1012 replies to this topic

[psyche101]

quillius, on 23 October 2012 - 08:42 AM, said:

gidday mate,  well I have seen the term small and private banded about but as I have said many times I havent seen anything directly from Mitch, apart from the small snippet from the town hall meeting Boon posted. That said, the comment about 'private' could be incorrect, as could comments about 'wingtip to wingtip' as could 'squarish wings' as could direction and ofcourse the ellusive time frame which I still cannot find.  One other quick point 3000-300 feet doesnt quite work with the 19000 needed as a minimum.....(Printys estimations)

Gidday Quillius

I have seen it bandied about as well, but Mitch was also facing the airport wasn't he? Which is why I think he saw planes on approach to the airport. I am not up to speed on the geography of Phoenix, and Mitch was stifled mostly, I concede the private aspect may well be incorrect, it just seems to fit the snippets of information that got by Ms Barwood.
I base the estimate on landing approaches, not Mitch's testimony, hence the "if". If what he did see where private planes landing, that would be the ceiling height given, I thought the Printy given height pertained to the A10 flare drop? I was not looking at the 10PM event at all as requested. Although if one considered both sightings to be A10's that certainly could be the case.

quillius, on 23 October 2012 - 08:42 AM, said:

again this highlights a problem as I indicated above...what did Mitch actually say?, the comment about planes appeared small indicating they were flying high is NOT correct....they could have just been in the distance hence looking small it doesnt mean they were high as suggested.

Agreed. The description may have been interpreted by Ortega. But I would suggest that there was a mountain in the background, (Squaw Peak?) which I would think help his estimations, but yes, it would be pretty good to have a statement from Mitch himself.

quillius, on 23 October 2012 - 08:42 AM, said:

To be honest she does not do anyone any favours and I can see how she could easily be 'destroyed' especially by your good self.....

And yet she seems to be the strongest opposition to Mitch. Between her and Fife Symmington, I seriously wonder why people take these nutters seriously at all. It certainly explains the Tin Foil Hat syndrome. If anyone was to hold up these two as examples, I cannot understand how one expects to maintain a shred of credibility.

[psyche101]

quillius, on 23 October 2012 - 08:42 AM, said:

again this highlights a problem as I indicated above...what did Mitch actually say?, the comment about planes appeared small indicating they were flying high is NOT correct....they could have just been in the distance hence looking small it doesnt mean they were high as suggested.

I think Ortega has gone to more trouble than any other, and he is not a personal friend of Mitch's as Barwood claims.

Quote

As for the "rumor" that Mitch Stanly, the young amateur astronomer who saw
that the 8:30 vee was airplanes, is a friend of mine. It's just that--an
unfounded rumor. I guess where the confusion comes in is that for a short time
I was a member of the Saguaro Astronomy Club, and that now I'm a member of the
East Valley Astronomy Club. (I build
telescopes and am very aware of their capabilities.) In May of last  year I was
contacted by Jack Jones, a member of the Saguaro Club whom I had never met, who
told me about Mitch Stanley, another person whom I had never met. Since that
time I have spoken with Mitch about six times on the telephone and made one
visit to his house to examine his telescope and put him through tough questions
about his observations. It's a lot more than Barwood or Village Labs ever did
to decide Stanley's veracity. (Jim Dilettoso did invite Mitch to an "open
house," but he admitted to me that to this day he has never bothered to learn
anything about the scope Stanley was using that night.)

Edited by psyche101, 23 October 2012 - 11:16 PM.

[psyche101]

747400, on 23 October 2012 - 12:44 PM, said:

Indeed so. Just as long as such stringent standards are also applied to "rational" explanations.

Indeed, however, I do not think the standards applied are so much stringent, as based on common sense and the individual situation surrounding the subject. Surely some aspects pertain to a specific discussion steer the direction of any hypothesis, speculation, or conclusion?

[psyche101]

Earl.Of.Trumps, on 23 October 2012 - 09:09 PM, said:

how would I know? The owner never went out to check.

"Identity" is not the issue here. Existentialism is.

10-4?

Exactly, yet you seem to figure the skeptics are wrong and you have the answer?

And based on guessing what the dog was barking at?

Your own example illustrates that you delve into that which you defy.

[psyche101]

Earl.Of.Trumps, on 23 October 2012 - 09:33 PM, said:

Witnesses claim to have observed a huge carpenter's square-shaped UFO, containing five spherical lights or possibly light-emitting engines. Fife Symington,^[2] the governor at the time, was one witness to this incident; he later called the object "otherworldly."^[3]

No they did not.

Some claim they saw a triangle, some saw a boomerang, some saw a half crescent  some said a chevron shape. Not the same thing at all. Some are rounded, some have a back on them, some are considered equilateral. They are not all describing the same thing by a long shot. Some said 100 yards, some said 500 yards and some said over a mile wide. If you are going to promote these claims, you really should listen to them first.

Earl.Of.Trumps, on 23 October 2012 - 09:33 PM, said:

And of course, as we all know, the Governor of Arizona is a known whack-job, right? See, he never really saw *anything*!

That is certainly my opinion, how is it you feel he is taking this seriously?






You are using an appeal to authority in place of evidence. That is not the least bit constructive nor convincing. The mans a clown.

Earl.Of.Trumps, on 23 October 2012 - 09:33 PM, said:

Take from people who WEREN'T THERE!! They'll tell ya.

And you were there?

What about the people that say it was clearly individual lights? You know, the ones you are saying agree with everyone else, when they do not?

Earl.Of.Trumps, on 23 October 2012 - 09:33 PM, said:

ROFLMAO!!

I am not sure that is going how you see it.

Earl.Of.Trumps, on 23 October 2012 - 09:33 PM, said:

slo-mo's have an "excuse" for everything

It would be good to see you adress the information presented instead of whinging about it. I have not seen you do any more than make false claims about thousands of witnesses that you appear to have made up.

Earl.Of.Trumps, on 23 October 2012 - 09:33 PM, said:

http://1.bp.blogspot...-today-1997.jpg

fascinating, isn't it?


PS: I forgot to mention, that jpg is of a drawing, not a photo

Yes it is fascinating.
Particularly in that it seems to dismiss the chevron shaped craft and the triangle shaped craft. Even that basic drawing asks questions.

Edited by psyche101, 24 October 2012 - 12:32 AM.

[DONTEATUS]

What will we do ,and how will we act on the Day that a Ten Mile wide UFO hovers right above the White House ? I wouldnt hold my breath I I was you !
Better time spent making a Good B.B.Q and throwing a Party I say !

[Gummug]

booNyzarC, on 23 October 2012 - 09:26 PM, said:

The footage of the 10 PM event is flares.

I thought they showed that part just to contrast it with what the people who saw the lights-in-a-wedge-shape were describing. I may have to go back and watch it again...that was in the OP's video, right?

[booNyzarC]

Gummug, on 24 October 2012 - 03:43 AM, said:

I thought they showed that part just to contrast it with what the people who saw the lights-in-a-wedge-shape were describing. I may have to go back and watch it again...that was in the OP's video, right?

I'm afraid that you're going to have to be more specific.


Edit to remove quite a bit...  that was true...  but perhaps not wise to say...

Edited by booNyzarC, 24 October 2012 - 04:37 AM.

[Slave2Fate]

booNyzarC, on 24 October 2012 - 04:18 AM, said:

I'm afraid that you're going to have to be more specific.


Edit to remove quite a bit...  that was true...  but perhaps not wise to say...

Having read your pre-edited post all I can say is it's not easy to take the high road all the time. I agree with it totally though.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

psyche101, on 23 October 2012 - 10:18 PM, said:

The Snowbirds are an Aerobatic team. On the night in question, the Maryland National Guard carried out a flare exercise called operation Snowbird, which is indeed very much documented. Some feel this is what Mitch Stanley saw, as in a precursor to the 10PM event, which is then explained bu the flares they were sent to drop, but I feel he likely saw private planes.




LINK

When later investigations by the Arizona National Guard found that the visiting Maryland Air National Guard was running an exercise called Operation Snowbird along the Barry Goldwater Gunnery Range to the southwest of Tucson on the evening of March 13, the Air Force suddenly found its voice. The Arizona Air National Guard learned that the Maryland force flew eight A-10s and dropped left-over high-intensity flares on the way back to Davis-Monthan Air Force Base at Tucson. A Davis-Monthan flight schedule showed that a squadron of Operation Snowbird planes left at 8:15 p.m. on March 13 and returned at 10:30 p.m. A spokesman for Luke Air Force Base confirmed that the Maryland planes were authorized to use the Goldwater range from 9:30 to 10:00 that night.

LINK




LINK

That seems a lot more probable, and clearly the Canadian angle was indeed a red herring. So i expect the person who heard "Snowbirds" on the Radio misconstrued it as referring to the Canadians.

Edited by 747400, 24 October 2012 - 07:02 AM.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

psyche101, on 23 October 2012 - 11:18 PM, said:

Indeed, however, I do not think the standards applied are so much stringent, as based on common sense and the individual situation surrounding the subject. Surely some aspects pertain to a specific discussion steer the direction of any hypothesis, speculation, or conclusion?

Indeed, which is why, for instance, (and i'm sorry if you consider that it's baiting, I'm not sure why you should), if some form of aircraft is put forward as an explanation for an occurrence, it should not be unreasonable to ask what these aircraft may have been and what they may have been doing there, rather than people just saying "Well, aircraft exist, so it must be more likely", which does not seem satisfactory enough to me in itself.

[psyche101]

747400, on 24 October 2012 - 07:07 AM, said:

Indeed, which is why, for instance, (and i'm sorry if you consider that it's baiting, I'm not sure why you should), if some form of aircraft is put forward as an explanation for an occurrence, it should not be unreasonable to ask what these aircraft may have been and what they may have been doing there, rather than people just saying "Well, aircraft exist, so it must be more likely", which does not seem satisfactory enough to me in itself.

I do not consider this baiting, I thought you guys were having a go at McGuffin in the other thread where I used the term, and it seemed the joke was wearing thin, in fact I probably spoke out of turn on McGuffin's behalf, but the banter seemed to be going nowhere. Sorry, I will try to keep to my own business. I too do not agree with all of the conclusions that McGuffin draws, which I think is more than understandable, as I expect McGuffin to have the same opinion of many conclusions I draw, but I cannot help but respect his vast knowledge on UFO cases in general. I think he would be a most interesting person to talk to.

I guess we just see it differently. To me, if he (Arnold) can draw an aircraft he has never seen before, and with recognisable detail, that we know existed at the time of his sighting, it strikes me as likely that something occurred to allow the unscheduled sighting. We have the culprit, but not the detail. In the case of ET, we have neither. As such, I do not see it as a viable comparison. The allowances required to validate what Arnold saw as ET are far greater than that required to consider the flying wing designs.
I think if a physical example exists, then it must take precedence. Such reflects my stance on the UFO phenomena, with regards to previous discoveries in the field.
If it is ET, then I fear we have 2 mysteries. Who or what did Arnold see, and how did he mange to draw what looks just like a Horten Ho?

Edited by psyche101, 24 October 2012 - 07:42 AM.

[quillius]

booNyzarC, on 23 October 2012 - 02:00 PM, said:

Hi quillius.

I don't want to make assumptions here, so can you clarify what you believe the significance of this article is as related to Mitch's sighting?

Hey Boon,

I am just chucking some of the bits and pieces I am finding that may or may not be relevant. The key part for me in this article is to show how again we have a  slightly different version of events put forth and we still dont have anything in Mitchs own words, just second hand accounts.

I know you may view the differences as nit-picking, but I am quite fussy about detail and exact wording used, and without this I still have found nothing that links Procter video / Mitch sighting let alone any other correlation with some of the witness reports apart from the 'weak' link made ...i.e. 5 lights in formation.

I will add again that I dont doubt Mitch saw planes, however what type, when, what time, what part of the sky, how many lights, how many planes, plus many other details are all missing IMO.

[quillius]

psyche101, on 23 October 2012 - 10:43 PM, said:

Gidday Quillius

I have seen it bandied about as well, but Mitch was also facing the airport wasn't he? Which is why I think he saw planes on approach to the airport. I am not up to speed on the geography of Phoenix, and Mitch was stifled mostly, I concede the private aspect may well be incorrect, it just seems to fit the snippets of information that got by Ms Barwood.

Gidday mate,
I am working with a map at the moment whilst researching it and trying to plot times and detail to try and figure things out. I am being quite 'strict' on reports used and I am trying to filter out all and any reports put forth within a two week window as opposed to using any that came months/years after.

Hence why I feel it is vital to have something in Mitchs own words. Barwood may well have added to the confusion but I dont think Ortega has helped either.

psyche101, on 23 October 2012 - 10:43 PM, said:

I base the estimate on landing approaches, not Mitch's testimony, hence the "if". If what he did see where private planes landing, that would be the ceiling height given, I thought the Printy given height pertained to the A10 flare drop? I was not looking at the 10PM event at all as requested. Although if one considered both sightings to be A10's that certainly could be the case.

Printy used the range of 19000ft to 35000ft I believe, he used these in relation to Mitchs sighting and how the formation could explain the vshape, whilst the height at the given range meant it loosly explained the single lights (as opposed to two per plane) and the apparent perceived slow moving craft.

psyche101, on 23 October 2012 - 10:43 PM, said:

Agreed. The description may have been interpreted by Ortega. But I would suggest that there was a mountain in the background, (Squaw Peak?) which I would think help his estimations, but yes, it would be pretty good to have a statement from Mitch himself.

Agreed, and again strengthens the argument I have for needing Mitchs own words.

psyche101, on 23 October 2012 - 10:43 PM, said:

And yet she seems to be the strongest opposition to Mitch. Between her and Fife Symmington, I seriously wonder why people take these nutters seriously at all. It certainly explains the Tin Foil Hat syndrome. If anyone was to hold up these two as examples, I cannot understand how one expects to maintain a shred of credibility.

And they do this without stopping to think for a minute how Mitchs sighting could actually strengthen their case if used correctly....i.e. military jets sent up

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

psyche101, on 24 October 2012 - 07:40 AM, said:

I do not consider this baiting, I thought you guys were having a go at McGuffin in the other thread where I used the term, and it seemed the joke was wearing thin, in fact I probably spoke out of turn on McGuffin's behalf, but the banter seemed to be going nowhere. Sorry, I will try to keep to my own business. I too do not agree with all of the conclusions that McGuffin draws, which I think is more than understandable, as I expect McGuffin to have the same opinion of many conclusions I draw, but I cannot help but respect his vast knowledge on UFO cases in general. I think he would be a most interesting person to talk to.

I guess we just see it differently. To me, if he (Arnold) can draw an aircraft he has never seen before, and with recognisable detail, that we know existed at the time of his sighting, it strikes me as likely that something occurred to allow the unscheduled sighting. We have the culprit, but not the detail. In the case of ET, we have neither. As such, I do not see it as a viable comparison. The allowances required to validate what Arnold saw as ET are far greater than that required to consider the flying wing designs.
I think if a physical example exists, then it must take precedence. Such reflects my stance on the UFO phenomena, with regards to previous discoveries in the field.
If it is ET, then I fear we have 2 mysteries. Who or what did Arnold see, and how did he mange to draw what looks just like a Horten Ho?

I see what you're saying, but to me that adds another mystery: why was there no record of the Hortens being flown in the US, and nothing has ever come to light ever since? Exactly the same question applies for the Yb-35 or similar things. What we're doing if we adopt this theory is that we're talking about nine mystery aircraft flying in formation. If, as I'm afraid, I don't see any reason to accept the explanation that they were Hortens and/or Northrops, then we're still left with UFOs, whether they (or rather whether an artist's impression) look like one particular kind of terrestrial aircraft or not.
Besides, might not Arnold's description itself be influenced by his subconsciously thinking what an advanced aircraft might look like? He didn't suppose that they had to be ET, after all. What they were as far as he was concerned was mystery aircraft. If an Artist, coming up with a suggestion of what he might have seen, came up with something that resembled an advanced Terrestrial aircraft, he'd have seen no reason to reject it.