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

Water of a Ducks back ;)

:D

mmmmm, I don't suffer from that....... I was standing in the right line in the baby factory I think ............ I have no need for compensation.............. :innocent:

Otherwise I'd have a 12" Dob!

I am just

dob10.jpg

Not

1070_SolarObs_full.jpg

or

big-dobs.jpg

;)

lol, neither do I to be honest, I was trying to make a friend feel better and less hurt lol

(I dont have a scope at all)!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be interested to know more! Gut feel or more to it?

LOL, if anyone was to convince me, it would have to be you my friend!

Just one little old ray gun pinched from Dulce would do it!

I will stick to hunch for now until I have a few more bits to hand....hopefully I can build a case that bakcs the hunch.

oh and I will try on both counts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you think the odds might be that an massive spaceship shows up on the night several hours before the entire town is fooled with flares? bigger than the entire town being fooled by flares and also many claiming to have seen a large craft being confused with a flying V formation........but the odds of this scenario are also very big :)

I find that the majority of the claimants are highly unqualified to determine what they saw. For every pilot that saw a triangle, one saw individual lights, the vast number of "evaluations" (thousands) come from housewives, plumbers, and your everyday average Joe. I do not feel such is qualified to say flares are not the answer. People say that the claims like Mitch's are a few against thousand, but at least they have something we can quantify to see if they have told the truth at any point, or have been lying all along.

And then quietly sneaks away, but not through space? I guess your theory of 'it would have been spotted leaving space' would only work if the craft stayed as one huge object and didnt break away into smaller craft...anyhow I dont much like this kind of speculation to address your point as its easy to make things up :)

No, why so? The global satellite network should see them still, so would thew literal millions of hom radio telescope enthusiasts. We see meteors the size of a marble coming in, why would we not see something much larger going out? Amateur astronomers were watching the X-37B in space, surely you do not propose something smaller than that?

And what might be the odds with all the military exercises that we know were going on that night would not see this massive craft? well who said the military didnt know? :alien:

How many pilots have "spilled the beans"? Hell, people do that about Roswell, and no ET craft ever landed there!

;) See link! hmmm ok will do, I just need to find the record of Mitchs original statment in his exact own words...

I'll be interested to see but I am sure I have read the original paper article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol, neither do I to be honest, I was trying to make a friend feel better and less hurt lol

(I dont have a scope at all)!!!!

Ohh, a telescope........ :unsure2:

It worked friend :D As if I coule be mad with you!!

Go the Dob mate, mine was 550 brand new! That is Aussie dollars, I bet you could pick one up on EBay dirt cheap. Well worth it.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Psyche if I may I will stick with Micth for now.,

the links to Ortegas articles are interesting, firstly the whole tone of the first article a few months after the event in June show some confusion by the author on the two events.....had he even seperated the two at this point???

all he has put down are some rehashed words and it is basically a second hand account. I want exact wording used by Mitch...cant find those at this stage

Then we have Wiki link....they mention a companion? are they talking about his mother....again more second hand confusion and nothing concrete.

When he spoke at the town hall, what did he say exactly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK I read a statement of his when he says he made out the silohettes of the planes?? Anyhow, do you have the original ‘statement’ made by Mitch and the date it was made?

Is it easy to make out square wings at night through a scope?

How did he determine they were small?

He has said before how he likes to watch planes through scope when bored, yet he didn’t find a formation of what he claims to be ‘small private planes’ flying in formation interesting enough to view for longer?

I don't have a lot of time this morning, but so far the only part of the town meeting I've seen which includes what Mitch said can be found roughly *snip*. There may be more footage of that town hall meeting, but I haven't found it.

That special is probably the best documentary on the Phoenix Lights I've ever seen by the way. It's the only one that covers details in a balanced way. Almost all the other ones I've seen are heavily biased toward mysterious conclusions and grossly ignore anything potentially contradictory.

Edited by Saru
Video link removed on copyright grounds
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks mate, will watch it tonight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey booN, has anyone responsible for flying planes in formation come forward with testimony that it was them that caused all the fuss? It seems that flight logs from any flying group would settle this matter definitively. And what about local radar and ATC, wouldn't they too have a record of these craft in the area? I agree with the planes in formation theory yet there does still seem to be some holes in the evidence.

BTW, sorry if I just opened a can of worms here. :whistle:

I don't think you opened a can of worms at all. In fact. it would not surprise me to know that military aircraft was there.

think for a moment:

Witnesses swear they saw a V-shaped craft, about a mile wide, while other witnesses swear they saw two 3-6 foot diamater orbs of a light for a sustained period of time.

Well, let's suppose those witnesses are telling the truth. Wouldn't the Air Force scramble jets out to investigate?

And to the witneses that said they saw aircrafts,, they DID!

If that is a can or worms, it's one that kinda makes sense :--)

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a lot of time this morning, but so far the only part of the town meeting I've seen which includes what Mitch said can be found roughly *snip*. There may be more footage of that town hall meeting, but I haven't found it.

That special is probably the best documentary on the Phoenix Lights I've ever seen by the way. It's the only one that covers details in a balanced way. Almost all the other ones I've seen are heavily biased toward mysterious conclusions and grossly ignore anything potentially contradictory.

I just watched the video. I hadn't seen that one.

I think the lights hanging low on the horizon were indeed flares. That video analysis comparing the lights to "known" flares and not finding a match doesn't mean much to me. Maybe they were different types of flares giving a different signature. Quite sure the military has more than one type.

The flares (if that's what they are) just confuses the issue, because there's also witnesses claiming a solid or opaque v-shape object with 5 lights which was huge. I've heard it described as being so big that if you held out and open newspaper at arms length it wouldn't have covered it all. I believe I heard that on James Fox's movie "Out of the Blue".

It is normal, or common, that when an inquiry is made via a "quick call" to the military about manoevers, their immediate answer is "nope, wasn't us", simply because the person answering the phone may not have authorization to provide any info. Then the story changes later, once authorization is given, or when a written response is prepared. All that just leads to more speculation that the military is lying or that there is a cover-up...feeding the conspiracy theorists.

No doubt something happened. I've heard Fyfe Symington, the former Governor say he saw it and he described it as "other worldly".

It's been so many years now that I doubt the analysis of this sighting will ever change. Of course in the minds of those who saw it, they will likely never deviate from their own conclusions.

This is another one of those cases in which I wish I had been there and seen it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you opened a can of worms at all. In fact. it would not surprise me to know that military aircraft was there.

think for a moment:

Witnesses swear they saw a V-shaped craft, about a mile wide, while other witnesses swear they saw two 3-6 foot diamater orbs of a light for a sustained period of time.

Well, let's suppose those witnesses are telling the truth. Wouldn't the Air Force scramble jets out to investigate?

And to the witneses that said they saw aircrafts,, they DID!

If that is a can or worms, it's one that kinda makes sense :--)

I'm certain they would scramble. That ATC guy saying they knew the lights were there but there was nothing on radar, must have prompted a call to the military (if it didn't, someone needs their butt kicked!). If the military had nothing in the area and did not scramble assets to get a visual identification, then again that would be very irresponsible of them.

So there's probably three things making "soup" out of eyewitness accounts. They may have seen aircraft, flares, or the apparent UFO...or a combination.

There's a lot mudding the water in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watch this video at 1min. 50 seconds

!

Comments anyone!

Edited by itsnotoutthere

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watch this video at 1min. 50 seconds

!

Comments anyone!

That clip alone should close this case for ever as debunked. Cant beat science. No matter how much we want it to be ET,... No matter how many people that thought they were "connecting dots" that night. At some point we have to be realistic and say - Ok, that was that, next case.

Edited by Hazzard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watch this video at 1min. 50 seconds

!

Comments anyone!

:tu: :tu: :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you opened a can of worms at all. In fact. it would not surprise me to know that military aircraft was there.

think for a moment:

Witnesses swear they saw a V-shaped craft, about a mile wide, while other witnesses swear they saw two 3-6 foot diamater orbs of a light for a sustained period of time.

Well, let's suppose those witnesses are telling the truth. Wouldn't the Air Force scramble jets out to investigate?

And to the witneses that said they saw aircrafts,, they DID!

If that is a can or worms, it's one that kinda makes sense :--)

But are they not saying F-15's were dispatched?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Psyche if I may I will stick with Micth for now.,

the links to Ortegas articles are interesting, firstly the whole tone of the first article a few months after the event in June show some confusion by the author on the two events.....had he even seperated the two at this point???

all he has put down are some rehashed words and it is basically a second hand account. I want exact wording used by Mitch...cant find those at this stage

Then we have Wiki link....they mention a companion? are they talking about his mother....again more second hand confusion and nothing concrete.

When he spoke at the town hall, what did he say exactly?

Hi Mate

Sorry I had to leave, it was getting rather late, and I still had much to do.

I see Boon was kind enough to fill in the gaps for me, is that sufficient?

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watch this video at 1min. 50 seconds

!

Comments anyone!

Please stop referring to the same old tired video clip that proves nothing. It's a well known fact that the military did in fact let off some flares that night as a subterfuge for the real event. There were other videos taken that night from different angles and areas that clearly show lights displaying in a pattern. Lights that you can clearly tell are equal distances apart and not deviating from those positions. Flares DO NOT work this way, period! They are subject to the wind and it's impossible for them to stay in a fixed position relative to the other ones. There is no flares available that behave in this manner either. This is also why you see the individual lights blink out behind the mountain in this one video you posted and because they are descending at different speeds. The skeptics continually want us to believe that this particular video seals the deal, but it doesn't. This is the only video that they can point to, to try and prove in any way that flares could be responsible. You will never see the skeptics try to debunk any other video footage because they can't. This is a video taken of the real event and from a completely different angle.

[media=]http://youtu.be/J_0bYut3EyQ[/media]

The skeptics also want us to believe that their little video clip explains a sighting that lasted approximately 1.5 hours another impossible characteristic of any flare type.

Edited by Bionic Bigfoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watch this video at 1min. 50 seconds

!

Comments anyone!

That only explains the lights that could have been decending flares.

There were numerous eyewitnesses that saw a v-formation of 5 lights directly above them. Some people could make out the silouette of the craft and stated it was opaque because as it moved over them the stars were blocked out.

Some decribed the craft as being so large that if you held up an open newspaper above you, it would not cover the entire thing.

A good film to watch is

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That only explains the lights that could have been decending flares.

There were numerous eyewitnesses that saw a v-formation of 5 lights directly above them. Some people could make out the silouette of the craft and stated it was opaque because as it moved over them the stars were blocked out.

Some decribed the craft as being so large that if you held up an open newspaper above you, it would not cover the entire thing.

A good film to watch is

Do you really think that people saw a giant spacecraft, and then a bit later they saw flares in the same skies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please stop referring to the same old tired video clip that proves nothing. It's a well known fact that the military did in fact let off some flares that night as a subterfuge for the real event. There were other videos taken that night from different angles and areas that clearly show lights displaying in a pattern. Lights that you can clearly tell are equal distances apart and not deviating from those positions. Flares DO NOT work this way, period! They are subject to the wind and it's impossible for them to stay in a fixed position relative to the other ones. There is no flares available that behave in this manner either. This is also why you see the individual lights blink out behind the mountain in this one video you posted and because they are descending at different speeds. The skeptics continually want us to believe that this particular video seals the deal, but it doesn't. This is the only video that they can point to, to try and prove in any way that flares could be responsible. You will never see the skeptics try to debunk any other video footage because they can't. This is a video taken of the real event and from a completely different angle.

[media=]http://youtu.be/J_0bYut3EyQ[/media]

The skeptics also want us to believe that their little video clip explains a sighting that lasted approximately 1.5 hours another impossible characteristic of any flare type.

This is a video of the same exact flares, from a different point of view.

I suggest you learn more about this case before trying to present things as though they are factual, when clearly they are not.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a lot of time this morning, but so far the only part of the town meeting I've seen which includes what Mitch said can be found roughly *snip*. There may be more footage of that town hall meeting, but I haven't found it.

That special is probably the best documentary on the Phoenix Lights I've ever seen by the way. It's the only one that covers details in a balanced way. Almost all the other ones I've seen are heavily biased toward mysterious conclusions and grossly ignore anything potentially contradictory.

Thanks Boon. You're a champ.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That only explains the lights that could have been decending flares.

There were numerous eyewitnesses that saw a v-formation of 5 lights directly above them. Some people could make out the silouette of the craft and stated it was opaque because as it moved over them the stars were blocked out.

Some decribed the craft as being so large that if you held up an open newspaper above you, it would not cover the entire thing.

A good film to watch is

I agree completely in terms of the separation of events. The earlier sightings were only captured in one video, which I believe you watched earlier, shot by Terry Proctor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please stop referring to the same old tired video clip that proves nothing. It's a well known fact that the military did in fact let off some flares that night as a subterfuge for the real event. There were other videos taken that night from different angles and areas that clearly show lights displaying in a pattern. Lights that you can clearly tell are equal distances apart and not deviating from those positions. Flares DO NOT work this way, period! They are subject to the wind and it's impossible for them to stay in a fixed position relative to the other ones. There is no flares available that behave in this manner either. This is also why you see the individual lights blink out behind the mountain in this one video you posted and because they are descending at different speeds. The skeptics continually want us to believe that this particular video seals the deal, but it doesn't. This is the only video that they can point to, to try and prove in any way that flares could be responsible. You will never see the skeptics try to debunk any other video footage because they can't. This is a video taken of the real event and from a completely different angle.

[media=]http://youtu.be/J_0bYut3EyQ[/media]

The skeptics also want us to believe that their little video clip explains a sighting that lasted approximately 1.5 hours another impossible characteristic of any flare type.

What do you mean that flares do not work this way? There are a wide variety of flares that the military uses and yes, there are some that behave exactly as shown in the video. These aren't road flares we are talking about or even flares shot from a pistol. These are LUU-2B/B military illumination flares.

The LUU-2B/B flare is 36 inches long, 4.9 inches in diameter, and weighs about 30 pounds.

An 18-foot diameter cruciform-shaped canopy parachute suspension system is used for good stability. The riser cables connect the parachute to a bulkhead. The bulkhead separates the parachute compartment from the remainder of the flare assembly. One cable is attached to an explosive bolt for parachute dump at candle burnout. In the ignition system, a lanyard is attached to one of the parachute riser cables. This lanyard is threaded through the bulkhead and past the candle in an internal raceway along the side of the aluminum case. This leads to the ignition assembly in the ignition housing near the candle's face. The lanyard is attached to a triggering mechanism, which consists of the out-of-line igniter (OLI-2/A). Upon ignition, the firing pin initiates the pyrotechnic firing train. The aluminum case assembly contains a tamp-cast illuminating candle that consists of a composition of magnesium, sodium nitrate, and a polymer binder. The flare is designed so the outer aluminum case is partially consumed during candle burning.

http://www.ordnance.org/luu2bb.htm

An 18 foot diameter parachute for a 30lb object. I'd say they descend rather slowly and steadily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a video of the same exact flares, from a different point of view.

I suggest you learn more about this case before trying to present things as though they are factual, when clearly they are not.

You have absolutely no proof that the video I posted shows the same event as the one used by the debunkers. The video I posted totally discredits the other one that shows lights dropping off behind the mountain. You've got to stop ignoring the characteristics of flares and their properties. Do you understand the fact that flares DO NOT stay in equal relative positions to one another and that they don't descent at the same speed? Do you understand that flares do not stay up in the air for over an hour? And do you understand that flares do not move in unison across the sky for miles without changing their positions to each other?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you mean that flares do not work this way? There are a wide variety of flares that the military uses and yes, there are some that behave exactly as shown in the video. These aren't road flares we are talking about or even flares shot from a pistol. These are LUU-2B/B military illumination flares.

http://www.ordnance.org/luu2bb.htm

An 18 foot diameter parachute for a 30lb object. I'd say they descend rather slowly and steadily.

Please provide a video of such flares then so we can compare the kind you're referring to with the other videos. And why are you ignoring the fact that flares DO NOT stay together in fixed positions? NO FLARES behave this way, none! The lights in the video I posted are CLEARLY in a fixed position, they don't deviate from the positions relative to one another whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have absolutely no proof that the video I posted shows the same event as the one used by the debunkers. The video I posted totally discredits the other one that shows lights dropping off behind the mountain.

I beg your pardon?

We canot prove that the videos are connected, but when you present one, it discounts the other??

How does that work?

Are you saying you posted the 8PM event, and the "Debunkers" as you like to call them are posting the 10PM event? In that case nothing discredits anything?

Not following you here.

You've got to stop ignoring the characteristics of flares and their properties. Do you understand the fact that flares DO NOT stay in equal relative positions to one another and that they don't descent at the same speed? Do you understand that flares do not stay up in the air for over an hour? And do you understand that flares do not move in unison across the sky for miles without changing their positions to each other?

Nobody has to do anything, This place is voluntary.

I am guessing that is why you are avoiding the math, which is not up for discussion because math is what it is? :innocent:

Edited by psyche101

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.