1012 replies to this topic

[zoser]

Slave2Fate, on 10 October 2012 - 03:53 PM, said:

I agree with the planes in formation theory yet there does still seem to be some holes in the evidence.

S2F - Master of the understatement!

[quillius]

booNyzarC, on 10 October 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

It wasn't just two observations.


Where does that leave us?

If the mystery of the earlier sighting is to be maintained we must decide that the witnesses who positively identified planes were:

• Looking at something other than the other witnesses who couldn't identify the lights.
  
• Lying about what they saw.
  
• Mistaken in their identification.

Hey Boon, I will address your lengthy post further tomorrow as I only have around 40 minutes left before I leave work and I am unlikely to log on tonight from home to post as I will never leave the PC otherwise.

I thought as a starting point I would address a couple of points and maybe briefly the three 'things we are left with' you highlighted above.

Firstly as far as I am concerned I thought it was only Rich and Mitch that have said they identified planes, and even that is not entirely correct as Mitch said he saw the silohettes of the planes as opposed to the actual planes themselves, I am unsure at what point he said he saw silohettes as opossed to lights he thought were planes. The same way witnesses add bits to their story as they go or just add bits to strengthen their sighting (or what they thought their sighting was) this may have happened in Mitchs case, especially as he feels he was shunned at the meeting....

also the Snowbirds, firstly as far as I knew there is no confirmation that the pilot who interupted the call was actually a pilot from the 'formation of lights'.....I assume you realise the conspiracy theories I can add here that help the idea that all isnt what it seems here. Especially when we are relying on the pilots who reported a UFO (tongue in cheek maybe) being wrong about what they heard the pilot say,....i.e. there is confirmation that the snowbirds were not in Arizona that month......could they have made such a huge error???? I dont buy that fully as I am sure you can appreciate.

The pilots were at 17000 feet and said the lights were at 19,000ft, this makes the analysis on height by Tim Printy very weak as his range is 19-40,000ft, and 35-40,000 is the ideal height to counter and explain the witness statements about speed and lack of noise.

The Tim Ley video can also be supported in a different way in as far as many witnesses spoke of the large v formation splitting up and then rejoining....this explains the seperation in video (I mean may explain)

anyhow back to your points:

• Looking at something other than the other witnesses who couldn't identify the lights.   I am not entirely convinced they are all in the same parts of the sky, let alone the same thing, maybe this would be an interesting part to. analyse more precisely, personally I would not rule out military craft being sent up and these are what Mitch and Rich observed.....possible, yes no?
  
• Lying about what they saw. you are correct in that I dont find this likely, exaggerating...yes, especially Mitch but no disinfo agent accusation from me on this one.
  
• Mistaken in their identification. to be honest Boon, yes I think it is possible, possible in the same way the other witnesses turned lights into ET craft, Mitch and Rich tunred lights into their favoured planes in formation...an even easier leap to make than that of the ET one dont you think.

As I said buddy will be back tomorrow, try not to give me too much work to do as I have a busy day

[Slave2Fate]

zoser, on 10 October 2012 - 04:03 PM, said:

S2F - Master of the understatement!

Don't get me wrong, there is enough information to conclude planes in my opinion. I would just like to see something a bit more substantial so people can finally shut up about the Phoenix Planes Lights.

[Slave2Fate]

quillius, on 10 October 2012 - 04:03 PM, said:

...and I am unlikely to log on tonight from home to post as I will never leave the PC otherwise.

I'm glad I'm not the only one with that problem.

[quillius]

Slave2Fate, on 10 October 2012 - 04:18 PM, said:

I'm glad I'm not the only one with that problem.

   I do try not to as I know its hard to stop once you start.....I like my family time and enjoy being entertained by the TV with little or no brain activity.....

[quillius]

Slave2Fate, on 10 October 2012 - 04:17 PM, said:

Don't get me wrong, there is enough information to conclude planes in my opinion. I would just like to see something a bit more substantial so people can finally shut up about the Phoenix Planes Lights.

I too would like the same although I dont think our reasoning for this 'bit more' is the same  

[Slave2Fate]

quillius, on 10 October 2012 - 04:22 PM, said:

I too would like the same although I dont think our reasoning for this 'bit more' is the same  

I would like to know the whole truth of the matter, the 'shutting up' part was just an expression of frustration on my part and not entirely indicative of my reasoning. Perhaps it was a poor choice of words.

[quillius]

Slave2Fate, on 10 October 2012 - 04:28 PM, said:

I would like to know the whole truth of the matter, the 'shutting up' part was just an expression of frustration on my part and not entirely indicative of my reasoning. Perhaps it was a poor choice of words.

I actually thought it out of character for you to be honest, thanks for clarifying.

[badeskov]

Hi Bionic Bigfoot,

First a belated welcome to UM. I didn't really want to get into the Phoenix sightings as I think it has been satisfactorily explained by BooNy, LS, Peri, Psyche and others. I will offer a few general comments to your post below, though.

Bionic Bigfoot, on 10 October 2012 - 02:09 PM, said:

I joined this forum to talk about topics that I'm interested in and topics of discussion on this message board.  I didn't come here to have my ideas or beliefs questioned, scrutinized and picked apart.  I came here to share information with like-minded people and to discuss those topics with those similar people.

Either I am not understanding what you are trying to convey here or you did not know UM well enough before joining. UM has a very diverse field of posters, which is what makes it highly intriguing. And you will encounter points of view from across the whole spectrum. This is not like-minded people in the sense that you will meet no criticism, scrutiny or questioning. This is a board for like-minded in the sense that they thrive on criticism, scrutiny and questioning, or in other words, as discussions now are.

Quote

You won't find me initiating arguments trying to convince the holy rollers in the religious forums that god doesn't exist while providing mathematical equations demonstrating why.

Nor do I, bu that does not mean that I cannot discuss other topics.

Quote

I should never have given my opinion in the AA bashing topic, that was my mistake and I'm new here.  Now that I see how some of the members on this board operate and how things seem to work here in general, you won't ever find me on those topics again.

Why not? It is naturally your prerogative whether or not to contribute to a discussion, but it is a discussion board and all are free to give their opinion on any given topic.

Quote

So, I would appreciate it those who don't believe that aliens or bigfoot exist do not respond to any topics I've started on these subjects.    

First of all, this being a discussion board and all, you cannot apply limits to who posts in what topics, even your own. As soon as you post you essentially invite the whole of UM to comment, whether they agree with you or not. If you do not like that, then I would suggest a discussion forum is not the right venue for you.

Quote

if you have nothing to say besides trying to convince me that my logic is flawed, I'm really not interested.

By all means of respect, but I think you need to rethink this a bit. One example of your logic is outright dismissing the math behind the explanation put forth for the Phoenix light because it is Greek to you? I cannot even begin to fathom why you even think you can discuss the topic and in the process completely disregard one of the best founded explanations I have seen here because you do not understand it?

Frankly, I am not sure what you expected, but such you will be called out on. Despite what you think, by far the most posters here have a great respect for other people's beliefs and have no problem agreeing to disagreeing. However, respect is not earned by outright dismissing line of argumentation simply because they are either not understood or in disagreement with a preconceived conclusion (or both).

Quote

I'm not going to spend all my time here defending my beliefs or others who believe what I do.

Nobody is asking you to. But just be prepared that when you post, you automatically will be questioned, thus is the way of a discussion forum.

Quote

I would never have thought that a message board called, "Unexplained Mysteries", containing discussions about bigfoot and aliens would lure in so many over the top skeptics. If you don't believe in these things, why are some of you here, seriously? If it's because of other forums that suit your interests, then why don't you stick to those forums with your own like-minded people..

Just because some of us do not believe in ET visitation does not mean that we outright dismiss the possibility. I personally just find it very, very low on the probability scale. I do, however, like many others, do like discussing the possibilities involved.

Do not let the above refrain you from posting. Posting and discussing can actually be very rewarding and I have personally learned a lot from engaging in discussions here at UM over the years. Do enjoy UM

Cheers,
Badeskov

[quillius]

badeskov, on 10 October 2012 - 04:33 PM, said:

Hi Bionic Bigfoot,

First a belated welcome to UM. I didn't really want to get into the Phoenix sightings as I think it has been satisfactorily explained by BooNy, LS, Peri, Psyche and others. I will offer a few general comments to your post below, though.



Either I am not understanding what you are trying to convey here or you did not know UM well enough before joining. UM has a very diverse field of posters, which is what makes it highly intriguing. And you will encounter points of view from across the whole spectrum. This is not like-minded people in the sense that you will meet no criticism, scrutiny or questioning. This is a board for like-minded in the sense that they thrive on criticism, scrutiny and questioning, or in other words, as discussions now are.



Nor do I, bu that does not mean that I cannot discuss other topics.



Why not? It is naturally your prerogative whether or not to contribute to a discussion, but it is a discussion board and all are free to give their opinion on any given topic.



First of all, this being a discussion board and all, you cannot apply limits to who posts in what topics, even your own. As soon as you post you essentially invite the whole of UM to comment, whether they agree with you or not. If you do not like that, then I would suggest a discussion forum is not the right venue for you.



By all means of respect, but I think you need to rethink this a bit. One example of your logic is outright dismissing the math behind the explanation put forth for the Phoenix light because it is Greek to you? I cannot even begin to fathom why you even think you can discuss the topic and in the process completely disregard one of the best founded explanations I have seen here because you do not understand it?

Frankly, I am not sure what you expected, but such you will be called out on. Despite what you think, by far the most posters here have a great respect for other people's beliefs and have no problem agreeing to disagreeing. However, respect is not earned by outright dismissing line of argumentation simply because they are either not understood or in disagreement with a preconceived conclusion (or both).



Nobody is asking you to. But just be prepared that when you post, you automatically will be questioned, thus is the way of a discussion forum.



Just because some of us do not believe in ET visitation does not mean that we outright dismiss the possibility. I personally just find it very, very low on the probability scale. I do, however, like many others, do like discussing the possibilities involved.

Do not let the above refrain you from posting. Posting and discussing can actually be very rewarding and I have personally learned a lot from engaging in discussions here at UM over the years. Do enjoy UM

Cheers,
Badeskov

Hello Badeskov,  I do agree with almost everything in your post, however, I would point out that looking back, maybe it is us who have missed the purpose of this thread......he asks if anyone witnessed said events, which I think is an interesting thread, especially when we have gone at this in many different ways up to now.

I do appreciate that your post above was mainly in response to his post about 'skeptics' staying away, just thought I would highlight this point as I missed it until now.

[badeskov]

quillius, on 10 October 2012 - 04:40 PM, said:

Hello Badeskov,  I do agree with almost everything in your post, however, I would point out that looking back, maybe it is us who have missed the purpose of this thread......he asks if anyone witnessed said events, which I think is an interesting thread, especially when we have gone at this in many different ways up to now.

I do appreciate that your post above was mainly in response to his post about 'skeptics' staying away, just thought I would highlight this point as I missed it until now.

Hi quillius,

I agree with your assessment on the purpose of the present thread, thanks for pointing that out and clarifying .

Cheers,
Badeskov

[DBunker]

booNyzarC, on 10 October 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

It wasn't just two observations.

We have Rich Contry and Mitch Stanley on the ground who each determined conclusively that the formation was planes after viewing them through binoculars and a telescope respectively.  Contry also noted that he only heard the engines after they had flown over him and were heading south, and even then the sound was faint as if the planes had very low throttle.  From the air we have pilots Larry Campbell and John Middleton who saw the formation and purportedly spoke with at least one of the pilots of the aircraft in formation who identified themselves as flying Tutors.  We have the video captured by Terry Proctor which obviously depicts distinct lights in a varying V formation at various points of the film which proves that it was NOT a single huge triangular object, but rather 5 individual objects.






At to this the variation in descriptions from witnesses who did not definitively identify what they were looking at.  We had some observers who connected the dots and concluded they represented a single craft.  Some of these witnesses reported that even though they believed it was a single craft, the craft was translucent and they could see stars and even the moon through it between the lights, though there was a haziness.  (notice the haziness trailing these Tutors...)





The really important points to take away from this are the consistencies.

For those which concluded they were aircraft, the made this determination without any doubt.  They saw, heard, and spoke with the pilots of these aircraft.  In essence, they KNEW what they were looking at, and they knew this CONCLUSIVELY.

For those which reached no conclusion, they could not determine what they were looking at.  In other words, they DIDN'T KNOW what they were looking at.

Think about the significance of that for a moment.

From a position of ignorance, as is the case for someone who is unable to identify what they are looking at, what reasonable conclusions can we reach?  Aside from confirming that they saw 'something,' there isn't a whole lot more we can determine.  Yes they can describe their perception of what they witnessed, and from that we can possibly get useful details and information which might act as clues for helping identify what it may have been, but from a point of determining exactly what it was we can't rely solely on the ambiguity which is inherent in a situation where an unknown object is involved.  We also might get invalid details from such accounts because the mind has a way of trying to fill in the gaps for us when we don't have all the pieces of the puzzle.

From a position of certainty, as is the case for the witnesses who determined that they were looking at planes in formation, what reasonable conclusions can we reach?  Well, we can conclude that they saw planes.  There is no doubt about this.  The witnesses who identified planes saw planes because there were planes flying in formation on that night.


Where does that leave us?

If the mystery of the earlier sighting is to be maintained we must decide that the witnesses who positively identified planes were:

• Looking at something other than the other witnesses who couldn't identify the lights.
  
• Lying about what they saw.
  
• Mistaken in their identification.

If I've left anything out, please let me know.

Let's address those possibilities.

1.

In the case of Mitch Stanley at least we can determine that he was looking at the same objects, in the same region of the sky, and at the same time as Tim Ley and his family.  Contry's sighting was the earliest that I'm aware of, but based on his description we know that it was roughly right before the other sightings and that the formation of aircraft were flying in the same general direction that would place them where other witnesses later saw the lights to the south.  To me, this is enough to confirm that it is extremely likely that both Contry and Stanley observed the same exact lights in the sky that Tim Ley and the other witnesses of the earlier events.

2.

Why would they lie?  What imaginable reason would they have to deceive about something as mundane as airplanes flying in formation?  Are they government agents here to 'muddy the waters' as some like to put it?  This kid was a government disinformation agent?



Forgive me if I find this notion to be completely ridiculous, but I do.  I'm not suggesting that you would put this forward Q, but I have little doubt that others may be so inclined whenever they start to feel that their 'evidence' is being dismantled, invalidated, and/or disproved.  It's that last clinging of hope that so many fall back on when looking into this field of UFOlogy.

3.

Finally, could they have identified these as aircraft in error?  From a purely logical standpoint considering probabilities, what makes more sense to you?  That these individuals who offer a positive identification of aircraft flying in formation actually mistook an alien piloted vehicle for something mundane?  Or that people who are in a position of ignorance (by the mere fact that they don't know what they are looking at) may have misidentified something mundane as being something extraordinary and thereby potentially extraterrestrial?

I don't know about you, but I can easily see how someone unable to pinpoint those lights as conventional aircraft reaching all kinds of possible unconfirmed and unconfirmable conclusions.  In that type of situation one's imagination can, and most likely will, run wild with the numerous possibilities.  But for the life of me I can't imagine that someone looking at these objects through binoculars and a telescope can positively say "airplanes in formation" and have it be a mis-identification of what was actually one gigantic extraterrestrial vehicle.  Can you?


It is primarily for these reasons that I believe the preponderance of evidence supports the conclusion that the earlier reported sighting consisted of planes flying in formation.  I'm confident that these points will do nothing to modify the mysterious conclusions that many UFO=ET believers would prefer to stick to, but you Q are a man of integrity, sincerity, and intelligence.  You can't just hand wave all of this away as being without merit.  If you can find flaws in my reasoning, please by all means point them out.

Cheers.

Extremly good post, boon..... after this one there can be no more doubt about what happened that day.

Unless you really REALLY need it to be ET related of course.

[bee]

badeskov, on 10 October 2012 - 04:33 PM, said:

But just be prepared that when you post, you automatically will be questioned,

automatically....L O L

[DBunker]

bee, on 10 October 2012 - 05:08 PM, said:

automatically....L O L

I think he ment - If you claim something out landish you can expect the skeptics in the audience to react.

[TheMacGuffin]

badeskov, on 10 October 2012 - 04:33 PM, said:

Hi Bionic Bigfoot,

First a belated welcome to UM. I didn't really want to get into the Phoenix sightings as I think it has been satisfactorily explained by BooNy, LS, Peri, Psyche and others. I will offer a few general comments to your post below, though.

That's not really an "explanation", but rather an echo chamber.

DBunker, on 10 October 2012 - 05:31 PM, said:

I think he ment - If you claim something out landish you can expect the skeptics in the audience to react.

It's always the same reaction no matter what, so there's no need to take it very seriously.