6153 replies to this topic

[mcrom901]

Mangoze, on 07 May 2011 - 10:02 PM, said:

If Pavlov were alive today he wouldn't need to pick on a poor old dog.

'it's all about the benjamins'.....

[lost_shaman]

Mangoze, on 07 May 2011 - 10:02 PM, said:

If Pavlov were alive today he wouldn't need to pick on a poor old dog.

Maybe so, but Milgram might be interested in that old dog and his tricks.

[booNyzarC]

Before I get started on these responses...  let me just say that Tom King was a horrible videographer in 1997.  I hope he's better at it these days, just in case he encounters more flares, because the jerky zooming in and out and flipping back and forth with little to no foreground reference for the benefit of latter analysis is mind bogglingly frustrating...  And nearly impossible to stabilize by hand like I've been trying to do.

skyeagle409, on 07 May 2011 - 07:48 PM, said:

Yes it did, but were you aware that the figure was of a reference, not of the actual size? Apparently, I withheld the rest of the story and what you have posted, is now history.

That is what I want to bring out in regards to debunkers not doing their homework before the rest of the story is known, and instead, they embark upon a trail of ridicule before I reveal the rest of the story.  

Apparently, you do not know me very well.

I wasn't aware that it was a reference.  You caught me.

Good job on keeping up your dishonest debate tactics.  I guess my words are now recorded in stone.

skyeagle409, on 07 May 2011 - 08:10 PM, said:

You might want to think again. Look at the floors.

The floors really aren't the point.  Speaking of the point, you apparently missed it.  I was stating that my impression of the earlier sightings was that they were of aircraft flying in formation at high altitude.  The ceiling would be the point.  And the ceiling back in 1997, I think, was 10,000 feet.  Though that apparently changed to 9,000 feet recently.  Here is a better picture of the Phoenix Class B Airspace for you.



And some links with information that you'll ignore:
aopa.org
swaviator.com
thefederalregister.com

Enjoy.

skyeagle409, on 07 May 2011 - 08:40 PM, said:

A typical jet could do it in under 15 minutes at  a typical cruising speed of over 450 knots,, but, it would take a bit longer because below 10,000, airspeed is restricted to only 250 knots.

Yep.  Good job skyeagle.  Although I doubt if they were below 10,000 feet for the trip home.  The one that dropped the last flares certainly didn't start at that altitude.

skyeagle409, on 07 May 2011 - 08:40 PM, said:

On another note, no one living near Davis-Monthan AFB, heard any A-10s taking off nor landing around  the 10 - 10:30 PM time frame, so just consider yourself another victim of the USAF's deception campaign because it seems that you were unaware of what was reported by the folks of Davis-Monthan AFB as to the landing times of those A-10s, which were on the ground by 2030 hours (8:30 PM), but how many times have I ****WARNED**** skeptics to beware of the Air Force's deception campaigns when UFOs are involved?

Yeah, most of the people who pay attention to such things had probably gone to sleep by 10 PM.  Not uncommon for a Thursday.

And your own link from earlier doesn't match with the 8:30 PM ground time.  According to your link they were on the ground at about 10:30 PM.  Why is that skyeagle?

Oh wait, that's right, I should have caught on to the ****WARNINGS**** that you've been dropping.  I would have picked up on that, but I've been paying closer attention to the flares that the Air Force dropped.

skyeagle409, on 07 May 2011 - 08:40 PM, said:

It all should have been evident when the Air Force initially denied any involvement and then, refused to get involved, Many weeks later, it brought in the flares, which was ridicules, but the only card the Air Force could think of and threw on the table. And once again, the Air Force came back to re-adjust its altitude figure since its earlier figure was much too low, and amazingly, there are those who fell for the Air Force revised story on the Phoenix Lights. Simply amazing!!

I've explained this to you before.  Others have explained it to you as well.  Why you keep droning on about this nonsense is beyond me.  But alright, I'll explain it again...  (This is getting tedious skyeagle.  Try to learn something this time ok?)

There was no card.  There was no cover-up.  There was no conspiracy.  It was simply that the person originally asked didn't know.  Why didn't they know?  Because they were asked about operations out of Luke AFB.  Pretty simple really.  You should be able to get this.  The A-10s that dropped the flares flew out of Davis-Monthan AFB, not Luke.

The explanation of flares isn't ridiculous (I'm assuming that was the word you were hunting for anyway...), it was legitimate, honest, and factual.  That is exactly what happened.  They dropped flares.  People saw them.  A mythology was born.

skyeagle409, on 07 May 2011 - 08:40 PM, said:

I know from first hand experience how the Air Force has been misleading the public over the years and I am in a  prime position to be picky, or should I say,  cherry -picking.

I know from first hand experience that you are misleading the public.  Funny how that works isn't it?

[lost_shaman]

booNyzarC, on 08 May 2011 - 04:34 AM, said:

There was no card. There was no cover-up. There was no conspiracy. It was simply that the person originally asked didn't know. Why didn't they know? Because they were asked about operations out of Luke AFB. Pretty simple really. You should be able to get this. The A-10s that dropped the flares flew out of Davis-Monthan AFB, not Luke.

Hey booN,

There is one viable 'conspiracy theory' if we wish to call it that, that would be that the AF deliberately dropped Flares after the first 7:30-8:00 pm sighting to confuse the public or obfuscate the sighting.

Of course that would still also mean the 10:00 pm event was Flares, so many I'm sure will never be able to wrap their heads around that concept.  

[mcrom901]

coming back to the rest of the story...

One last possibility is aircraft enthusiasts flying vintage aircraft from WWII. The P51 Mustang and P47 Thunderbolt were high altitude fighters capable of the speeds involved. Such possibilities should also be examined if one were looking for the formation's source.

http://home.comcast..../UFO/azconc.htm

[Czero 101]

lost_shaman, on 08 May 2011 - 05:13 AM, said:

Hey booN,

There is one viable 'conspiracy theory' if we wish to call it that, that would be that the AF deliberately dropped Flares after the first 7:30-8:00 pm sighting to confuse the public or obfuscate the sighting.

Interesting idea...

Quote

Of course that would still also mean the 10:00 pm event was Flares, so many I'm sure will never be able to wrap their heads around that concept.  

This would probably be the result for some who try...










Cz

[mcrom901]

lost_shaman, on 08 May 2011 - 05:13 AM, said:

so many I'm sure will never be able to wrap their heads around that concept.  

question authority....

http://www.dtic.mil/...pdf/503019p.pdf

[booNyzarC]

lost_shaman, on 08 May 2011 - 05:13 AM, said:

Hey booN,

There is one viable 'conspiracy theory' if we wish to call it that, that would be that the AF deliberately dropped Flares after the first 7:30-8:00 pm sighting to confuse the public or obfuscate the sighting.

Of course that would still also mean the 10:00 pm event was Flares, so many I'm sure will never be able to wrap their heads around that concept.  

True, and several people have suggested this.  It seems plausible up to a point.  If the formation of aircraft that were witnessed earlier were secret enough, I could see that as a possibility.  But the limited view from the ground makes it not extremely likely in my current opinion.  And the footage from Steven Blonder's house which was captured on March 10, 11, and 12 (in addition to the 13th) suggests to me that it was just a nightly training exercise that had been ongoing for at least three days prior to the mass sighting on the night of Hale-Bopp's flyby when there were exponentially more eyes on the sky.

Even so, I don't rule it out.  I just find it unlikely.

[booNyzarC]

Czero 101, on 08 May 2011 - 05:26 AM, said:

Interesting idea...



This would probably be the result for some who try...










Cz

I sometimes wonder if Scanners was the source of inspiration for Gallagher...

[lost_shaman]

booNyzarC, on 08 May 2011 - 05:30 AM, said:

If the formation of aircraft that were witnessed earlier were secret enough, I could see that as a possibility.

IMO, the AF really would not even need to know what the earlier sighthing was, if they were getting calls about it they could have had A-10's out at the range abort training and dump the Flares at altitude.

[mcrom901]

lost_shaman, on 08 May 2011 - 05:48 AM, said:

the AF really would not even need to know what the earlier sighthing was,

that would qualify it as a ufo/s then, i suppose....


COMMUNICATIONS INSTRUCTIONS REPORTING VITAL INTELLIGENCE SIGHTINGS (CIRVIS)

5.1. Subject and Purpose. This report provides vital information to the security of the United States and Canada which, in the opinion of the observer, requires very urgent defensive action or investigation by the US and/or Canadian Armed Forces.


5.6.3.3. Unidentified flying objects.

af manual 10-206

[lost_shaman]

mcrom901, on 08 May 2011 - 06:30 AM, said:

that would qualify it as a ufo/s then, i suppose....


COMMUNICATIONS INSTRUCTIONS REPORTING VITAL INTELLIGENCE SIGHTINGS (CIRVIS)

5.1. Subject and Purpose. This report provides vital information to the security of the United States and Canada which, in the opinion of the observer, requires very urgent defensive action or investigation by the US and/or Canadian Armed Forces.


5.6.3.3. Unidentified flying objects.

af manual 10-206

That would only apply if personel at Luke AFB or other AFB location observed 'UFO's'. Which did not happen, but nice try mcrom.    

[mcrom901]

lost_shaman, on 08 May 2011 - 06:44 AM, said:

That would only apply if personel at Luke AFB or other AFB location observed 'UFO's'. Which did not happen, but nice try mcrom.    

how do you know that?




eta....

while you're at it.... can you show me any CIRVIS report?

Edited by mcrom901, 08 May 2011 - 06:52 AM.

[lost_shaman]

mcrom901, on 08 May 2011 - 06:46 AM, said:

how do you know that?




eta....

while you're at it.... can you show me any CIRVIS report?

Uhmmm... Do you have a CIRVIS report to prove what you are saying?

Thanks!

[mcrom901]

lost_shaman, on 08 May 2011 - 06:52 AM, said:

Uhmmm... Do you have a CIRVIS report to prove what you are saying?

Thanks!