1012 replies to this topic

[TheMacGuffin]

DBunker, on 10 October 2012 - 05:01 PM, said:

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]

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

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]

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

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.

[Slave2Fate]

booNyzarC, on 10 October 2012 - 06:29 PM, said:

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]

itsnotoutthere, on 10 October 2012 - 06:46 PM, said:

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]

TheMacGuffin, on 10 October 2012 - 06:04 PM, said:

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....










.

[TheMacGuffin]

bee, on 10 October 2012 - 07:20 PM, said:

and here he is....

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

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 10 October 2012 - 07:23 PM.

[Sweetpumper]

TheMacGuffin, on 10 October 2012 - 07:23 PM, said:

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]

Sweetpumper, on 10 October 2012 - 07:39 PM, said:

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.

[Slave2Fate]

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

[TheMacGuffin]

Slave2Fate, on 10 October 2012 - 07:50 PM, said:

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]

TheMacGuffin, on 10 October 2012 - 07:19 PM, said:

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?

TheMacGuffin, on 10 October 2012 - 07:19 PM, said:

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.

Sweetpumper, on 10 October 2012 - 07:39 PM, said:

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]

booNyzarC, on 10 October 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:

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]

booNyzarC, on 10 October 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:

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 by TheMacGuffin, 10 October 2012 - 08:37 PM.

[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.