Your votes please....Thanks

100% we win!!!!

Russel Callaghan (formerly of UFO Magazine (UK)) has given his opinion of the footage:

http://www.ufodata.co.uk/pdf/Phoenix-rep.pdf

"Lack of excitement" haha. Sounds like a bunch of teens trying to be tough "look at that sh**!" I still believe its real cause I've witnessed.

usual claptrap. You could take any genuine video and say its a fake, which is basically all he is saying, he hasnt actually pointed out anything that defines it as being fake, only half arsed opinions. Light bouncing around the lens, when someone pulls that crap out you know they are full of sh**.

If Russel Callaghan was just a UFO debunker, then your opinions on his article might be valid, but he is a firm believer in the UFO enigma. He approaches the subject sensibly and critically, not just accepting what he is told.

btw, he knows whar he's talking about when it comes to video effects, as he was the man who produced the late UFO Magazine's range of videos and DVDs.

ufo believers are just as bad, the fact that you can do something doesnt mean that you did, and he made some errors. What he did was fabricate, you can do the same with any real video. You get scientists making total aresenine comments, so some writer is hardly going to be any more convincing. I had some "expert" respond to my photographs saying they were lens reflections just like this "expert" has suggested, when lenns reflections look nothing like that, soon as he said that he lost all credibility. If he was so sure he would produce one exactly the same, until then he is just all talk.
probaly the fact that it does look so real would have a lot to do with it, because he doesnt want to get tricked. My photographs are real because they were arranged, so I know they are real, but i still have idiots coming up with all kinds of rediculous theories, so even when something is 100% real you can still have people claiming they are fake just like they did with the luna landing.

Have you ever taken any of your arranged photos with independent witnesses present? If they're arranged, get a reporter or journalist to accompany you when you take the pics. Then sign an affidavit that the pics are of a genuine phenomenon.

Everybody is entitled to their own opinion.

If I was going to do that I would just have them land. I was just saying that I know they are real, yet they still get the usual "its a hoax" so if genuine photographs get then its open for any footage to be given the its a fake routine. Just look at the footage from the mexican airforce? You have the military taking footage and that isnt good enough for the sceptics, so what hope do ordinary folk have? People dont even believe NASA!

...but only you know the photos are real. If you had an independent witness with you (i.e. not one of your mates..lol), then it'd add to your veracity.

About the Mexican Air Force video, I admit to not having seen anybody debunk them, scientifically or otherwise. They seem to be staying there in that 'Unexplained' category...lol

Oh, and nobody believes NASA cos we all know they've got UFOs of their own flying about up there... heh heh

I also think that if very real photo's were produced they would be debunked all over the place.....it's much much safer to shout hoax then it is to stick your neck out and say real.Anyway in my experience of taking any kind of photo's one can look completely different to another even if they are only taken seconds apart in the same area......so photographic experts cut no ice with me........so there !!!:)

The opinions of this guy makes very interesting reading. He makes ome valid points and obviously they should be taken into consideration when forming your own opinions.

We need people like this so we know when the real thing happens........

Serlock Holmes:
Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth

So eliminate the findings of the expert and put forward your own evidence and that will determine the truth.

Thats it in a nutshell.

The new video of the Phoenix lights reminded me of something. I got the feeling it was a message of some sort relating to chemistry. It has been going through my mind the last few nights thinking that it reminded me of something in my studies with the Open University.

We studied Lewis Structures a way of writing bonds in chemistry and I came across a page that shows the ion reduction in oxygen. It is the half-reaction method of balancing redox equations relating to iodine atoms. What relevance that has I don't know, but the uniformity of the ufo's indicated that it was related to chemistry (the message). It seemed very specific and precise in it's formation before it moved on.

I could be wrong but just a thought anyway for any budding chemists out there. The Lewis Structure popped into my head and I just couldn't get it out when I saw it.

Where's the new tape? Did I miss the link? I've been known to do that.

NEVERMIND!!! What a dufus. I found it. I'd already seen it.

I think it's definitely compelling. But I'm a believer. Not the most objective judge of UFO footage, I'm sad to say. But I liked it.

im still undecided......

We all have 2 options, believe or disbelieve.

But before I take either option I will prove or disprove it to the best of my abilities. I will also listen to others who are doing the same. I will then form MY OWN conclusions and, unless something else comes along, stick with that.

If I didn't then I would just be one of the usual "suckers" who believes everything blindly.

So if there are any of you blind followers out there you can send cash to me here

It would be ace if it was genuine footage, but I really don't think it is...

Once again, I think distinguishing hallmarks are missing from this event.
That said, I called for the individuals to come forth, and they have, it turns out,
in the very town they claimed to have seen a formation of UFOs.
The cameraman was interviewd on local tv station KTVK. He, and his backwards ballcap. I guess it is to put us at ease, that he wears his hat indoors. And backwards.

Nonetheless, when someone halfway across the world questioned his veracity, he reacted, and it seems defensive, to say the least! There is a picture I have compiled to illustrate his tempermant, which you can click on.


Anyway, the man's name is Brian Bessent a sound engineer and web designer.
He runs an outfit that sells UFO DVDs. A year ago he 'produced' this one-

Flim-Flam Film

Here is his recent interview, in Phoenix. Now, mind you, I support independent UFO research. But if he has been at this for two years, and has yet to get any scientific equipment I can strongly suggest one needs
(spectral imaging lens, magnetometer, real time WWVB correlating synch), then at the very least, he has a ways to go to convince me.
I know others have never taken them on scientifically, and spent years writing books, interviewing, and that is ok, part of the process. But, if I was on the hunt, I would equip myself.

Interview After The 'Fact'

Disinterested Average Citizen Who Has Had An Epiphany?

Neat-o

Not everyone that believes in UFOs does so blindly. Being labelled a sucker is why most people dont believe, because they are subcnsciously afraid of being labelled. This is why some people refuse to believe anything until they see it for themselves, we call them doubting Thomas's. These people will only believe in UFOs if they see one land, they will only believe man walked on the moon if they go there themselves.
Rather than risk being labelled a sucker they will manufacture "evidence", such as "there are no stars in the background and the flag is waving" These are clearly wrong since stars do not show up in photographs unless you use a long exposure. So it is easy for anyone to pick faults with a video even though it is genuiune by making up "anomolies" that are false, such as "no stars in the background", so it creates doubt in something where really there should be no doubt in the first place.

Well i dont consider myself to be a sucker by any means.....I'm very critical of most UFO video's and photo's but if you believe and i do because i've seen for myself well then you have to make a call now and again.I'm one of those guys that complains always about UFO video's always being blurry and grainy.....so when something as good as this one comes along i cant start whinging that it's too good........Cant have it every way.
I'll stick with real....and if it's proven otherwise.....so be it !!!!!!!
Of course it could be a big Hollywood stunt to promote War Of The Worlds

You seem to be quoting me out of context. What I was saying is that anyone who doesn't question what they see, hear read etc and just say "its a UFO coz someone said it is" is basically a "sucker" (or fool, gullible, or any other word meaning the same).

You say "Not everyone that believes in UFOs does so blindly" and those are the people I WOULDN'T label a "sucker" etc.

I agree some people will "make things up" to fit THEIR story and we don't need these people.

I have found that most people who say about "no stars, flag not waving etc" are just conspiracy theorists and again they will manipulate and ignore the facts to suit their story.

Strange Crop formations appearing near Phoenix

http://www.labyrinthina.com/phoenixcropformation.htm

I wasnt saying so much about people making things up to fit their stories but people who make up stories when their is no story to begin with, simply because they dont want to believe. If something is obviously fake then sure, or if you see something you are not sure about but when people start making something out of nothing, like the lunar landing, then they have a problem. Some people just automaticaly say everything is a fake no matter what and then start to look for faults, and then twist anything they can find into a fault. You can take any photograph and do that with it.
How many people have said, "looks fake to me", no reason, no evidence just it looks fake? It looks fake to them because everything looks fake to them. Even if something is absolutely genuine they will still say its fake, so if something is real and they call it fake what hope is there to convince them of anything?

If you look at this photograph very carefully you may be able to see some obvious indications that point to it being a fake. It was sent to NASA and they said it was fake after the European space agency wasnt so sure, thinking that perhaps it was a russian craft.

NASA

I agree totally. People can be to eager to just jump and say its fake, but applying the same logic:

How many people have said, "looks real to me", no reason, no evidence just it looks real?

Both are wrong. Don't just accept things because you "want" it to be that way (Fake or real).

But why should a light in the sky be an alien space craft? Sometimes its worth leaving something "unexplained" until you have more data.

If someone says something looks real because it does then it is an assesment, when someone says its fake without any reason then it is being biased. Maybe not all the time but a lot of the time it is an automatic response to first try to prove it fake, rather than to look at possible faults in order to rule them out.

If you took a photograph of the earth to someone from the past when people believed that the earth was flat and said it was the earth, to them it would look nothing, they wouldnt comprehend it. You could easily see it as the earth but to them it woud be completely alien. It is the same with people that dont want to believe, their mind will comprehend it differently.

Thats a bit of a generalization I think.

I personally want UFO to be proven real. But they have to be proven. We have to endure news agencies, government agencies, and the majority of the general public saying (or suggesting) that we are all crack pots.

This annoys me as I for one believe whole heartedly that we are being visited by other civilizations.

But it has to be proven, and yes beyond a shadow of a doubt so that these people will have to sit up and take notice, they do exist.

I think Mark is talking about mindset. You can't really convince a person that a doctrine they have believed so deeply for so long is incorrect "especially if it is in the majority. They have to convince themselves and that only happens if the evidence is hands down no doubt. You cannot give the old idea the footing to regain the peek of the mind. Evidence to disprove HAS to be undeniable or else its a waste.