6153 replies to this topic

[lost_shaman]

ETA: Nevermind...

Edited by lost_shaman, 25 April 2011 - 10:42 AM.

[lost_shaman]

someoldguy, on 24 April 2011 - 09:47 PM, said:

For guys that allegedly (according to one member) don't "do their homework", most of you really impress me with your knowledge and your passion for the truth.  Sometimes I get impatient with the apparent dwelling on details, but that's just me.  It's pretty easy for me (and no doubt others) to see who's actually done their homework and those who have only been reading comic books.
My hat's off to you gentlemen.  (And ladies.)  I've learned a lot lurking here.

Hey someoldguy,

I think you are correct. The 'homework' question should be quite clearly answered at this point.

[DONTEATUS]

Its a lot like the Guys yacking about the facts that the "Higgs Boson particle" has not been proven !
Yet ,of if ever,of even what it will really all mean to mankind.
Its all in the way one looks at something.
Where`s the best evidence for E.T ?
We have none at this moment!
Only that we are here and that means What?
It means that anything is Possible. Think Big !

[Hazzard]

Hitman, on 25 April 2011 - 07:52 AM, said:

I call crop circles "crap circles". That's because they're hoaxes to be sure.

HItman

No argument from me.  

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Hitman, on 25 April 2011 - 07:52 AM, said:

I call crop circles "crap circles". That's because they're hoaxes to be sure.

HItman

Even if that may be so, tehy're still pretty darn impressive, though.

[someoldguy]

Quote

I call crop circles "crap circles". That's because they're hoaxes to be sure.

IMO crop circles may not be best evidence for ET's, but they are best evidence for highly creative (human) beings with too much time on their hands.

[skyeagle409]

booNyzarC, on 24 April 2011 - 08:11 PM, said:

So I'm taking a stab at this math business in an effort to determine if one of the witnesses from within the city could have seen the flares over the BGR as well.  From skyeagle's videos, we do have one witness who actually gave us a location to work with for these calculations.  Tom Chavez stated that he was at the intersection of 27th Avenue and Van Buren.  Using Google Earth to place the K, L, and R locations with much more precision (thanks for the idea Peri!) and triangulated to the positions of the same 3 lights that Bruce Maccabee focused on for comparison between the 3 videos (Lights 1, 2, and 9 from the K array which he referenced as Left Light, Right Light, and Middle Light respectively.)  You can see this in Figure 18 on page 3 of Maccabee's analysis.  I basically just added this to Google Earth to confirm, and sure enough it pretty much pans out just as Peri's previous post showed.

I didn't add in the other lights from the K array because I wanted to speculate and guess as little as possible.  I might come back to this later in an effort to conclude the whole K array with estimated locations and altitudes, but for now this should suffice to prove the key point that flares dropped over the BGR can indeed be seen from where known witnesses reported their sightings.

From the initial confirmation of Maccabee's analysis regarding K, L, and R, I added a point for Tom Chavez and his location at the time of the sighting at 27th Ave and Van Buren and calculated the distance to the triangulated lights as well as the distance to the highest point of elevation in the mountain range along the track to each light.  That information and the calculations are in the first Spoiler (using spoiler so that the math phobic among us don't need to look at it).


The short version is that Tom Chavez could have definitely seen some of the flares, but probably not all of them.  I suspect that if I added the remaining flares from the K array that he would have been able to see several of the flares.

The long version:

Spoiler

Tom Chavez
Intersection of 27th Avenue and Van Buren
Elevation:
1070 ft.
Latitude:
33°27'3.91"N
Longitude:
112° 7'3.08"W

Distance to left light 60.04 Miles (317011.2'), at 204.59 degree heading

Distance to right light 64.38 Miles (339926.4') , at 210.26 degree heading

Distance to middle light 66.24 Miles (349747.2'), at 207.85 degree heading


Distance to Mountains at 3860ft elevation, 16.53 miles (87278.4') (track to left light) 24.49 degrees from mountain to Tom

Distance to Mountains at 3640ft elevation, 15.6 miles (82368') (track to right light) 30.18 degrees from mountain to Tom

Distance to Mountains at 3698ft elevation, 15.78 miles (83318.4') (track to middle light) 207.85 degrees from Tom to mountain


With this data I tried two different methods to calculate the minimum visible altitude from Tom's position to each of the three confirmed lights.  First I calculated the angles by creating a right triangle from Tom to the mountains and then extended at the same angle to the full distance to each light which gave me an estimated altitude not including earth curvature (final values in red).  To add the earth curvature I used estimates provided on this web page:
http://www.davidsene...e_of_sight.html which lists height adjustment of 2380' for 60 miles and 3240' for 70 miles.  This seems close enough of an approximation and I believe that it accounts not only for the curvature of the earth, but also the anticipated effect of ray diffraction.

Then I used a bastardized estimate from lost_shaman's previous calculations for each of these three lights (final values in green).  The numbers came out somewhat higher using LS's calcs versus the approximations from the above web site, but regardless of that we can see that some of the lights in the array would indeed have been visible from Tom's position for a short period of time, but probably not all and probably not for very long.

My calcs are below, hopefully you can make sense of them.

Triangle from Tom to Mountains track to Left Light
side a = 3860 - 1070 = 2790
side b = 87278.4
side c = *87322.98
Angle A = 1.83093 degrees

Extend side b 60.04 Miles (317011.2') to Left Light at 1.83093 degrees = 10133.78251 feet, add 2380ft from estimate = ~12513.8' minimum visible altitude

or, using an estimation from LS's calcs:
Difference in elevation 2790 ft @ 87278.4 feet, then 2790/87278.4 = .031966672166309 arctan = 1.8309319 degrees add .6 degrees for ~curvature = 2.4tan x 317011.2 = 13286.7' minimum visible altitude



Triangle from Tom to Mountains track to Right Light
side a = 3640 - 1070 = 2570
side b = 82368
side c = *82408.084
Angle A = 1.78713 degrees

Extend side b 64.38 Miles (339926.4') to Right Light at 1.78713 degrees = 10606.18703 feet, add 2600ft from estimate = ~13206.2' minimum visible altitude

or, using an estimation from LS's calcs:
Difference in elevation 2570 ft @ 82368 feet, then 2570/82368 = .03120143745143745 arctan = 1.7871308 degrees add .6 degrees for ~curvature = 2.4tan x 339926.4 = 14247.1' minimum visible altitude



Triangle from Tom to Mountains track to Middle Light
side a = 3698 - 1070 = 2628
side b = 83318.4
side c = *83359.835
Angle A = 1.8066 degrees

Extend side b 66.24 Miles (349747.2') to Middle Light at 1.78713 degrees = 10912.60995 feet, add 2800ft from estimate = 13712.6' minimum visible altitude

or, using an estimation from LS's calcs:
Difference in elevation 2628 ft @ 83318.4 feet, then 2628/83318.4 = .031541652264 arctan = 1.8066046 degrees add .6 degrees for ~curvature = 2.4tan x 349747.2 = 14658.7' minimum visible altitude

Also from the videos, Lynne Kitei mentions calling the Air Traffic Controllers at Sky Harbor Airport and she stated that they also saw the lights, but nothing on RADAR.  She mentions that they saw 6 points of light thru binoculars, behind South Mountain.  So I decided to do the math from this location as well.  Sure enough, they could definitely see the lights.  In fact, they could definitely see the full array from the tower, no doubt about it.

The long version:

Spoiler

Sky Harbor Tower
Elevation at base 1121 ft
Elevation at top of tower 1303 ft
Latitude:
33°26'7.74"N
Longitude:
112° 0'35.82"W

Distance to left light 61.96 Miles (327148.8'), at 210.28 degree heading

Distance to right light 66.85 Miles (352968') , at 215.37 degree heading

Distance to middle light 68.46 Miles (361468.8'), at 212.92 degree heading


Distance to Mountains at 3139ft elevation, 20.55 miles (108504') (track to left light) 210.29 degrees from tower to mountain

Distance to Mountains at 3710ft elevation, 19.77 miles (104385.6') (track to right light) 215.35 degrees from tower to mountain

Distance to Mountains at 4130ft elevation, 20.34 miles (107395.2') (track to middle light) 212.91 degrees from tower to mountain


Triangle from Tower to Mountains track to Left Light
side a = 3139 - 1303 = 1836
side b = 108504
side c = *108519.5324
Angle A = 0.96941 degrees

Extend side b 61.96 Miles (327148.8') to Left Light at 0.96941 degrees = 5535.68843 feet, add 2400ft from estimate = ~7935.7' minimum visible altitude

or, using an estimation from LS's calcs:
Difference in elevation 1836 ft @ 108504 feet, then 1836/108504 = .016921035 arctan = 0.9694114 degrees add .6 degrees for ~curvature = 1.57tan x 327148.8 = 8966.67' minimum visible altitude


Triangle from Tower to Mountains track to Right Light
side a = 3710 - 1303 = 2407
side b = 104385.6
side c = *104413.3475
Angle A = 1.32093 degrees

Extend side b 66.85 Miles (352968') to Left Light at 1.32093 degrees = 8138.97022 feet, add 2800ft from estimate = ~10938.9' minimum visible altitude

or, using an estimation from LS's calcs:
Difference in elevation 2407 ft @ 104385.6 feet, then 2407/104385.6 = .023058736 arctan = 1.3209342 degrees add .6 degrees for ~curvature = 1.92tan x 352968 = 11832.5' minimum visible altitude


Triangle from Tower to Mountains track to Middle Light
side a = 4130 - 1303 = 2827
side b = 107395.2
side c = *107432.40159
Angle A = 1.50787 degrees

Extend side b 68.46 Miles (361468.8') to Left Light at 1.50787 degrees = 9515.07829 feet, add 3200ft from estimate = ~12715.1' minimum visible altitude

or, using an estimation from LS's calcs:
Difference in elevation 2827 ft @ 107395.2 feet, then 2827/107395.2 = .0263233366 arctan = 1.5078679 degrees add .6 degrees for ~curvature = 2.11tan x 361468.8 = 13317.63' minimum visible altitude

Here is a screen shot taken from Google Earth of the primary locations involved.




Here are the resources I used for analysis, just in case anyone else wants to try their hand at this or doublecheck my work.
Google Earth
White Pages
Arctan Calculator
Right Triangle Angle And Side Calculator
David Senesac's Visual Line of Sight Calculations for Earth's Curvature




So there you have it.  So far everyone we've been able to peg down a sighting location for appears to be perfectly capable of seeing flares that were dropped at about 15,000 feet over the BGR.  Assuming that I didn't horrendously screw up my calculations here anyway...  And if I did, I'd love to be told where so that I can learn.

Cheers.

The Air Force said that they were ignited at 3000 feet and only a single A-10 was involved, and then all of a sudden, more A-10s were involved.  On another note, aircraft  that close to Davis-Monthan AFB, the A-10s would be nowhere near 15000 feet, and that was another hint, which is why the Air Force had said they were dropped from 6000 feet, and ignited at 3000 feet., and once again, they were not flares.

Just buy a ticket to Phoenix and see why no flares would be visible in Phoenix if  over the BGR. Most people of  Phoenix who have lived there for many years,  have never seen flares before and how long has the BGR been in operation by the military?

You can throw figures all over the place but there is nothing like being there in person to see where the nubers don't add up..
Hint #15

Edited by skyeagle409, 25 April 2011 - 08:42 PM.

[skyeagle409]

arenee, on 25 April 2011 - 02:04 AM, said:

I read this post about fifty times.  It's just me guys, I get confused easily.

When you see figures and numbers fly all over the place from those who have never been to Phoenix, watch out!

[arenee]

skyeagle409, on 25 April 2011 - 08:23 PM, said:

When you see figures and numbers fly all over the place from those who have never been to Phoenix, watch out!

When I see figures and numbers fly all over the place from anyone, regardless of where they've been, confusion sets in!

edit for grammar and a typo.

Edited by arenee, 25 April 2011 - 08:45 PM.

[booNyzarC]

skyeagle409, on 25 April 2011 - 08:17 PM, said:

The Air Force said that they were ignited at 3000 feet and only a single A-10 was involved, and then all of a sudden, more A-10s were involved.  On another note, aircraft  that close to Davis-Monthan AFB, the A-10s would be nowhere near 15000 feet, and that was another hint, which is why the Air Force had said they were dropped from 6000 feet, and ignited at 3000 feet., and once again, they were not flares.

Just buy a ticket to Phoenix and see why no flares would be visible in Phoenix if  over the BGR. Most people of  Phoenix who have lived there for many years,  have never seen flares before and how long has the BGR been in operation by the military?

The Air Force didn't say they were ignited at 3000 feet.  We've been through all of this before skyeagle, you're simply mistaken.  Get over it already.

Speaking of mistaken, I was mistaken about something as well.  I didn't discover my mistake until I was playing around with Google Earth some more, but the mistake is that Maccabee was right about the peak to left of flare number 9 in the K video being Hayes Peak.  I had concluded it was Montezuma Peak, but I was wrong about that.

Oh well, I'm going to re-crunch numbers and do a better confirmation analysis.  I'm not rushing it, just kind of tinkering at this point with plans to include the video from P that I tracked down too.  Just thought I'd let people know.

skyeagle409, on 25 April 2011 - 08:17 PM, said:

You can throw figures all over the place but there is nothing like being there in person to see where the nubers don't add up..
Hint #15

Are you one of the nubers that doesn't add up?  Looks that way to me.

[DONTEATUS]

Im still Looking towards Phoenix every night and Still cant See those Flares? What am I doing wrong?

[arenee]

booNyzarC, on 25 April 2011 - 09:09 PM, said:

Are you one of the nubers that doesn't add up?  Looks that way to me.

I think it's important we all review our spelling words over the next few days for Friday's test guys.  I think we have a few who are slacking...myself included.   

So, if I or someone else presents a new case, are we going to move on already or not?!  Or will we discuss it for two seconds and go back to the PL's?

[shaddow134]

I think the Rendlesham incident clearly demonstrates that the military are not in control of our airspace
    and provides good and reliable evidence that E.T's may indeed be visiting our planet..

[booNyzarC]

shaddow134, on 25 April 2011 - 10:37 PM, said:

I think the Rendlesham incident clearly demonstrates that the military are not in control of our airspace
    and provides good and reliable evidence that E.T's may indeed be visiting our planet..

Hi shaddow134 and welcome to UM.

You might want to give this website a good healthy read for some top notch information about the Rendlesham incident.  And this video goes hand in hand:



Cheers

[booNyzarC]

arenee, on 25 April 2011 - 10:26 PM, said:

I think it's important we all review our spelling words over the next few days for Friday's test guys.  I think we have a few who are slacking...myself included.   

So, if I or someone else presents a new case, are we going to move on already or not?!  Or will we discuss it for two seconds and go back to the PL's?

Well, I'm satisfied with the conclusions we've reached regarding the Phoenix Lights videos but I'm having such a blast with Google Earth that I'll probably keep kicking it around for a while, especially if the birdman keeps on refusing to see the obvious and arguing with us about it.

But by all means, that doesn't mean we can't discuss multiple cases.  What case would you like to move on to?