67 replies to this topic

[Rafterman]

psyche101, on 29 May 2012 - 04:29 AM, said:

Honestly, I do not understand that logic. Pilots are held up as the holy grail of witnesses (which I do not agree with) yet if a pilot works for the military he is part of the Government machine and cannot be trusted al of a sudden? And the average Joe in the street is much more likely to identify military flares than military personnel let alone official records?

http://www.azcentral...lights0225.htmlLINK

Excellent, excellent point.

For those who didn't check out my Skeptoid link earlier - which I'm sure most didn't - there's also the point that that the flares dropped out of view EXACTLY as they crossed the horizon line of the Sierra Estrella mountains, proving they were over the testing range and not Phoenix.



Lots of people in the Phoenix area did own cameras, and they all filmed exactly the same thing. Hundreds of photographs, hours of video, and all of it showing a line of lights in the sky above the city lights of Phoenix, looking toward the Sierra Estrella mountains and the Goldwater Range. Not a single photograph or frame of video showed anything else. This was the most documented UFO sighting in American history, and every last photograph showed exactly the same thing. Plenty of verbal reports told very different stories over the weeks following the incident, but every single photograph showed a simple line of lights beyond the Sierra Estrella.

As has been thoroughly documented, including by a Fox television special, the moment that each light disappeared on the evidential videotapes corresponded exactly with the horizon line of the Sierra Estrella mountains, proving that the lights were behind the mountains, and not over Phoenix.

[booNyzarC]

quillius, on 29 May 2012 - 09:00 AM, said:

Hey Psyche, I dont doubt he had an advantage ove rthe average viewer, however it doesnt mean that he is talking about seeing the same thing as reported by others

There is the possibility that the people reporting that they saw planes were referring to a different set of lights I suppose, but I find it extremely unlikely.  The planes were in the same area of the sky and at the same time as the reports of a large UFO, the people reporting planes just had a better view.  All of them took interest in the formation and found it to be worthy of inspection after all, right?

quillius, on 29 May 2012 - 09:00 AM, said:

Rich Contry said he saw 5 planes flying in formation, Mitch Stanley says 3.

I'm not sure where you are getting this from but I don't recall Mitch stating that he only saw three planes.  He did indicate that through his Dobsonian he could see that each plane had 3 lights.  He also indicated that when he first got them into view the leading three lights fit within the field of vision provided by the telescope.  Perhaps you've taken this to mean that he only counted 3 planes in total?

quillius, on 29 May 2012 - 09:00 AM, said:

Anyhow I dont doubt he did see a formation of planes....could these have been the scrambled jets (F15's)? or some other AF craft sent up?

At this point it is hard to be certain exactly what kind of planes they were, but the Snowbirds seem an extremely good possibility to me.



The similarity is striking if you ask me.

quillius, on 29 May 2012 - 09:00 AM, said:

Not sure if you were refering to me ignoring analysis? but I dont ignore the maths and the all other information thrashed out proving the 10pm were flares, I agree.

I just dont think the earlier reports and sightings are explained yet.

No, I wasn't referring to you Quillius.  As I've mentioned many times I'm sure that there are a lot of people who are resistant to the plane explanation for the earlier sighting, including a good number of the witnesses themselves.  I just don't see any reason to conclude otherwise.

As for the 10 PM portion being flares, just about everyone agrees on this part by now, even many leading UFOlogists.

quillius, on 29 May 2012 - 09:00 AM, said:

And as for newcomers, I assume you include all the 'skeptical' post that state 'it was flares' without understaning that we are talking of two differeing events on the same night and they therefore add to the confusion IMO.

Indeed, by newcomers I literally mean all who come in without fully investigating the sighting regardless of which side of the fence they sit on.

[booNyzarC]

Rafterman, on 29 May 2012 - 01:26 PM, said:

Excellent, excellent point.

For those who didn't check out my Skeptoid link earlier - which I'm sure most didn't - there's also the point that that the flares dropped out of view EXACTLY as they crossed the horizon line of the Sierra Estrella mountains, proving they were over the testing range and not Phoenix.



Lots of people in the Phoenix area did own cameras, and they all filmed exactly the same thing. Hundreds of photographs, hours of video, and all of it showing a line of lights in the sky above the city lights of Phoenix, looking toward the Sierra Estrella mountains and the Goldwater Range. Not a single photograph or frame of video showed anything else. This was the most documented UFO sighting in American history, and every last photograph showed exactly the same thing. Plenty of verbal reports told very different stories over the weeks following the incident, but every single photograph showed a simple line of lights beyond the Sierra Estrella.

As has been thoroughly documented, including by a Fox television special, the moment that each light disappeared on the evidential videotapes corresponded exactly with the horizon line of the Sierra Estrella mountains, proving that the lights were behind the mountains, and not over Phoenix.

They did indeed.  


(To prevent any confusion, this animated GIF is a day overlay combined with the Mike K video and sped up.  The Mike K video is the most famous of the various videos of the 10 PM Phoenix Lights event.  This is directly from the analysis performed by Cognitech.)

[quillius]

booNyzarC, on 29 May 2012 - 01:54 PM, said:

There is the possibility that the people reporting that they saw planes were referring to a different set of lights I suppose, but I find it extremely unlikely.  The planes were in the same area of the sky and at the same time as the reports of a large UFO, the people reporting planes just had a better view.  All of them took interest in the formation and found it to be worthy of inspection after all, right?

Hey Boon,
maybe, I just think they could have been jets scrambled. Would be interesting to pinpoint each report on the map, incorporating Procters images also.  I do also seem to recall some of the witness reports came from star gazers out that night?!?

booNyzarC, on 29 May 2012 - 01:54 PM, said:

I'm not sure where you are getting this from but I don't recall Mitch stating that he only saw three planes.  He did indicate that through his Dobsonian he could see that each plane had 3 lights.  He also indicated that when he first got them into view the leading three lights fit within the field of vision provided by the telescope.  Perhaps you've taken this to mean that he only counted 3 planes in total?

I made it up. seriously though yes I think I may well have confused Mitch talking about three lights, however it does raise the interesting question that how many planes did he say there were? How did he know this seeing as only the lead plane was in the scopes vision?

booNyzarC, on 29 May 2012 - 01:54 PM, said:

At this point it is hard to be certain exactly what kind of planes they were, but the Snowbirds seem an extremely good possibility to me.

The similarity is striking if you ask me.

The snowbirds said it wasnt them. And why would a pilot radio in that it was them 'the snowbirds'? does raise cause for suspicion woudlnt you agree?

booNyzarC, on 29 May 2012 - 01:54 PM, said:

No, I wasn't referring to you Quillius.  As I've mentioned many times I'm sure that there are a lot of people who are resistant to the plane explanation for the earlier sighting, including a good number of the witnesses themselves.  I just don't see any reason to conclude otherwise.

Maybe like me dont feel it all quite adds up yet. As for the witnesses, well I am sure thye have their own reasons.

booNyzarC, on 29 May 2012 - 01:54 PM, said:

As for the 10 PM portion being flares, just about everyone agrees on this part by now, even many leading UFOlogists.

never sounds that way though does it

booNyzarC, on 29 May 2012 - 01:54 PM, said:

Indeed, by newcomers I literally mean all who come in without fully investigating the sighting regardless of which side of the fence they sit on.

ok thanks

have a look at this link if not seen before:

http://ufoupdateslis...v/m20-043.shtml

[booNyzarC]

quillius, on 29 May 2012 - 02:25 PM, said:

Hey Boon,
maybe, I just think they could have been jets scrambled. Would be interesting to pinpoint each report on the map, incorporating Procters images also.  I do also seem to recall some of the witness reports came from star gazers out that night?!?

I find the scrambled jets idea to be very unlikely, especially for the earlier event.

quillius, on 29 May 2012 - 02:25 PM, said:

I made it up. seriously though yes I think I may well have confused Mitch talking about three lights, however it does raise the interesting question that how many planes did he say there were? How did he know this seeing as only the lead plane was in the scopes vision?

When it comes to capturing something like that with a telescope you must position the view ahead of the planes and let them come into the field of view.  It takes a pretty good measure of skill to accomplish that with something moving across the sky like a plane.  Even keeping something as slowly moving as a planet, like Venus for example (token Venus reference...), takes some practice.  I don't recall that he gave a specific count anywhere, but he may have.

quillius, on 29 May 2012 - 02:25 PM, said:

The snowbirds said it wasnt them. And why would a pilot radio in that it was them 'the snowbirds'? does raise cause for suspicion woudlnt you agree?

Correction; the logistics officer for the Snowbirds, Michael Perry, said it wasn't them.  Now he may have been right and he may have been wrong.  Regardless, as Tim Printy points out, it doesn't need to be the Snowbirds in order to be Tudors, and it doesn't necessarily need to be Tudors at all.  The core point being that they were clearly identified as planes in formation.

What kind of suspicion are you talking about?  I hope not some kind of conspiratorial suspicion...

quillius, on 29 May 2012 - 02:25 PM, said:

Maybe like me dont feel it all quite adds up yet. As for the witnesses, well I am sure thye have their own reasons.

It adds up quite well in my opinion.  The variations in the witness reports are a clear indication of differing perceptions regarding the same event.  If you look at the Morristown hoax as a valid case study, we can start to see why so many people can report mundane things as fantastical.

quillius, on 29 May 2012 - 02:25 PM, said:

never sounds that way though does it

There will always be hold outs regardless of the evidence.  Tis the nature of things.

quillius, on 29 May 2012 - 02:25 PM, said:

ok thanks

have a look at this link if not seen before:

http://ufoupdateslis...v/m20-043.shtml

Yes, more variation of reports in the same event.  For those determined to cling to the mystery, there is plenty of fodder to draw from.

Cheers.

[quillius]

booNyzarC, on 29 May 2012 - 03:49 PM, said:

I find the scrambled jets idea to be very unlikely, especially for the earlier event.

If reports are flooding the switchboard then I think it quite possible, especially due to the close proximity of bases. Also was it not said that the switchboard made out there were no calls?

booNyzarC, on 29 May 2012 - 03:49 PM, said:

When it comes to capturing something like that with a telescope you must position the view ahead of the planes and let them come into the field of view.  It takes a pretty good measure of skill to accomplish that with something moving across the sky like a plane.  Even keeping something as slowly moving as a planet, like Venus for example (token Venus reference...), takes some practice.  I don't recall that he gave a specific count anywhere, but he may have.

and yet in his own words, Mitch managed to watch them for about a minute. Also slightly strange that he responds to the question on ' why didnt you watch for longer' - I didnt because they were just planes, small private planes flying in a v formation...hardly just a plane flying past now. Also could he have kept them in the scopes sight for more than a minute (assuming the minute quoted was true)?

booNyzarC, on 29 May 2012 - 03:49 PM, said:

Correction; the logistics officer for the Snowbirds, Michael Perry, said it wasn't them.  Now he may have been right and he may have been wrong.  Regardless, as Tim Printy points out, it doesn't need to be the Snowbirds in order to be Tudors, and it doesn't necessarily need to be Tudors at all.  The core point being that they were clearly identified as planes in formation.

Yes thats right it doesnt have to be so why no other reports as to who they were on such a publicised event, secondly why would a pilot radio in that it is them the snowbirds?

booNyzarC, on 29 May 2012 - 03:49 PM, said:

What kind of suspicion are you talking about?  I hope not some kind of conspiratorial suspicion...

As pointed out above, why radio this claim?...I find it suspicious...no need for conspiracy just suspicion

booNyzarC, on 29 May 2012 - 03:49 PM, said:

It adds up quite well in my opinion.  The variations in the witness reports are a clear indication of differing perceptions regarding the same event.  If you look at the Morristown hoax as a valid case study, we can start to see why so many people can report mundane things as fantastical.

Although reports like this:

Quote

My wife and I were standing out front while she was smoking. We always look in the sky when were outside at night and I had just went in the house and sat down at the computer. I didn't even touch the keyboard when she was hysterically yelling for me to come outside. I ran outside as quickly as I could because I thought there was something happening to her. She pointed into the sky and told me to look at these lights. It was clearly obvious that it was a craft of some sort. We could see the area between the lights which had a tiangular shape, was solid and was a different shade (darker) of black than the night sky. It moved towards Sky Harbor airport as it moved away from us. It made no noise as it went by.We are in the flight path of Sky Harbor and look at the planes as they go over (about 5000 feet). In comparison, you could of lined 3-4 jet airliners end to end and hung them underneath this thingI was an aircraft maintenance specialist in the Air Force working on B-52's, KC135's, C-5's, and C141 aircraft. I have hundreds of flying ours with about a hundred of those in hostile airspace over Vietnam.I also spent 3 years in the Army Special Forces (Green Berets) as a light weapons specialist, a nuclear, biological, chemical warfare specialist. I am a certified Quality Assurance Specialist in Electronic and Software commodities for the Department of Defense and I am presently working as a Software Quality Engineer for Honeywell. I have an A.S. degree in Quality Assurance and a Bachelors degree in Management.My wife is a Network Specialist for the Arizona State Internal Revenue Service. She has an A.S. degree in Law and is working on her Bachelors degree in Information Systems.

make me wonder, how did so many people mistake this as anything more than a formation of planes?

booNyzarC, on 29 May 2012 - 03:49 PM, said:

There will always be hold outs regardless of the evidence.  Tis the nature of things.

This is true.

booNyzarC, on 29 May 2012 - 03:49 PM, said:

Yes, more variation of reports in the same event.  For those determined to cling to the mystery, there is plenty of fodder to draw from.

Cheers.

hmm another astronomers view though is it not?

Edited by quillius, 29 May 2012 - 04:08 PM.

[booNyzarC]

We could literally go round and round endlessly about this and wind up no closer to a broadly accepted explanation than we already are.  I don't know about you, but I'm not really interested in that kind of exercise.  Yes, there are varying reports from many witnesses.  Yes many of those reports are similar, and yes many are different.  I still fall back on the verified accounts which indicate that they were planes in formation.  I can understand people mistaking such a thing for one large object, but I can't understand people mistaking one large object for individual planes in formation.

As for the "another astronomers view" statement, add onto that the word anonymous.  I no longer give much credence to anonymous sources when it comes to UFO events.  Take the anonymous whistle blower who supposedly phoned in from the base as another example of this.

Again, for those determined to cling to the mystery, there is plenty of fodder to draw from.  You're welcome to keep this one in your "unexplained" bin if you'd prefer, but you'll find very little agreement on that assessment from me.

Cheers  

[Babe Ruth]

Am I reading the posts correctly Quillius and Boo?  Are you guys saying you think the 2000 sighting was a formation flight of airplanes?

[booNyzarC]

Babe Ruth, on 29 May 2012 - 05:59 PM, said:

Am I reading the posts correctly Quillius and Boo?  Are you guys saying you think the 2000 sighting was a formation flight of airplanes?

We're discussing the March 13th, 1997 sightings, the first of which was around 8 PM.  It is my position that this earlier sighting was indeed a formation of airplanes.  I'm fairly sure that Quillius doesn't consider the earlier sighting explained, though I don't think he's voiced an opinion that it wasn't planes either.

[Babe Ruth]

Thanks.

[psyche101]

quillius, on 29 May 2012 - 09:00 AM, said:

Hey Psyche, I dont doubt he had an advantage ove rthe average viewer, however it doesnt mean that he is talking about seeing the same thing as reported by others





Rich Contry said he saw 5 planes flying in formation, Mitch Stanley says 3.

Anyhow I dont doubt he did see a formation of planes....could these have been the scrambled jets (F15's)? or some other AF craft sent up?

Not sure if you were refering to me ignoring analysis? but I dont ignore the maths and the all other information thrashed out proving the 10pm were flares, I agree.

I just dont think the earlier reports and sightings are explained yet.

And as for newcomers, I assume you include all the 'skeptical' post that state 'it was flares' without understaning that we are talking of two differeing events on the same night and they therefore add to the confusion IMO.

Is not direction and time locale the same? i.e. Airport & 8pm.

[psyche101]

Babe Ruth, on 29 May 2012 - 12:31 PM, said:

Psyche

Gidday BR

Babe Ruth, on 29 May 2012 - 12:31 PM, said:

If anybody would know a flight of A-10s dropping flares, it would be Fife.

Exactly why I suspect he changed his story. He knows they were planes, he knows that his townspeople had something to talk about, he knew this was an excellent angle to "reach the people" I did not say he was not a good politician I just say I do not believe him about his alien story for a second and I thought his display with dressed up characters actually mocked the situation and was quite disrespectful. but it gave the townspeople the only confirmation they could get, so they lapped it up. Dead set, I would not like to play Fyfe in a poker game. He knows people.

Babe Ruth, on 29 May 2012 - 12:31 PM, said:

2 hours difference between flare dropping and the first sighting.  Do you copy that?

I am hoping Boon's post cleared this up for you?

Babe Ruth, on 29 May 2012 - 12:31 PM, said:

I did not say they came "from space", I said they came from "another place".  My opinion is that while many humans think we know all the secrets of the universe by way of Newton and Einstein and others, we DO NOT KNOW many things.  Point is, our interpretations of where any given UFO might have originated "from space" is probably quite limited and wrong.

So what are you trying to say, the the Phoenix lights was a giant dimensional alien craft?

Am I detecting that you are doing you best to try very hard to qualify the Phoenix lights as alien? If so, science does not work like that, the evidence tells he story, not the hypothesis, and in this case the evidence reconciles with the dropping of flares. More effort has gone into people trying to qualify the lights as alien craft than has gone into actual investigation of the lights themselves, it's true, have a look at every investigation to date, people simply want this event to be aliens, and some of them are hanging on to that thought like a put bull.


I saw that you mentioned a March 2000 sighting, are you sure about that? I thought that was when the Military did a purpose demonstration to show the lights were flares? There was one in 2008, could you be thinking of that event? UM featured that one here - LINK

Cheers.

Edited by psyche101, 29 May 2012 - 11:10 PM.

[ThickasaBrick]

Funny how when a "witness" recants a statement about seeing a UFO it is a cover-up. However, when someone comes "clean" you immediately believe. Once a liar always a liar, you can't trust these type of people, politicians for instance.
What the Phoenix lights were, I have no idea, but I highly doubt it was an alien spacecraft making a slow flyover above a well populated area. More than likely it is a gov't program, recall the "UFOs" which were spotted near Area 51 during the early 90s. Turned out it was the stealth bomber/fighter.
When unknown objects were spotted above Washington D.C. in the 50s aircraft were launched to intercept. There were no "interceptors" launched over Phoenix that night, otherwise there would have been sound.
Highly doubtful that the truth will ever be known, unless in 10 years the Air Force has "mile-wide" aircraft.

[psyche101]

Quote

My wife and I were standing out front while she was smoking. We always look in the sky when were outside at night and I had just went in the house and sat down at the computer. I didn't even touch the keyboard when she was hysterically yelling for me to come outside. I ran outside as quickly as I could because I thought there was something happening to her. She pointed into the sky and told me to look at these lights. It was clearly obvious that it was a craft of some sort. We could see the area between the lights which had a tiangular shape, was solid and was a different shade (darker) of black than the night sky. It moved towards Sky Harbor airport as it moved away from us. It made no noise as it went by.We are in the flight path of Sky Harbor and look at the planes as they go over (about 5000 feet). In comparison, you could of lined 3-4 jet airliners end to end and hung them underneath this thingI was an aircraft maintenance specialist in the Air Force working on B-52's, KC135's, C-5's, and C141 aircraft. I have hundreds of flying ours with about a hundred of those in hostile airspace over Vietnam.I also spent 3 years in the Army Special Forces (Green Berets) as a light weapons specialist, a nuclear, biological, chemical warfare specialist. I am a certified Quality Assurance Specialist in Electronic and Software commodities for the Department of Defense and I am presently working as a Software Quality Engineer for Honeywell. I have an A.S. degree in Quality Assurance and a Bachelors degree in Management.My wife is a Network Specialist for the Arizona State Internal Revenue Service. She has an A.S. degree in Law and is working on her Bachelors degree in Information Systems.

Hi Qullius

This is indeed the sort of thing that sounds puzzling, and indeed it is. The way I see it, these people cannot possibly be correct with regards to the lights being part of one craft. We have two academics who apparently do not own recording equipment of any kind, and whilst the wife was so amazed that she insisted her husband view what she had seen she did not have the nouse to pick up a camera. Had we a picture of a triangle formation of lights directly over the city, then the flares would be debunked, yet this confirms what Mitch Stanley said in the the lights were moving toward the airport if the time frame is compatible. The transcript provided (without link mate! What's going on there?) does not distinguish which sighting these people are talking about so I am not really sure which sighting it is addressing. I happen to deal with Honeywell Australia from time to time, I doubt anyone here would be able to confirm this, but I do know one person I can ask there.
Nice call though, I admire that you found a witness that was not a person with no qualification. More will become apparent when I find out what sighting they speak of.

Cheers.

[DONTEATUS]

THe Phoenix Lights will indeed go down with a Lot of questions,and few real good answers !