The Phoenix Lights revisited

[quillius]

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

[S2F]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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]

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]

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]

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:

1. Looking at something other than the other witnesses who couldn't identify the lights.
   
2. Lying about what they saw.
   
3. 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]

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

automatically....L O L

[DBunker]

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]

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.

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.

[TheMacGuffin]

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.

Don't fall for it, since even the governor of Arizona saw something very different, although he only admitted the truth years after the fact.

[booNyzarC]

Hey booN, has anyone responsible for flying planes in formation come forward with testimony that it was them that caused all the fuss? It seems that flight logs from any flying group would settle this matter definitively. And what about local radar and ATC, wouldn't they too have a record of these craft in the area? I agree with the planes in formation theory yet there does still seem to be some holes in the evidence.

BTW, sorry if I just opened a can of worms here.

Hey S2F, excellent questions and completely valid to ask about them.

To my knowledge nobody has come forward acknowledging that they were the ones responsible and I'm not sure what would be involved in searching through all flight logs from that night. I agree that if someone were to come forward with this information and/or produce the logs it would lend even more credibility to the planes in formation conclusion, but at the same time our folks who favor the UFO=ET conclusion could easily hand wave this away just as they seem inclined to do with the already substantial points that have long been established. The question regarding why we may not have this yet is still valid, though I can conceive of at least a few legitimate (i.e. not nefarious) reasons why it may be the case.

As for radar, I don't believe that anyone requested the data within the time frame that it would have been available. The FAA doesn't keep these records indefinitely because of the data storage requirements. This may not be as big of a deal today, but back in 1997 when these events took place it would have been extremely cost prohibitive to keep records like these indefinitely. If someone had actually requested the information from the right channels, filled out the correct paperwork, and submitted it to the right agencies within a few months of the events we just might have something to work with. The fact that this doesn't appear to have happened raises some questions in itself, but all it really leaves is more ambiguity. It is unfortunate, but a reality nonetheless. They who may decide to approach the subject from a conspiratorial bent will probably choose to take this ambiguity and run with it under the assumptions of cover-up or what not. I could be wrong, but for the conspiracists among us, that seems to be the preferred interpretation of almost any ambiguity surrounding mysterious and/or controversial events.

ATC is another matter as well. Some of these people were interviewed if memory serves, and nothing conclusive resulted from any of that, but in the early days of these events there was a great deal of confusion which has lasted even to this day. Making the distinction between the two events, for example, still seems to be troublesome for some even though with enough in depth investigation it is very clear. Were these interviewed controllers responding to questions surrounding the earlier event or the later event? If the later event there is no wonder why radar and ATC wouldn't have anything useful to report because it was happening on the other side of the mountains quite some distance from Phoenix airspace. Controllers in the Phoenix area wouldn't have noted any of the training exercises going on over the BGR. And if controllers were interacting with the flight of Tutors they would hardly consider it to be abnormal and may not even bother mentioning it at all if being asked about a great big unidentified flying triangle. I probably wouldn't anyway. I'd just say, "Nope, no giant triangles on my scope. I'm not sure what they were seeing."

So yes there are some holes, and those holes will probably never be filled. Despite that I think we have adequate information to draw a fairly reliable conclusion. I would characterize my own degree of certainty regarding the earlier sighting just being aircraft as about 99%. I am 100% convinced that Mitch and Contry definitely saw aircraft, but there is a small chance that something else was up there as well. I just find that extremely unlikely. Take for instance if Mitch and Contry were so focused on the aircraft that they completely missed a giant flying triangle in the same general airspace, the aircraft should still have been noticed by the other witnesses I'd think, but as distinct from the giant triangle. None of them did though. They didn't describe the aircraft at all, just the big and ambiguous semi translucent triangle. It seems obvious to me after having looked into this so much and I'm always flabbergasted when people just brush all of these points aside with a simple wave of the hand.

At any rate, excellent questions and hopefully I've covered them enough to at least clarify my impression of their overall impact on the conclusions I've reached.

Cheers.

[itsnotoutthere]

I'm obviously going to have to state this again because it's not registering with some of you.

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. 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. 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. 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. if you have nothing to say besides trying to convince me that my logic is flawed, I'm really not interested. I'm not going to spend all my time here defending my beliefs or others who believe what I do. 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..

Thank you.

As has been pointed out to you, this is a discussion forum not a 'i've got a theory & you'd all better agree' forum & might I also point out that the majority have been around here for a lot longer than you. If you don't want any criticism of your unproven beliefs then might i suggest you find a more suitable outlet for your scribblings.

[S2F]

Hey S2F, excellent questions and completely valid to ask about them.

To my knowledge nobody has come forward acknowledging that they were the ones responsible and I'm not sure what would be involved in searching through all flight logs from that night. I agree that if someone were to come forward with this information and/or produce the logs it would lend even more credibility to the planes in formation conclusion, but at the same time our folks who favor the UFO=ET conclusion could easily hand wave this away just as they seem inclined to do with the already substantial points that have long been established. The question regarding why we may not have this yet is still valid, though I can conceive of at least a few legitimate (i.e. not nefarious) reasons why it may be the case.

As for radar, I don't believe that anyone requested the data within the time frame that it would have been available. The FAA doesn't keep these records indefinitely because of the data storage requirements. This may not be as big of a deal today, but back in 1997 when these events took place it would have been extremely cost prohibitive to keep records like these indefinitely. If someone had actually requested the information from the right channels, filled out the correct paperwork, and submitted it to the right agencies within a few months of the events we just might have something to work with. The fact that this doesn't appear to have happened raises some questions in itself, but all it really leaves is more ambiguity. It is unfortunate, but a reality nonetheless. They who may decide to approach the subject from a conspiratorial bent will probably choose to take this ambiguity and run with it under the assumptions of cover-up or what not. I could be wrong, but for the conspiracists among us, that seems to be the preferred interpretation of almost any ambiguity surrounding mysterious and/or controversial events.

ATC is another matter as well. Some of these people were interviewed if memory serves, and nothing conclusive resulted from any of that, but in the early days of these events there was a great deal of confusion which has lasted even to this day. Making the distinction between the two events, for example, still seems to be troublesome for some even though with enough in depth investigation it is very clear. Were these interviewed controllers responding to questions surrounding the earlier event or the later event? If the later event there is no wonder why radar and ATC wouldn't have anything useful to report because it was happening on the other side of the mountains quite some distance from Phoenix airspace. Controllers in the Phoenix area wouldn't have noted any of the training exercises going on over the BGR. And if controllers were interacting with the flight of Tutors they would hardly consider it to be abnormal and may not even bother mentioning it at all if being asked about a great big unidentified flying triangle. I probably wouldn't anyway. I'd just say, "Nope, no giant triangles on my scope. I'm not sure what they were seeing."

So yes there are some holes, and those holes will probably never be filled. Despite that I think we have adequate information to draw a fairly reliable conclusion. I would characterize my own degree of certainty regarding the earlier sighting just being aircraft as about 99%. I am 100% convinced that Mitch and Contry definitely saw aircraft, but there is a small chance that something else was up there as well. I just find that extremely unlikely. Take for instance if Mitch and Contry were so focused on the aircraft that they completely missed a giant flying triangle in the same general airspace, the aircraft should still have been noticed by the other witnesses I'd think, but as distinct from the giant triangle. None of them did though. They didn't describe the aircraft at all, just the big and ambiguous semi translucent triangle. It seems obvious to me after having looked into this so much and I'm always flabbergasted when people just brush all of these points aside with a simple wave of the hand.

At any rate, excellent questions and hopefully I've covered them enough to at least clarify my impression of their overall impact on the conclusions I've reached.

Cheers.

Thanks for the in-depth reply booN, much appreciated.

As I said, I too think there is enough evidence to conclude planes, I just wanted to see if there was anything that could be further added to help lay this one to bed. Unfortunately I think there are enough 'gaps' for people to continue to force the ET conclusion into the mix. Even at that however it is still an argument from ignorance to proclaim a sighting of a flying triangle to be an extraterrestrial event. It's more of the same 'what else could it be' fallacy that will plague UFOlogy for quite some time I'm afraid. I just wish that some people would see that that is the wrong question to begin with.

[TheMacGuffin]

As has been pointed out to you, this is a discussion forum not a 'i've got a theory & you'd all better agree' forum & might I also point out that the majority have been around here for a lot longer than you. If you don't want any criticism of your unproven beliefs then might i suggest you find a more suitable outlet for your scribblings.

I wouldn't pay much attention to any of that noise, Bigfoot.

Don't believe all the cover stories that are circulated to cover up UFO reports, either, like flares and aircraft. In this case, no military exercise involving the use of flares was even occurring at all on the night this UFO was spotted. It never happened.

I have no doubt that the military sent planes up after it, though. That part of it is real, and has happened many times with UFOs.

This particular UFO was not "lights" at all, and it was seen on two nights in many places, from Las Vegas and Henderson, Nevada all the way to Tuscon, Arizona, and it was huge--just like the UFO over Stephenville, texas in 2008--huge and silent. Even the governor of Arizona saw the thing.

That's the TRUTH and all the rest is a bunch of hot air.

[bee]

Don't fall for it, since even the governor of Arizona saw something very different, although he only admitted the truth years after the fact.

and here he is....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLUAhVkGmj0

.

[TheMacGuffin]

and here he is....

And that is the true story, but all the yammering about planes and flares is the cover story.

Edited October 10, 2012 by TheMacGuffin

[Sweetpumper]

And that is the true story, but all the yammering about planes and flares is the cover story.

C'mon, you're not gonna believe arm-chair QB's who weren't there to witness anything?

[TheMacGuffin]

C'mon, you're not gonna believe arm-chair QB's who weren't there to witness anything?

Not very likely that I ever would, not when the governor is saying the exact opposite, along with thousands of other witnesses. Was this UFO covered up?

I would bet my bottom dollar that it was.

[S2F]

You guys just broke my BS meter! I'll let you decide on how you will pay for it amongst yourselves.

[TheMacGuffin]

You guys just broke my BS meter! I'll let you decide on how you will pay for it amongst yourselves.

Well, I'm all broken up over that.

[booNyzarC]

I wouldn't pay much attention to any of that noise, Bigfoot.

Don't believe all the cover stories that are circulated to cover up UFO reports, either, like flares and aircraft. In this case, no military exercise involving the use of flares was even occurring at all on the night this UFO was spotted. It never happened.

I know how much you dislike being called a liar, so I'll just say that you are mistaken. Keep in mind though that after having been informed about the testimony from the very pilots who were up there doing the training exercises in the first place (as you have been before), your categorization here can be looked at as less than honest at a bare minimum.

Or are you going to claim that Lt. Col. David Tanaka is lying in this video? And that the video analysis performed was 'fake' or something?

I have no doubt that the military sent planes up after it, though. That part of it is real, and has happened many times with UFOs.

This particular UFO was not "lights" at all, and it was seen on two nights in many places, from Las Vegas and Henderson, Nevada all the way to Tuscon, Arizona, and it was huge--just like the UFO over Stephenville, texas in 2008--huge and silent. Even the governor of Arizona saw the thing.

That's the TRUTH and all the rest is a bunch of hot air.

You are free to express your opinions of course MacGuffin, but when you start representing them as being the one and only answer, or the absolute TRUTH, you must assuredly realize that you are on shaky ground and you are likely to get called out on it.

C'mon, you're not gonna believe arm-chair QB's who weren't there to witness anything?

And yet MacGuffin wasn't there either, but you'll believe his assessment over the assessment of anyone else?

Double standard much?

You need not answer. I understand that you get enjoyment from fueling these debates but don't necessarily care very much about them at all. Enjoy the show.

[Sweetpumper]

I know how much you dislike being called a liar, so I'll just say that you are mistaken. Keep in mind though that after having been informed about the testimony from the very pilots who were up there doing the training exercises in the first place (as you have been before), your categorization here can be looked at as less than honest at a bare minimum.

Or are you going to claim that Lt. Col. David Tanaka is lying in this video? And that the video analysis performed was 'fake' or something?

You are free to express your opinions of course MacGuffin, but when you start representing them as being the one and only answer, or the absolute TRUTH, you must assuredly realize that you are on shaky ground and you are likely to get called out on it.

And yet MacGuffin wasn't there either, but you'll believe his assessment over the assessment of anyone else?

Double standard much?

You need not answer. I understand that you get enjoyment from fueling these debates but don't necessarily care very much about them at all. Enjoy the show.

I never said I believed him either. I too, wasn't there.

[TheMacGuffin]

I know how much you dislike being called a liar, so I'll just say that you are mistaken. Keep in mind though that after having been informed about the testimony from the very pilots who were up there doing the training exercises in the first place (as you have been before), your categorization here can be looked at as less than honest at a bare minimum.

Or are you going to claim that Lt. Col. David Tanaka is lying in this video? And that the video analysis performed was 'fake' or something?

I never heard of David Tanaka, but I know there were witnesses on the ground that night who stated no such military exercise ever took place, either with flares or anything else.

That whole story is completely bogus and was made up after the fact.

Edited October 10, 2012 by TheMacGuffin

[Hazzard]

I cant imagine that anyone, after seeing the evidence put fourth in this thread, can still claim that there was an ET craft flying over Phoenix that night. Speaking "greek" or not.

The only way I see it to be possible is if this case is so important to the person that he applies willful ignorance.