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.


* * * * * 1 votes

The Phoenix Lights revisited

ufo alien phoenix

  • Please log in to reply
1032 replies to this topic

#931    Otto von Pickelhaube

Otto von Pickelhaube

    A complete moral vacuum

  • Member
  • 30,165 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Garmisch-Partenkirchen

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 24 October 2012 - 08:42 AM

* I see we're talking about Arnold in the Pheoenix thread. This was probably my fault.

If, as it seems, we are in the process of becoming a totalitarian society in which the state apparatus is all-powerful, the ethics most important for the survival of the true, free, human individual would be: cheat, lie, evade, fake it, be elsewhere, forge documents, build improved electronic gadgets in your garage that’ll outwit the gadgets used by the authorities.

- Philip K. Dick.


#932    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 24 October 2012 - 02:08 PM

View Postquillius, on 24 October 2012 - 08:28 AM, said:

Hey Boon,

I am just chucking some of the bits and pieces I am finding that may or may not be relevant. The key part for me in this article is to show how again we have a  slightly different version of events put forth and we still dont have anything in Mitchs own words, just second hand accounts.

I know you may view the differences as nit-picking, but I am quite fussy about detail and exact wording used, and without this I still have found nothing that links Procter video / Mitch sighting let alone any other correlation with some of the witness reports apart from the 'weak' link made ...i.e. 5 lights in formation.

I will add again that I dont doubt Mitch saw planes, however what type, when, what time, what part of the sky, how many lights, how many planes, plus many other details are all missing IMO.

I understand what you're trying to do, but I'm wondering what you think is different in that article from others.  Please be specific.

Also, there's a fairly good reason that we may not have a whole lot directly from Mitch himself.  He's not a journalist, and his description of what he saw wasn't exactly well received.


#933    quillius

quillius

    52.0839 N, 1.4328 E

  • Member
  • 5,591 posts
  • Joined:04 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:LONDON

  • A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.
    Albert Einstein

Posted 24 October 2012 - 03:01 PM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 24 October 2012 - 02:08 PM, said:

I understand what you're trying to do, but I'm wondering what you think is different in that article from others.  Please be specific.

Also, there's a fairly good reason that we may not have a whole lot directly from Mitch himself.  He's not a journalist, and his description of what he saw wasn't exactly well received.

Hey Boon, there are lots of little bits different, let me ask you a few questions to see if you can clarify, If I was to try and answer them I would be stuck, why? because of the variations in second hand accounts and also the lack of information to begin with.

what time did he see the lights?
what was he doing in the backyard? (sitting down with mother or looking through a scope)
what did he do immediately after sighting?
how many lights did he see with naked eye (if any)?
how many planes id he see?
did they have squarish wings or straight wings?
how many did his mum see?
what made her tell jack the next day?
how did she make the link between the lighst they saw and the huge triangle?
what direction?
why did Jack, once Barwood made appeal, come forward to give second hand account?
has he seen many formations of planes flying in a V?
what angular size?
what azimuth?
what elevations?
did he regularly follow planes through scope?
did he see any comets that night?>

and how do you know his initial statement wasnt well received?

edit to add: basically I have seen either variations on the answers to questions above or have never seen answers at all......the last question is specific to you or some first hand evidence explaining that he wasnt well received.

Edited by quillius, 24 October 2012 - 03:03 PM.


#934    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 24 October 2012 - 03:13 PM

View Postquillius, on 24 October 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

Hey Boon, there are lots of little bits different,

Hi quillius, I'm about to start work so I don't really have time to track down the answers to that rather long list of questions right now...

If there are lots of little bits different, can you just make a list of them?  You seem rather resistant to answering this question, and I'm not sure why.


#935    quillius

quillius

    52.0839 N, 1.4328 E

  • Member
  • 5,591 posts
  • Joined:04 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:LONDON

  • A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.
    Albert Einstein

Posted 24 October 2012 - 03:39 PM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 24 October 2012 - 03:13 PM, said:

Hi quillius, I'm about to start work so I don't really have time to track down the answers to that rather long list of questions right now...

If there are lots of little bits different, can you just make a list of them?  You seem rather resistant to answering this question, and I'm not sure why.

no worries mate I am only logging on briefly now and then due to work load.

resistant? no, the reasoning I had in asking those questions is two pronged, Firstly to a try and understand the link between eye witness accounts/ Proctor video and Mitch sighting. Secondly to highlight the differences instead of just a list by me, the questiosn highlights quite a few...such as, what was Mitch doing before sighting, looking through scope or sitting in yard with mother?, what did he do after?, continue looking in scope or go back and sit with mother? what time did he see lights 8.15 or 8.30? The choices I have given as potential answers indicate different versions of what I have read, and without hearing/ seeing Mitchs exact words how do I know which is accurate?


#936    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 24 October 2012 - 03:46 PM

View Postquillius, on 24 October 2012 - 03:39 PM, said:

no worries mate I am only logging on briefly now and then due to work load.

resistant? no, the reasoning I had in asking those questions is two pronged, Firstly to a try and understand the link between eye witness accounts/ Proctor video and Mitch sighting. Secondly to highlight the differences instead of just a list by me, the questiosn highlights quite a few...such as, what was Mitch doing before sighting, looking through scope or sitting in yard with mother?, what did he do after?, continue looking in scope or go back and sit with mother? what time did he see lights 8.15 or 8.30? The choices I have given as potential answers indicate different versions of what I have read, and without hearing/ seeing Mitchs exact words how do I know which is accurate?

I guess my point is that the article you listed doesn't show any differences as far as I can tell.  It doesn't mention what time he saw the formation, it states he observed them through his Dobsonian in his back yard, it reiterates that he saw airplanes, and it states that he went on to do other things after identifying that it was planes.  How is this in any way inconsistent?

The exact time isn't presented anywhere that I'm aware of.  Printy describes the timing as "Mitch Stanley's observation was in the 8:15 to 8:30 window for Phoenix," meaning that this is a rough estimate for about when he saw them.  I don't think Mitch wrote down a log saying that "at precisely 8:17:36 I observed the lights, then by 8:21:12 I had identified them as airplanes." or anything like that.


#937    quillius

quillius

    52.0839 N, 1.4328 E

  • Member
  • 5,591 posts
  • Joined:04 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:LONDON

  • A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.
    Albert Einstein

Posted 24 October 2012 - 04:05 PM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 24 October 2012 - 03:46 PM, said:

I guess my point is that the article you listed doesn't show any differences as far as I can tell.  It doesn't mention what time he saw the formation, it states he observed them through his Dobsonian in his back yard, it reiterates that he saw airplanes, and it states that he went on to do other things after identifying that it was planes.  How is this in any way inconsistent?

The exact time isn't presented anywhere that I'm aware of.  Printy describes the timing as "Mitch Stanley's observation was in the 8:15 to 8:30 window for Phoenix," meaning that this is a rough estimate for about when he saw them.  I don't think Mitch wrote down a log saying that "at precisely 8:17:36 I observed the lights, then by 8:21:12 I had identified them as airplanes." or anything like that.

the article infers that he was looking through the scope and then caught a V shape formation, others say he was sitting with mother. I think this matters, especially when we have previosuly suggested the lights were seen and looked 'mysterious',
the article says creeping across above  the Scottsdale sky.....so how far were these planes? havent we seen also that he saw them when they were north of Prescott?

bottom line is that we dont know exactly what he saw and at what time and where? so how can we draw the conclusion that witnesses claiming to see low flying craft/ formation of lights are talking about the same thing? I agree and believe he saw planes.....I dont yet make the link to either Proctor video or many of the 'original' eye witness accounts.

oh and I wasnt expecting him to have a log, just a clear idea of time would do seeing as he gave those other details as seen in the Printy sunlite article.

http://home.comcast..../SUNlite2_3.pdf page 10

so he remembers all this detail about angular size etc in 1998 a year later....???

hmm what about the fact he states two planes in view, but he also says three leading lights in another article, and in this sunlite one even gives the range of formation as 5degress....how did he do that with only two planes (or was it three) in the scopes view?

could it be he did see lights which turned out to be planes? how many did he see? did the story become 5 to fit with many witness statements about 5 lights?

I dont know Boon....not convinced yet im afraid, especially when the lead witness in 'suggesting' the witnesses all saw the same formation of planes, hasnt given any specific detail anywhere and we are fed variations through second hand accounts

edit to add:  Printy says Mitchs observation is between 8.15-8.30 window? how does he know? is it becasue he needs this timing to make his argument stand up? same with number of lights or number of planes, has Mitch said 5 and if so where has he?

Edited by quillius, 24 October 2012 - 04:17 PM.


#938    mcrom901

mcrom901

    plasmoid ninja

  • Member
  • 5,685 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:multiverse

  • space debris, decided to evolve and become us!

Posted 24 October 2012 - 04:45 PM

View Post747400, on 24 October 2012 - 07:01 AM, said:

That seems a lot more probable, and clearly the Canadian angle was indeed a red herring. So i expect the person who heard "Snowbirds" on the Radio misconstrued it as referring to the Canadians.

...At 8:30 p.m. the cockpit crew of an American West 757 airliner at 17,000 feet near Lake Pleasant, Ariz., noticed the lights off to their right and just above them.

"There's a UFO!" co-pilot John Middleton said kiddingly to pilot Larry Campbell. They queried the regional air-traffic-control center in Albuquerque, N.M. A controller radioed back that it was a formation of CT-144s flying at 19,000 feet.

Overhearing the exchange, someone claiming to be a pilot in the formation radioed Middleton. "We're Canadian Snowbirds flying Tutors," a man said...


#939    mcrom901

mcrom901

    plasmoid ninja

  • Member
  • 5,685 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:multiverse

  • space debris, decided to evolve and become us!

Posted 24 October 2012 - 04:52 PM

one thing that i don't understand about the earlier sighting is the radar returns, apparently there were none! but how is that possible... there's a lot of speculation regarding the transponders being switched off, etc... but what about the primary returns?

Edited by mcrom901, 24 October 2012 - 04:53 PM.


#940    Otto von Pickelhaube

Otto von Pickelhaube

    A complete moral vacuum

  • Member
  • 30,165 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Garmisch-Partenkirchen

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 24 October 2012 - 05:48 PM

View Postmcrom901, on 24 October 2012 - 04:52 PM, said:

one thing that i don't understand about the earlier sighting is the radar returns, apparently there were none! but how is that possible... there's a lot of speculation regarding the transponders being switched off, etc... but what about the primary returns?
If they were flares, or indeed Plasma, they wouldn't reflect radar; the planes that dropped them would, of course*, but they'd be out of the vicinity by the time the flares would be noticed.

*unless the were F-117s, perhaps :unsure2:

If, as it seems, we are in the process of becoming a totalitarian society in which the state apparatus is all-powerful, the ethics most important for the survival of the true, free, human individual would be: cheat, lie, evade, fake it, be elsewhere, forge documents, build improved electronic gadgets in your garage that’ll outwit the gadgets used by the authorities.

- Philip K. Dick.


#941    S2F

S2F

    Bloodstained Hurricane

  • Member
  • 7,321 posts
  • Joined:22 May 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Right behind you!

  • I know someday
    you'll have a beautiful life
    I know you'll be a sun
    In somebody else's sky
    But why can't it be mine? -Pearl Jam

Posted 24 October 2012 - 06:02 PM

View Post747400, on 24 October 2012 - 05:48 PM, said:

If they were flares, or indeed Plasma, they wouldn't reflect radar; the planes that dropped them would, of course*, but they'd be out of the vicinity by the time the flares would be noticed.

*unless the were F-117s, perhaps :unsure2:

Flares were the 10PM sighting. The earlier sighting (8:15 PM) is considered by some to be planes. I think it was booN that stated that the flight path was outside radar range however if I'm wrong then I'm sure someone will correct me shortly. ^_^

"You want to discuss plausibility then you have to accept reality." -Mattshark

"Don't argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience." -Obviousman

You know... the plural of ``anecdote'' is not ``data''. Similarly, the plural of ``random fact'' is not ``mystical symbolism''. -sepulchrave


#942    Otto von Pickelhaube

Otto von Pickelhaube

    A complete moral vacuum

  • Member
  • 30,165 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Garmisch-Partenkirchen

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 24 October 2012 - 06:06 PM

View PostSlave2Fate, on 24 October 2012 - 06:02 PM, said:

Flares were the 10PM sighting. The earlier sighting (8:15 PM) is considered by some to be planes. I think it was booN that stated that the flight path was outside radar range however if I'm wrong then I'm sure someone will correct me shortly. ^_^
Well, that doesn't seem very likely, that something would be visible but outside radar range, but if I say that it would probably lead to an Argument, and i would not wish that.

If, as it seems, we are in the process of becoming a totalitarian society in which the state apparatus is all-powerful, the ethics most important for the survival of the true, free, human individual would be: cheat, lie, evade, fake it, be elsewhere, forge documents, build improved electronic gadgets in your garage that’ll outwit the gadgets used by the authorities.

- Philip K. Dick.


#943    S2F

S2F

    Bloodstained Hurricane

  • Member
  • 7,321 posts
  • Joined:22 May 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Right behind you!

  • I know someday
    you'll have a beautiful life
    I know you'll be a sun
    In somebody else's sky
    But why can't it be mine? -Pearl Jam

Posted 24 October 2012 - 06:25 PM

View Post747400, on 24 October 2012 - 06:06 PM, said:

Well, that doesn't seem very likely, that something would be visible but outside radar range, but if I say that it would probably lead to an Argument, and i would not wish that.

There was also talk of the records not being procured before they were 'expunged'. They only keep records for a limited time from my understanding. The window of opportunity had been closed before anyone thought to retrieve said records.

"You want to discuss plausibility then you have to accept reality." -Mattshark

"Don't argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience." -Obviousman

You know... the plural of ``anecdote'' is not ``data''. Similarly, the plural of ``random fact'' is not ``mystical symbolism''. -sepulchrave


#944    Otto von Pickelhaube

Otto von Pickelhaube

    A complete moral vacuum

  • Member
  • 30,165 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Garmisch-Partenkirchen

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 24 October 2012 - 06:50 PM

View PostSlave2Fate, on 24 October 2012 - 06:25 PM, said:

There was also talk of the records not being procured before they were 'expunged'. They only keep records for a limited time from my understanding. The window of opportunity had been closed before anyone thought to retrieve said records.
That's fair enough, i suppose. I suppose radar data would only be kept in order to refer to if there were any incidents, like the Black Box on a plane.

If, as it seems, we are in the process of becoming a totalitarian society in which the state apparatus is all-powerful, the ethics most important for the survival of the true, free, human individual would be: cheat, lie, evade, fake it, be elsewhere, forge documents, build improved electronic gadgets in your garage that’ll outwit the gadgets used by the authorities.

- Philip K. Dick.


#945    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 24 October 2012 - 07:03 PM

View Postquillius, on 24 October 2012 - 04:05 PM, said:

the article infers that he was looking through the scope and then caught a V shape formation, others say he was sitting with mother.

It doesn't infer that he was looking through the scope when he caught sight of the formation, and yes he was in the back yard with his mother when they both initially saw the lights.  This article doesn't go into any level of detail about when or how he first saw the lights, it only describes that he identified them as planes when he caught them with the telescope.


View Postquillius, on 24 October 2012 - 04:05 PM, said:

I think this matters, especially when we have previosuly suggested the lights were seen and looked 'mysterious',

They looked mysterious enough to catch their attention and prompt Mitch to turn his telescope on them for a closer look.


View Postquillius, on 24 October 2012 - 04:05 PM, said:

the article says creeping across above  the Scottsdale sky.....so how far were these planes? havent we seen also that he saw them when they were north of Prescott?

Are you confusing this with Rich Contry's account?  Contry was north of Prescott when he saw the lights.


View Postquillius, on 24 October 2012 - 04:05 PM, said:

bottom line is that we dont know exactly what he saw and at what time and where? so how can we draw the conclusion that witnesses claiming to see low flying craft/ formation of lights are talking about the same thing? I agree and believe he saw planes.....I dont yet make the link to either Proctor video or many of the 'original' eye witness accounts.

The link is very simple.  They all thought the lights were unusual.  There weren't any other unusual lights in the sky during that time frame.  They were all looking at the same set of unusual looking lights, just from different vantage points, and at slightly different times because the lights moved overhead and the transit takes time.


View Postquillius, on 24 October 2012 - 04:05 PM, said:

oh and I wasnt expecting him to have a log, just a clear idea of time would do seeing as he gave those other details as seen in the Printy sunlite article.

http://home.comcast..../SUNlite2_3.pdf page 10

so he remembers all this detail about angular size etc in 1998 a year later....???

What is so hard to understand here?  So he doesn't mention the specific time.  Big deal.  He knows about when it took place, and that corresponds with the sightings of other witnesses.  As for remembering the angular size etc... he's an amateur astronomer, those are the kinds of details that would be important to him.  The exact time probably not so much.


View Postquillius, on 24 October 2012 - 04:05 PM, said:

hmm what about the fact he states two planes in view, but he also says three leading lights in another article, and in this sunlite one even gives the range of formation as 5degress....how did he do that with only two planes (or was it three) in the scopes view?

There were 5 lights to the unaided eye.  Through the scope he could see two of the planes I believe, which flew into view one at a time, the first one described as "the leading three lights", and on each one there were three lights; one on each wing and one on the fuselage.


View Postquillius, on 24 October 2012 - 04:05 PM, said:

could it be he did see lights which turned out to be planes? how many did he see? did the story become 5 to fit with many witness statements about 5 lights?


I dont know Boon....not convinced yet im afraid, especially when the lead witness in 'suggesting' the witnesses all saw the same formation of planes, hasnt given any specific detail anywhere and we are fed variations through second hand accounts

Really quillius?  Seriously?  I'm sorry but you are being extremely nit-picky here.  They saw 5 lights with their eyes, just like most of the other witnesses described.


View Postquillius, on 24 October 2012 - 04:05 PM, said:

edit to add:  Printy says Mitchs observation is between 8.15-8.30 window? how does he know? is it becasue he needs this timing to make his argument stand up? same with number of lights or number of planes, has Mitch said 5 and if so where has he?

How does Printy know?  I suppose you could ask him, but my guess is that this came out in one of his conversations with Mitch, but that he didn't include that particular detail in the article itself.  Not every detail gets written into articles.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users