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This topic has been archived.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

#2191    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 23 April 2011 - 03:08 AM

View Post1963, on 23 April 2011 - 02:46 AM, said:

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.
Hiya 1963, always a pleasure to discuss things with you.  First...  please don't quote my erroneous billions reference... it should have been millions... :blush:

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:

Posted Image

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. :hmm:


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.


#2192    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 23 April 2011 - 03:12 AM

View PostDONTEATUS, on 23 April 2011 - 02:58 AM, said:

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:
With all due respect D...  the footage in question is unquestionably footage of flares.  If you have some compelling reasoning for how it isn't, by all means, place it on the table.  God knows that skyeagle could use your help if you have this reasoning.


#2193    mcrom901

mcrom901

    plasmoid ninja

  • Member
  • 5,547 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2009

Posted 23 April 2011 - 04:02 AM

View PostDONTEATUS, on 23 April 2011 - 02:58 AM, said:

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 !

:tu:

View PostbooNyzarC, on 23 April 2011 - 03:08 AM, said:

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.

easy mate... there is no need for that.... really.... just chill.... ^_^

everyone is entitled to their own opinions.... after all facts are opinions too *cough* it doesn't have to be be either the aristotelian a or b....   :alien:

eta....

coming back to the topic at hand....

Spoiler


Edited by mcrom901, 23 April 2011 - 04:03 AM.


#2194    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 16,153 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008

Posted 23 April 2011 - 04:05 AM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 23 April 2011 - 03:12 AM, said:

With all due respect D...  the footage in question is unquestionably footage of flares.  If you have some compelling reasoning for how it isn't, by all means, place it on the table.  God knows that skyeagle could use your help if you have this reasoning.

The Lights in several of the NEws video`s shot that night were not the same as the ones shown on the Youtube video that has been around until were all about to Puke !
Its the massive numbers of wittness,and time aloft ,and actual sightings from people that know what they were Looking at Is What keeps it alive in the media.
To This day  you cannot get the Air Guard,nor AFB ,LUKE to show any actual Radar tapes of that night.
But thats a Whole nother Storie I guess?

Attached Files


This is a Work in Progress!

#2195    mcrom901

mcrom901

    plasmoid ninja

  • Member
  • 5,547 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2009

Posted 23 April 2011 - 04:11 AM

View PostDONTEATUS, on 23 April 2011 - 04:05 AM, said:

To This day  you cannot get the Air Guard,nor AFB ,LUKE to show any actual Radar tapes of that night.
But thats a Whole nother Storie I guess?

no... you're wrong... they addressed that....

Posted Image

:unsure2:


#2196    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 23 April 2011 - 04:24 AM

View Postmcrom901, on 23 April 2011 - 04:02 AM, said:

easy mate... there is no need for that.... really.... just chill.... ^_^

everyone is entitled to their own opinions.... after all facts are opinions too *cough* it doesn't have to be be either the aristotelian a or b....   :alien:

eta....

coming back to the topic at hand....

Spoiler
I assure you that I'm quite chill regarding this topic.  Another way to put that would be that I'm quite confident in the analysis which has brought clarity to such a clouded sighting.

Are you saying that you have compelling evidence or data which refutes the documented analysis of the footage in question?  Because so far, I haven't seen anyone refute the analysis of that footage.  That is the topic of the debate, just in case you missed it.  The anecdotal testimonies are cursory simply because they are subjective.  We are talking about hard data related to the captured footage.

Skyeagle claims that the footage isn't of flares.  Do you concur with his assessment?


#2197    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 23 April 2011 - 04:32 AM

View PostDONTEATUS, on 23 April 2011 - 04:05 AM, said:

The Lights in several of the NEws video`s shot that night were not the same as the ones shown on the Youtube video that has been around until were all about to Puke !
Its the massive numbers of wittness,and time aloft ,and actual sightings from people that know what they were Looking at Is What keeps it alive in the media.
To This day  you cannot get the Air Guard,nor AFB ,LUKE to show any actual Radar tapes of that night.
But thats a Whole nother Storie I guess?
As I just mentioned to mcrom, the debate is actually very specific.  We are discussing the K video and other videos included in Bruce Maccabee's analysis.  These videos definitively provide irrefutable evidence that the lights in question were not only over the BGR, but that they were filming flares.  If you have evidence which refutes this, by all means please share.

Likewise, if you have additional footage from that event, by all means present it for everyone to review.

Don't take this the wrong way D, I really appreciate your contributions and would love to enjoy a beer with you hanging out at your smoker some day, but if you intend to make arguments to defend sky's opinions you should realize that those arguments will be questioned and deeply analyzed.  By the way, the pilots who dropped those flares were stationed in Tuscon, which might clarify why the records haven't been shown.  Has anyone actually asked Davis–Monthan AFB for records from that night?


#2198    mcrom901

mcrom901

    plasmoid ninja

  • Member
  • 5,547 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2009

Posted 23 April 2011 - 04:35 AM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 23 April 2011 - 04:24 AM, said:

I assure you that I'm quite chill regarding this topic.

that's cool then...  ;)

View PostbooNyzarC, on 23 April 2011 - 04:24 AM, said:

Another way to put that would be that I'm quite confident in the analysis which has brought clarity to such a clouded sighting.

pls, be clear... don't cloud the two (or should i say 'several') sightings into one.... :P

View PostbooNyzarC, on 23 April 2011 - 04:24 AM, said:

Are you saying that you have compelling evidence or data which refutes the documented analysis of the footage in question?  

you're putting unnecessary words in my mouth... :yes:

View PostbooNyzarC, on 23 April 2011 - 04:24 AM, said:

Because so far, I haven't seen anyone refute the analysis of that footage.

hmmmm.... what should i say... cool...  :o

View PostbooNyzarC, on 23 April 2011 - 04:24 AM, said:

That is the topic of the debate, just in case you missed it.

no... i didn't miss anything... please don't project your perceptions onto others...  :)

View PostbooNyzarC, on 23 April 2011 - 04:24 AM, said:

The anecdotal testimonies are cursory simply because they are subjective.

like the guy who saw through his telescope?

View PostbooNyzarC, on 23 April 2011 - 04:24 AM, said:

We are talking about hard data related to the captured footage.

i didn't say anything about that.... meh

View PostbooNyzarC, on 23 April 2011 - 04:24 AM, said:

Skyeagle claims that the footage isn't of flares.

he must have his reasons for stating as such... i don't know  :w00t:

View PostbooNyzarC, on 23 April 2011 - 04:24 AM, said:

Do you concur with his assessment?

i don't concur with anybody...  B)


#2199    lost_shaman

lost_shaman

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,052 posts
  • Joined:11 Jul 2006

Posted 23 April 2011 - 04:44 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 22 April 2011 - 11:30 PM, said:

I haven't ignored it at all, and in fact, I pointed out the fact that you can hardly see the top of a 1400-foot building from 50 miles away, which is why I posted the link to the Chicago skyline. The Earth's curvature played a prt in that photo and I am very aware of the curvature of the Earth and long distance,and even short distances as well, and an example can be found in regards to the curvature of the Earth and the Golden Gate bridge in San Francisco  and its two towers.

So what sky? What does your little drawing show you? What is the minimum Altitude suggested by your 'drawings' for a flare to be seen from K's position?

I've posted Altitude numbers.

Here is another equation I came across which is the inverse of the WWII equation I posted earlier. This directly takes Earth's curvature into account. The height of an object in feet to be seen at a distance is given by distance in Miles squared divided by 1.513. So @ 77 miles this equates to 3,919 ft.

The Mountains block ~1.293 degrees of K's view. Therefore @ 77 miles this equates to 9,176 ft.

Add these two numbers and we get 13,095ft as a minimum altitude for a Flare to be seen over BMGR from K's position.

So what is the minimum altitude for a flare to be seen from K's position do your 'drawings' suggest? Please post this for all to see!

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

#2200    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 23 April 2011 - 04:46 AM

(edit)
This was in response to mcrom, not LS...  should be clear, but just in case...
(/edit)


Funny.  Yes, actually that was pretty funny.  Cheers for that. :tu:

Thanks for clarifying that you don't actually have anything to back up skyeagle's claims.  Much appreciated.

And by the way...  asking you questions does not mean that I was putting words in your mouth.  I was just asking questions.

Edited by booNyzarC, 23 April 2011 - 04:48 AM.


#2201    mcrom901

mcrom901

    plasmoid ninja

  • Member
  • 5,547 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2009

Posted 23 April 2011 - 05:39 AM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 23 April 2011 - 04:46 AM, said:

(edit)
This was in response to mcrom, not LS...  should be clear, but just in case...
(/edit)


cheers mate... no worries...  :tu:  :P

View Postlost_shaman, on 23 April 2011 - 04:44 AM, said:

The Mountains block ~1.293 degrees of K's view.

in a straight line?  :o


#2202    lost_shaman

lost_shaman

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,052 posts
  • Joined:11 Jul 2006

Posted 23 April 2011 - 05:48 AM

View Postlost_shaman, on 23 April 2011 - 04:44 AM, said:

Add these two numbers and we get 13,095ft as a minimum altitude for a Flare to be seen over BMGR from K's position.

Note what happens if we account for the rate of decent for a LUU-2 Flare. If at Altitude these flares fall at 9 ft per second, then Flare 7 in the video (Flare 8 if referring to Bruce M.) is visible for 180 seconds, which calculates to 1,620 ft of decent.

If we add that to the 13,095 ft, we get 14,715 ft for the Altitude that Flare 7 ignited.

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

#2203    lost_shaman

lost_shaman

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,052 posts
  • Joined:11 Jul 2006

Posted 23 April 2011 - 07:31 AM

View Postmcrom901, on 23 April 2011 - 05:39 AM, said:

in a straight line?  :o


Pretty much. The true Horizon from K's position is 23.2 miles behind the Estrella Mountains. i.e. the Horizon is more or less around where K's line of sight falls at the base of the Mountains.

ETA: Or stated differently, it is the base of the Mountains that first obstructs K's view of the Horizon.

Edited by lost_shaman, 23 April 2011 - 07:46 AM.

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

#2204    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 28,989 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 23 April 2011 - 04:52 PM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 23 April 2011 - 03:08 AM, said:

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.

Considering that many people within the city below  the camera have seen the second session of lights as well,proves beyond any doubt  the lights were not over the BGR at al, but passing over the City of Phoenix. In addition, such incidents were typical of what has been happening around Nevada and over Arizona.  

Here is another example of many.



KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2205    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 28,989 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 23 April 2011 - 05:17 PM

Look at the Air Force's sloppy flare demonstration at timeline 5:26 to explain the "Phoenix Lights."




So, is it any wonder then, why those who saw the lights that night, have scoffed at the Air Force's demonstration as well as myself?

Edited by skyeagle409, 23 April 2011 - 05:27 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX