Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 13
Hazzard

Best evidence for ET visitation - 3rd edition

6,154 posts in this topic

I've been doing well too, thanks for asking. :)

:tu:

Question for you in light of your response... Are you saying that you don't think the video tapes we've been discussing of the 'boomerang shape' from March 13, 1997 were of flares?

The eye-witnesses of the event...that I've seen so far (on video)...don't think they were looking at flares

and I am inclined to go with them. They were there, after all.

I don't have the time/inclination to follow all the posts on it in detail....but....as this whole episode is billed as

a MAJOR 'sighting'.....and as I do believe there is some kind of cover-up re. the whole UFO/ET issue...I suppose

flares is going to be the best thing that can be used to de-bunk it all...????

:cat:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Q, I'm totally for discussing colares. But certainly you can see that the discussion here is driven by multiple people and will undoubtedly hop around from subject to subject. It may not be completely organized, but that is the nature of this particular thread. :tu:

To answer your question though, yes I think there is plenty more discussion room for the Phoenix Lights as well. We've only really touched on one aspect in detail, though our focus was on this because of the documented evidence (the videos).

Hey Boon,I believe you and a couple of others have quoted that it is one of the most interesting cases, along with Portage county, hence why I thought it would be a good discussion. I did try and discuss Portage county but the thread spiralled off in another direction, although as stated I think I will re-ignite the original thread for this to save duplicating info.

As for the thread here being driven by lots of people, I agree hence why I did state that if people were happy to discuss this case as long as Phoenix was finished with. Having read some of Bee's comments and viewing some new info on Phoenix, I think that it is not over yet, you are right there is plenty more discussion to be had, especially with the other sightings on the day as opposed to the 10.30 one that you have been discussing as flares.

So having said that, what do you make of the earlier sighting at 8.30pm? Were there any others on that day that you know of?

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The eye-witnesses of the event...that I've seen so far (on video)...don't think they were looking at flares

and I am inclined to go with them. They were there, after all.

I don't have the time/inclination to follow all the posts on it in detail....but....as this whole episode is billed as

a MAJOR 'sighting'.....and as I do believe there is some kind of cover-up re. the whole UFO/ET issue...I suppose

flares is going to be the best thing that can be used to de-bunk it all...????

:cat:

Alright, well thanks for answering anyway. If you ever find the time and inclination to legitimately investigate the analysis we've gone through and have any questions about it, feel free to ask.

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure why everyone needs proof to believe or needs to convince the sceptics :rolleyes: .Just think how big this universe is & how many other possible universes / dimensions there may be & then try to justify the fact that we are alone.Have faith in your own mind, after all once they thought the world was flat & believe it or not some people still do! & will never be convinced otherwise.Still it makes for interesting & amusing discussions.

Hello Sync and welcome, personally I do not need the proof to believe as I do so. However I would like to see proof so that my belief cant be classed as a blind faith, which I cant argue against with logical conviction.

I would also just like to point out that most people here including skeptics believe we are not alone in the universe, however the sticking poiint is on visitation, or if indeed some UFO are actually ET controlled.

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure why everyone needs proof to believe or needs to convince the sceptics :rolleyes: .Just think how big this universe is & how many other possible universes / dimensions there may be & then try to justify the fact that we are alone.Have faith in your own mind, after all once they thought the world was flat & believe it or not some people still do! & will never be convinced otherwise.Still it makes for interesting & amusing discussions.

welcome to the forum.....

the whole UFO/ET business is a mine-field of info and disinfo...but we plod on.

lol

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Sync and welcome, personally I do not need the proof to believe as I do so. However I would like to see proof so that my belief cant be classed as a blind faith, which I cant argue against with logical conviction.

I would also just like to point out that most people here including skeptics believe we are not alone in the universe, however the sticking poiint is on visitation, or if indeed some UFO are actually ET controlled.

:tu:

This is what its all about Sync,Bee,quillius,Skyeagle,many others just want to put there three cents into the register!

I too have been many times and spent lots of time in the Phoenix area,and the several thousand of wittness`s that saw an object is where we differ I think?

almost everyone knows what Flares look like now how can you say that people cant get a event mixxed up with Flares,you cant. You also cant say that some didnt see an Object in the night sky that night.

The best thing to happen to all skeptics and non-believers is to see one some day,and then come back and try to convince the forum.

Now thats a thought?

Keeping a open mind without falling into the closed minded world of Disbelief! Its good to question,but not too good to Never look beond the possibilities.

also Its good to have real evidence I think most skeptics are in this mode Looking for actual hard core evidence,But a Sighting is to those that sighted

it Hard core to them.

Both can exisist in the same forum.

To call the Skeptics wrong is not right,and visa-versa.

Just wait until that Day When we really Get First Contact !

What will you think of all the things you said on this forum?

post-68971-0-33600200-1303825930_thumb.g

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, well thanks for answering anyway. If you ever find the time and inclination to legitimately investigate the analysis we've gone through and have any questions about it, feel free to ask.

Cheers.

will do.... ;)

I would also just like to point out that most people here including skeptics believe we are not alone in the universe, however the sticking poiint is on visitation, or if indeed some UFO are actually ET controlled.

this is, indeed, the sticking point..... :yes:

And I think that....if someone believes that there is life 'out there' somewhere...then the possibility of ET visitation cannot be dismissed. Ever.

whether that be other-dimensional or otherwise.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too have been many times and spent lots of time in the Phoenix area,and the several thousand of wittness`s that saw an object is where we differ I think?

almost everyone knows what Flares look like now how can you say that people cant get a event mixxed up with Flares,you cant. You also cant say that some didnt see an Object in the night sky that night.

Hey D, I am curious to know, if anyone has heard of another time when flares have been dropped and they have been mistaken for UFO's by thousands of witnesses (assuming it really is thousands)???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what its all about Sync,Bee,quillius,Skyeagle,many others just want to put there three cents into the register!

I too have been many times and spent lots of time in the Phoenix area,and the several thousand of wittness`s that saw an object is where we differ I think?

almost everyone knows what Flares look like now how can you say that people cant get a event mixxed up with Flares,you cant. You also cant say that some didnt see an Object in the night sky that night.

The best thing to happen to all skeptics and non-believers is to see one some day,and then come back and try to convince the forum.

Now thats a thought?

Keeping a open mind without falling into the closed minded world of Disbelief! Its good to question,but not too good to Never look beond the possibilities.

also Its good to have real evidence I think most skeptics are in this mode Looking for actual hard core evidence,But a Sighting is to those that sighted

it Hard core to them.

Both can exisist in the same forum.

To call the Skeptics wrong is not right,and visa-versa.

Just wait until that Day When we really Get First Contact !

What will you think of all the things you said on this forum?

nicely said DONTEATUS........ :st

cheers

and good question quillius..... :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Boon,I believe you and a couple of others have quoted that it is one of the most interesting cases, along with Portage county, hence why I thought it would be a good discussion. I did try and discuss Portage county but the thread spiralled off in another direction, although as stated I think I will re-ignite the original thread for this to save duplicating info.

As fascinating and compelling as the Portage County case is for me, I'm not sure where else we can take the discussion with it. It is a genuine unknown and with the time that has passed, the opportunity for finding new information about it seems unlikely. Baring some kind of FOIA release of documents, if there are any, I don't think we are going to make much headway.

Conversely, the Colares case could be opened up a bit I think because as far as I know there is still quite a bit of unreleased documentation about it in the form of videos and photographs taken by the military during Operation Plato (Saucer). This case has a barrier of its own, however, in that the majority of released information is in Portuguese.

As for the thread here being driven by lots of people, I agree hence why I did state that if people were happy to discuss this case as long as Phoenix was finished with. Having read some of Bee's comments and viewing some new info on Phoenix, I think that it is not over yet, you are right there is plenty more discussion to be had, especially with the other sightings on the day as opposed to the 10.30 one that you have been discussing as flares.

Yeah, even some of the people who took those videos remain somewhat unconvinced regarding the flare explanation. Whether that is because they are genuinely unconvinced or because they're now deriving income from the whole thing is hard to say. Dr. Lynne Kitei who was the source of Maccabee's L video, for example, has abandoned her medical practice I believe so that she can write books, produce movies, and participate on the UFOlogy speaking circuit. And Steven Blonder, another videographer from 3/17/97 (the source of the HAMILTON AND KING portion of Maccabee's analysis I believe. His videos are

.), is pushing Kabala in relation to his videos.

Many of these witnesses have a vested stake in keeping this sighting alive and as mysterious as possible.

So having said that, what do you make of the earlier sighting at 8.30pm? Were there any others on that day that you know of?

:tu:

This is a tough question to answer because the descriptions by witnesses vary so much. Anyone who has been following this discussion here is familiar with the testimony by Mitch Stanley, given after identifying the earlier sighting as a formation of aircraft (conventional, not extraterrestrial). I probably don't need to remind people, but I will anyway, this was observed thru his Dobson telescope which makes his ability to identify the sighting significantly larger than someone using the naked eye.

Not many people seem to realize it, but there was footage captured from one of the earlier sightings as well. This was shot by Jeff Willis, whose name you might recognize because he has been videoing UFOs for a very long time (amazing that he's managed to get as many videos as he has, don't you think?). You can see his footage (reportedly shot around 7:30 PM on 3/13/97) at about 2:40 or so in this YouTube clip, he starts talking about it a bit earlier at like 2:20 or so:

Not too impressive is it? Could be all kinds of things I suppose. But alien space craft?

Also of note is the footage at 1:00. Now what does that look like to you? Looks like a formation of planes to me... :hmm:

Suffice it to say, my personal opinion about the earlier sightings in Phoenix on that day were probably a combination of things and I strongly suspect that a great number of witnesses have embellished what they saw to the point that it became much larger in their minds than it actually was, either intentionally, or as a result of some kind of mass hysteria. It reminds me of the proverbial fisherman's tale, "I caught a fish and it was THIS BIG!" I can't guarantee this, of course, but just based on the intensive looking I've done into this case, it seems to fit the bill pretty well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't knock skeptic's it's always good to have a devils advocate, everyone just needs to have an open mind. I myself have had a few weird experiences in various parts of Australia and the outback from UFO's to strange people but unless you experienced them you are wasting your time trying to explain to others just what it was you saw.I have also witnessed UFO's being chased by military planes in suburban areas close to Sydney they had no chance of catching them. I was actually working a a government employee inside a radar installation back in the early seventies when a flap was in progress, & I was told that it was a common thing but futile to chase them as they usually sped out to sea or up into the mountains outside Sydney only to vanish when the chase planes got too close.Back then the authorities or the ordinary service people didn't seem as paranoid as they are now & they just seemed to accept them as just another mystery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hmmm.... any developments on the R.A.D.A.R front? :wacko:

Air traffic controller Bill Grava was on duty on March 13 at Sky Harbor International Airport. He, too, saw the lights, but not until they were on the southern horizon, slowly disappearing behind South Mountain. The lights were so bright that he thought they might have been flares.

He confirms that the object or objects did not register on radar as they passed overhead, a fact seconded by Captain Stacey Cotton of Luke Air Force Base.

But both admitted that that doesn't rule out the possibility of a group of airplanes. Cotton says that the radar used by air traffic controllers reads signals emitted by transponders in the airplanes themselves.

Normally, in a formation of seven planes, only the lead plane would turn on its transponder so air traffic controllers could track it. If the lead plane's transponder was turned off, however, the seven planes could have passed by without detection.

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1997-06-26/news/the-great-ufo-cover-up/

PhoenixLights1997model.jpg

eta...

switched off?

link

:alien:

eata...

so... who was it?

:unsure2:

Edited by mcrom901

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As fascinating and compelling as the Portage County case is for me, I'm not sure where else we can take the discussion with it. It is a genuine unknown and with the time that has passed, the opportunity for finding new information about it seems unlikely. Baring some kind of FOIA release of documents, if there are any, I don't think we are going to make much headway.

That I think is the problem with the Skeptical approach. It only seems to work if the cases that one is considering are ones for which a "rational" explanation is at least reasonably likely, and so the nuts & bolts of details such as RADAR, and the exact specification of flares, and the wherabouts of Lighthouses, can be argued- discussed in infinite detail. When it comes to cases where a "rational" explanation is not so immediately apparent, then it doesn't seem to be such a good technique for considering things, since in such situations, like Nick Pope, it seems to get baffled. The reason it seems to get baffled is that people do not seem to be willing to consider the question, "ok, if it's not something rational (i.e. man-made, hoax, PLASMA etc), what might it be", since that might involve sci fi fantasy speculation, and that seems to be frowned on. Therefore, the rational and scientific approach, I would suggest, isn't actually much use for making any headway in finding out about the UFO enigma, since all it can really do is say what rational explanations there might be for something. And if something doesn't immediately offer a rational explanation, then people seem to get, well, embarassed that there isn't.

I do wonder sometimes (not looking at anyone in particular, so please, do not be offended, anyone) if people sometimes do not want there to be any mysteries, but would rather that everything can be tidily rationally explained away, so that the world is then so much neater.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That I think is the problem with the Skeptical approach. It only seems to work if the cases that one is considering are ones for which a "rational" explanation is at least reasonably likely, and so the nuts & bolts of details such as RADAR, and the exact specification of flares, and the wherabouts of Lighthouses, can be argued- discussed in infinite detail. When it comes to cases where a "rational" explanation is not so immediately apparent, then it doesn't seem to be such a good technique for considering things, since in such situations, like Nick Pope, it seems to get baffled. The reason it seems to get baffled is that people do not seem to be willing to consider the question, "ok, if it's not something rational (i.e. man-made, hoax, PLASMA etc), what might it be", since that might involve sci fi fantasy speculation, and that seems to be frowned on. Therefore, the rational and scientific approach, I would suggest, isn't actually much use for making any headway in finding out about the UFO enigma, since all it can really do is say what rational explanations there might be for something. And if something doesn't immediately offer a rational explanation, then people seem to get, well, embarassed that there isn't.

Well, I happen to disagree with you on this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you appear to be implying that a mysterious or unexplainable case is set aside by skeptics as insignificant and unworthy of consideration. Nothing could be further from the truth as far as I'm concerned. These are precisely the kind of cases that make the subject matter generally compelling. I think where we diverge in appreciation of such cases may be in our interpreted value of fantasy speculations regarding such cases.

It may be fun to do and I suppose there is even the remote possibility that one's speculation ends up being right on the money, but it isn't exactly a conclusive process if your honest intention is to turn UFO sightings into IFO sightings; regardless of what comprises the I (be it alien, atmospheric, technological, etc...)

I do wonder sometimes (not looking at anyone in particular, so please, do not be offended, anyone) if people sometimes do not want there to be any mysteries, but would rather that everything can be tidily rationally explained away, so that the world is then so much neater.

I think mysteries are great personally. I love a good mystery. But maintaining mystery isn't part of why I'm involved with research into this subject matter. If the mystery can be solved, I'm all for it. And if solved mysteries continue to be flaunted as unsolved mysteries it kind of irks me. :hmm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know what to feel anymore..... In one sence Im glad that we have cast SERIOUS DOUBT, and sometimes even debunk UFO stories and legends out there (the Hills abduction - Roswell - Phoenix - The DSP - Travis Walton - Billy Meier, etc...) but Im beginning to see a sad trend here.

Soon there will be nothing left.

In other words, what a bummer if we are not beeing visited. :unsure:

Edited by DBunker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well DBunker, I've actually been coming to that general conclusion myself over the course of the last several months... I find it extremely unlikely that we have been visited at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well DBunker, I've actually been coming to that general conclusion myself over the course of the last several months... I find it extremely unlikely that we have been visited at all.

Yea... When I first started looking into this phenomenon I actually was really hopeful. When I first came to UM (years ago) I thought that I would finaly get to the bottom of many of these "famous" cases.

Now, after all the BE threads, and after listening to all you fine people here, I can only come to one conclusion - If we are indeed beeing visited, there sure arent any good evidence for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I am of the thinking that all these Big Cases that we spend so much time arguing about are distractions, really. The reason they get so much attention is because they're not all that typical, and so there's probably most likely to be a rational, or at least an earthly, explanation for them. I think it's all the hundreds of routine sightings - not just lights in the sky, which are of course most likely to be just lights of one kind or another - but, in particular, sightings of triangular craft and of other objects which, if not they can only be craft, then they could well be craft. And as I've said many times, I do have suspicions about the explanation that they're secret military aircraft or drones or what have you. I think there are some that, really, could, rationally, only be craft (I think PLASMA would be stretching things a bit as an explanation), and , if they are ours, then why do they do what they do? very often, it seems to defy all logic, if they were very, very secret experimental aircraft of some kind. But, if they were AI probes from, not necessarily other stars, but perhaps from rather nearer, then that would, to me, make for a more sensible explanation. So, for me, I think that at least some of the evidence, while it may be circumstantial, does suggest that there's a more than 50% probability that we might be being visited.

:)

:o

:cry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't suppose anyone is particularly interested, but just for my own interest, this is what i reckon about some of our regular friends. -->

Roswell (yes, i said it); this is one that I was reasonably satisfied about, that it was most likely a balloon and someone at Roswell AAF got over-excited and slipped a story to the press, and ended up with egg on their face. But, lately I have been wondering if the more colourful elements (the tales about the bodies and so on) might not have been added alter to deliberately muddy the waters and discredit the original Story, and whether there might not have been something in the original story after all. But, perhaps, one day, we shall see, although, probably not. :unsure2:

L.A., Battle Of: inexperienced and trigger-happy gunners getting over-excited in response to a false radar* echo, which may have been a balloon, or may not have been anything at all, I think. :yes:

The Belgian triangle: despite what I said about Triangles above, this one I think was most likely due to weather ocnditions causing, and I think this shouldn't be overlooked when people are arguing about the infallibility of much earlier systems, false radar echoes. The picture of the 'craft' looks very tantalising, but it does seem to be the only picture that was ever taken of it, and that, surely, is fishy. :unsure2:

Japan Air Lines: I'm still open-minded about this one. I think it's probably most likely to be weather conditions and, once again, false radar returns, but I'm not coming down on one side or the other about this just yet. :unsure2:

Rendlesham: Despite some seeming to be fairly certain, this is another that I'm staying on the fence about. I think Orford Ness lighthouse almost certainly played a part, but i do wonder if there wasn't more going on that was messing with their perceptions in some way or other. I wonder if the presence of a unit that specialised in Aerospace rescue & recovery on the base may or may have been significant. So, another :unsure2: .

The Phoenix Nights: Flares, probably. :yes:

The DSP Satellite, or the Bivalve Clam Affair: This is another I'm not sure about. Maybe a meteor or space debris of some kind, but I don't think the evidence is conclusive. :hmm:

If I think of any more, I may let you know.

* RADAR, if you insist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't suppose anyone is particularly interested, but just for my own interest, this is what i reckon about some of our regular friends. -->

Roswell (yes, i said it); this is one that I was reasonably satisfied about, that it was most likely a balloon and someone at Roswell AAF got over-excited and slipped a story to the press, and ended up with egg on their face. But, lately I have been wondering if the more colourful elements (the tales about the bodies and so on) might not have been added alter to deliberately muddy the waters and discredit the original Story, and whether there might not have been something in the original story after all. But, perhaps, one day, we shall see, although, probably not. :unsure2:

L.A., Battle Of: inexperienced and trigger-happy gunners getting over-excited in response to a false radar* echo, which may have been a balloon, or may not have been anything at all, I think. :yes:

The Belgian triangle: despite what I said about Triangles above, this one I think was most likely due to weather ocnditions causing, and I think this shouldn't be overlooked when people are arguing about the infallibility of much earlier systems, false radar echoes. The picture of the 'craft' looks very tantalising, but it does seem to be the only picture that was ever taken of it, and that, surely, is fishy. :unsure2:

Japan Air Lines: I'm still open-minded about this one. I think it's probably most likely to be weather conditions and, once again, false radar returns, but I'm not coming down on one side or the other about this just yet. :unsure2:

Rendlesham: Despite some seeming to be fairly certain, this is another that I'm staying on the fence about. I think Orford Ness lighthouse almost certainly played a part, but i do wonder if there wasn't more going on that was messing with their perceptions in some way or other. I wonder if the presence of a unit that specialised in Aerospace rescue & recovery on the base may or may have been significant. So, another :unsure2: .

The Phoenix Nights: Flares, probably. :yes:

The DSP Satellite, or the Bivalve Clam Affair: This is another I'm not sure about. Maybe a meteor or space debris of some kind, but I don't think the evidence is conclusive. :hmm:

If I think of any more, I may let you know.

* RADAR, if you insist.

I was interested and I appreciate your opinions about these cases. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

747400 always at least keeps one foot in the believers door,and a sharp eye to the sky.

As we all should do. Because if you dont Look up you may never see the Wonders of the Universe!

IT onlt takes one actual Landing and Factual meeting with E.T. soon to change all minds on this planet.

Im saveing up some special B.B.Q sauce and really good aged Oak,and Cherry wood for the Smoker ,The Babybacks will Knock there ?

Hum ! Ive never heard of E.T. wearing socks ,have you?

Well It will knock there walkmans outta there heads and Lip smackin Big Googoo eyed Nakie,Aliens will just Love the Texas B.B.Q I`ll

prepair for them!

Noow Who eles is in for the Party of the Century?

You know Mid will be there I know this for sure ! Seezya!justDONTEATUS :innocent:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As fascinating and compelling as the Portage County case is for me, I'm not sure where else we can take the discussion with it. It is a genuine unknown and with the time that has passed, the opportunity for finding new information about it seems unlikely. Baring some kind of FOIA release of documents, if there are any, I don't think we are going to make much headway.

I appreciate we do not have the video evidence in this case, however many officers observing the object from close range and for a period of time, coupled with the other witnesses leaves few options IMO. The usual footage can be lanterns, balloons, planes, birds etc etc, all these usually possible, so sometimes these close range events can be more beneficial in narrowing down possibilities than video footage. Both is obviously far better, especially if close range footage. I do agree with your comments regarding the Colares case.

Conversely, the Colares case could be opened up a bit I think because as far as I know there is still quite a bit of unreleased documentation about it in the form of videos and photographs taken by the military during Operation Plato (Saucer). This case has a barrier of its own, however, in that the majority of released information is in Portuguese.

Yeah, even some of the people who took those videos remain somewhat unconvinced regarding the flare explanation. Whether that is because they are genuinely unconvinced or because they're now deriving income from the whole thing is hard to say. Dr. Lynne Kitei who was the source of Maccabee's L video, for example, has abandoned her medical practice I believe so that she can write books, produce movies, and participate on the UFOlogy speaking circuit. And Steven Blonder, another videographer from 3/17/97 (the source of the HAMILTON AND KING portion of Maccabee's analysis I believe. His videos are

.), is pushing Kabala in relation to his videos.

Many of these witnesses have a vested stake in keeping this sighting alive and as mysterious as possible.

this video above.....

This is a tough question to answer because the descriptions by witnesses vary so much. Anyone who has been following this discussion here is familiar with the testimony by Mitch Stanley, given after identifying the earlier sighting as a formation of aircraft (conventional, not extraterrestrial). I probably don't need to remind people, but I will anyway, this was observed thru his Dobson telescope which makes his ability to identify the sighting significantly larger than someone using the naked eye.

Not many people seem to realize it, but there was footage captured from one of the earlier sightings as well. This was shot by Jeff Willis, whose name you might recognize because he has been videoing UFOs for a very long time (amazing that he's managed to get as many videos as he has, don't you think?). You can see his footage (reportedly shot around 7:30 PM on 3/13/97) at about 2:40 or so in this YouTube clip, he starts talking about it a bit earlier at like 2:20 or so:

Not too impressive is it? Could be all kinds of things I suppose. But alien space craft?

Also of note is the footage at 1:00. Now what does that look like to you? Looks like a formation of planes to me... :hmm:

Suffice it to say, my personal opinion about the earlier sightings in Phoenix on that day were probably a combination of things and I strongly suspect that a great number of witnesses have embellished what they saw to the point that it became much larger in their minds than it actually was, either intentionally, or as a result of some kind of mass hysteria. It reminds me of the proverbial fisherman's tale, "I caught a fish and it was THIS BIG!" I can't guarantee this, of course, but just based on the intensive looking I've done into this case, it seems to fit the bill pretty well.

along with this video you posted have me hooked on phoenix lights :w00t:

Would this be a fair summary of the general concensus on Phoenix?

1) earlier sighting just planes leading to embellished stories.

2- night sighting (10pm) flares

If I may just one quick question, the witnesses from the ball park that said they saw object pass overhead, do you think this is also stretching out the 'fisherman' story?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<SNIP>

Japan Air Lines: I'm still open-minded about this one. I think it's probably most likely to be weather conditions and, once again, false radar returns, but I'm not coming down on one side or the other about this just yet. :unsure2:

<SNIP>

If this is the same one I'm thinking about I don't see how you can possibly say that....

How has weather conditions (and please bear in mind pilots know all about weather!) and false radar returns got anything to do with seeing a giant walnut-looking UFO manouvering around outside your windows???

LINK for psyche101 (my reply to your reply to my last reply :P)

I'd also like to mention something in-line with DONTEATUS' recent posts:

Anyone can come along and with much thought and analysis, planning and manipulation (keep in mind you have hundreds of variables to play with) and CONSTRUCT an explination for pretty much any sighting.

Edited by Paxus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't suppose anyone is particularly interested, but just for my own interest, this is what i reckon about some of our regular friends. -->

Roswell (yes, i said it); this is one that I was reasonably satisfied about, that it was most likely a balloon and someone at Roswell AAF got over-excited and slipped a story to the press, and ended up with egg on their face. But, lately I have been wondering if the more colourful elements (the tales about the bodies and so on) might not have been added alter to deliberately muddy the waters and discredit the original Story, and whether there might not have been something in the original story after all. But, perhaps, one day, we shall see, although, probably not. :unsure2:

L.A., Battle Of: inexperienced and trigger-happy gunners getting over-excited in response to a false radar* echo, which may have been a balloon, or may not have been anything at all, I think. :yes:

The Belgian triangle: despite what I said about Triangles above, this one I think was most likely due to weather ocnditions causing, and I think this shouldn't be overlooked when people are arguing about the infallibility of much earlier systems, false radar echoes. The picture of the 'craft' looks very tantalising, but it does seem to be the only picture that was ever taken of it, and that, surely, is fishy. :unsure2:

Japan Air Lines: I'm still open-minded about this one. I think it's probably most likely to be weather conditions and, once again, false radar returns, but I'm not coming down on one side or the other about this just yet. :unsure2:

Rendlesham: Despite some seeming to be fairly certain, this is another that I'm staying on the fence about. I think Orford Ness lighthouse almost certainly played a part, but i do wonder if there wasn't more going on that was messing with their perceptions in some way or other. I wonder if the presence of a unit that specialised in Aerospace rescue & recovery on the base may or may have been significant. So, another :unsure2: .

The Phoenix Nights: Flares, probably. :yes:

The DSP Satellite, or the Bivalve Clam Affair: This is another I'm not sure about. Maybe a meteor or space debris of some kind, but I don't think the evidence is conclusive. :hmm:

If I think of any more, I may let you know.

* RADAR, if you insist.

How about:

* The Iranian UFO of 1976 was a Soviet Backfire bomber in afterburner

* The 1952 Washington D.C. UFOs were radar glitches caused by temperature inversions.

Never mind that radar controllers were also confirming the objects on their scopes by simply looking out the windows, not to mention the exact positions of the objects on the radar scopes were also confirmed by commercial and military pilots in the area.

* The Nellis UFO was a balloon.

Never mind that data had shown the object traveling at times at over 600 mph.

* The UFO in the Lonnie Zamora case, was an experimental NASA moon lander.

Never mind the moon lander had no range to even reach the area from the nearest airbase.

* In regards to the JAL incident, Mars and Jupiter were the UFOs responsible for that incident.

Never mind that both planets were not even in the same patch of sky as the UFOs, not to mention that the UFOs were also tracked on ground-based radars.

* The Malmstrom AFB UFOs were not reported by ground security guards.

Never mind that not only did they report the UFOs overhead, but the folks at Hill AFB were still talking about the incident after I arrived at Hill more than a year later, as it was reported as an UFO incident involving Echo flight. On top of that, there was a reported landing in the area in one of those cases as well.

* The UFO encounter over Chile could not have taken place above 60,000 feet because the pilot was not wearing an astronaut flight suit.

Never mind that as long as the 90-second rule is observed, no astronaut suit is required for flights above 60,000 feet.

* Astronomers have not seen or reported UFOs

Never mind that Sir Edmund Halley, discoverer of "Halley's Comet," and Clyde Tombaugh, discoverer of "Pluto," have also reported tracking UFOs. Never mind that there are many reports of astronomers tracking UFOs, not only in space, but within the vicinity of the moon as well.

* The Rendlesham UFO incidents were caused by a security policeman in a battered military patrol car.

Never mind the car never left the base and that the person who was claimed to have concocted a prank, later admitted that he was not responsible after all.

* The UFO hovering over Wright-Patterson AFB, which was photographed by an Air Force aircraft, was nothing more than a weather balloon at 30,000 feet.

Try getting a weather balloon to hover over a particular spot for a long period of time at 30,000 feet in high winds.

* The C-54 could not land at Kirtland AFB because the runway was too short.

Never mind that the C-54, and larger and heavier B-29 were aircraft flying components of the first atomic bombs out of Kirtland AFB.

And, there's more as well.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 13

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.