1012 replies to this topic

[quillius]

hang on Mitch didnt see flares......

[booNyzarC]

quillius, on 10 October 2012 - 09:51 AM, said:

what evidence is there for the aircraft flying in formation theory?

quillius, on 10 October 2012 - 11:42 AM, said:

anyhow bottom line do you agree that there is no evidence for plane formation for the 8.30 sighting?

*sigh*

Quillius, I'm surprised at you my friend.  Surely after having been shown so many times you must at least be aware of the evidence in support of this conclusion, right?

Tim Printy's summation here still stands as the most accurate accounting of the earlier event in my opinion.  He managed to track down considerable evidence.

[quillius]

booNyzarC, on 10 October 2012 - 01:25 PM, said:

*sigh*

Quillius, I'm surprised at you my friend.  Surely after having been shown so many times you must at least be aware of the evidence in support of this conclusion, right?

Tim Printy's summation here still stands as the most accurate accounting of the earlier event in my opinion.  He managed to track down considerable evidence.

ahh dont be surprised Boony, you know I dont buy that explanation yet.

we are still left with just two observations being chosen over many others, why?

I do have many issues with various parts of his analysis, which we have discussed before.

[Bionic Bigfoot]

I'm obviously going to have to state this again because it's not registering with some of you.

I joined this forum to talk about topics that I'm interested in and topics of discussion on this message board.  I didn't come here to have my ideas or beliefs questioned, scrutinized and picked apart.  I came here to share information with like-minded people and to discuss those topics with those similar people.  You won't find me initiating arguments trying to convince the holy rollers in the religious forums that god doesn't exist while providing mathematical equations demonstrating why.   I should never have given my opinion in the AA bashing topic, that was my mistake and I'm new here.  Now that I see how some of the members on this board operate and how things seem to work here in general, you won't ever find me on those topics again.  So, I would appreciate it those who don't believe that aliens or bigfoot exist do not respond to any topics I've started on these subjects.  if you have nothing to say besides trying to convince me that my logic is flawed, I'm really not interested.   I'm not going to spend all my time here defending my beliefs or others who believe what I do.  I would never have thought that a message board called, "Unexplained Mysteries", containing discussions about bigfoot and aliens would lure in so many over the top skeptics. If you don't believe in these things, why are some of you here, seriously? If it's because of other forums that suit your interests, then why don't you stick to those forums with your own like-minded people..

Thank you.

[AZDude1973]

Hi everyone! I live in Phoenix, and did see the lights on that night. March 13, 1997. I was walking home, and happened to look up at the sky. Now, what I saw, was different from what most others saw. I did not see a series of lights in formation, or the "triangle" craft. I saw two very large red balls of light in the sky, parallel to each other, moving across the sky west to east. They made no noise at all, and were moving too fast to be helicopters or airplanes. I see helicopters and airplanes everyday, and know what they look like, even at night. These objects were also moving too slow to be meteors, or "shooting stars". I was actually a bit scared, and said nothing to anyone until the next day, when the event was all over the TV and radio. To this day, I have no idea what I saw that night.
As far as the flares earlier this year, yes those were flares. It was revelealed that it was some idiot pulling a prank. That night was the one and only time in my life that I ever witnessed a UFO.
So, do I believe that it was UFO's on that night in 1997? I have no idea what they were, but I know that I have never seen anything like what I saw before or after that night.

[quillius]

AZDude1973, on 10 October 2012 - 02:38 PM, said:

Hi everyone! I live in Phoenix, and did see the lights on that night. March 13, 1997. I was walking home, and happened to look up at the sky. Now, what I saw, was different from what most others saw. I did not see a series of lights in formation, or the "triangle" craft. I saw two very large red balls of light in the sky, parallel to each other, moving across the sky west to east. They made no noise at all, and were moving too fast to be helicopters or airplanes. I see helicopters and airplanes everyday, and know what they look like, even at night. These objects were also moving too slow to be meteors, or "shooting stars". I was actually a bit scared, and said nothing to anyone until the next day, when the event was all over the TV and radio. To this day, I have no idea what I saw that night.
As far as the flares earlier this year, yes those were flares. It was revelealed that it was some idiot pulling a prank. That night was the one and only time in my life that I ever witnessed a UFO.
So, do I believe that it was UFO's on that night in 1997? I have no idea what they were, but I know that I have never seen anything like what I saw before or after that night.

Hello  and welcome,

appreciate the first hand account, I would add that I do not think you are the only one to have seen two large balls of light...


It was almost inevitable that the United States Air Force would become involved in an event of this magnitude, and the Phoenix lights mystery would be no exception. While driving down Interstate-I-17 from Camp Verde, a truck driver had been seeing two amber colored UFOs moving ahead of him southward for two whole hours.

I will find the truck drivers actual report/statement if you would like to know more about this particular observation.

can I ask what time you witnessed the 'red balls of light'?

[booNyzarC]

quillius, on 10 October 2012 - 01:53 PM, said:

ahh dont be surprised Boony, you know I dont buy that explanation yet.

we are still left with just two observations being chosen over many others, why?

I do have many issues with various parts of his analysis, which we have discussed before.

It wasn't just two observations.

We have Rich Contry and Mitch Stanley on the ground who each determined conclusively that the formation was planes after viewing them through binoculars and a telescope respectively.  Contry also noted that he only heard the engines after they had flown over him and were heading south, and even then the sound was faint as if the planes had very low throttle.  From the air we have pilots Larry Campbell and John Middleton who saw the formation and purportedly spoke with at least one of the pilots of the aircraft in formation who identified themselves as flying Tutors.  We have the video captured by Terry Proctor which obviously depicts distinct lights in a varying V formation at various points of the film which proves that it was NOT a single huge triangular object, but rather 5 individual objects.






At to this the variation in descriptions from witnesses who did not definitively identify what they were looking at.  We had some observers who connected the dots and concluded they represented a single craft.  Some of these witnesses reported that even though they believed it was a single craft, the craft was translucent and they could see stars and even the moon through it between the lights, though there was a haziness.  (notice the haziness trailing these Tutors...)





The really important points to take away from this are the consistencies.

For those which concluded they were aircraft, the made this determination without any doubt.  They saw, heard, and spoke with the pilots of these aircraft.  In essence, they KNEW what they were looking at, and they knew this CONCLUSIVELY.

For those which reached no conclusion, they could not determine what they were looking at.  In other words, they DIDN'T KNOW what they were looking at.

Think about the significance of that for a moment.

From a position of ignorance, as is the case for someone who is unable to identify what they are looking at, what reasonable conclusions can we reach?  Aside from confirming that they saw 'something,' there isn't a whole lot more we can determine.  Yes they can describe their perception of what they witnessed, and from that we can possibly get useful details and information which might act as clues for helping identify what it may have been, but from a point of determining exactly what it was we can't rely solely on the ambiguity which is inherent in a situation where an unknown object is involved.  We also might get invalid details from such accounts because the mind has a way of trying to fill in the gaps for us when we don't have all the pieces of the puzzle.

From a position of certainty, as is the case for the witnesses who determined that they were looking at planes in formation, what reasonable conclusions can we reach?  Well, we can conclude that they saw planes.  There is no doubt about this.  The witnesses who identified planes saw planes because there were planes flying in formation on that night.


Where does that leave us?

If the mystery of the earlier sighting is to be maintained we must decide that the witnesses who positively identified planes were:

• Looking at something other than the other witnesses who couldn't identify the lights.
  
• Lying about what they saw.
  
• Mistaken in their identification.

If I've left anything out, please let me know.

Let's address those possibilities.

1.

In the case of Mitch Stanley at least we can determine that he was looking at the same objects, in the same region of the sky, and at the same time as Tim Ley and his family.  Contry's sighting was the earliest that I'm aware of, but based on his description we know that it was roughly right before the other sightings and that the formation of aircraft were flying in the same general direction that would place them where other witnesses later saw the lights to the south.  To me, this is enough to confirm that it is extremely likely that both Contry and Stanley observed the same exact lights in the sky that Tim Ley and the other witnesses of the earlier events.

2.

Why would they lie?  What imaginable reason would they have to deceive about something as mundane as airplanes flying in formation?  Are they government agents here to 'muddy the waters' as some like to put it?  This kid was a government disinformation agent?



Forgive me if I find this notion to be completely ridiculous, but I do.  I'm not suggesting that you would put this forward Q, but I have little doubt that others may be so inclined whenever they start to feel that their 'evidence' is being dismantled, invalidated, and/or disproved.  It's that last clinging of hope that so many fall back on when looking into this field of UFOlogy.

3.

Finally, could they have identified these as aircraft in error?  From a purely logical standpoint considering probabilities, what makes more sense to you?  That these individuals who offer a positive identification of aircraft flying in formation actually mistook an alien piloted vehicle for something mundane?  Or that people who are in a position of ignorance (by the mere fact that they don't know what they are looking at) may have misidentified something mundane as being something extraordinary and thereby potentially extraterrestrial?

I don't know about you, but I can easily see how someone unable to pinpoint those lights as conventional aircraft reaching all kinds of possible unconfirmed and unconfirmable conclusions.  In that type of situation one's imagination can, and most likely will, run wild with the numerous possibilities.  But for the life of me I can't imagine that someone looking at these objects through binoculars and a telescope can positively say "airplanes in formation" and have it be a mis-identification of what was actually one gigantic extraterrestrial vehicle.  Can you?


It is primarily for these reasons that I believe the preponderance of evidence supports the conclusion that the earlier reported sighting consisted of planes flying in formation.  I'm confident that these points will do nothing to modify the mysterious conclusions that many UFO=ET believers would prefer to stick to, but you Q are a man of integrity, sincerity, and intelligence.  You can't just hand wave all of this away as being without merit.  If you can find flaws in my reasoning, please by all means point them out.

Cheers.

[Bionic Bigfoot]

Hi AzDude and thanks for posting!

It's great to hear from a witness of the event, this is what I was hoping for! It sounds like maybe you just caught the tail end of this craft because apparently there were two orange lights near the end of the 'V'.  Were there a lot of buildings around that might have blocked out the other lights from your view?  This craft, if it was one huge ship, was estimated to be a mile across.

Check out this video and see if it might explain what you saw.



Many witnesses also mentioned that the lights were very different from conventional lights.  That they didn't glare or shine but rather seemed to be as if the were made of liquid light.  Can you confirm this or add anymore details to the lights themselves?

Edited by Bionic Bigfoot, 10 October 2012 - 03:08 PM.

[booNyzarC]

Bionic Bigfoot, on 10 October 2012 - 02:09 PM, said:

I'm obviously going to have to state this again because it's not registering with some of you.

I joined this forum to talk about topics that I'm interested in and topics of discussion on this message board.  I didn't come here to have my ideas or beliefs questioned, scrutinized and picked apart.  I came here to share information with like-minded people and to discuss those topics with those similar people.  You won't find me initiating arguments trying to convince the holy rollers in the religious forums that god doesn't exist while providing mathematical equations demonstrating why.   I should never have given my opinion in the AA bashing topic, that was my mistake and I'm new here.  Now that I see how some of the members on this board operate and how things seem to work here in general, you won't ever find me on those topics again.  So, I would appreciate it those who don't believe that aliens or bigfoot exist do not respond to any topics I've started on these subjects.  if you have nothing to say besides trying to convince me that my logic is flawed, I'm really not interested.   I'm not going to spend all my time here defending my beliefs or others who believe what I do.  I would never have thought that a message board called, "Unexplained Mysteries", containing discussions about bigfoot and aliens would lure in so many over the top skeptics. If you don't believe in these things, why are some of you here, seriously? If it's because of other forums that suit your interests, then why don't you stick to those forums with your own like-minded people..

Thank you.

I'm not sure if you realize this or not, but Unexplained Mysteries is a discussion forum.  As such, many people from various points of view are free to discuss topics here.

Forgive my simplified translation of what you've said here, but it seems to me that you are pretty much saying "I don't want to hear, watch, read, or even look at anything at all that might endanger my preconceived beliefs regarding these topics.  I only want to hear validating points of view so that I can reinforce what I already believe."

I'm sorry, but that is one of the most closed-minded stances that a person can take.  You are free to take that stance if you'd like, but you should also expect that here on a discussion forum, alternate points of view are likely to be presented whether you like it or not.  This forum does have a useful feature on it though, in that you can put your blinders on place people on ignore so that the content of their posts is not visible to you without clicking on them.

Cheers.

[Bionic Bigfoot]

booNyzarC, on 10 October 2012 - 03:09 PM, said:

you can people on ignore so that the content of their posts is not visible to you without clicking on them.

Cheers.

Yes, someone else mentioned this to me, I was hoping I wouldn't have to do that,  but I don't think I'm going to have a choice.  Thanks for the reminder!

[Sweetpumper]

AZDude1973, on 10 October 2012 - 02:38 PM, said:

Hi everyone! I live in Phoenix, and did see the lights on that night. March 13, 1997. I was walking home, and happened to look up at the sky. Now, what I saw, was different from what most others saw. I did not see a series of lights in formation, or the "triangle" craft. I saw two very large red balls of light in the sky, parallel to each other, moving across the sky west to east. They made no noise at all, and were moving too fast to be helicopters or airplanes. I see helicopters and airplanes everyday, and know what they look like, even at night. These objects were also moving too slow to be meteors, or "shooting stars". I was actually a bit scared, and said nothing to anyone until the next day, when the event was all over the TV and radio. To this day, I have no idea what I saw that night.
As far as the flares earlier this year, yes those were flares. It was revelealed that it was some idiot pulling a prank. That night was the one and only time in my life that I ever witnessed a UFO.
So, do I believe that it was UFO's on that night in 1997? I have no idea what they were, but I know that I have never seen anything like what I saw before or after that night.

Isn't that was what Dr. Kitei described what she'd seen (the red balls of light)?  I can't remember.

[zoser]

Hazzard, on 10 October 2012 - 09:47 AM, said:

No dream, that is my opinion based on the available evidence.

Did you even look at the links (the math) psyche posted for you? Did you se the clip showing the flares decending behind the ridge?

The flares idea is nothing more than a distraction at best and at worst pure fantasy.  Don't forget that many people testify to looking up and seeing a gigantic craft, metallic, delta shaped, silent and slow moving.  The outline was distinct and very real.  The Governor saw it too and testified to the fact.  It's very clear what happened.

Here is an entire family testifying:




This resolves the matter period.

Edited by zoser, 10 October 2012 - 03:42 PM.

[booNyzarC]

zoser, on 10 October 2012 - 03:39 PM, said:

The flares idea is nothing more than a distraction at best and at worst pure fantasy.  Don't forget that many people testify to looking up and seeing a gigantic craft, metallic, delta shaped, silent and slow moving.  The outline was distinct and very real.  The Governor saw it too and testified to the fact.  It's very clear what happened.

Here is an entire family testifying:




This resolves the matter period.

No zoser.  The Ley family isn't even talking about the flare event which happened around 10 PM.  They are talking about the earlier event which I described above in post 37.  These were two completely separate events even though they both transpired on the same night.

There is no doubt about the flare conclusion for the 10 PM event.  There is only one way to dispute this conclusion and that is to ignore all of the evidence which proves it beyond a reasonable doubt.

You are welcome to sustain this position of ignorance if you'd prefer, but it will do nothing to change the reality.

[zoser]

booNyzarC, on 10 October 2012 - 03:44 PM, said:

No zoser.  The Ley family isn't even talking about the flare event which happened around 10 PM.  They are talking about the earlier event which I described above in post 37.  These were two completely separate events even though they both transpired on the same night.

There is no doubt about the flare conclusion for the 10 PM event.  There is only one way to dispute this conclusion and that is to ignore all of the evidence which proves it beyond a reasonable doubt.

You are welcome to sustain this position of ignorance if you'd prefer, but it will do nothing to change the reality.

I think your missing the point Mr B.  The flares issue is a side show; this is the real event that should be discussed and the most significant thing that happened that day.

The testimony is impressive, extremely detailed, and totally convincing.  Discussion of flares is totally pointless in the light of this.

Edited by zoser, 10 October 2012 - 03:48 PM.

[Slave2Fate]

Hey booN, has anyone responsible for flying planes in formation come forward with testimony that it was them that caused all the fuss? It seems that flight logs from any flying group would settle this matter definitively. And what about local radar and ATC, wouldn't they too have a record of these craft in the area? I agree with the planes in formation theory yet there does still seem to be some holes in the evidence.

BTW, sorry if I just opened a can of worms here.