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

Interesting that ALL three of your links quote the exact same sentence.

"They explained that the A-10 had released the flares at about 6,000 feet and that the flares had ignited at around 3,000 feet."

You clearly did not search far nor wide for your links. A Google search of the exact sentence above returns not only this thread (before my post here) but also your three links within the top 5 returns!

What is ironic is that you constantly accuse others of not "doing their homework" and using 'sites' that are biased. Yet you seem to think linking to the same sentence three times 'proves' something... It doesn't.

Nor does it 'prove' you can do "your homework", it proves you just searched for people who quoted Gazrok! :w00t:

Once again, I have seen flares in real life and those lights are not flares by any means.Not even close. :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Symington: I saw a UFO in the Arizona sky

AVIATION SAFETY

November 09, 2007

By Fife Symington Special to CNN

In 1997, during my second term as governor of Arizona, I saw something that defied logic and challenged my reality. I witnessed a massive delta-shaped, craft silently navigate over Squaw Peak, a mountain range in Phoenix, Arizona. It was truly breathtaking. I was absolutely stunned because I was turning to the west looking for the distant Phoenix Lights. To my astonishment this apparition appeared; this dramatically large, very distinctive leading edge with some enormous lights was traveling through the Arizona sky.

As a pilot and a former Air Force Officer, I can definitively say that this craft did not resemble any man-made object I'd ever seen. And it was certainly not high-altitude flares because flares don't fly in formation.

My link

You are just drawn to nutters aren't you.

Here is a picture if Fyfe, the man who saw a Triangle at Phoenix, revealing to the world just who it was over Phoenix that night.

Symington_Removing_Alien_Mask.jpg

This man's colourful interpretation and accompanying side show is more valid than Mitch Stanley how?

Dead set, you are freaking joking aren't you?

Perc, Boon, Cz and Perc really embarrassed you on this one, you should let it go, you look more credulous by the second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were two (or more, considering the testimonies) separate incidents, the 'flares' are not the same as the triangle shaped lights that were seen. Why do you persist in confusing the two?

Perhaps Sky is about to reveal that Gorillas were flying the triangle over Phoenix that night. A gogd mix of his admitted, failed, and incorrect tactics, that get nobody anywhere but foster much animosity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I already have, but it seems that there were very important hints that were definitely ignored..

Hints, reading between the lines, appeals to authority all pale into insignificant obscurity when presented with real evidence supported by math as has been shown in this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with DB, Boon, 747 and most of the skeptics here. That most of these cases are pure BS, lies, hoaxes, and/or retrospective falcifications... Not even to mention illogical reasoning and self-deception.

Having that said, my personal favorite case is the 1976 Tehran UFO Incident.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Tehran_UFO_incident

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

--

Dead set, you are freaking joking aren't you?

Perc, Boon, Cz and Perc really embarrassed you on this one, you should let it go, you look more credulous by the second.

Don't forget to mention Perc. ;)

J/K, I'm confident you intended to include lost_shaman in this grouping considering the incredible information he's put together regarding this case. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

--

this video above.....

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?

Fair summary for the most part, in my opinion.

If you are talking about the little league game, I'd say that they likely were embellishing their observation just a bit. I wasn't there with them at the time, of course, so I could be totally wrong, but that is the feeling I'm getting for almost all of the witnesses.

Speaking of the witnesses... when people talk about the significance of this they mention the thousands of witnesses. I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of those thousands were for the later sighting and that there were really only a handful of people (respectively) who saw the earlier sightings. Most who saw the earlier sightings, unless I'm mistaken, didn't report anything out of the ordinary until after the mysterious flare drop which had the whole greater Phoenix area buzzing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, I have seen flares in real life and those lights are not flares by any means.Not even close. :no:

At these distances Flares would only look like bright point sources to both your eyes and a Video Camera(0.50734 Seconds of arc). Therefore what K's Video shows looks exactly like what a Flare would look like at these distances. The resolution limit of your eye's w/ 20/20 vision is ~1 minute of arc.

What's sad is that you can't even get your own personal anecdote to coincide with the FACTS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has the evidence you have looked at point to any conclusion (even if you are speculating) so far?

Hey quillius,

No firm conclusions. This '77 Flap is one of the stranger Flaps IMO, though. I was first really interested in this Flap because there seemed to be quite of number of small UFO's reported (my own close encounter was a small UFO). Eventually while looking at this Flap I was led in the direction of Hessdalen... So if you are going to force me to speculate, UAP (Plasma) probably played a large role in the Flap. The Flap itself, while having high strangeness, doesn't convince me that E.T. was involved despite the few reports that state this was the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are just drawn to nutters aren't you.

Here is a picture if Fyfe, the man who saw a Triangle at Phoenix, revealing to the world just who it was over Phoenix that night.

Symington_Removing_Alien_Mask.jpg

This man's colourful interpretation and accompanying side show is more valid than Mitch Stanley how?

Dead set, you are freaking joking aren't you?

Perc, Boon, Cz and Perc really embarrassed you on this one, you should let it go, you look more credulous by the second.

How amusing when even those in the valley, saw the lights as well, which made their figures moot by that very fact., and I have been to Phoenix many times before to know their figures didn't add up and in fact, I will passing through Phoenix this weekend.

What are they saying?

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At these distances Flares would only look like bright point sources to both your eyes and a Video Camera(0.50734 Seconds of arc). Therefore what K's Video shows looks exactly like what a Flare would look like at these distances. The resolution limit of your eye's w/ 20/20 vision is ~1 minute of arc.

What's sad is that you can't even get your own personal anecdote to coincide with the FACTS.

Once again, those lights were not flares. The Air Force made up that flare story and amazingly, there were those who jumped on its bandwagon, and how long did it take the Air Force to come up with that cover story anyway? That was another hint those lights were not what the Air Force had claimed.. If the Air Force had said they were lighted weather balloons, then the skeptics would have jumped on that bandwagon as well because that is typical whenever the Air Force misleads the public on UFOs.

That is the way it worked with the Roswell incident and other UFO incidents as well. What it is, there are those who don't learn their lessons when dealing with the Air Force, which has been known to mislead the public on UFO for decades.

Sooner or later, they will have to figure out eventually, that they have been taken for a ride by the Air Force on many occasions in regards to UFOs.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, those lights were not flares. The Air Force made up that flare story and amazingly, there were those who jumped on its bandwagon, and how long did it take the Air Force to come up with that cover story anyway? That was another hint those lights were not what the Air Force had claimed.. If the Air Force had said they were lighted weather balloons, then the skeptics would have jumped on that bandwagon as well because that is typical whenever the Air Force misleads the public on UFOs.

That is the way it worked with the Roswell incident and other UFO incidents as well. What it is, there are those who don't learn their lessons when dealing with the Air Force, which has been known to mislead the public on UFO for decades.

Sooner or later, they will have to figure out eventually, that they have been taken for a ride by the Air Force on many occasions in regards to UFOs.

Why does the math support the flare theory then? Is it some sort of grand coincidence that an alien craft can present itself in the same manner a group of flares would :blink: ? Your arguments aren't going to make much sense if you fail to address the numbers on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, those lights were not flares. The Air Force made up that flare story and amazingly, there were those who jumped on its bandwagon, and how long did it take the Air Force to come up with that cover story anyway? That was another hint those lights were not what the Air Force had claimed.. If the Air Force had said they were lighted weather balloons, then the skeptics would have jumped on that bandwagon as well because that is typical whenever the Air Force misleads the public on UFOs.

That is the way it worked with the Roswell incident and other UFO incidents as well. What it is, there are those who don't learn their lessons when dealing with the Air Force, which has been known to mislead the public on UFO for decades.

Sooner or later, they will have to figure out eventually, that they have been taken for a ride by the Air Force on many occasions in regards to UFOs.

As S2F just stated, and as we've been repeatedly saying to you skyeagle... Those were flares in the videos. The analysis proves it beyond any doubt. You're normal smoke blown up the hind end of skeptics method of debate isn't going to cut the mustard on this one. Explain how the math is flawed or your continued babble will do nothing more than paint you as a complete fool. It really is that simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, I have seen flares in real life and those lights are not flares by any means.Not even close. :no:

Since you are so much more visually acute than the rest of us I've prepared a 'line-up' for you so that you can tell us what is 'Alien' and what is 'not. Please bother yourself to explain your conclusions to all of the rest of us who are visually impaired.

plights.jpg

Edited by lost_shaman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps Sky is about to reveal that Gorillas were flying the triangle over Phoenix that night.

That would be a better answer than flares, which were not there. At least we know the triangles were there, is which more than we can say about flares that were not there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does the math support the flare theory then?

The math doesn't it if you have been to Phoenix to understand why most of the people who have lived in Phoenix many years, have never seen flares before, yet how long has the BGR been in operation? That is a major hint. Another hint is, those lights are not flares by any means, and you would have known why if you have seen real flares in person..

The Air Force knew all along that flares were not responsible and it took the Air Force a very long time to come up with a cover story that didn't involve weather balloons.

When are people going to learn that time after time, they have been taken for a ride by the Air Force? Didn't they learn anything on how the Air Force duped them several times on the Roswell incident alone???

Someone probably made up the flare story over coffee and donuts at the confernece table one morning and the rest is history.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boony and Pericynthion...Thanks for taking the time out to reply! :tu:

I much appreciate your non-condecending posts to a mathematical ignoramus such as I!

I'm still not much wiser as to the over-all distance width of the of the 'light display'.Although Peri's post highlighting the amount of zoom from video K, and his own demonstration of google earth with a frame from that video overlayed has tempered my imagined distance from the two extremities...but not that much! (without the correct mathematics, this will always be a sticky-point for flare acceptance).

Boony said...

The brightness from that distance is actually quite expected for the LUU2B flares they were using which put out something between 1.6 and 1.8 billion candlepower. In other words... they are extremely bright.

Yep!..been checking up on these LUU-2B/B flares, and am willing to conceed that these things could be seen from even further ,(150 miles according to one pilot!).

But at $825.62 each...is it really acceptable for the airforce to waste taxpayers dollars in this manner?

And just to clarify one more thing here...I know that the calculations that have been done to show that the lights could have been 'flares' from 70miles away, seen above the mountain range using the video footages are correct. But were all of the witnesses of the 'lights/flares' at, at least the same vantage point as the video positions?

i.e you stated that video K was at 300ft above phoenix,...where were the other two?...Could Sky be on to something here?

Cheers.

Depending on the operation set up, at Guadalcanal the US defence forces dumped masses of resources overboard. Tanks, planes, rounds, you name it. Apparently the equipment was on lease, and if returned, damage bills would quickly sum up, it was more efficient to dump everything overboard and claim it as lost and then insurance would cover the costs.

So I was told when there. There is so much iron under the water there that it affects compasses. It also goes by the name Iron Bottom Sound.

91A72.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As S2F just stated, and as we've been repeatedly saying to you skyeagle... Those were flares in the videos.

Sorry, but it is evident to me who has been to Phoenix, and who has not, and who has seen flares in real life, and who hasn't. Yes indeed!!

The Air Force duped the skeptics again, but that is typical if you look back on history. Question is: When are they goiing to learn their lessons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but it is evident to me who has been to Phoenix, and who has not, and who has seen flares in real life, and who hasn't. Yes indeed!!

The Air Force duped the skeptics again, but that is typical if you look back on history. Question is: When are they goiing to learn their lessons?

The only thing evident here is that you aren't a reasonable man who is willing to honestly discuss this subject matter. You have one agenda only, and that is to prove ET visitation. I respect your dedication, I truly do. But even you must realize at some point that when you are arguing against irrefutable evidence it may be in the best interest of your cause to focus on battle fronts that you have some minor chance of successfully defending. This one, doesn't happen to fit that bill.

There is no way that you will ever be able to refute the analysis of these videos which has determined beyond any doubt that they were flares dropped over the BGR. None. You simply can't do it. Why you keep attempting is beyond me. None of the eye-witness accounts that you've posted match up with the irrefutable analysis of the videos.

In addition... who has or hasn't been to Phoenix is irrelevant. Anyone can review this data and analysis to see the reality of the situation. Visiting Phoenix in person has absolutely no impact on it. None.

Edited by booNyzarC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since you are so much more visually acute than the rest of us I've prepared a 'line-up' for you so that you can tell us what is 'Alien' and what is 'not. Please bother yourself to explain your conclusions to all of the rest of us who are visually impaired.

plights.jpg

I will make it very short and simple. Those lights are not indicative of flares by any means, which is why those who saw the lights, have dismissed the flares the Air Force dropped during its demonstration, but that would have been evident if you have seen real flares in action.

I find it amazing that those who have never seen real flares before, are the very same folks who are overriding those who have. Simply amazing!!

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

working on a workable edit... first draft was a bit too much I think... :blush:

No, you are mistaken!!

Basically speaking, you haven't a clue as to what is going on, which is why you are hanging onto flares that were never there in the first place. The Air Force made it up just as it made up the weather balloon that never was, and a Mogul balloon train flight that never was, and test dummies and accident victims, that were not there.

Question is, isn't it time for you to figure out when you have been duped by the Air Force? Take a guess as to why the Air Force failed to acknowledge the sighting and then, presented a flare demonstratio that became a laughing stock to those who saw the actual lights.

Were you even aware that similar lights have also been seen in other locations as well?

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

plights.jpg

its the fourth one.... :yes:

here is the math.....

0a1c02498125a255a2f5b0e58908a8ae.png

:wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget to mention Perc. ;)

J/K, I'm confident you intended to include lost_shaman in this grouping considering the incredible information he's put together regarding this case. :tu:

LOL, unless Perc is LS, my thanks man!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Closed minds ,closed eyes,Closed case. WHat If ? What If just one light in the night sky is not a Aircraft,Star Moon .Planet,Flare,Magic Dragon,Tinkerbell, other manmade source of Light.

Then What?

Well It would have to be a Unknown Light in the Night Sky !

ANd just maybe a Alien Craft. It could Happen! :innocent:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How exactly did skyeagle debunk the analysis of the videos? We have determined beyond any reasonable doubt that the videos are flares. I must have missed something because I didn't see him debunk anything at all... :mellow:

Odie just drops in from time to time to flame. Anyone following this thread shows Sky did not determine didly squat, and that he does not understand the math.

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.