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

I can only assume that you are addressing me with this.

I agree that the eye witness testimony in this case is strong evidence, or at least legitimate and important evidence. When comparing the eye witness testimonies given, I consider them all to be of value, even the ones that don't identify the earlier sighting as planes in formation. I account for all of them and dismiss none of them.

Can you say the same?

I don't think you do because you don't account for the witnesses in Nevada and other parts of Arizona who also saw the UFO, or even the people in Phoenix who saw more than one UFO, etc., etc.

The report I posted above accounts for much more of it than what has been posted on here by the "skeptics".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I am going to keep repeating that the "Phoenix Lights" were seen in Nevada and all over Arizona, so even the name of the case is wrong. No "skeptics" want to discuss this because it further undermines the story about the flares, but it is the truth.

http://www.google.co...29,r:6,s:0,i:90

I didn't see anything whatsoever in that link which disagrees with the assessment of events that I have given. If you see an inconsistency, please point it out.

I don't think you do because you don't account for the witnesses in Nevada and other parts of Arizona who also saw the UFO, or even the people in Phoenix who saw more than one UFO, etc., etc.

The report I posted above accounts for much more of it than what has been posted on here by the "skeptics".

I'm not sure where your confusion on this lies, but again I don't see any inconsistencies in that article from what I've been saying all along. The author of your link appears to confirm that the 10 PM videos are of flares and that the one video of the earlier events is not. That's exactly what I'm saying as well.

Is it just because I've been saying it that you are averse to the words, but when someone else says it you are willing to accept them?

Granted, my investigations into this appear to have yielded a bit more detail regarding the earlier sightings than the author in your link, but up to the point where he has figured things out I don't think I disagree with him after my initial cursory read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't see anything whatsoever in that link which disagrees with the assessment of events that I have given. If you see an inconsistency, please point it out.

I'm not sure where your confusion on this lies, but again I don't see any inconsistencies in that article from what I've been saying all along. The author of your link

The so-called Phoenix Lights are just one small fraction of this entire UFO incident, since this large craft was seen in various places around Nevada and Arizona at that time.

It wasn't only "lights" either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the area near Phoenix where the "flares" were seen had been having UFO reports for months beforehand, but that's another story--just not one that has been discussed very much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The so-called Phoenix Lights are just one small fraction of this entire UFO incident, since this large craft was seen in various places around Nevada and Arizona at that time.

It wasn't only "lights" either.

There was a wide variation in descriptions, most of which involved lights. This kind of variation is to be expected when multiple people witness the same thing from different vantage points. It still doesn't disagree in any way with what I've provided.

Your link doesn't mention any sightings in Nevada by the way. Did you intend to post a different link?

And the area near Phoenix where the "flares" were seen had been having UFO reports for months beforehand, but that's another story--just not one that has been discussed very much.

You've got to be kidding about this being some kind of new news. Yes, of course there were multiple "UFO reports" beforehand and even after. They continue even into recent years. The BGR test range caters to a lot of training missions throughout the year every year. Not everyone knows this though, and not everyone is familiar with what illumination flares look like. This will result in "UFO reports" aplenty, but it still doesn't do anything in terms of explaining the events of March 13, 1997 which began around 8 or 8:30 PM, which had nothing to do with flares.

I'm still waiting for you to point out inconsistencies by the way. It seems your link agrees with me. Why would you post it as some kind of refutation of my statements? Have you not been reading what I've been saying? Or did you not read what was in your link? Or perhaps both?

Bias leads to some very odd and hasty decisions sometimes. Is that what this is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, is Christmas coming early? Also from your link...

The Phoenix Lights:

After 12 Years, Original Photographic Expert, Jim Dilettoso Reverses Position - Says Famed Video 'Could Be Flares!'

Wow, really? Finally came to his senses did he? I'd never realized that he had changed his stance. Good on him for being willing to acknowledge this, even if it took this long. Good job Jim, I think more highly of you now. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I don't doubt that there were military planes from Luke Air Force Base that night, and perhaps other bases as well, sent up to chase that UFO that kept playing cat and mouse with them.

That's not unusual at all. What I do doubt, and what I will always doubt, is that it can be written off as a military exercise.

I do not think one would send A10's to pursue a UFO? That would somewhat pointless would it not? Max speed is like 450 mph.

Edited by psyche101
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and here he is....

:tu:

.

govsym.jpg

bugs-bunny-maroon.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

hey booN...

emphasising it in red doesn't make it true..... :)

there is no proof that the young man saw planes...just his word

he could have been after a bit of fame....or part of a set up to debunk the Phoenix Lights

who knows

.

What I do know is the equipment he was using. Have one at home myself, and his FOV claims are spot on, as is his descriptions. Have you found any way to disprove a single thing he has said, or are you just calling him a liar for no reason? If you can show us a discrepancy, I think your claim might hold some water. Nobody has done this at all.

But then again, the UFO crowd have been trying to surpress Micth from day one when he was shouted down in Phoenix for suggesting an earthly explaination! That seems rather obvious that minds are already made up doesn't it. I thought you guys claimed you were the suppressed ones and how unfair that is. Shoes on the other foot now. That would be the definition of hypocrite, would it not? At least skeptics offer a case, no such courtesy has been offered to the corroborated claims of Mitch Stanley.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not think one would send A10's to pursue a UFO? That would somewhat pointless would it not? Max speed is like 450 mph.

They weren't A-10s. I was in the army and I've seen them in action by the way, so I would know the difference.

In fact, I've seen them shoot the hell out of things from time to time and once even had to help recover the body of an A-10 pilot. That's another story and has nothing to do with UFOs.

Edited by TheMacGuffin
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But then again, the UFO crowd have been trying to surpress Micth from day one when he was shouted down in Phoenix for suggesting an earthly explaination! That seems rather obvious that minds are already made up doesn't it. I thought you guys claimed you were the suppressed ones and how unfair that is. Shoes on the other foot now. That would be the definition of hypocrite, would it not? At least skeptics offer a case, no such courtesy has been offered to the corroborated claims of Mitch Stanley.

I've never heard of anyone trying to suppress Mitch Stanley, not in any way. As if we could even if we wanted to.

I've never even paid much attention to him because I just don't think what he said is that big a deal, one way or the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've got to be kidding about this being some kind of new news. Yes, of course there were multiple "UFO reports" beforehand and even after. They continue even into recent years. The BGR test range caters to a lot of training missions throughout the year every year. Not everyone knows this though, and not everyone is familiar with what illumination flares look like. This will result in "UFO reports" aplenty, but it still doesn't do anything in terms of explaining the events of March 13, 1997 which began around 8 or 8:30 PM, which had nothing to do with flares.

I'm still waiting for you to point out inconsistencies by the way. It seems your link agrees with me. Why would you post it as some kind of refutation of my statements? Have you not been reading what I've been saying? Or did you not read what was in your link? Or perhaps both?

Bias leads to some very odd and hasty decisions sometimes. Is that what this is?

There are many times that I literally don't understand what you're saying at all, and this is one of them. I've already said what I think many times. I always try to make that very clear, don't I?

Edited by TheMacGuffin
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many times that I literally don't understand what you're saying at all, and this is one of them. I've already said what I think many times. I always try to make that very clear, don't I?

Please don't try to feign a lack of understanding in an effort to avoid the fact that you made statements and tried to back them up with something that doesn't support your position at all. And if your lack of understanding is genuine, read back through the thread if need be. While you're at it, read my posts and read the link that you provided in supposed refutation. It was only about two hours ago that you posted it. Forget already?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please don't try to feign a lack of understanding in an effort to avoid the fact that you made statements and tried to back them up with something that doesn't support your position at all. And if your lack of understanding is genuine, read back through the thread if need be. While you're at it, read my posts and read the link that you provided in supposed refutation. It was only about two hours ago that you posted it. Forget already?

I never feign anything. It's just what you read and what I read don't sound like the same things.

Edited by TheMacGuffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never feign anything. It's just what you read and what I read don't sound like the same things.

Sure.

In that case you should be able to easily and clearly lay out my misunderstandings and clarify how your link contradicts anything I've said. Right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, is Christmas coming early? Also from your link...

The Phoenix Lights:

After 12 Years, Original Photographic Expert, Jim Dilettoso Reverses Position - Says Famed Video 'Could Be Flares!'

Wow, really? Finally came to his senses did he? I'd never realized that he had changed his stance. Good on him for being willing to acknowledge this, even if it took this long. Good job Jim, I think more highly of you now. :tu:

I looked at that one but there's no story, just a headline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked at that one but there's no story, just a headline.

Under the headline there is an embedded episode of the Paracast, and below that a link.

I haven't listened to the episode. The headline was enough for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure.

In that case you should be able to easily and clearly lay out my misunderstandings and clarify how your link contradicts anything I've said. Right?

Well, this seems like very important information to me, indicating that they really didn't know what the UFO was:

What was this V formation seen by so many across the state of Arizona the evening of the 13th? If you use the 42 second video clip to make a judgment, you will see the last light on the western side move to the rear and maintain its alignment. If you drew lines through the points to make a five-point V, the sides appear to be slightly bowed to the outside. You hear no sound but only the person taking the video and his comments. The night was hazy at that location so no stars appear in this video clip.

Luke AFB floated four stories about the V formation:

1. It was a flight of Blue Angels coming from Nellis AFB in Nevada. (Linda M. Howe said that a formation of five was also seen over Las Vegas heading southwest. The Blue Angels were not due for another day.)

2. It was a squadron of A 10s on a night training mission heading back to Tucson.

3. None of ours!

4. A private plane with a skilled pilot flying between restricted air corridors with a string of lights a mile long. I like that one myself — yeah, right!

The question is why did Luke AFB change their stories? The Army National Guard didn't.

Edited by TheMacGuffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this seems like very important information to me, indicating that they really didn't know what the UFO was:

Okay, and how is this contradictory to what I've stated?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this:

At about 8:30 p.m. Thursday, the 13th of March, Peter Davenport at the UFO Reporting Center in Seattle, WA, started receiving calls, first from the northwest part of Arizona, of a formation of lights moving south toward Prescott, AZ. These lights formed a basic triangle with as many as six or seven lights per side with two red lights trailing.

The real time line for this event is somewhere around 8:00 p.m. MST. As the calls kept flowing in, the description changed as to how many lights were involved. Some even said there were no lights at all, but they could see a black mass blocking out the stars as it passed between the viewer and the sky. The general description was of a "V," but it also resembled a crown with lights that formed an upward triangle. These lights were not like aircraft landing lights but more like stars. This description would change as the objects moved into the Phoenix area. The only consistent properties of the object(s) would be that there were no sound and very slow movement. However, if there was only one object, it could not have covered that distance in such a short time. This is a real "Catch-22," but may be the key to the solution. I know of three V formations that night and there may be more.

It was seen in Las Vegas and Henderson, moving south. I have wondered if it was seen in Laughlin and Bullhead City, Arizona, across the Colorado River. I used to live in Henderson a long time ago--long before this incident.

map.gif

Edited by TheMacGuffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, again, how does this contradict anything I've stated?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They weren't A-10s. I was in the army and I've seen them in action by the way, so I would know the difference.

In fact, I've seen them shoot the hell out of things from time to time and once even had to help recover the body of an A-10 pilot. That's another story and has nothing to do with UFOs.

One of the A10 Pilots has testified to dropping flares that night. What craft are you suggesting was sent up in pursuit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then it was seen in Prescott, Arizona, still moving south-southeast, as it had been all along.

map-of-arizona-cities.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, again, how does this contradict anything I've stated?

You don't talk about how it was seen outside of Phoenix for one thing. I've have mentioned many times on various threads that it shouldn't be called the Phoenix Lights at all.

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.