Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 11 votes

Best evidence for ET visitation - 3rd edition


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
6153 replies to this topic

#2176    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010

Posted 23 April 2011 - 12:33 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 23 April 2011 - 12:30 AM, said:

I already have, but it seems that there were very important hints that were definitely ignored..
Can you point out where you proved this?  Because I've read every one of your laborious posts in this thread and I didn't see proof in anything you've written.  Maybe I just can't read between the lines and connect the dots?


#2177    S2F

S2F

    Bloodstained Hurricane

  • Member
  • 7,268 posts
  • Joined:22 May 2008

Posted 23 April 2011 - 12:33 AM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 23 April 2011 - 12:30 AM, said:

He knows.

He certainly claims he does, yet his consistent misrepresentation of the facts tends to heartily discount that claim.

"You want to discuss plausibility then you have to accept reality." -Mattshark

"Don't argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience." -Obviousman

You know... the plural of ``anecdote'' is not ``data''. Similarly, the plural of ``random fact'' is not ``mystical symbolism''. -sepulchrave


#2178    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010

Posted 23 April 2011 - 12:36 AM

View PostSlave2Fate, on 23 April 2011 - 12:33 AM, said:

He certainly claims he does, yet his consistent misrepresentation of the facts tends to heartily discount that claim.
To clarify; I meant that he knows that the two events are not one and the same.  He ties them together (by connecting the dots...) in his own mind, but he knows that the testimony from Fife is regarding a much earlier sighting than what was captured on video.  He thinks it was the same object (apparently) which hung around for a couple of hours, but I think that even sky can tell time.


#2179    S2F

S2F

    Bloodstained Hurricane

  • Member
  • 7,268 posts
  • Joined:22 May 2008

Posted 23 April 2011 - 12:48 AM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 23 April 2011 - 12:36 AM, said:

To clarify; I meant that he knows that the two events are not one and the same.  He ties them together (by connecting the dots...) in his own mind, but he knows that the testimony from Fife is regarding a much earlier sighting than what was captured on video.  He thinks it was the same object (apparently) which hung around for a couple of hours, but I think that even sky can tell time.

I suppose I should clarify as well, I was speaking in general terms about his overall stance on the UFO enigma. He has claimed more times than I can count that he knows the truth about his select cases however he has yet to mount even a reasonable argument to support his position. The Phoenix Lights (flares) case is just another in a long line of such debates with Sky.

Efforts to stem the tide of garbage (for lack of a better word) that Sky puts forth as evidence is draining and tiresome in the extreme in my opinion. Sometimes I have to take a back seat in an attempt to remain at least civil hence my 'fly on the wall' approach of late. :tu:

"You want to discuss plausibility then you have to accept reality." -Mattshark

"Don't argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience." -Obviousman

You know... the plural of ``anecdote'' is not ``data''. Similarly, the plural of ``random fact'' is not ``mystical symbolism''. -sepulchrave


#2180    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,560 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 23 April 2011 - 12:52 AM

Listen very carefully and understand why no flares were involved in the 'Phoenix Lights' sightings.





KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2181    S2F

S2F

    Bloodstained Hurricane

  • Member
  • 7,268 posts
  • Joined:22 May 2008

Posted 23 April 2011 - 01:06 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 23 April 2011 - 12:52 AM, said:

Listen very carefully and understand why no flares were involved in the 'Phoenix Lights' sightings.



The people in that video are making the same mistake you are Sky, there were TWO different sightings! One was a 'V' shaped series of lights and the other was what was slowly descending behind the mountains. They were not one and the same and the flare explanation is not intended to explain the prior sighting of the 'V' lights. Does that spell it out clearly enough for you?

"You want to discuss plausibility then you have to accept reality." -Mattshark

"Don't argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience." -Obviousman

You know... the plural of ``anecdote'' is not ``data''. Similarly, the plural of ``random fact'' is not ``mystical symbolism''. -sepulchrave


#2182    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010

Posted 23 April 2011 - 01:14 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 23 April 2011 - 12:52 AM, said:

Listen very carefully and understand why no flares were involved in the 'Phoenix Lights' sightings.


First, thank you for finally delivering your supposed evidence.  I'll go through the video in detail to explain why it doesn't do anything at all to offset the fact that the footage we've been discussing was of flares.  Before I do that, I'm going to review the rest of the videos on this chap's YouTube channel.

And S2F is right, the majority of the content in this "debunking" you've provided doesn't even relate to our discussions about the K footage and other 1997 videos.


#2183    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,560 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 23 April 2011 - 01:22 AM

Listen very carefully to those who saw the lights OVER Phoenix.






KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2184    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,560 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 23 April 2011 - 01:45 AM

Listen very carefully to those who saw the lights over Phoenix.

Continuation: Part 3



Edited by skyeagle409, 23 April 2011 - 01:50 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2185    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,560 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 23 April 2011 - 01:57 AM

View PostSlave2Fate, on 23 April 2011 - 01:06 AM, said:

The people in that video are making the same mistake you are Sky, there were TWO different sightings! One was a 'V' shaped series of lights and the other was what was slowly descending behind the mountains. They were not one and the same and the flare explanation is not intended to explain the prior sighting of the 'V' lights. Does that spell it out clearly enough for you?

You don't seem to understand that the lights in the video, were also seen over Phoenix, and, that the sightings were a series of sightings that stretched across Arizona, from the north to the south. There is much, much more that skeptics are unaware of, and once again, the A-10s were grounded at 10 PM at DMAFB at the time of the 10 PM sightings, and there is more beyond that as well.

The lights you see in the video, are not falling, and were not flares, nor are they even indicative of flares  and that would be evident had you had seen flare drops in real life, which is one of the reasons why I posted the photos of the lights and another of a real flare drop.

Did you catch the comment where it was stated that flares over the BGR, cannot be seen in certain areas in Arizona, and that included Phoenix as well, but what have I been staing in that respect for weeks?

Edited by skyeagle409, 23 April 2011 - 02:01 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2186    Boris Gleeson

Boris Gleeson

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 41 posts
  • Joined:23 Mar 2011

Posted 23 April 2011 - 02:22 AM

So, according to the 'experts', is there anything that is absolutely unexplainable?


#2187    lost_shaman

lost_shaman

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,985 posts
  • Joined:11 Jul 2006

Posted 23 April 2011 - 02:31 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 23 April 2011 - 01:57 AM, said:

Did you catch the comment where it was stated that flares over the BGR, cannot be seen in certain areas in Arizona, and that included Phoenix as well, but what have I been staing in that respect for weeks?

What you seem to miss is that such a statement is patently false. The determining factor is the altitude of a Flare.

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you. - Friedrich Nietzsche

#2188    1963

1963

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,165 posts
  • Joined:02 Mar 2010

Posted 23 April 2011 - 02:46 AM

Boony and Pericynthion...Thanks for taking the time out to reply!  :tu:
I much appreciate your non-condecending posts to a mathematical ignoramus such as I!
I'm still not much wiser as to the over-all distance width of the of the 'light display'.Although Peri's post highlighting the amount of zoom from video K, and his own demonstration of google earth with a frame from that video overlayed has tempered my imagined distance from the two extremities...but not that much! (without the correct mathematics, this will always be a sticky-point for flare acceptance).

Boony said...

The brightness from that distance is actually quite expected for the LUU2B flares they were using which put out something between 1.6 and 1.8 billion candlepower. In other words... they are extremely bright.

Yep!..been checking up on these LUU-2B/B flares, and am willing to conceed that these things could be seen from even further ,(150 miles according to one pilot!).
But at $825.62 each...is it really acceptable for the airforce to waste taxpayers dollars in this manner?
And just to clarify one more thing here...I know that the calculations that have been done to show that the lights could have been 'flares' from 70miles away, seen above the mountain range using the video footages are correct. But were all of the witnesses of the 'lights/flares' at, at least the same vantage point as the video positions?
i.e you stated that video K was at 300ft above phoenix,...where were the other two?...Could Sky be on to something here?

Cheers.

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
...I found the Smoking Gun at last!!!!!!!!.....https://www.youtube....h?v=fGKOcuANNQo

#2189    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010

Posted 23 April 2011 - 02:50 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 23 April 2011 - 12:52 AM, said:

Listen very carefully and understand why no flares were involved in the 'Phoenix Lights' sightings.


Alright, I wanted to go deeper into this but this basic analysis will have to suffice.  Your video was entertaining skyeagle, but it doesn't disprove the flare conclusions.

First of all, let's look at the cast of characters in order of appearance and comment about what they had to say.

:17 Verlee Nanneman
Veteran 911 Phoenix Police Operator

Unless I'm mistaken, she didn't actually see anything...  she took phone calls from people who saw the flares.  How does her testimony disprove the flares conclusion?  It doesn't.  Simple as that.

:20 Tom Chavez
Former Law Enforcement Officer

Testimony:  They didn't look like flares he has seen.  Claims that he dropped flares in the military.

Alright...  that is all well and good but he didn't comment about the footage we've been discussing as far as I could tell.  He has an opinion about what he saw and I respect that, but he didn't mention anything about the footage we've been discussing or the analysis which you've failed to disprove.  How exactly does what he has said disprove the evidence that has been presented in this thread?  It doesn't.  Simple as that.


ending :46 narrator is talking about earlier sightings.

:46 an example of flares on video...  and 1:02 Jim Dilettoso, etc...

Most of these examples make the same mistake you have made before.  They are examples of flares at a much closer proximity than the flares in the footage we've been discussing.  We've been over this many times.  All it proves is that you still have no argument against the analysis as it stands.

There was one shot that looked a lot like the videos, however.  I assume this was from the Air Force demonstration.  They apparently didn't accept it because the flares didn't line up quite as precisely as the original?  Funny how that confirmation bias works isn't it?


1:30 Commercial Airline Pilot
40+ Years Airline Pilot, Military Helicopter & Fighter Pilot
(Face blurred...)

Claiming that the flare explanation is some kind of cover-up.

That is nice.  Did the flares kill JFK too?  Maybe they know who was responsible for 911 too...

Conspiracy theorists with their faces blocked out simply aren't credible.  Sorry.  Besides, he offers no commentary about the footage we were discussing.  You do recall that we were discussing the actual footage of the event, right?


1:55 to 2:30
Narrator raises argument that flares have been dropped over the BGR for several decades as though that is a reason to single this occasion out.

transcript of 2:30 to 2:43 Narrator
"The biggest hole in the flare theory is that it completely contradicts thousands of eye witness testimonies consistently describing a massive V shaped craft flying slower than the stall speed of a small plane, totally silent, and very low to the ground.
Some witnesses were directly underneath as the craft flew over.
From the small town of Pauldon all the way to Phoenix and Tuscon.  Flares don't travel hundreds of miles.  And witnesses in southern and northern Arizona couldn't possibly see flares over the BGR."

First of all...  why so many witnesses?

Hale Bopp comet?  Thousands of people were out to watch the comet who normally wouldn't have been looking up.  This alone explains why there were numerous reports that night.  There were more eyes on the sky...  pretty simple really.

Secondly, he again talks about the earlier sightings.  Once again, that isn't the topic at hand.  You've claimed that the K footage and other videos aren't of flares.  Once again, what you've presented does nothing to substantiate your claim.  They were flares.  Sorry.

3:10 More Narrator...
"Another valid argument against the flare theory is that these mysterious orbs are commonly seen over populated areas of Phoenix and the ??hindibed?? indian reservation."

Wait...  commonly seen?  Didn't this guy just get through saying that this was an uncommon occurrence?  Hrmmm...  contradicting oneself isn't the best way to make a compelling argument.

Yes, people have seen these flares before.  They are, in fact, quite common it would seem.  And besides, the last time I checked, the BGR isn't populated...


3:19 Our masked pilot
"Nobody would ever drop those flares over a populated area.  They are cylindars that are about 3 feet tall, 10 inches wide, and they are intense magnesium.  And they sometimes hit the ground; they're still burning, so they start fires."

The BGR isn't populated.  Nuff said.

3:38 Narrator
"Dropping flares, or anything for that matter, over populated areas or indian reservations is a serious FAA violation and prohibited due to possible injury to civilians, damage to property, and ground fires."

The BGR isn't populated.  No FAA violation.  Nuff said.

If I missed the part where the analysis we've been discussing was somehow refuted, please point me to the right spot.

I see you've posted more video links.  I'll watch the video in full, but don't count on me doing your homework for you this time.

I have courteously gone through your first video in great detail.  If you intend to use a feature length film for the rest of your evidence, I kindly request that you pull out the relevant portions which you believe refute the flare conclusion regarding actual footage analysis and explain how it refutes it.  I'm not doing your work for you beyond this.


#2190    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 18,904 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008

Posted 23 April 2011 - 02:58 AM

Its one thing to be open minded,and one thing to Not accept the possibility of the Phoenix lights as something other than Flares. And all together another thing To Just Be rude to people !
iam therefore iam. Go see the Movie! Please.
As for Phoenix Lights You Gotta be Kidding me If you Think that there is not quite a bit of Leeway either way on this sighting ! 10,000 peep`s and Stationary posistion should be a clue ? Flares dont Sit around for that Long.
Watch more Bill Nye the Science Guy next time.
I vote we Look for actual evidence for E.T. A Wrapper maybe with an Alien Candy Bar from Fraggnot ! :innocent:

This is a Work in Progress!