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 4
Bionic Bigfoot

The Phoenix Lights revisited

1,033 posts in this topic

hot dang, you have a lot of posts. I tip my hat, sir! :yes:

Perhaps if you were to make it a bit clearer what it is you're trying to say, people might find it a bit easier to understand what it is you're trying to say. What is it you're trying to say exactly?

Edited by 747400

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gidday Mate

I do not think they have to be bright. Just last night when I arrived home I saw an unusual light in the sky. It was very bright, and too high to hear, and I could only see one light. It caught my attention because it was crossing what is a normal flight path at about 30 degrees. Speed indicated to me that it was likely a plane. I see lights before I hear planes all the time, I do not think it has to be extremely bright, as they are by default. But merging one light into two I think would be easily accomplished with failing eyesight (which is everyone in Phoenix pretty much over 40 at least) or parallax error would more than compensate for many more claims. And considering the claims come from all corners of Phoenix, I do not see how parallax error is not a factor?

It depends on what he saw, Some are saying he saw military, but Mitch seems to think what he saw was private. SOme claims say the lights were in the direction of the Phoenix airport, if the planes were private as Mitch suggested, and on approach to the airport, I would presume they are in a landing pattern, the height would then be between 3,000 and 300 feet roughly wouldn't it? Again, dependant in individual claims based on vantage points.

gidday mate, well I have seen the term small and private banded about but as I have said many times I havent seen anything directly from Mitch, apart from the small snippet from the town hall meeting Boon posted. That said, the comment about 'private' could be incorrect, as could comments about 'wingtip to wingtip' as could 'squarish wings' as could direction and ofcourse the ellusive time frame which I still cannot find. One other quick point 3000-300 feet doesnt quite work with the 19000 needed as a minimum.....(Printys estimations)

That's the one. the Hack and the Quack article. I gave the link ;)

It was plain to see, Stanley says. Under magnification, Stanley could clearly see that each light split into pairs, one each on the tips of squarish wings. Even under the telescope's power, the planes appeared small, indicating that they were flying high. Stanley says he followed the planes for about a minute, then turned his telescope to more interesting objects.

again this highlights a problem as I indicated above...what did Mitch actually say?, the comment about planes appeared small indicating they were flying high is NOT correct....they could have just been in the distance hence looking small it doesnt mean they were high as suggested.

Frances Emma Barwood has an agenda, I think she is a hyped up nutter. Looking at what she offered:

Spiteful, nasty, and offeres no more than an appeal to authority. Another who qualifies "thousands" as solid "evidence" I'd really like to see her back that up. This is the sort of crackpot who stifled Mitch. From a personal perspective, I do not believe her for a second that she had no number to call, and she stated that she knew Mitch was a friend of Ortegas, whom she could have easily called to get Mitch's details. Frances Emma Barwood is one of the people that make this subject a tin foil hat one. I think UFOLogists should be more wary of hooking up with dodgy people like this to be honest.

To be honest she does not do anyone any favours and I can see how she could easily be 'destroyed' especially by your good self.....

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saguaro Astronomy Club

Metro Phoenix, Arizona

SACNEWS

December 1997 | Issue #251

v11.24

Grasslands Observatory

by Jack Jones

Dark of the moon, Mitch Stanley, a new SAC mem-

ber, and I were invited to Grasslands Observatory near

Tucson to meet astronomer James McGaha and talk about

Mitch’s experience of seeing the \Phoenix Lights" through

his 10-inch Schwaar re ector. On March 13, Mitch was in

his backyard checking things out and at 65 power caught

a V-shaped formation of airplanes slowly creeping across

the sky over Scottsdale. He quickly moved on to other

things, since he’d already seen way too many airplanes

since getting the scope a year ago. He had no idea what a

big foo-farrah would develop in the coming months after

this one sighting, but that’s another story.

Grasslands Observatory is located about 60 miles

southeast of Jim McGaha’s house in the Sabino Canyon

suburbs of Tucson just south of a little town called Sonoita

in the Santa Rita mountain range at 5000 feet. I’ve never

gotten to 5000 feet so quickly in a car from a major

metropolitan area, but starting from Tucson’s 2400 feet

sure helps! The observatory houses a two-ton 24-inch re-

ector under a roll-o roof. A warming room housing a

computer and library is adjacent. After dinner in Sonoita,

the three of us arrived about 10 PM, and Jim had the

scope ready minutes after unlocking the doors. As the

roof rolled back, it seemed to take the heat of the day

with it and a cool breeze came over. He would have been

even quicker setting up but the telescope was out tted for

CCD work and he had to convert to observing mode for

us amateurs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:sk WHere did it all Go So! wrong ?

I think it all started when people forgot to turn on their critical thinking ability. Logic and reason goes a long way.

Not saying that fantasy is all bad,... Im a sucker for everything sci-fi. But sometimes it can be important to be able to separate fact from fiction and opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it all started when people forgot to turn on their critical thinking ability. Logic and reason goes a long way.

Not saying that fantasy is all bad,... Im a sucker for everything sci-fi. But sometimes it can be important to be able to separate fact from fiction and opinions.

Indeed so. Just as long as such stringent standards are also applied to "rational" explanations.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're an Aerobatic team. Their operations aren't exactly a secret. the point I keep trying to say is that it should be easy enough to verify whether or not their were any Canadian squadrons in the area for exercises at the time. Someone must still have a record of that, and there's no reason why that would be secret.

Did you miss my hypothetical scenario in post #857? Does that not provide one possible and plausible scenario that could have easily taken place by a group of pilots who's very intention may have been to perpetrate a hoax? The planes don't need to be Tutors and the pilots don't need to be Canadian. The bottom line here is that some witnesses positively identified the fact that the formation consisted of planes, and some other witnesses positively identified the fact that the lights were distinctly individual and not part of a singular large object; all supported by Terry Proctor's footage. How is that insufficient to conclude that it was planes?

Indeed so. Just as long as such stringent standards are also applied to "rational" explanations.

It seems as though you would only be willing to accept the conclusion that planes flying in formation were responsible for the earlier flyover event if we can name the specific planes and pilots who were involved. Is that an accurate description of the stringent standard you are applying to this case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saguaro Astronomy Club

Metro Phoenix, Arizona

SACNEWS

December 1997 | Issue #251

v11.24

Grasslands Observatory

by Jack Jones

Dark of the moon, Mitch Stanley, a new SAC mem-

ber, and I were invited to Grasslands Observatory near

Tucson to meet astronomer James McGaha and talk about

Mitch’s experience of seeing the \Phoenix Lights" through

his 10-inch Schwaar re ector. On March 13, Mitch was in

his backyard checking things out and at 65 power caught

a V-shaped formation of airplanes slowly creeping across

the sky over Scottsdale. He quickly moved on to other

things, since he’d already seen way too many airplanes

since getting the scope a year ago. He had no idea what a

big foo-farrah would develop in the coming months after

this one sighting, but that’s another story.

Grasslands Observatory is located about 60 miles

southeast of Jim McGaha’s house in the Sabino Canyon

suburbs of Tucson just south of a little town called Sonoita

in the Santa Rita mountain range at 5000 feet. I’ve never

gotten to 5000 feet so quickly in a car from a major

metropolitan area, but starting from Tucson’s 2400 feet

sure helps! The observatory houses a two-ton 24-inch re-

ector under a roll-o roof. A warming room housing a

computer and library is adjacent. After dinner in Sonoita,

the three of us arrived about 10 PM, and Jim had the

scope ready minutes after unlocking the doors. As the

roof rolled back, it seemed to take the heat of the day

with it and a cool breeze came over. He would have been

even quicker setting up but the telescope was out tted for

CCD work and he had to convert to observing mode for

us amateurs

Hi quillius.

I don't want to make assumptions here, so can you clarify what you believe the significance of this article is as related to Mitch's sighting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you miss my hypothetical scenario in post #857? Does that not provide one possible and plausible scenario that could have easily taken place by a group of pilots who's very intention may have been to perpetrate a hoax? The planes don't need to be Tutors and the pilots don't need to be Canadian. The bottom line here is that some witnesses positively identified the fact that the formation consisted of planes, and some other witnesses positively identified the fact that the lights were distinctly individual and not part of a singular large object; all supported by Terry Proctor's footage. How is that insufficient to conclude that it was planes?

It seems as though you would only be willing to accept the conclusion that planes flying in formation were responsible for the earlier flyover event if we can name the specific planes and pilots who were involved. Is that an accurate description of the stringent standard you are applying to this case?

All I've been trying to argue about regrding the Phoneix business was the suggestion that the Canadians were responsible; all I've ever been saying is that it should surely be possible to verify whether or not any canadians were about at the time, without needing to go into elaborate theories about unauthorised flights or anything like that. I've just been saying that it shouldn't be too difficult to be able to rule the Candians out, so then we could maybe concentrate on who it might have been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who exactly do you think didn't watch the OP video and why?

(Sorry feeling a little lazy right now) mainly I was thinking of some of the posters who supported the lights as being flares...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So was it a burglar, or did another dog on heat wander past on Wednesday night?

Something you should be aware of or not?

how would I know? The owner never went out to check.

"Identity" is not the issue here. Existentialism is.

10-4?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps if you were to make it a bit clearer what it is you're trying to say, people might find it a bit easier to understand what it is you're trying to say. What is it you're trying to say exactly?

Really!?

Something spooked the dogs on Wednesday night.

Go to the SW corner of North America, in Arizona, Nevada, Sorona MX, March 1997

March 11th - nothing unusual

March 12th - nothing unusual

March 13th - All hell breaks loose in a vast region of South Western North America. People everywhere made alarming cries.

March 14th - nothing unusual

March 15th - nothing unusual

of course, some slo-mo's in here think on the 13th of March, a otherwise nominal society of people became temporarily delusional and went back to normal the next day.

I think the slo-mo's are - well,,,,,, just a tad light in the loafers.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it all started when people forgot to turn on their critical thinking ability. Logic and reason goes a long way.

Not saying that fantasy is all bad,... Im a sucker for everything sci-fi. But sometimes it can be important to be able to separate fact from fiction and opinions.

Couldn't agree more, Hazzard. Well spoken.

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Sorry feeling a little lazy right now) mainly I was thinking of some of the posters who supported the lights as being flares...

The footage of the 10 PM event is flares.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Witnesses claim to have observed a huge carpenter's square-shaped UFO, containing five spherical lights or possibly light-emitting engines. Fife Symington,[2] the governor at the time, was one witness to this incident; he later called the object "otherworldly."[3]

And of course, as we all know, the Governor of Arizona is a known whack-job, right? See, he never really saw *anything*!

Take from people who WEREN'T THERE!! They'll tell ya.

ROFLMAO!!

slo-mo's have an "excuse" for everything

http://1.bp.blogspot...-today-1997.jpg

fascinating, isn't it?

PS: I forgot to mention, that jpg is of a drawing, not a photo

Edited by Earl.Of.Trumps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're an Aerobatic team. Their operations aren't exactly a secret. the point I keep trying to say is that it should be easy enough to verify whether or not their were any Canadian squadrons in the area for exercises at the time. Someone must still have a record of that, and there's no reason why that would be secret.

The Snowbirds are an Aerobatic team. On the night in question, the Maryland National Guard carried out a flare exercise called operation Snowbird, which is indeed very much documented. Some feel this is what Mitch Stanley saw, as in a precursor to the 10PM event, which is then explained bu the flares they were sent to drop, but I feel he likely saw private planes.

Jones now is assistant director of operations for the 104th Fighter Squadron of the Maryland National Guard. His title has changed, but his story remains the same.

He and the rest of his colleagues were cruising the night skies of southwestern Arizona on the last night of Operation Snowbird, so named because they were winter visitors. Pilots dropped flares to light the night but had no idea they were about to ignite controversy as well.

LINK

When later investigations by the Arizona National Guard found that the visiting Maryland Air National Guard was running an exercise called Operation Snowbird along the Barry Goldwater Gunnery Range to the southwest of Tucson on the evening of March 13, the Air Force suddenly found its voice. The Arizona Air National Guard learned that the Maryland force flew eight A-10s and dropped left-over high-intensity flares on the way back to Davis-Monthan Air Force Base at Tucson. A Davis-Monthan flight schedule showed that a squadron of Operation Snowbird planes left at 8:15 p.m. on March 13 and returned at 10:30 p.m. A spokesman for Luke Air Force Base confirmed that the Maryland planes were authorized to use the Goldwater range from 9:30 to 10:00 that night.

LINK

YOUNG: Thanks for taking time from your busy schedule to talk this afternoon about Project Snowbird and the flare droppings over Arizona that generated some attention. One of the things I want to discuss is the TIME DELAY in announcing the explanation for this event, which was a duration of almost 4 to 5 months. Is there any reason to your knowledge for this delay?

SULLINS: Yes there is, and I don't think people are going to believe it, but it's the truth... it's a simple miscommunication. Apparently when the military in Phoenix was first approached, they looked at their flight logs, which are kept in two separate categories called "RESIDENT" and "VISITING" logs. These logs chart all of the incoming or outgoing air traffic. When the first inquiries of this went out, DAVIS-MONTHAN didn't check the visiting flight logs. The Public Affairs Officer down there called the people at operations who kept the flight logs, and they said, "we didn't have anything up that day." After several months, Captain Eileen Bienz was told by someone, and I can't remember who, that there was a project called Snowbird, which was an Air National Guard 'Op.' Bienz didn't have information on Snowbird, because Arizona units don't participate in it. Snowbird is an operation run during the winter when they take A.N.G. units located in the northern U.S. When it snows and the weather gets bad, they fly their units out there for a couple of weeks and train during the winter because the weather for flying is so good. Bienz put two and two together and checked the visiting flight logs, and sure enough it was discovered that there was an Air National Guard unit flying around.

YOUNG: So the miscommunication was due to Davis-Monthan?

SULLINS: Yeah, it wasn't on my part. Captain Bienz called me up and told me the whole story, just a couple of weeks ago and first I ever heard of it, and said, 'now can you confirm these things?' So I called our Ops guys of the 175th Wing & 104th Fighter Squadron, and they were able to confirm for me that they were flying that night in that area and dropping flares. The information was not held, as soon as we got it together it was released.

LINK

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gidday mate, well I have seen the term small and private banded about but as I have said many times I havent seen anything directly from Mitch, apart from the small snippet from the town hall meeting Boon posted. That said, the comment about 'private' could be incorrect, as could comments about 'wingtip to wingtip' as could 'squarish wings' as could direction and ofcourse the ellusive time frame which I still cannot find. One other quick point 3000-300 feet doesnt quite work with the 19000 needed as a minimum.....(Printys estimations)

Gidday Quillius

I have seen it bandied about as well, but Mitch was also facing the airport wasn't he? Which is why I think he saw planes on approach to the airport. I am not up to speed on the geography of Phoenix, and Mitch was stifled mostly, I concede the private aspect may well be incorrect, it just seems to fit the snippets of information that got by Ms Barwood.

I base the estimate on landing approaches, not Mitch's testimony, hence the "if". If what he did see where private planes landing, that would be the ceiling height given, I thought the Printy given height pertained to the A10 flare drop? I was not looking at the 10PM event at all as requested. Although if one considered both sightings to be A10's that certainly could be the case.

again this highlights a problem as I indicated above...what did Mitch actually say?, the comment about planes appeared small indicating they were flying high is NOT correct....they could have just been in the distance hence looking small it doesnt mean they were high as suggested.

Agreed. The description may have been interpreted by Ortega. But I would suggest that there was a mountain in the background, (Squaw Peak?) which I would think help his estimations, but yes, it would be pretty good to have a statement from Mitch himself.

To be honest she does not do anyone any favours and I can see how she could easily be 'destroyed' especially by your good self.....

:tu:

And yet she seems to be the strongest opposition to Mitch. Between her and Fife Symmington, I seriously wonder why people take these nutters seriously at all. It certainly explains the Tin Foil Hat syndrome. If anyone was to hold up these two as examples, I cannot understand how one expects to maintain a shred of credibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

again this highlights a problem as I indicated above...what did Mitch actually say?, the comment about planes appeared small indicating they were flying high is NOT correct....they could have just been in the distance hence looking small it doesnt mean they were high as suggested.

I think Ortega has gone to more trouble than any other, and he is not a personal friend of Mitch's as Barwood claims.

As for the "rumor" that Mitch Stanly, the young amateur astronomer who saw

that the 8:30 vee was airplanes, is a friend of mine. It's just that--an

unfounded rumor. I guess where the confusion comes in is that for a short time

I was a member of the Saguaro Astronomy Club, and that now I'm a member of the

East Valley Astronomy Club. (I build

telescopes and am very aware of their capabilities.) In May of last year I was

contacted by Jack Jones, a member of the Saguaro Club whom I had never met, who

told me about Mitch Stanley, another person whom I had never met. Since that

time I have spoken with Mitch about six times on the telephone and made one

visit to his house to examine his telescope and put him through tough questions

about his observations. It's a lot more than Barwood or Village Labs ever did

to decide Stanley's veracity. (Jim Dilettoso did invite Mitch to an "open

house," but he admitted to me that to this day he has never bothered to learn

anything about the scope Stanley was using that night.)

Edited by psyche101
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed so. Just as long as such stringent standards are also applied to "rational" explanations.

Indeed, however, I do not think the standards applied are so much stringent, as based on common sense and the individual situation surrounding the subject. Surely some aspects pertain to a specific discussion steer the direction of any hypothesis, speculation, or conclusion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how would I know? The owner never went out to check.

"Identity" is not the issue here. Existentialism is.

10-4?

Exactly, yet you seem to figure the skeptics are wrong and you have the answer?

And based on guessing what the dog was barking at?

Your own example illustrates that you delve into that which you defy.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Witnesses claim to have observed a huge carpenter's square-shaped UFO, containing five spherical lights or possibly light-emitting engines. Fife Symington,[2] the governor at the time, was one witness to this incident; he later called the object "otherworldly."[3]

No they did not.

Some claim they saw a triangle, some saw a boomerang, some saw a half crescent some said a chevron shape. Not the same thing at all. Some are rounded, some have a back on them, some are considered equilateral. They are not all describing the same thing by a long shot. Some said 100 yards, some said 500 yards and some said over a mile wide. If you are going to promote these claims, you really should listen to them first.

And of course, as we all know, the Governor of Arizona is a known whack-job, right? See, he never really saw *anything*!

That is certainly my opinion, how is it you feel he is taking this seriously?

fife_symington_bad2.jpgl46002-1.jpg

You are using an appeal to authority in place of evidence. That is not the least bit constructive nor convincing. The mans a clown.

Take from people who WEREN'T THERE!! They'll tell ya.

And you were there?

What about the people that say it was clearly individual lights? You know, the ones you are saying agree with everyone else, when they do not?

ROFLMAO!!

I am not sure that is going how you see it.

slo-mo's have an "excuse" for everything

It would be good to see you adress the information presented instead of whinging about it. I have not seen you do any more than make false claims about thousands of witnesses that you appear to have made up.

http://1.bp.blogspot...-today-1997.jpg

fascinating, isn't it?

PS: I forgot to mention, that jpg is of a drawing, not a photo

Yes it is fascinating.

Particularly in that it seems to dismiss the chevron shaped craft and the triangle shaped craft. Even that basic drawing asks questions.

Edited by psyche101
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What will we do ,and how will we act on the Day that a Ten Mile wide UFO hovers right above the White House ? I wouldnt hold my breath I I was you !

Better time spent making a Good B.B.Q and throwing a Party I say ! :clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The footage of the 10 PM event is flares.

I thought they showed that part just to contrast it with what the people who saw the lights-in-a-wedge-shape were describing. I may have to go back and watch it again...that was in the OP's video, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought they showed that part just to contrast it with what the people who saw the lights-in-a-wedge-shape were describing. I may have to go back and watch it again...that was in the OP's video, right?

I'm afraid that you're going to have to be more specific.

Edit to remove quite a bit... that was true... but perhaps not wise to say...

Edited by booNyzarC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid that you're going to have to be more specific.

Edit to remove quite a bit... that was true... but perhaps not wise to say...

Having read your pre-edited post all I can say is it's not easy to take the high road all the time. I agree with it totally though. ^_^:tu:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Snowbirds are an Aerobatic team. On the night in question, the Maryland National Guard carried out a flare exercise called operation Snowbird, which is indeed very much documented. Some feel this is what Mitch Stanley saw, as in a precursor to the 10PM event, which is then explained bu the flares they were sent to drop, but I feel he likely saw private planes.

LINK

When later investigations by the Arizona National Guard found that the visiting Maryland Air National Guard was running an exercise called Operation Snowbird along the Barry Goldwater Gunnery Range to the southwest of Tucson on the evening of March 13, the Air Force suddenly found its voice. The Arizona Air National Guard learned that the Maryland force flew eight A-10s and dropped left-over high-intensity flares on the way back to Davis-Monthan Air Force Base at Tucson. A Davis-Monthan flight schedule showed that a squadron of Operation Snowbird planes left at 8:15 p.m. on March 13 and returned at 10:30 p.m. A spokesman for Luke Air Force Base confirmed that the Maryland planes were authorized to use the Goldwater range from 9:30 to 10:00 that night.

LINK

LINK

That seems a lot more probable, and clearly the Canadian angle was indeed a red herring. So i expect the person who heard "Snowbirds" on the Radio misconstrued it as referring to the Canadians.

Edited by 747400

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 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.