6153 replies to this topic

[booNyzarC]

DONTEATUS, on 04 May 2011 - 03:37 PM, said:

Has there been any change in the Idea that so many people can see somthing and It be somthing other than Flares?
To Have an Open Mind is Good, to Have Proof is even better. To Count out so many witnesses is Insane !

As far as I've been following the Phoenix Lights, nobody that I am aware of is counting out witnesses D.  Clearly, a lot of people saw something that night.  The vast majority of those people were unable to identify what they saw.  The portion of that mystery which happened at around 10 PM has been definitively cleared up, despite the arguments of a few.  The earlier sightings are still debatable, though from the only footage of said event it seems likely to be aircraft in formation.  MCROM posted this link in another thread, which includes that footage and a short interview with Terry, the person who recorded it.

He describes a very similar sighting to many of the other witnesses.  From his footage it is clear that the configuration of lights changed shape, which would be indicative of multiple aircraft flying in formation instead of a single object.  This, combined with Mitch Stanley's testimony after looking at the formation through his telescope is pretty weighty in my opinion.

[DONTEATUS]

booNyzarC, on 04 May 2011 - 03:53 PM, said:

As far as I've been following the Phoenix Lights, nobody that I am aware of is counting out witnesses D.  Clearly, a lot of people saw something that night.  The vast majority of those people were unable to identify what they saw.  The portion of that mystery which happened at around 10 PM has been definitively cleared up, despite the arguments of a few.  The earlier sightings are still debatable, though from the only footage of said event it seems likely to be aircraft in formation.  MCROM posted this link in another thread, which includes that footage and a short interview with Terry, the person who recorded it.

He describes a very similar sighting to many of the other witnesses.  From his footage it is clear that the configuration of lights changed shape, which would be indicative of multiple aircraft flying in formation instead of a single object.  This, combined with Mitch Stanley's testimony after looking at the formation through his telescope is pretty weighty in my opinion.

All too true boony ! I know theres quite a few peeps in here that keep an Opne Mind and a few that Look the other way too.
We can all just keep Looking and asking questions and waiting for that day we get Some Actual Proof that will please all of Us !
Cant beleive that Its taking them So Long to Get that Landing clearance !
Look what Flew over my Shop Today ! An IFO

Attached Files

•  Shop05-04-11 B-36 Over Shop 011.JPG   54.85K   4 downloads

[someoldguy]

Ladies and gentlemen, let me see if I've summarized the Phoenix flares properly.

1.  It's possible to calculate how high the flares were based on the angle of view and the distance of the mountains from the point where the flares were seen.  We may not be able to be 100 percent precise, but at least we might get a minimum value for the height.

2.  The flares' rate of descent will be constant, just as any other rate of descent is constant.  (Roughly 9.8 meters per second squared for acceleration due to gravity.)  This also makes it fairly easy to estimate how far they've fallen.  (One problem with this might be deflection of the trajectory due to wind, if any.)

3.  The Air Force wasn't aware that the group had dropped flares until some time after they'd given their initial statement.

4.  The guy who dressed up as an ET for the press conference is an idiot.

[Czero 101]

someoldguy, on 04 May 2011 - 06:44 PM, said:

Ladies and gentlemen, let me see if I've summarized the Phoenix flares properly.

1.  It's possible to calculate how high the flares were based on the angle of view and the distance of the mountains from the point where the flares were seen.  We may not be able to be 100 percent precise, but at least we might get a minimum value for the height.

Yes...

Quote

2.  The flares' rate of descent will be constant, just as any other rate of descent is constant.  (Roughly 9.8 meters per second squared for acceleration due to gravity.)  This also makes it fairly easy to estimate how far they've fallen.  (One problem with this might be deflection of the trajectory due to wind, if any.)

Yes, but you have to also take into account that the flares are not in a free-fall. They have parachutes attached which allow them to fall at a fairly consistent rate, however, it has also been noted that the heat from the flares themselves will create what is essentially an "updraft" which will slow their descent rate further. Also, the parachutes will be effected to a greater extent by any prevailing winds than the flares would on their own with no parachute.

Quote

3.  The Air Force wasn't aware that the group had dropped flares until some time after they'd given their initial statement.

Technically, yes, but take the following into consideration:

- The person contacted was the public relations officer and wouldn't have necessarily been informed of the detailed activities of the flight of A-10's.
- The flight of A-10's involved weren't stationed at the air base, but were visiting as part of training exercises, so when asked if there were any operations being run by the air base, or if any of the base's A-10's were in the air at the time, the answer of "No" is technically correct.

Quote

4.  The guy who dressed up as an ET for the press conference is an idiot.

Yep, pretty much...




Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 04 May 2011 - 07:35 PM.

[DONTEATUS]

DONTEATUS, on 04 May 2011 - 05:52 PM, said:

All too true boony ! I know theres quite a few peeps in here that keep an Opne Mind and a few that Look the other way too.
We can all just keep Looking and asking questions and waiting for that day we get Some Actual Proof that will please all of Us !
Cant beleive that Its taking them So Long to Get that Landing clearance !
Look what Flew over my Shop Today ! An IFO

Slight BooBoo!B-29 Not a B-36 Didnt anyone notice?
Gotta get my eyes ck!

Attached Files

•  Shop05-04-11 B-36 Over Shop 011.JPG   55.08K   3 downloads

Edited by DONTEATUS, 04 May 2011 - 08:15 PM.

[psyche101]

DONTEATUS, on 04 May 2011 - 03:37 PM, said:

Has there been any change in the Idea that so many people can see somthing and It be somthing other than Flares?
To Have an Open Mind is Good, to Have Proof is even better. To Count out so many witnesses is Insane !

Yes, as far as I know there were several events, some attributed to planes as per Mitch Stanleys statement that says he saw planes through a telescope.

[DONTEATUS]

psyche101, on 05 May 2011 - 12:13 AM, said:

Yes, as far as I know there were several events, some attributed to planes as per Mitch Stanleys statement that says he saw planes through a telescope.

Planes Trains and Insane`s Flares,Glares,Stares. WHeres the UFO`s ? mostly in the minds of the Beholders.nuff said .
p.s. Come back Badeskov`s We need you back !
put down that Laser thing-a-magiggie !

Attached Files

•  av-41171.jpg   10.34K   0 downloads

[skyeagle409]

booNyzarC, on 04 May 2011 - 03:53 PM, said:

As far as I've been following the Phoenix Lights, nobody that I am aware of is counting out witnesses D.  Clearly, a lot of people saw something that night.  The vast majority of those people were unable to identify what they saw.  The portion of that mystery which happened at around 10 PM has been definitively cleared up, despite the arguments of a few.  The earlier sightings are still debatable, though from the only footage of said event it seems likely to be aircraft in formation.  MCROM posted this link in another thread, which includes that footage and a short interview with Terry, the person who recorded it.

He describes a very similar sighting to many of the other witnesses.  From his footage it is clear that the configuration of lights changed shape, which would be indicative of multiple aircraft flying in formation instead of a single object.  This, combined with Mitch Stanley's testimony after looking at the formation through his telescope is pretty weighty in my opinion.

I have to disagree with that as well. The 'Phoenix, Lights" were not aircraft either, and as I looked at the mountains near Phoenix from the airport last Sunday, , it was very clear that there was no way those lights were flares over the BGR.

In addition, the people of Phoenix made it very clear the lights were neither flares nor aircraft. One of the witnesses has said that the lights in March were the same as those in January and they were not flares.

Looking back into history, similar lights were also seen in other parts of the world and the United States.

Edited by skyeagle409, 05 May 2011 - 02:26 AM.

[skyeagle409]

psyche101, on 05 May 2011 - 12:13 AM, said:

Yes, as far as I know there were several events, some attributed to planes as per Mitch Stanleys statement that says he saw planes through a telescope.

And now,  it's airplanes. Airplanes were not involved in the 'Phoenix Lights' sightings either, otherwise, they would have been tracked on radar to their landing areas and the pilots grounded for airspace violations.

Edited by skyeagle409, 05 May 2011 - 02:06 AM.

[skyeagle409]

booNyzarC, on 04 May 2011 - 04:28 AM, said:

If you'd like to rework figures at a 50 mile distance, feel free.  And while you're at it, explain why you selected a 50 mile distance in relation to the video evidence.  On top of that, show us in your best estimation where the lights were.  Take any Phoenix area map and put dots on it.  Then explain in detail why you would place the lights there.

That shouldn't be too difficult for someone with your vast experience and knowledge, right?

Be sure to include a detailed explanation of your reasoning and any math that you can muster in support of that reasoning.  Anything else (like silly proclamations about how it isn't possible, and you've seen the mountains, and you've been to Phoenix, and the Air Force is creating a cover-up, etc...) will either be ignored or appropriately ridiculed  erm...  hi-lighted as ridiculous  eerrrm...  unrelated?  awww, screw it; Ridiculed is the best way to put it.



I did use a side profile depiction.  It even showed curvature (grossly exaggerated, but even with that exaggeration it clearly showed that the flares would be visible at the projected distance and altitude.)  Did you miss that?  Here you go again.  It isn't perfect, but it is far better than anything you've brought to the table so far.



But as far as your concern regarding copyright goes, here is a simple sidestep.  Describe in great detail how you applied that linked (and copyrighted) photo.  And then provide the other photo that you mention (you distinctly said "two photos", and forgive me if I missed it, but you do leave piles of twaddle that are difficult to wade through...) and describe how exactly they relate in support of your argument.  I'm more than happy to do the comparison on my computer if you can adequately describe the methods and details of the comparison that you have done.

Please be sure to include as much detail as possible.  But let me quantify that request...  please be sure to include as much relevant detail a possible (and exclude all irrelevant details entirely).

Cheers sky, and welcome back from your trip.

Thanks.

I didn't want to take a chance and post that photo here since it was copyrighted, and corrected from 'copywrited, (drat, and double drat) 'because I got hit before by the Mods for doing so in the past. Looking down in the valley from the video, and closer to the mountains, we must remember that people down there and closer to  those mountains, also watched the lights as well, so now, the viewing angle is going to increase.

I was down in the valley and closer to the mountains near Phoenix last Sunday, and I noted that the angle over the mountain crestline had indeed, increased from where the lights were originally recorded further away. The folks of Phoenix have said that the lights were not flares and that the lights were definitely uniformed in shape, like a lamp shade.

One of the witnesses I spoke with confirmed the object came in from Nevada. He was a former machinist who had done work for NASA.

Phoenix Lights Trailer:





.

Edited by skyeagle409, 05 May 2011 - 02:39 AM.

[psyche101]

skyeagle409, on 05 May 2011 - 02:04 AM, said:

And now,  it's airplanes. Airplanes were not involved in the 'Phoenix Lights' sightings either, otherwise, they would have been tracked on radar to their landing areas and the pilots grounded for airspace violations.

Have you forgotten Mitch Stanley and his Dobsonian Telescope already? My my......

There were many events, not a single one, and this was earlier in the evening 8-9PM. And yes, commercial aircraft were in the air. Later in the evening around 10PM the flare drop made this seem more mysterious than it is.

Now that I have brought you up to speed a little, you can see that nobody claimed that the 7-8PM sighting was flares.

[psyche101]

skyeagle409, on 05 May 2011 - 02:24 AM, said:

Thanks.

I didn't want to take a chance and post that photo here since it was copyrighted, and corrected from 'copywrited, (drat, and double drat) 'because I got hit before by the Mods for doing so in the past. Looking down in the valley from the video, and closer to the mountains, we must remember that people down there and closer to  those mountains, also watched the lights as well, so now, the viewing angle is going to increase.

I was down in the valley and closer to the mountains near Phoenix last Sunday, and I noted that the angle over the mountain crestline had indeed, increased from where the lights were originally recorded further away. The folks of Phoenix have said that the lights were not flares and that the lights were definitely uniformed in shape.

So you have photos that you took and are not copywrited to post?

And you have some calcs to prove your version of events?

I will stay with facts over zealous opinion thanks. I am sure the residents you spoke to agreed with you, or you would not be taling to them in the first place.

Edited by psyche101, 05 May 2011 - 02:29 AM.

[psyche101]

DONTEATUS, on 05 May 2011 - 01:17 AM, said:

Planes Trains and Insane`s Flares,Glares,Stares. WHeres the UFO`s ? mostly in the minds of the Beholders.nuff said .

Don't forget automobiles.

Nah, the UFO's are around, ET is the mind thing. I do not know a single person who has met ET, so I do not understand how the identification is made as ET.

DONTEATUS, on 05 May 2011 - 01:17 AM, said:

p.s. Come back Badeskov`s We need you back !
put down that Laser thing-a-magiggie !

Yes indeed, Bade is always missed. Very busy I believe.

[Holmesian]

DONTEATUS, on 04 May 2011 - 02:13 AM, said:

A Clean Shot to the Head maybe ? "They Shoot Horses dont they?"

Not sure they shoot them but some do seem to flog the dead ones quite a bit.

[mcrom901]

i have found the wormhole....

http://science.nasa....011/04may_epic/