The Phoenix Lights revisited

[booNyzarC]

I think it's possible that planes flying at low throttle moving slowly in formation and at high enough altitude would make little enough noise that it could be drowned out by the ambient sounds of a large city like Phoenix. Not sure if that's the case but it seems like a definite possibility.

Agreed, and this position is fully supported by the testimony of Rich Contry who was the first to witness the event, and at a higher elevation (he was driving though the mountains at the time) than the other witnesses. He actually did hear the engine noise, but it was extremely faint and he only heard it after the planes had overflown him.

[booNyzarC]

Speaking of that horrid documentary by Larry Lowe, I had begun a critique of it when I first watched it but never got around to finishing it. I took the time today to review what I had put together previously and add to it. This is related to the first part linked by The MacGuffin today. My commentary is in blue text.

Rough Transcript:

Listen to the ridiculous way that the narrator over emphasizes what Larry Lowe has done by 'tracking down' Mike Krzyston... LOL

Narrator:

But UFO investigator Larry Lowe has tracked down a witness with hard evidence.

A video tape of a mysterious light show... captured that night.

Mike Krzyston:

See this light flickering over ?? mountain over here. What have we got here?

The formation of an arc.

Narrator:

Mike Krzyston lives atop a mountain, overlooking the Phoenix valley. In the 30 years he's been here, he's often seen lights in the distance. From the city. From the airport. And a nearby military base (LUKE).

But on the night of March 13, 1997... the lights looked different to him. So he video taped them.

Mike Krzyston:

Take a look at this! (from his original taping)

My Commentary:

Why is this ridiculous? Anyone who has ever looked into this case knows who Mike Krzyston is and knows that his video is the most famous one from the event. For Lowe to represent himself as some kind of incredible investigator who tracked down Mr. K would be like me making a documentary about the JFK assassination and having the narrator say "But JFK assassination investigator booNyzarC has tracked town a witness with hard evidence. A motion picture of the horrifying event... captured that day.

Abraham Zapruder:

See, he was riding in the car over there with his pretty wife... then..."

See what I mean? Anyone who knows about the JFK assassination knows about the Zapruder film. If I were to represent myself as an investigator who tracked him down, it would be disingenuous at best, and outright fraud at worst. Ridiculous. But it gets better.

Larry Lowe:

What was unusual about that particular night? Why did these stand out the way they did that made you get the camera out?

Mike Krzyston:

Well, they were farther to the east than I'd ever seen them before. I'd never seen them in this area before.

My Commentary:

Note here the first thing that Mike mentions about these being different. They were farther to the east than he'd seen them before. Okay... This is relevant how?

Narrator:

To understand the lights significance requires a look at the geography.

Krzyston's house sits atop a ridge line in north Phoenix.

To the south of them, 25 miles away is the Estrella mountains.

On the other side of the ridge, to the southwest, is the Barry Goldwater military range.

There, Air Force jets practice maneuvers day and night.

So lights to the south west wouldn't normally have caught Krzyston's attention.

But around 10 o'clock, these (showing clip of array) lights did.

Mike Krzyston:

So I went to get the camera and as I was starting to video tape it, it disappeared, and a light, almost, at the same time it disappeared another light appeared to the right of it and lower.

My Commentary:

I agree with most of this, but his footage doesn't support what he's saying here. The second light in the right hand portion of the array to appear was not lower than the first one which quickly disappeared. It was higher. Have I watched his footage more times than he has?

Narrator:

Could they have been related to something going on at the Barry Goldwater Military Range?

The range sits roughly 75 miles southwest of Phoenix.

My commentary:

Starting around this time we get to see flares being launched from jets at relatively close range. Of course, all of the samples they show us are NOT LUU2B illumination flares and are NOT launched in the same way that LUU2B flares would be launched. Instead, the flares they show footage of are "rippled" off in quick succession by the dozens. This is known as sleight of hand and is intended to convey to the viewer that these are the types of flares being suggested were used that night. These are nothing like the LUU2B flares that were actually used that night. This is deceptive, pure and simple. And skeptics are accused of spinning smokescreens? Hilarious.

Narrator continues:

According to the United States Air Force, they were holding a training exercise that night as they often did. They started around 10 o'clock, the same time Krzyston saw the lights. A10 aircraft were dropping flares to illuminate the mock battleground below.

Could these flares have been the lights Krzyston saw and video taped?

Larry Lowe:

You've seen, uh, as I understand it, flares come out as delivered by the A10s.

MK:

Yes.

Larry Lowe:

And what's characteristic about that process?

MK:

Well the flares are generally in a cluster and they come out in bunches and are sort of a rag tag type of formation

My Commentary:

Note here the second thing that Mike mentions about these being different. Their arrangement. Well yes, you'll get a variety of configurations over time with flare drops like these. Sometimes you'll even have two A-10s flying next to each other dropping flares at the same time, resulting in a staggered appearance. Sometimes it will be a straight horizontal line, and sometimes curved.

Larry Lowe:

Kind of like a cluster.

MK:

Yeah, like a cluster type of things and they're dropped differently.

And this was a very precision display. And they also appeared to be quite a lot dimmer, maybe because they were much farther away. And their color might not... is not quite to that orange brightness that these particular lights appeared to be...

My Commentary:

Note here the third thing that Mike mentions about these being different. The flares he has seen in the past aren't quite as orange as these ones appeared. Okay, fair enough. Different atmospheric conditions could easily account for that, as has been discussed at length by Dr. Bruce Maccabee.

Narrator:

Descending slowly on parachutes, flares normally appear to drop in altitude and drift in the wind.

But Krzyston noticed something different.

MK:

It's just that the way they kept their formation. They almost formed a perfect arc.

They were much more patterned... they held their position... and as you look at the footage, uh, it doesn't appear that any of them are drifting out of position.

My Commentary:

Note here the fourth thing that Mike mentions about these being different. They formed an 'almost' perfect arc, and appeared to him as though they maintained their formation. Well, as he himself notes by his description, they weren't a perfect arc, only almost one. Also, they didn't actually maintain their relative positions as precisely as is suggested. They acted exactly as flares suspended by parachutes would act, all drifting down in the same general direction, but with slight variations at times, independently.

Narrator:

So what did he observe that night?

Narrator:

Many have suggested that the lights could simply have been the A10s flying in formation as they returned to Davis Montham AFB in Tucson.

My Commentary:

This is complete BS. As far as I'm aware, nobody has made such a ridiculous assertion that the K video was of the A10s flying in formation. This is a strawman, pure and simple. Who is spinning smokescreens here again? The skeptics? Riiiiiiigggghhhhhttttt......

End rough transcript.

As you can hopefully see from just this tiny portion of the documentary, Larry Lowe does not present an unbiased accounting of what happened with his documentary. He uses deceptive techniques and completely omits any kind of information that is non-mysterious. When he does try to represent an opposing view, it is a completely manufactured and inaccurate version of it (commonly known as a strawman argument...)

I know for a fact that he contacted Dr. Bruce Maccabee when he was developing this documentary project, which should tell us that he is at least aware of the extensive analysis that was performed by the good doctor. Yet he doesn't even mention it. Neither does he mention the Cognitech analysis, or any other valid analyses of the 10 PM footage. These are not the hallmarks of unbiased review and investigation.

These are the hallmarks of someone who's very intention is to deceive rather than inform. He deserves to be in the UFO Hall of Shame.

[booNyzarC]

What a sarcastic and condescending way to infer that she's crazy. All those nice words of praise for Dr. Kitei, intelligent, genuine, sincere, BUT she's still a looney, right? Nice.

I wasn't attempting to be sarcastic or condescending in any way, and I certainly didn't say that she was a crazy looney. If I left that impression, it was purely accidental. As I said, I think she's very intelligent and well intentioned. At the same time I know for a fact that she has filmed and photographed flares.

That being said, she has also seen and photographed something that can't possibly be flares because they were in the foreground, well below even the cityscape. I don't know what those were, but they weren't flares dropped over the BGR. Could it have been neighborhood kids playing with sparklers or something like that? I don't know, but it wasn't flares over the BGR. They also weren't up in the sky like the famous Phoenix Lights.

And with this statement you're basically saying that it was a mass hallucination or a perception problem that is responsible for the 1000's of witness reports. This is a common theory used by the skeptics, too bad it doesn't make a lot of sense. Again, if the numbers of witnesses was much smaller, then yes maybe. It's a nonsensical argument considering the number of witnesses in the case.

No, I'm not saying that at all, though I don't rule it out as a possibility. All I'm saying is that thousands of witnesses were unable to identify what they were seeing. That isn't a hallucination at all. They saw something. They just didn't know what it was. How does this disagree with the position presented by UFOlogy? Even in the famed "I Know What I Saw" movie, they are still only saying that that they didn't recognize or identify what they saw.

If you re-watch the video I posted at the beginning of the topic, you'll see that there were 1000's of witnesses. Dr. Kitei mentions that she herself called back over 700 of the witnesses. She and others returned all the phone calls they received over a 3 month period.

700 witnesses I accept. Thousands of witnesses I accept. But 10,000? This is an inflated and unsubstantiated figure in my opinion. I'm willing to accept such a figure if it can be adequately substantiated, but so far I haven't seen that done. As such, it reminds me of a big fish story. It also reminds me of the Ancient Aliens series talking about the massive stones at Puma Punku weighing in at 800 tons when in reality the heaviest stone there is about 130 tons. Still big, but not 800 tons big. That is the kind of exaggeration that UFOlogy relies on, and the kind we see in many cases including the Phoenix Lights.

But it's the skeptics who are deceptive, right? Really?

[TheMacGuffin]

Speaking of that horrid documentary by Larry Lowe, I had begun a critique of it when I first watched it but never got around to finishing it. I took the time today to review what I had put together previously and add to it. This is related to the first part linked by The MacGuffin today. My commentary is in blue text.

Rough Transcript:

Listen to the ridiculous way that the narrator over emphasizes what Larry Lowe has done by 'tracking down' Mike Krzyston...

I got to the word "ridiculous" and stopped reading. So typical of Boon.

[booNyzarC]

I got to the word "ridiculous" and stopped reading. So typical of Boon.

Yes, and this is how the mighty MacGuffin defeats his opponents with sound reasoning and logic. Good show McG. Keep up the excellent work.

[TheMacGuffin]

Yes, and this is how the mighty MacGuffin defeats his opponents with sound reasoning and logic. Good show McG. Keep up the excellent work.

I will. When you say "ridiculous" you make it clear that your only intention is just to ridicule someone.

Edited October 13, 2012 by TheMacGuffin

[booNyzarC]

I will. When you say "ridiculous" you make it clear that your only intention is just to ridicule someone.

Well that's compelling. Would you care to offer the readers any other insights into your perception of my character and supposed methodologies?

[booNyzarC]

The last 8 posts have nothing to do with the topic - how about less baiting before it goes further, and get back on topic.

I've tried. Many many times I've tried. I am still trying.

[TSS]

I'm going to try the polite route one last time.

If someone gives a summary/view of a transcript from an external link, and you disagree with that interpretation, then debate the transcript, not the character of the person who gave it. Similarly, comments relating to a person state of mind, whether they're under the influence etc simply because they're post differs from yours are of no use whatsoever.

Basically, debate the topic, not the person.

Mac G - replying to a post that wasn't directed at you, simply so you can say you didn't bother reading it as it's "typical of Boon" is baiting someone, knock it off please.

[TSS]

I've tried. Many many times I've tried. I am still trying.

I know, I am following it all. All i'd say is your posts that deal directly with the subject stand on their own merit - i'd be tempted to stick with that, people have no other option to debate that if you give them nothing else to go on

[booNyzarC]

I know, I am following it all. All i'd say is your posts that deal directly with the subject stand on their own merit - i'd be tempted to stick with that, people have no other option to debate that if you give them nothing else to go on

Thanks Sky Scanner. Your balanced diligence is appreciated.

[TheMacGuffin]

I'm going to try the polite route one last time.

If someone gives a summary/view of a transcript from an external link, and you disagree with that interpretation, then debate the transcript, not the character of the person who gave it. Similarly, comments relating to a person state of mind, whether they're under the influence etc simply because they're post differs from yours are of no use whatsoever.

Basically, debate the topic, not the person.

Mac G - replying to a post that wasn't directed at you, simply so you can say you didn't bother reading it as it's "typical of Boon" is baiting someone, knock it off please.

Thanks Sky Scanner. Your balanced diligence is appreciated.

Goodbye.

Edited October 14, 2012 by TheMacGuffin

[badeskov]

It isn't about proof and evidence with them--never was. It's all about how to spin this story, dismiss the UFO witnesses and throw out various smokescreens and phony "explanations" so no one will take any of it seriously.

The last thing the "skeptics" care about is what's true. LOL.

By all means of respect, but that is utter toss - patently false. If the evidence was as tangible and incontrovertible as you claim, we wouldn't be having this discussion now. The mere fact that you suggest that it could be done away with by spin only emphasizes that it actually doesn't exist and you are well aware of that. Incontrovertible evidence can't be done away with spin, the mere notion is laughable. It would have been shouted from the roof tops and you yourself would have triumphantly been parading it.

In the end, what you have is a patchwork of disparate data points woven together using an invisible thread of make-believe. If we could stick with the facts and the facts only, I am sure every skeptic here would be more than happy to debate you. The way you currently behave in a debate is not in any way furthering the discussion, rather the opposite.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[booNyzarC]

Goodbye.

Don't be like that MacGuffin. We're here to discuss the topics at hand, not each other.

If you go and get yourself kicked off over something silly, that isn't going to do anyone any good at all. You have a valid point of view and bring much of value to the table. Don't deprive yourself of the opportunity to share what you have to offer, and don't deprive those who appreciate your contributions either. Count me among that lot, by the way. I do appreciate a lot of the information that you bring up even if I disagree with a lot of the conclusions you draw from that information.

Isn't it possible for us to respectfully disagree on these matters?

[badeskov]

Speaking of that horrid documentary by Larry Lowe, I had begun a critique of it when I first watched it but never got around to finishing it. I took the time today to review what I had put together previously and add to it. This is related to the first part linked by The MacGuffin today. My commentary is in blue text.

<snip>

Great post, Boony. Kudos for the time and effort you have put into this event, it is indeed a very informative read

Cheers,

Badeskov

[TheMacGuffin]

By all means of respect, but that is utter toss - patently false. If the evidence was as tangible and incontrovertible as you claim, we wouldn't be having this discussion now. The mere fact that you suggest that it could be done away with by spin only emphasizes that it actually doesn't exist and you are well aware of that. Incontrovertible evidence can't be done away with spin, the mere notion is laughable. It would have been shouted from the roof tops and you yourself would have triumphantly been parading it.

In the end, what you have is a patchwork of disparate data points woven together using an invisible thread of make-believe. If we could stick with the facts and the facts only, I am sure every skeptic here would be more than happy to debate you. The way you currently behave in a debate is not in any way furthering the discussion, rather the opposite.

Cheers,

Badeskov

I have nothing more to say about it.

[booNyzarC]

Great post, Boony. Kudos for the time and effort you have put into this event, it is indeed a very informative read

Cheers,

Badeskov

Thanks Bade, it took a lot of effort to transcribe manually. There are many other points to be made, but frankly I got tired of the listen, pause, type, backtrack to verify which is required for such an effort. Plus it forced me to listen to that nonsense over and over and over again. It's enough to drive anyone crazy I say.

[TheMacGuffin]

Don't be like that MacGuffin. We're here to discuss the topics at hand, not each other.

If you go and get yourself kicked off over something silly, that isn't going to do anyone any good at all. You have a valid point of view and bring much of value to the table. Don't deprive yourself of the opportunity to share what you have to offer, and don't deprive those who appreciate your contributions either. Count me among that lot, by the way. I do appreciate a lot of the information that you bring up even if I disagree with a lot of the conclusions you draw from that information.

Isn't it possible for us to respectfully disagree on these matters?

I have nothing more to say on this thread. You can all feel free to talk to each other.

[booNyzarC]

I have nothing more to say on this thread. You can all feel free to talk to each other.

I think you forgot a couple...

I am of course just joking with this obscure 'take my marbles and go home' reference. I hope you can appreciate the humor of it.

I also really hope that you change your mind McG, as I'm sure that many others would agree.

[badeskov]

Thanks Bade, it took a lot of effort to transcribe manually.

You are most welcome Boony, credit should be given where credit is due and you definitely deserve it!

There are many other points to be made, but frankly I got tired of the listen, pause, type, backtrack to verify which is required for such an effort. Plus it forced me to listen to that nonsense over and over and over again. It's enough to drive anyone crazy I say.

That would drive me utterly nuts, I am sure. You are one resilient person That said, for those with a genuine interest in this event I think the effort you and others have already put into this speaks volumes and cannot be dismissed.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[TheMacGuffin]

I think you forgot a couple...

I am of course just joking with this obscure 'take my marbles and go home' reference. I hope you can appreciate the humor of it.

I also really hope that you change your mind McG, as I'm sure that many others would agree.

Very funny, but as a former military man I know when I'm outnumbered and outgunned, so I have to make a strategic retreat here.

[booNyzarC]

Very funny, but as a former military man I know when I'm outnumbered and outgunned, so I have to make a strategic retreat here.

If this were a war, Sun Tzu would be proud of that kind of decision.

18. All warfare is based on deception.

19. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.

20. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.

21. If he is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him.

22. If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant.

23. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them.

24. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected.

25. These military devices, leading to victory, must not be divulged beforehand.

(The Art of War by Sun Tzu)

But this isn't a war. This is a discussion. We should be able to have one of those without all of that.

Are you willing?

[TheMacGuffin]

If this were a war, Sun Tzu would be proud of that kind of decision.

But this isn't a war. This is a discussion. We should be able to have one of those without all of that.

Are you willing?

I spent a lifetime learning things like that, for as long as I can remember.

So, were you ever in the military?

[TheMacGuffin]

Don't you know yet that they were playing a joke on everyone using the term "Project Snowbird" or "Operation Snowbird". If it wasn't Richard Doty then it was someone like him.

I knew that all along too.

[TheMacGuffin]

Project Snowbird:

An alleged ongoing 1972 Top Secret project that researched, developed and implemented alien spacecraft technology and test flown recovered UFOs. It is possible that the UFO involved in the CASH/LANDRUM CASE was built by the Americans as part of this project, however another "Project Snowbird" has been found described as a "Joint Army/Air Force peacetime military exercise in the sub-arctic region in 1955" in the 1963 Gale Research's Code Names Dictionary. Project Snowbird is another project that was only revealed in the Project Aquarius Briefing Document.

Maybe it existed, maybe it didn't, or maybe it's just one cover story hiding another cover story.