1012 replies to this topic

[Bionic Bigfoot]

I found this video recently and it's a very good documentary based upon the book with the same name and written by Dr. Lynne D. Kitei.  It's a long video, but worth the time to watch.

Anyone here witness the lights over Phoenix back in 1997?

Edited by Bionic Bigfoot, 09 October 2012 - 06:58 AM.

[Bionic Bigfoot]

I'm hoping that some of the members here might have witnessed this event first hand so they can relate what they saw.

This sighting is one of the most pivital UFO events in modern times so far.  It was a mass sighting seen by an estimated 10,000 people and the fly over lasted for over an hour.  The governor of Arizona at the time (a pilot himself) offered a public apology years later admitting that he held back what he knew.  He admitted that he witnessed the lights and object himself, that he was completely convinced it was nothing man made and nothing ordinary.

This case has never been solved and the lights have returned in recent years.  The government as usual is saying nothing.  The news reporters don't appear to be covering the details anymore either and since 1997...

[psyche101]

In some peoples opinion it has never been solved, a great many people are happy to accept the conventional explanations. The Governor of Arizona lost all credibility with his media floorshow. Pilots also contradict him, so his pilot status has naught meaning here.

Threads already on this here, here and here.

People either accept that maths shows the later event to be flares, or not and I see little doubt that the earlier sighting was conventional aircraft. It's up to how willing one is to turn a blind eye to the math. Look out for the posts by Boon and Lost Shaman in the BE III thread. I do not see how the math is incorrect therefore, flares.

Math does not lie, but claimants do. The lacklustre response to your thread would be because the threads listed above are not all that old I guess.

[Bionic Bigfoot]

Hi phsche101,

It would seem like a great many more people are not satisfied with such absurd explanations given.  The Governor DID lose credibility when he orchestrated that debacle of a press conference. But at least he did have the guts to disclose the truths about what he saw and what he actually believed about the event.  It shows strength of character to correct a mistake like he did and admit he held back information.  Most politicians would rather never admit to making a mistake, let alone make a public annoucement about it.

I briefly went through those older topics on this subject you brought forth, and I saw the posts showing the 'math' on how it was flares.  I'm not a mathmethician so it made very little sense to me.  Using math to explain flares doesn't make any sense, period.   The entire flare explanation has almost become as big a phenomena as the alien/UFO phenomena itself then, according to many.

Thanks for posting those links, but I'm looking to hear more for members who might have been there to witness the ET vehicle first hand.  I also wish to discuss the sighting with those who don't seem to suffer from H.I.T.S.S.

[quillius]

Bionic Bigfoot, on 10 October 2012 - 08:46 AM, said:

Hi phsche101,

It would seem like a great many more people are not satisfied with such absurd explanations given.  The Governor DID lose credibility when he orchestrated that debacle of a press conference. But at least he did have the guts to disclose the truths about what he saw and what he actually believed about the event.  It shows strength of character to correct a mistake like he did and admit he held back information.  Most politicians would rather never admit to making a mistake, let alone make a public annoucement about it.

I briefly went through those older topics on this subject you brought forth, and I saw the posts showing the 'math' on how it was flares.  I'm not a mathmethician so it made very little sense to me.  Using math to explain flares doesn't make any sense, period.   The entire flare explanation has almost become as big a phenomena as the alien/UFO phenomena itself then, according to many.

Thanks for posting those links, but I'm looking to hear more for members who might have been there to witness the ET vehicle first hand.  I also wish to discuss the sighting with those who don't seem to suffer from H.I.T.S.S.

Hello and welcome bigfoot,

may I suggest you focus efforts on the earlier 8pm sighting as the maths presented so far is only in relation to the lights seen at 10pm not the 'low flying craft' (alleged) witnessed earlier.

but yes it would be great to have any first hand witnesses here on UM to discuss this event.

[psyche101]

Bionic Bigfoot, on 10 October 2012 - 08:46 AM, said:

Hi phsche101,

It would seem like a great many more people are not satisfied with such absurd explanations given.  The Governor DID lose credibility when he orchestrated that debacle of a press conference. But at least he did have the guts to disclose the truths about what he saw and what he actually believed about the event.  It shows strength of character to correct a mistake like he did and admit he held back information.  Most politicians would rather never admit to making a mistake, let alone make a public annoucement about it.

I briefly went through those older topics on this subject you brought forth, and I saw the posts showing the 'math' on how it was flares.  I'm not a mathmethician so it made very little sense to me.  Using math to explain flares doesn't make any sense, period.   The entire flare explanation has almost become as big a phenomena as the alien/UFO phenomena itself then, according to many.

Thanks for posting those links, but I'm looking to hear more for members who might have been there to witness the ET vehicle first hand.  I also wish to discuss the sighting with those who don't seem to suffer from H.I.T.S.S.

Gidday Mate

All I can suggest is that is you seek further clarification I have to take my hat of to Boon and Lost Shaman. I find the explanation very satisfactory, and then of course we have Mitch Stanley who saw planes quite clearly through his telescope. I own the same model Mitch Stanely does, and you can see all the way to another Galaxy with that fine piece of equipment. To me it all makes good sense, but I wish you well in your endeavours and encourage you to research the incident in depth to find the most accurate answer for you. As far as I know no poster has witnessed the Phoenix event personally, but we do have one poster who did witness a Hudson Valley sighting if you wish to pursue that one as well.

Personally, I find this also rather convincing.




However, best of luck in your research! I hope the threads answer some of your questions.

Cheers.

[Hazzard]

Yes, psyche, that video clip closed it for me aswell.

What was seen over Phoenix that day was aircraft flying in formation, and flares,... not ET.

[Bionic Bigfoot]

Hazzard, on 10 October 2012 - 09:13 AM, said:

What was seen over Phoenix that day was aircraft flying in formation, and flares,... not ET.

yeah, sure, ok....keep on day dreaming.

[Hazzard]

Bionic Bigfoot, on 10 October 2012 - 09:34 AM, said:

yeah, sure, ok....keep on day dreaming.

No dream, that is my opinion based on the available evidence.

Did you even look at the links (the math) psyche posted for you? Did you se the clip showing the flares decending behind the ridge?

[quillius]

Hazzard, on 10 October 2012 - 09:47 AM, said:

No dream, that is my opinion based on the available evidence.

Did you even look at the links (the math) psyche posted for you? Did you se the clip showing the flares decending behind the ridge?

what evidence is there for the aircraft flying in formation theory?

[Bionic Bigfoot]

Hazzard, on 10 October 2012 - 09:47 AM, said:

Did you even look at the links (the math) psyche posted for you? Did you se the clip showing the flares decending behind the ridge?

Sure did, all greek to me and like I said to psyche101, using math to constitute evidence for flares like you did, makes no sense. And besides this, there were flares dropped that night over AZ and that was done specifically by the government to use as a decoy and smokescreen.  The main event, the one witnessed by 1000's of Arizonians was not flares and as they testified it slowly moved over them, their houses, schools etc.

[Hazzard]

Bionic Bigfoot, on 10 October 2012 - 09:55 AM, said:

Sure did, all greek to me and like I said to psyche101, using math to constitute evidence for flares like you did, makes no sense. And besides this, there were flares dropped that night over AZ and that was done specifically by the government to use as a decoy and smokescreen.  The main event, the one witnessed by 1000's of Arizonians was not flares and as they testified it slowly moved over them, their houses, schools etc.

Lets put a side (for now) that you dont speak "greek", even though that might have something to do with your flawed conclusion,... Are you really saying that the Maryland Air National Guard dropped flares to cover-up a gigantic alien starship over the city?!

So that, and people seeing lights in the sky, by your logic, is all it takes for you to claim it must have been ET?

Ever heard of critical thinking?

Edited by Hazzard, 10 October 2012 - 10:48 AM.

[Hazzard]

quillius, on 10 October 2012 - 09:51 AM, said:

what evidence is there for the aircraft flying in formation theory?

The 8:30 sighting, Stanley got a good look at the "vee" and saw passing planes through his telescope,... and witnesses in Prescott, a quieter environment, clearly heard jet noise. And videotapes of the later event taken that night by many people show without a doubt that this was a string of mundane lights that fell and disappeared behind the range, exactly as a string of flares dropped by the military planes would have. Then there were programs like Dateline, mixing the events that day, making it all seem more ET-like,...

To me this points away from the claim that ET passed slowly over Phoenix in a gigantic starship.

Separate mundane events (like so many times before) that got blow way out of proportion and is now forever part of UFOology.

Edited by Hazzard, 10 October 2012 - 10:46 AM.

[quillius]

Hazzard, on 10 October 2012 - 10:45 AM, said:

The 8:30 sighting, Stanley got a good look at the "vee" and saw passing planes through his telescope,... and witnesses in Prescott, a quieter environment, clearly heard jet noise. And videotapes of the later event taken that night by many people show without a doubt that this was a string of mundane lights that fell and disappeared behind the range, exactly as a string of flares dropped by the military planes would have. Then there were programs like Dateline, mixing the events that day, making it all seem more ET-like,...

To me this points away from the claim that ET passed slowly over Phoenix in a gigantic starship.

Separate mundane events (like so many times before) that got blow way out of proportion and is now forever part of UFOology.

If I exclude the comments about the later event, which have nothing to do with evidence for the earlier 8/8.30 sighting, I am left with one witness' testimony (Mitch's) and some other witness about them hearing a jet engine.

This then leads nicely back to, if we are to accept Mitch testimony as 'evidence' which you are claiming it is, can I now point you to the TT thread by Zoser which is loaded with 'evidence'?

Or do we choose when testimony counts as evidence?

Edited by quillius, 10 October 2012 - 10:50 AM.

[Hazzard]

quillius, on 10 October 2012 - 10:50 AM, said:

If I exclude the comments about the later event, which have nothing to do with evidence for the earlier 8/8.30 sighting, I am left with one witness' testimony (Mitch's) and some other witness about them hearing a jet engine.

This then leads nicely back to, if we are to accept Mitch testimony as 'evidence' which you are claiming it is, can I now point you to the TT thread by Zoser which is loaded with 'evidence'?

Or do we choose when testimony counts as evidence?

I knew you were getting at that   There is a BIG differece here, quillius,... Im going to let you think about it until I get back, lets see if you can figure it out by yourself.

People claiming ET starship VS people claiming man-made aircraft.

Edited by Hazzard, 10 October 2012 - 10:59 AM.