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 2
zoser

Phoenix - Flares Debunked

238 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

I was never convinced by the flare theory and neither were hundreds of eyewitnesses that saw the lights on 13th March 1997. Watch the video from 0:55:30 to 1:04:27.

One of the key items of evidence against the flare theory is that they were allegedly dropped an hour before the first sighting. Also different witnesses saw them across a 100 mile or so distance and flares clearly do not travel in a formation for that long over that distance. The many witnesses that you are about to see in the video will all testify to this. One of them is a trained pilot.

Finally, the flare theory always did sound a little too convenient for me. Ask yourself why would the military do that so close to a populate area anyway; what was it going to achieve. Flare of course are regarded as dangerous.

So I hope this resolves the issue once and for all and puts the ridiculous flare theory to bed; when I saw this clip, I felt it was so important that it deserved it's own thread. The important part is less than 10 minutes long. Enjoy

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=011qVSK47PI[/media]

Edited by zoser
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

One of the key items of evidence against the flare theory is that they were allegedly dropped an hour before the first sighting.

You have your information all wrong. There clearly where Flares. We discussed this in-depth and showed Flares were used in the BE-III thread.

Edited by lost_shaman
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have your information all wrong. There clearly where Flares. We discussed this in-depth and showed Flares were used in the BE-III thread.

Watch the 10 minute clip then give me your conclusion. The people on the clip were actually there and they recall the incident well. Listen to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Shaman. We have disected the PL a couple of times in the last BE thread. After looking at both sides evidence and arguments there is no doubt in my mind that the first sighting was aircraft flying in formation, and the second event was flares.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Shaman. We have disected the PL a couple of times in the last BE thread. After looking at both sides evidence and arguments there is no doubt in my mind that the first sighting was aircraft flying in formation, and the second event was flares.

I doubt whether you have seen these testimonies H. That's why I started this thread; I genuinely believe it kills the flare theory stone dead. Watch it and share your views; this is the best evidence we have.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I been to Phoenix and i spoke to some people and they said it was flares, also the large concentration of bases in the area, flares can be seen a fair way out, like the Titanic's flares

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I doubt whether you have seen these testimonies H. That's why I started this thread; I genuinely believe it kills the flare theory stone dead. Watch it and share your views; this is the best evidence we have.

The UFO phenomenon is not fantasy. It exists, and it is not made up. UFOs are probably observed every single day by someone. That they are alien spacecraft, or even associated with alien spacecraft is in fact fantasy, since there is utterly no credible evidence of this whatsoever, anywhere.

You, yourself have demonstrated a "credulousness" that indicates a bias when examinating evidence youtube videos, and in this case of the Phoenix lights all you have are eye witness opinions on what those lighs might represent. That is all you have here. Dont get me wrong, zoser, I understand that some people love the idea of Earth or its human inhabitants have not only attracted the attention of galactic neighbors. But frankly, there is no support, no hard scientific evidence, to this somewhat self-indulgent idea.

People have opinions and people believe all sorts of wacky stuff,... and I dont care if the entire world believe in ET visitation.

The matter of alien visitation will be decided by the evidence, not by the intensity of opinion. From a scientific point of view any evidence in existence that cannot be provided for independent scrutiny is non-existent, and cannot be included,... no matter how many eye witness reports are shown, they are not evidence either.

Edited by Hazzard
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judging by some of the posts here, I wonder if being in denial about the existence of UFO is a form of xenophobia?

The way we deal with UFO is perhaps the best example of how the government obfuscates as a matter of habit.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The UFO phenomenon is not fantasy. It exists, and it is not made up. UFOs are probably observed every single day by someone. That they are alien spacecraft, or even associated with alien spacecraft is in fact fantasy, since there is utterly no credible evidence of this whatsoever, anywhere.

You, yourself have demonstrated a "credulousness" that indicates a bias when examinating evidence youtube videos, and in this case of the Phoenix lights all you have are eye witness opinions on what those lighs might represent. That is all you have here. Dont get me wrong, zoser, I understand that some people love the idea of Earth or its human inhabitants have not only attracted the attention of galactic neighbors. But frankly, there is no support, no hard scientific evidence, to this somewhat self-indulgent idea.

People have opinions and people believe all sorts of wacky stuff,... and I dont care if the entire world believe in ET visitation.

The matter of alien visitation will be decided by the evidence, not by the intensity of opinion. From a scientific point of view any evidence in existence that cannot be provided for independent scrutiny is non-existent, and cannot be included,... no matter how many eye witness reports are shown, they are not evidence either.

Personally, I think the ETs are here, and that many of them are hostile. I can make a pretty good case for that, too, given that there have been a lot of "incidents" with UFOs being chased, fired on and firing back that are not imaginary. No one in the military who knew anything ever thought that it was, going back to the 1940s, especially when people were being killed in UFO encounters.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judging by some of the posts here, I wonder if being in denial about the existence of UFO is a form of xenophobia?

The way we deal with UFO is perhaps the best example of how the government obfuscates as a matter of habit.

Some good words there; just looking them up in dictionary .com: ok got it. You mean that there is a group of people on this forum who have a fear of acceptance regarding the UFO phenomena and because their fear is such a powerful influence upon them they refuse to accept the truth? Also you are saying that the Governments of the world try and put forward their own explanations to put people off the subject because they fear what the public reaction may be if they knew the truth?

I agree with you on both points. Totally. Welcome to the forum.

Z

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judging by some of the posts here, I wonder if being in denial about the existence of UFO is a form of xenophobia?

I have no idea what posts you are referring to. I dont think I have ever seen anyone here at UM denying the existence of UFOs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By hostile, I mean that in the sense that not all snakes are poisonous and not all of them will bite you, but none of them could exactly be called friendly either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I been to Phoenix and i spoke to some people and they said it was flares, also the large concentration of bases in the area, flares can be seen a fair way out, like the Titanic's flares

Perhaps you need to speak to a larger cross section of people. Did the people you spoke to see the crafts, or were they just regurgitating the official explanation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I think the ETs are here, and that many of them are hostile. I can make a pretty good case for that, too, given that there have been a lot of "incidents" with UFOs being chased, fired on and firing back that are not imaginary. No one in the military who knew anything ever thought that it was, going back to the 1940s, especially when people were being killed in UFO encounters.

i completely agree, and, to the poster that said that eye-witness testimony is not acceptable evidence, then i guess we better throw out courtroom procedure..'testimonial evidence' this is the term that it used, and yes, it does depend on the witness, but there are too many reputable trained observers to discount these sightings.

and-the concept that these 'acknowledged ufos' are not extra-terrestrial, is, in my mind, wishful thinking..again, too many indicators relate these craft and the beings inside as something that is not indigenous to earth..it has nothing to do with thinking we are 'special' in any way, it is just looking at all the enormous amount of testimony, evidence, documents, that would lead one to logically come to the conclusion that there is some sort of 'surveillence' taking place...and it ain't from angels or demons, imo...

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was never convinced by the flare theory and neither were hundreds of eyewitnesses that saw the lights on 13th March 1997. Watch the video from 0:55:30 to 1:04:27.

One of the key items of evidence against the flare theory is that they were allegedly dropped an hour before the first sighting. Also different witnesses saw them across a 100 mile or so distance and flares clearly do not travel in a formation for that long over that distance. The many witnesses that you are about to see in the video will all testify to this. One of them is a trained pilot.

Finally, the flare theory always did sound a little too convenient for me. Ask yourself why would the military do that so close to a populate area anyway; what was it going to achieve. Flare of course are regarded as dangerous.

So I hope this resolves the issue once and for all and puts the ridiculous flare theory to bed; when I saw this clip, I felt it was so important that it deserved it's own thread. The important part is less than 10 minutes long. Enjoy

If you actually think that any part of this segment has any impact on the flare conclusion, it belies only one thing; you don't know much about this case at all.

This segment wasn't concentrating on the 10 PM event that was captured on video by Mike K, Chuck R, Tom K, and Lynne K from four different locations. It includes an interview with Mike K and shows his video, but that is probably because it was simply the most famous piece of footage from the night overall. The bulk of the testimony in this segment that you're on about is regarding the earlier events that didn't involve the flares.

As such, it does nothing to the flare conclusion whatsoever.

One might ask why they neglected to include the only footage that does exist of the earlier events though? And why they neglected to include the testimony of witnesses who identified the earlier events as planes in formation? Well, the name of the show can answer that.

If you want to discuss the earlier sightings represented in this highlighted segment of yours, you may want to read this first.

Cheers.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If you actually think that any part of this segment has any impact on the flare conclusion, it belies only one thing; you don't know much about this case at all.

This segment wasn't concentrating on the 10 PM event that was captured on video by Mike K, Chuck R, Tom K, and Lynne K from four different locations. It includes an interview with Mike K and shows his video, but that is probably because it was simply the most famous piece of footage from the night overall. The bulk of the testimony in this segment that you're on about is regarding the earlier events that didn't involve the flares.

As such, it does nothing to the flare conclusion whatsoever.

One might ask why they neglected to include the only footage that does exist of the earlier events though? And why they neglected to include the testimony of witnesses who identified the earlier events as planes in formation? Well, the name of the show can answer that.

If you want to discuss the earlier sightings represented in this highlighted segment of yours, you may want to read this first.

Cheers.

I know about the two incidents and I know they were distinct. I am fully aware of that. The other sighting even more convincing was reported by eyewitnesses to be a huge delta shaped craft that flew low over houses and was said to be the size of an aircraft carrier. It was said to be grey dull metallic slow and totally silent. Fife Symmington reported seeing something similar.

Just one thing about the supposed planes flying in formation. The same thing was reported during the Hudson UFO wave ten years earlier. Interesting that the plane formation in both cases was seen before the main sightings; a bit of a coincidence? My view is that this was done deliberately to shift public opinion. We know that this happened at Roswell; first the USAF declare that they have in their possession a crashed UFO. The next day it's a weather balloon.

This is nothing new; it's all been done many times before. There are loads of examples if one searches diligently. Is this part of a co-ordinated debunking attempt or some wags (sorry for that word again) playing a stunt? I don't honestly know but it is rather a coincidence.

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know about the two incidents and I know they were distinct. I am full aware of that. The other sighting even more convincing was reported by eyewitnesses to be a huge delta shaped craft that flew low over houses and was said to be the size of an aircraft carrier. It was said to be grey dull metallic slow and totally silent. Fyfe Symmington reported seeing something similar.

So we are in agreement that this does nothing to the 10 PM flare conclusion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we are in agreement that this does nothing to the 10 PM flare conclusion?

Watch the clip; there are several credible witnesses that saw the object at fairly close range. They were adamant that what they saw were no flares; their words not mine and the timings and distances involved support this; It doesn't matter what we think it's what they testify to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your conclusions are based on wishful thinking more than what the evidence actually tells you. This might have to do with the way you do your research. It seems to me that you are only looking for the things that supports your preconceived notion. Cherry picking.

That is not the way to do propper research.

I have a friendly advice for you, zoser,... Study science, real science, this will teach you what the available evidence really tell you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watch the clip; there are several credible witnesses that saw the object at fairly close range. They were adamant that what they saw were no flares; their words not mine and the timings and distances involved support this; It doesn't matter what we think it's what they testify to.

I watched the clip before I responded in your thread. I watched that episode of Unsolved Mysteries long long ago.

Of course they were adamant that they didn't see flares. They weren't talking about the 10 PM event that involved flares.

So again I ask you, are we in agreement that this segment does absolutely nothing to the 10 PM flare conclusion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good lord, he cant even get that right! :whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Your conclusions are based on wishful thinking more than what the evidence actually tells you. This might have to do with the way you do your research. It seems to me that you are only looking for the things that supports your preconceived notion. Cherry picking.

That is not the way to do propper research.

I have a friendly advice for you, zoser,... Study science, real science, this will teach you what the available evidence really tell you.

I get it was flares, mostly from what Boon has wrote in the past.

But what you jsut said is a bit strange. Study science... Are you telling him to study textbooks? Or actually study Science? There is huge difference. Also Science is constantly evolving. You can't "study" it once and know everything. To really study science you would have to devote your hole life to Science. Out of curiosity have you devoted your lfie to science?

Sorry but I don't like it when people use "sceince" as an answer as Science isn't complete 100% fact. It's mostly theory and past knowledge, ready to be changed any minute by a new theory or discovery. Science evolves everyday.

Edited by Coffey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your conclusions are based on wishful thinking more than what the evidence actually tells you. This might have to do with the way you do your research. It seems to me that you are only looking for the things that supports your preconceived notion. Cherry picking.

That is not the way to do propper research.

I have a friendly advice for you, zoser,... Study science, real science, this will teach you what the available evidence really tell you.

Modern science? Nuclear reactors spewing out their poisons; fossil fuels in cars for the last 100 years; burning coal in homes slowly poisoning the planet that our ancients were doing to keep warm. Forgive me if I don't bow down to science just yet,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Sorry but I don't like it when people use "sceince" as an answer as Science isn't complete 100% fact. It's mostly theory and past knowledge, ready to be changed any minute by a new theory or discovery. Science evolves everyday.

Sorry,... I had the four steps of the scientific method in mind when I wrote that. Science instead of pseudo science.

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.

Edited by Hazzard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good lord, he cant even get that right! :whistle:

I know, it is quite odd.

And I'm not even asking him to accept the 10 PM conclusion as factual, only to make the distinction that this segment from Unsolved Mysteries was centered on the earlier events and therefore makes little if any contribution to the 10 PM event.

In fact, this segment reinforces and confirms the 10 PM flare conclusion; which is the exact opposite of what zoser claims in the OP and in the naming of the thread.

Using testimony about the earlier events and claiming that it disproves conclusions about the later events is intellectually dishonest, a strawman, ignorance, or complete incompetence. I'm not sure which applies in this instance, but I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt and go with simple ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.