the lights were distinctly individual and not part of a singular large object; all supported by Terry Proctor's footage.  How is that insufficient to conclude that it was planes?

747400, on 23 October 2012 - 12:44 PM, said:

Indeed so. Just as long as such stringent standards are also applied to "rational" explanations.

It seems as though you would only be willing to accept the conclusion that planes flying in formation were responsible for the earlier flyover event if we can name the specific planes and pilots who were involved.  Is that an accurate description of the stringent standard you are applying to this case?

[booNyzarC]

quillius, on 23 October 2012 - 09:10 AM, said:

Saguaro Astronomy Club
Metro Phoenix, Arizona
SACNEWS
December 1997 | Issue #251
v11.24
Grasslands Observatory
by Jack Jones
Dark of the moon, Mitch Stanley, a new SAC mem-
ber, and I were invited to Grasslands Observatory near
Tucson to meet astronomer James McGaha and talk about
Mitch’s experience of seeing the \Phoenix Lights" through
his 10-inch Schwaar re ector. On March 13, Mitch was in
his backyard checking things out and at 65 power caught
a V-shaped formation of airplanes slowly creeping across
the sky over Scottsdale. He quickly moved on to other
things, since he’d already seen way too many airplanes
since getting the scope a year ago. He had no idea what a
big foo-farrah would develop in the coming months after
this one sighting, but that’s another story.
Grasslands Observatory is located about 60 miles
southeast of Jim McGaha’s house in the Sabino Canyon
suburbs of Tucson just south of a little town called Sonoita
in the Santa Rita mountain range at 5000 feet. I’ve never
gotten to 5000 feet so quickly in a car from a major
metropolitan area, but starting from Tucson’s 2400 feet
sure helps! The observatory houses a two-ton 24-inch re-
ector under a roll-o roof. A warming room housing a
computer and library is adjacent. After dinner in Sonoita,
the three of us arrived about 10 PM, and Jim had the
scope ready minutes after unlocking the doors. As the
roof rolled back, it seemed to take the heat of the day
with it and a cool breeze came over. He would have been
even quicker setting up but the telescope was out tted for
CCD work and he had to convert to observing mode for
us amateurs

Hi quillius.

I don't want to make assumptions here, so can you clarify what you believe the significance of this article is as related to Mitch's sighting?

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

booNyzarC, on 23 October 2012 - 01:56 PM, said:

Did you miss my hypothetical scenario in post #857?  Does that not provide one possible and plausible scenario that could have easily taken place by a group of pilots who's very intention may have been to perpetrate a hoax?  The planes don't need to be Tutors and the pilots don't need to be Canadian.  The bottom line here is that some witnesses positively identified the fact that the formation consisted of planes, and some other witnesses positively identified the fact that the lights were distinctly individual and not part of a singular large object; all supported by Terry Proctor's footage.  How is that insufficient to conclude that it was planes?




It seems as though you would only be willing to accept the conclusion that planes flying in formation were responsible for the earlier flyover event if we can name the specific planes and pilots who were involved.  Is that an accurate description of the stringent standard you are applying to this case?

All I've been trying to argue about regrding the Phoneix business was the suggestion that the Canadians were responsible; all I've ever been saying is that it should surely be possible to verify whether or not any canadians were about at the time, without needing to go into elaborate theories about unauthorised flights or anything like that. I've just been saying that it shouldn't be too difficult to be able to rule the Candians out, so then we could maybe concentrate on who it might have been.

[Gummug]

booNyzarC, on 20 October 2012 - 09:50 PM, said:

Who exactly do you think didn't watch the OP video and why?

(Sorry feeling a little lazy right now) mainly I was thinking of some of the posters who supported the lights as being flares...

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

psyche101, on 23 October 2012 - 02:01 AM, said:

So was it a burglar, or did another dog on heat wander past on Wednesday night?

Something you should be aware of or not?

how would I know? The owner never went out to check.

"Identity" is not the issue here. Existentialism is.

10-4?

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

747400, on 23 October 2012 - 08:25 AM, said:

Perhaps if you were to make it a bit clearer what it is you're trying to say, people might find it a bit easier to understand what it is you're trying to say. What is it you're trying to say exactly?

Really!?

Something spooked the dogs on Wednesday night.


Go to the SW corner of North America, in Arizona, Nevada, Sorona MX, March 1997

March 11th - nothing unusual
March 12th - nothing unusual

March 13th - All hell breaks loose in a  vast region of South Western North America. People everywhere made alarming cries.

March 14th - nothing unusual
March 15th - nothing unusual


of course, some slo-mo's in here think on the 13th of March, a otherwise nominal society of people became temporarily delusional and went back to normal the next day.

I think the slo-mo's are - well,,,,,, just a tad light in the loafers.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

Hazzard, on 23 October 2012 - 10:55 AM, said:

I think it all started when people forgot to turn on their critical thinking ability. Logic and reason goes a long way.

Not saying that fantasy is all bad,... Im a sucker for everything sci-fi. But sometimes it can be important to be able to separate fact from fiction and opinions.

Couldn't agree more, Hazzard. Well spoken.

[booNyzarC]

Gummug, on 23 October 2012 - 08:10 PM, said:

(Sorry feeling a little lazy right now) mainly I was thinking of some of the posters who supported the lights as being flares...

The footage of the 10 PM event is flares.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

Witnesses claim to have observed a huge carpenter's square-shaped UFO, containing five spherical lights or possibly light-emitting engines. Fife Symington,^[2] the governor at the time, was one witness to this incident; he later called the object "otherworldly."^[3]


And of course, as we all know, the Governor of Arizona is a known whack-job, right? See, he never really saw *anything*!
Take from people who WEREN'T THERE!! They'll tell ya.

ROFLMAO!!

slo-mo's have an "excuse" for everything


http://1.bp.blogspot...-today-1997.jpg

fascinating, isn't it?


PS: I forgot to mention, that jpg is of a drawing, not a photo

Edited by Earl.Of.Trumps, 23 October 2012 - 09:34 PM.

[psyche101]

747400, on 23 October 2012 - 08:23 AM, said:

They're an Aerobatic team. Their operations aren't exactly a secret. the point I keep trying to say is that it should be easy enough to verify whether or not their were any Canadian squadrons in the area for exercises at the time. Someone must still have a record of that, and there's no reason why that would be secret.

The Snowbirds are an Aerobatic team. On the night in question, the Maryland National Guard carried out a flare exercise called operation Snowbird, which is indeed very much documented. Some feel this is what Mitch Stanley saw, as in a precursor to the 10PM event, which is then explained bu the flares they were sent to drop, but I feel he likely saw private planes.

Quote

Jones now is assistant director of operations for the 104th Fighter Squadron of the Maryland National Guard. His title has changed, but his story remains the same.
He and the rest of his colleagues were cruising the night skies of southwestern Arizona on the last night of Operation Snowbird, so named because they were winter visitors. Pilots dropped flares to light the night but had no idea they were about to ignite controversy as well.

LINK

When later investigations by the Arizona National Guard found that the visiting Maryland Air National Guard was running an exercise called Operation Snowbird along the Barry Goldwater Gunnery Range to the southwest of Tucson on the evening of March 13, the Air Force suddenly found its voice. The Arizona Air National Guard learned that the Maryland force flew eight A-10s and dropped left-over high-intensity flares on the way back to Davis-Monthan Air Force Base at Tucson. A Davis-Monthan flight schedule showed that a squadron of Operation Snowbird planes left at 8:15 p.m. on March 13 and returned at 10:30 p.m. A spokesman for Luke Air Force Base confirmed that the Maryland planes were authorized to use the Goldwater range from 9:30 to 10:00 that night.

LINK

Quote

YOUNG: Thanks for taking time from your busy schedule to talk this afternoon about Project Snowbird and the flare droppings over Arizona that generated some attention. One of the things I want to discuss is the TIME DELAY in announcing the explanation for this event, which was a duration of almost 4 to 5 months. Is there any reason to your knowledge for this delay?

SULLINS: Yes there is, and I don't think people are going to believe it, but it's the truth... it's a simple miscommunication. Apparently when the military in Phoenix was first approached, they looked at their flight logs, which are kept in two separate categories called "RESIDENT" and "VISITING" logs. These logs chart all of the incoming or outgoing air traffic. When the first inquiries of this went out, DAVIS-MONTHAN didn't check the visiting flight logs. The Public Affairs Officer down there called the people at operations who kept the flight logs, and they said, "we didn't have anything up that day." After several months, Captain Eileen Bienz was told by someone, and I can't remember who, that there was a project called Snowbird, which was an Air National Guard 'Op.' Bienz didn't have information on Snowbird, because Arizona units don't participate in it. Snowbird is an operation run during the winter when they take A.N.G. units located in the northern U.S. When it snows and the weather gets bad, they fly their units out there for a couple of weeks and train during the winter because the weather for flying is so good. Bienz put two and two together and checked the visiting flight logs, and sure enough it was discovered that there was an Air National Guard unit flying around.

YOUNG: So the miscommunication was due to Davis-Monthan?

SULLINS: Yeah, it wasn't on my part. Captain Bienz called me up and told me the whole story, just a couple of weeks ago and first I ever heard of it, and said, 'now can you confirm these things?' So I called our Ops guys of the 175th Wing & 104th Fighter Squadron, and they were able to confirm for me that they were flying that night in that area and dropping flares. The information was not held, as soon as we got it together it was released.

LINK

Edited by psyche101, 23 October 2012 - 10:18 PM.