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

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?

Indeed, which is why, for instance, (and i'm sorry if you consider that it's baiting, I'm not sure why you should), if some form of aircraft is put forward as an explanation for an occurrence, it should not be unreasonable to ask what these aircraft may have been and what they may have been doing there, rather than people just saying "Well, aircraft exist, so it must be more likely", which does not seem satisfactory enough to me in itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, which is why, for instance, (and i'm sorry if you consider that it's baiting, I'm not sure why you should), if some form of aircraft is put forward as an explanation for an occurrence, it should not be unreasonable to ask what these aircraft may have been and what they may have been doing there, rather than people just saying "Well, aircraft exist, so it must be more likely", which does not seem satisfactory enough to me in itself.

I do not consider this baiting, I thought you guys were having a go at McGuffin in the other thread where I used the term, and it seemed the joke was wearing thin, in fact I probably spoke out of turn on McGuffin's behalf, but the banter seemed to be going nowhere. Sorry, I will try to keep to my own business. I too do not agree with all of the conclusions that McGuffin draws, which I think is more than understandable, as I expect McGuffin to have the same opinion of many conclusions I draw, but I cannot help but respect his vast knowledge on UFO cases in general. I think he would be a most interesting person to talk to.

I guess we just see it differently. To me, if he (Arnold) can draw an aircraft he has never seen before, and with recognisable detail, that we know existed at the time of his sighting, it strikes me as likely that something occurred to allow the unscheduled sighting. We have the culprit, but not the detail. In the case of ET, we have neither. As such, I do not see it as a viable comparison. The allowances required to validate what Arnold saw as ET are far greater than that required to consider the flying wing designs.

I think if a physical example exists, then it must take precedence. Such reflects my stance on the UFO phenomena, with regards to previous discoveries in the field.

If it is ET, then I fear we have 2 mysteries. Who or what did Arnold see, and how did he mange to draw what looks just like a Horten Ho?

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Hey Boon,

I am just chucking some of the bits and pieces I am finding that may or may not be relevant. The key part for me in this article is to show how again we have a slightly different version of events put forth and we still dont have anything in Mitchs own words, just second hand accounts.

I know you may view the differences as nit-picking, but I am quite fussy about detail and exact wording used, and without this I still have found nothing that links Procter video / Mitch sighting let alone any other correlation with some of the witness reports apart from the 'weak' link made ...i.e. 5 lights in formation.

I will add again that I dont doubt Mitch saw planes, however what type, when, what time, what part of the sky, how many lights, how many planes, plus many other details are all missing IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Gidday mate,

I am working with a map at the moment whilst researching it and trying to plot times and detail to try and figure things out. I am being quite 'strict' on reports used and I am trying to filter out all and any reports put forth within a two week window as opposed to using any that came months/years after.

Hence why I feel it is vital to have something in Mitchs own words. Barwood may well have added to the confusion but I dont think Ortega has helped either.

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.

Printy used the range of 19000ft to 35000ft I believe, he used these in relation to Mitchs sighting and how the formation could explain the vshape, whilst the height at the given range meant it loosly explained the single lights (as opposed to two per plane) and the apparent perceived slow moving craft.

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.

Agreed, and again strengthens the argument I have for needing Mitchs own words.

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.

And they do this without stopping to think for a minute how Mitchs sighting could actually strengthen their case if used correctly....i.e. military jets sent up :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not consider this baiting, I thought you guys were having a go at McGuffin in the other thread where I used the term, and it seemed the joke was wearing thin, in fact I probably spoke out of turn on McGuffin's behalf, but the banter seemed to be going nowhere. Sorry, I will try to keep to my own business. I too do not agree with all of the conclusions that McGuffin draws, which I think is more than understandable, as I expect McGuffin to have the same opinion of many conclusions I draw, but I cannot help but respect his vast knowledge on UFO cases in general. I think he would be a most interesting person to talk to.

I guess we just see it differently. To me, if he (Arnold) can draw an aircraft he has never seen before, and with recognisable detail, that we know existed at the time of his sighting, it strikes me as likely that something occurred to allow the unscheduled sighting. We have the culprit, but not the detail. In the case of ET, we have neither. As such, I do not see it as a viable comparison. The allowances required to validate what Arnold saw as ET are far greater than that required to consider the flying wing designs.

I think if a physical example exists, then it must take precedence. Such reflects my stance on the UFO phenomena, with regards to previous discoveries in the field.

If it is ET, then I fear we have 2 mysteries. Who or what did Arnold see, and how did he mange to draw what looks just like a Horten Ho?

I see what you're saying, but to me that adds another mystery: why was there no record of the Hortens being flown in the US, and nothing has ever come to light ever since? Exactly the same question applies for the Yb-35 or similar things. What we're doing if we adopt this theory is that we're talking about nine mystery aircraft flying in formation. If, as I'm afraid, I don't see any reason to accept the explanation that they were Hortens and/or Northrops, then we're still left with UFOs, whether they (or rather whether an artist's impression) look like one particular kind of terrestrial aircraft or not.

Besides, might not Arnold's description itself be influenced by his subconsciously thinking what an advanced aircraft might look like? He didn't suppose that they had to be ET, after all. What they were as far as he was concerned was mystery aircraft. If an Artist, coming up with a suggestion of what he might have seen, came up with something that resembled an advanced Terrestrial aircraft, he'd have seen no reason to reject it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

* I see we're talking about Arnold in the Pheoenix thread. This was probably my fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Boon,

I am just chucking some of the bits and pieces I am finding that may or may not be relevant. The key part for me in this article is to show how again we have a slightly different version of events put forth and we still dont have anything in Mitchs own words, just second hand accounts.

I know you may view the differences as nit-picking, but I am quite fussy about detail and exact wording used, and without this I still have found nothing that links Procter video / Mitch sighting let alone any other correlation with some of the witness reports apart from the 'weak' link made ...i.e. 5 lights in formation.

I will add again that I dont doubt Mitch saw planes, however what type, when, what time, what part of the sky, how many lights, how many planes, plus many other details are all missing IMO.

I understand what you're trying to do, but I'm wondering what you think is different in that article from others. Please be specific.

Also, there's a fairly good reason that we may not have a whole lot directly from Mitch himself. He's not a journalist, and his description of what he saw wasn't exactly well received.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand what you're trying to do, but I'm wondering what you think is different in that article from others. Please be specific.

Also, there's a fairly good reason that we may not have a whole lot directly from Mitch himself. He's not a journalist, and his description of what he saw wasn't exactly well received.

Hey Boon, there are lots of little bits different, let me ask you a few questions to see if you can clarify, If I was to try and answer them I would be stuck, why? because of the variations in second hand accounts and also the lack of information to begin with.

what time did he see the lights?

what was he doing in the backyard? (sitting down with mother or looking through a scope)

what did he do immediately after sighting?

how many lights did he see with naked eye (if any)?

how many planes id he see?

did they have squarish wings or straight wings?

how many did his mum see?

what made her tell jack the next day?

how did she make the link between the lighst they saw and the huge triangle?

what direction?

why did Jack, once Barwood made appeal, come forward to give second hand account?

has he seen many formations of planes flying in a V?

what angular size?

what azimuth?

what elevations?

did he regularly follow planes through scope?

did he see any comets that night?>

and how do you know his initial statement wasnt well received?

edit to add: basically I have seen either variations on the answers to questions above or have never seen answers at all......the last question is specific to you or some first hand evidence explaining that he wasnt well received.

Edited by quillius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Boon, there are lots of little bits different,

Hi quillius, I'm about to start work so I don't really have time to track down the answers to that rather long list of questions right now...

If there are lots of little bits different, can you just make a list of them? You seem rather resistant to answering this question, and I'm not sure why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi quillius, I'm about to start work so I don't really have time to track down the answers to that rather long list of questions right now...

If there are lots of little bits different, can you just make a list of them? You seem rather resistant to answering this question, and I'm not sure why.

no worries mate I am only logging on briefly now and then due to work load.

resistant? no, the reasoning I had in asking those questions is two pronged, Firstly to a try and understand the link between eye witness accounts/ Proctor video and Mitch sighting. Secondly to highlight the differences instead of just a list by me, the questiosn highlights quite a few...such as, what was Mitch doing before sighting, looking through scope or sitting in yard with mother?, what did he do after?, continue looking in scope or go back and sit with mother? what time did he see lights 8.15 or 8.30? The choices I have given as potential answers indicate different versions of what I have read, and without hearing/ seeing Mitchs exact words how do I know which is accurate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no worries mate I am only logging on briefly now and then due to work load.

resistant? no, the reasoning I had in asking those questions is two pronged, Firstly to a try and understand the link between eye witness accounts/ Proctor video and Mitch sighting. Secondly to highlight the differences instead of just a list by me, the questiosn highlights quite a few...such as, what was Mitch doing before sighting, looking through scope or sitting in yard with mother?, what did he do after?, continue looking in scope or go back and sit with mother? what time did he see lights 8.15 or 8.30? The choices I have given as potential answers indicate different versions of what I have read, and without hearing/ seeing Mitchs exact words how do I know which is accurate?

I guess my point is that the article you listed doesn't show any differences as far as I can tell. It doesn't mention what time he saw the formation, it states he observed them through his Dobsonian in his back yard, it reiterates that he saw airplanes, and it states that he went on to do other things after identifying that it was planes. How is this in any way inconsistent?

The exact time isn't presented anywhere that I'm aware of. Printy describes the timing as "Mitch Stanley's observation was in the 8:15 to 8:30 window for Phoenix," meaning that this is a rough estimate for about when he saw them. I don't think Mitch wrote down a log saying that "at precisely 8:17:36 I observed the lights, then by 8:21:12 I had identified them as airplanes." or anything like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess my point is that the article you listed doesn't show any differences as far as I can tell. It doesn't mention what time he saw the formation, it states he observed them through his Dobsonian in his back yard, it reiterates that he saw airplanes, and it states that he went on to do other things after identifying that it was planes. How is this in any way inconsistent?

The exact time isn't presented anywhere that I'm aware of. Printy describes the timing as "Mitch Stanley's observation was in the 8:15 to 8:30 window for Phoenix," meaning that this is a rough estimate for about when he saw them. I don't think Mitch wrote down a log saying that "at precisely 8:17:36 I observed the lights, then by 8:21:12 I had identified them as airplanes." or anything like that.

the article infers that he was looking through the scope and then caught a V shape formation, others say he was sitting with mother. I think this matters, especially when we have previosuly suggested the lights were seen and looked 'mysterious',

the article says creeping across above the Scottsdale sky.....so how far were these planes? havent we seen also that he saw them when they were north of Prescott?

bottom line is that we dont know exactly what he saw and at what time and where? so how can we draw the conclusion that witnesses claiming to see low flying craft/ formation of lights are talking about the same thing? I agree and believe he saw planes.....I dont yet make the link to either Proctor video or many of the 'original' eye witness accounts.

oh and I wasnt expecting him to have a log, just a clear idea of time would do seeing as he gave those other details as seen in the Printy sunlite article.

http://home.comcast..../SUNlite2_3.pdf page 10

so he remembers all this detail about angular size etc in 1998 a year later....???

hmm what about the fact he states two planes in view, but he also says three leading lights in another article, and in this sunlite one even gives the range of formation as 5degress....how did he do that with only two planes (or was it three) in the scopes view?

could it be he did see lights which turned out to be planes? how many did he see? did the story become 5 to fit with many witness statements about 5 lights?

I dont know Boon....not convinced yet im afraid, especially when the lead witness in 'suggesting' the witnesses all saw the same formation of planes, hasnt given any specific detail anywhere and we are fed variations through second hand accounts

edit to add: Printy says Mitchs observation is between 8.15-8.30 window? how does he know? is it becasue he needs this timing to make his argument stand up? same with number of lights or number of planes, has Mitch said 5 and if so where has he?

Edited by quillius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

...At 8:30 p.m. the cockpit crew of an American West 757 airliner at 17,000 feet near Lake Pleasant, Ariz., noticed the lights off to their right and just above them.

"There's a UFO!" co-pilot John Middleton said kiddingly to pilot Larry Campbell. They queried the regional air-traffic-control center in Albuquerque, N.M. A controller radioed back that it was a formation of CT-144s flying at 19,000 feet.

Overhearing the exchange, someone claiming to be a pilot in the formation radioed Middleton. "We're Canadian Snowbirds flying Tutors," a man said...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one thing that i don't understand about the earlier sighting is the radar returns, apparently there were none! but how is that possible... there's a lot of speculation regarding the transponders being switched off, etc... but what about the primary returns?

Edited by mcrom901

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one thing that i don't understand about the earlier sighting is the radar returns, apparently there were none! but how is that possible... there's a lot of speculation regarding the transponders being switched off, etc... but what about the primary returns?

If they were flares, or indeed Plasma, they wouldn't reflect radar; the planes that dropped them would, of course*, but they'd be out of the vicinity by the time the flares would be noticed.

*unless the were F-117s, perhaps :unsure2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they were flares, or indeed Plasma, they wouldn't reflect radar; the planes that dropped them would, of course*, but they'd be out of the vicinity by the time the flares would be noticed.

*unless the were F-117s, perhaps :unsure2:

Flares were the 10PM sighting. The earlier sighting (8:15 PM) is considered by some to be planes. I think it was booN that stated that the flight path was outside radar range however if I'm wrong then I'm sure someone will correct me shortly. ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flares were the 10PM sighting. The earlier sighting (8:15 PM) is considered by some to be planes. I think it was booN that stated that the flight path was outside radar range however if I'm wrong then I'm sure someone will correct me shortly. ^_^

Well, that doesn't seem very likely, that something would be visible but outside radar range, but if I say that it would probably lead to an Argument, and i would not wish that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that doesn't seem very likely, that something would be visible but outside radar range, but if I say that it would probably lead to an Argument, and i would not wish that.

There was also talk of the records not being procured before they were 'expunged'. They only keep records for a limited time from my understanding. The window of opportunity had been closed before anyone thought to retrieve said records.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was also talk of the records not being procured before they were 'expunged'. They only keep records for a limited time from my understanding. The window of opportunity had been closed before anyone thought to retrieve said records.

That's fair enough, i suppose. I suppose radar data would only be kept in order to refer to if there were any incidents, like the Black Box on a plane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the article infers that he was looking through the scope and then caught a V shape formation, others say he was sitting with mother.

It doesn't infer that he was looking through the scope when he caught sight of the formation, and yes he was in the back yard with his mother when they both initially saw the lights. This article doesn't go into any level of detail about when or how he first saw the lights, it only describes that he identified them as planes when he caught them with the telescope.

I think this matters, especially when we have previosuly suggested the lights were seen and looked 'mysterious',

They looked mysterious enough to catch their attention and prompt Mitch to turn his telescope on them for a closer look.

the article says creeping across above the Scottsdale sky.....so how far were these planes? havent we seen also that he saw them when they were north of Prescott?

Are you confusing this with Rich Contry's account? Contry was north of Prescott when he saw the lights.

bottom line is that we dont know exactly what he saw and at what time and where? so how can we draw the conclusion that witnesses claiming to see low flying craft/ formation of lights are talking about the same thing? I agree and believe he saw planes.....I dont yet make the link to either Proctor video or many of the 'original' eye witness accounts.

The link is very simple. They all thought the lights were unusual. There weren't any other unusual lights in the sky during that time frame. They were all looking at the same set of unusual looking lights, just from different vantage points, and at slightly different times because the lights moved overhead and the transit takes time.

oh and I wasnt expecting him to have a log, just a clear idea of time would do seeing as he gave those other details as seen in the Printy sunlite article.

http://home.comcast..../SUNlite2_3.pdf page 10

so he remembers all this detail about angular size etc in 1998 a year later....???

What is so hard to understand here? So he doesn't mention the specific time. Big deal. He knows about when it took place, and that corresponds with the sightings of other witnesses. As for remembering the angular size etc... he's an amateur astronomer, those are the kinds of details that would be important to him. The exact time probably not so much.

hmm what about the fact he states two planes in view, but he also says three leading lights in another article, and in this sunlite one even gives the range of formation as 5degress....how did he do that with only two planes (or was it three) in the scopes view?

There were 5 lights to the unaided eye. Through the scope he could see two of the planes I believe, which flew into view one at a time, the first one described as "the leading three lights", and on each one there were three lights; one on each wing and one on the fuselage.

could it be he did see lights which turned out to be planes? how many did he see? did the story become 5 to fit with many witness statements about 5 lights?

I dont know Boon....not convinced yet im afraid, especially when the lead witness in 'suggesting' the witnesses all saw the same formation of planes, hasnt given any specific detail anywhere and we are fed variations through second hand accounts

Really quillius? Seriously? I'm sorry but you are being extremely nit-picky here. They saw 5 lights with their eyes, just like most of the other witnesses described.

edit to add: Printy says Mitchs observation is between 8.15-8.30 window? how does he know? is it becasue he needs this timing to make his argument stand up? same with number of lights or number of planes, has Mitch said 5 and if so where has he?

How does Printy know? I suppose you could ask him, but my guess is that this came out in one of his conversations with Mitch, but that he didn't include that particular detail in the article itself. Not every detail gets written into articles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hotel.jpg
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Psyche, you were the one that asked "So what was *IT*?" When you say "it", you tacitly admit to existence - not identity, of course, but existence.

Go back and look at what I typed. I purposely never said one word that a possibe *IT* was causing the dogs to bark, whatever *IT* might be.

You, on the other hand, did what any normal person would do. You were so sure that the dog's actions were indicative of *something* being out there you simply assumed it had to be the case. Congratulations, so do I. So do we all, I'm sure.

"Body language" is quite important, and as loudly as those dogs barked that Wednesday night, a lot of humans barked the night of 3/13/97 in the South Western corner of North America. *LOTS* of humans. And they were gravely disturbed, many, fearful. Body language. Still think that means nothing?

Is that because using the same common sense in the Phoenix Lights case that you did in the dog's case leads you to understand your predetermined solution of "nothing out there" is wrong? Well, brace yourself...It is wrong. The people's body language is loud and clear.

Notice, my opinion based on body language is the same in both cases, it is you that are in contradiction with yourself.

It's a fait accompli, mon amis... *something* was out there that night in the skies over South Western North America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

You are establishing the fact that the various people used different words and an assortment of similar-shaped objects to describe what they saw. Are you saying that because the reports are not all identical they saw nothing at all?? They are delusional??

If you think they saw *something*, please say so.

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.

My my, aren't we judgemental!! Whew. So the guy had a little fun with it. He also paid a heavy price for that little stunt. A lot of people were mad at him for not taking them seriously, which shows all the more, these people are SURE they saw something not to laugh about.

I know why you slam the man so much. It's because his testimony of seeing something "not of this world" tic's you off.

Sorry, my man, he was elected into the Governor's office so he cannot be so mentally unstable, now can he.

And you were there?

NO! which is why *I* rely on the testimony of people who *were* there, not that of some remote mathematician with a triangle up his butt.

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?

From what I have read, there certainly were individual lights as well as the big craft. that's certainly not a shocker nor a deal breaker.

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.

I will address info when it is not so one-sided. if people post all about flares, Snowbirds or warthogs, I usually just glance at it.

those are not burning issues to me. not at all. Talking about testimony (not one-sided) is good, as far as I am concerned.

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.

I lost my own text here, I won't do multi-quote - I can't recall what I typed before your above response.

But anyway,. look at these images for a chevron - https://www.google.c...iw=1280&bih=857

I can easily see how one individual could see something like a triangle in the black of night, in the sky and call it a chevron shape.

Why are you so critical of that? these are just citizens, not professional witnesses and they only use the words and objects they are familiar with to describe something they saw up in the blackened sky at quite a distance. you call them delusional?? wow.

In my mind, you certainly cannot defeat "EXISTENCE" by trying to claim contradiction.

These people saw *something* that scared the witts out of them. Why do you deny this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Psyche101,

Please understand that I do not have a lot of time to be in here.

As it is now, I usually get about half as much time as I would prefer so I have to really pick-and-choose, and then run.

I skip a lot of posts because I have to keep it short and sweet, so I look at ones of interest to me.

When you reply back to me, it is so damn hard for me to work with a text that has 10 quote-breaks in it that I prefer not to attempt the multi-quote now.

hope you understand.

trump

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*sigh*

Never mind...

Edited by booNyzarC

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.