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).
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?
In terms of the financial waste, I'm right there with you. I've read somewhere (I don't recall where exactly and I'm a bit tired to track it down at the moment) that one of the pilots stated that it was a safety precaution to jettison the flares before landing. I don't know how true that is or what danger the flares would pose, but I totally agree that for the cost of those puppies it seems a waste to have jettisoned them without a good reason.
In terms of the "all the witnesses" there hasn't been an accurate analysis presented of the exact positions of each witness. Or at least, I haven't seen one. Keep in mind also that the footage we've been talking about is just one aspect of that night. Many witnesses reported seeing things earlier in the day, including good ol' guv Fife. That has created a lot of confusion about who saw what, where, and when. I really wish that some of those other witnesses had managed to capture something worth analyzing beyond anecdotal statements.
As it stands, there was only one person I'm aware of who related an identification of the earlier sightings, and that was Mitch Stanley who stated that he saw planes flying in formation through his telescope. I believe him, but that might just be confirmation bias on my part so I can't say definitively that this is factual. I believe him primarily because people looking with their eyes are less likely to get a clear picture than he did with a telescope like this bad boy:
Nice telescope don't you think? That isn't his, but it is the same kind he used. That is why I take his word over others. He simply had a better view of the situation.
In terms of whether sky is onto something... well, if he is, he has yet to produce anything substantial to back it up. I'm driven by evidence. If someone can present compelling evidence I'm all for accepting it. If all they can do is blow smoke up my hind end, I'm probably not going to be very forgiving. And if they ignore the compelling evidence which refutes their position, I might not be too cordial either.