Best evidence for ET visitation - 3rd edition

[booNyzarC]

I already have, but it seems that there were very important hints that were definitely ignored..

Can you point out where you proved this? Because I've read every one of your laborious posts in this thread and I didn't see proof in anything you've written. Maybe I just can't read between the lines and connect the dots?

[S2F]

He knows.

He certainly claims he does, yet his consistent misrepresentation of the facts tends to heartily discount that claim.

[booNyzarC]

He certainly claims he does, yet his consistent misrepresentation of the facts tends to heartily discount that claim.

To clarify; I meant that he knows that the two events are not one and the same. He ties them together (by connecting the dots...) in his own mind, but he knows that the testimony from Fife is regarding a much earlier sighting than what was captured on video. He thinks it was the same object (apparently) which hung around for a couple of hours, but I think that even sky can tell time.

[S2F]

To clarify; I meant that he knows that the two events are not one and the same. He ties them together (by connecting the dots...) in his own mind, but he knows that the testimony from Fife is regarding a much earlier sighting than what was captured on video. He thinks it was the same object (apparently) which hung around for a couple of hours, but I think that even sky can tell time.

I suppose I should clarify as well, I was speaking in general terms about his overall stance on the UFO enigma. He has claimed more times than I can count that he knows the truth about his select cases however he has yet to mount even a reasonable argument to support his position. The Phoenix Lights (flares) case is just another in a long line of such debates with Sky.

Efforts to stem the tide of garbage (for lack of a better word) that Sky puts forth as evidence is draining and tiresome in the extreme in my opinion. Sometimes I have to take a back seat in an attempt to remain at least civil hence my 'fly on the wall' approach of late.

[skyeagle409]

Listen very carefully and understand why no flares were involved in the 'Phoenix Lights' sightings.

[S2F]

Listen very carefully and understand why no flares were involved in the 'Phoenix Lights' sightings.

The people in that video are making the same mistake you are Sky, there were TWO different sightings! One was a 'V' shaped series of lights and the other was what was slowly descending behind the mountains. They were not one and the same and the flare explanation is not intended to explain the prior sighting of the 'V' lights. Does that spell it out clearly enough for you?

[booNyzarC]

Listen very carefully and understand why no flares were involved in the 'Phoenix Lights' sightings.

First, thank you for finally delivering your supposed evidence. I'll go through the video in detail to explain why it doesn't do anything at all to offset the fact that the footage we've been discussing was of flares. Before I do that, I'm going to review the rest of the videos on this chap's YouTube channel.

And S2F is right, the majority of the content in this "debunking" you've provided doesn't even relate to our discussions about the K footage and other 1997 videos.

[skyeagle409]

Listen very carefully to those who saw the lights OVER Phoenix.

[skyeagle409]

Listen very carefully to those who saw the lights over Phoenix.

Continuation: Part 3

Edited April 23, 2011 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

The people in that video are making the same mistake you are Sky, there were TWO different sightings! One was a 'V' shaped series of lights and the other was what was slowly descending behind the mountains. They were not one and the same and the flare explanation is not intended to explain the prior sighting of the 'V' lights. Does that spell it out clearly enough for you?

You don't seem to understand that the lights in the video, were also seen over Phoenix, and, that the sightings were a series of sightings that stretched across Arizona, from the north to the south. There is much, much more that skeptics are unaware of, and once again, the A-10s were grounded at 10 PM at DMAFB at the time of the 10 PM sightings, and there is more beyond that as well.

The lights you see in the video, are not falling, and were not flares, nor are they even indicative of flares and that would be evident had you had seen flare drops in real life, which is one of the reasons why I posted the photos of the lights and another of a real flare drop.

Did you catch the comment where it was stated that flares over the BGR, cannot be seen in certain areas in Arizona, and that included Phoenix as well, but what have I been staing in that respect for weeks?

Edited April 23, 2011 by skyeagle409

[Boris Gleeson]

So, according to the 'experts', is there anything that is absolutely unexplainable?

[lost_shaman]

Did you catch the comment where it was stated that flares over the BGR, cannot be seen in certain areas in Arizona, and that included Phoenix as well, but what have I been staing in that respect for weeks?

What you seem to miss is that such a statement is patently false. The determining factor is the altitude of a Flare.

[1963]

Boony and Pericynthion...Thanks for taking the time out to reply!

I much appreciate your non-condecending posts to a mathematical ignoramus such as I!

I'm still not much wiser as to the over-all distance width of the of the 'light display'.Although Peri's post highlighting the amount of zoom from video K, and his own demonstration of google earth with a frame from that video overlayed has tempered my imagined distance from the two extremities...but not that much! (without the correct mathematics, this will always be a sticky-point for flare acceptance).

Boony said...

The brightness from that distance is actually quite expected for the LUU2B flares they were using which put out something between 1.6 and 1.8 billion candlepower. In other words... they are extremely bright.

Yep!..been checking up on these LUU-2B/B flares, and am willing to conceed that these things could be seen from even further ,(150 miles according to one pilot!).

But at $825.62 each...is it really acceptable for the airforce to waste taxpayers dollars in this manner?

And just to clarify one more thing here...I know that the calculations that have been done to show that the lights could have been 'flares' from 70miles away, seen above the mountain range using the video footages are correct. But were all of the witnesses of the 'lights/flares' at, at least the same vantage point as the video positions?

i.e you stated that video K was at 300ft above phoenix,...where were the other two?...Could Sky be on to something here?

Cheers.

[booNyzarC]

Listen very carefully and understand why no flares were involved in the 'Phoenix Lights' sightings.

Alright, I wanted to go deeper into this but this basic analysis will have to suffice. Your video was entertaining skyeagle, but it doesn't disprove the flare conclusions.

First of all, let's look at the cast of characters in order of appearance and comment about what they had to say.

:17 Verlee Nanneman

Veteran 911 Phoenix Police Operator

Unless I'm mistaken, she didn't actually see anything... she took phone calls from people who saw the flares. How does her testimony disprove the flares conclusion? It doesn't. Simple as that.

:20 Tom Chavez

Former Law Enforcement Officer

Testimony: They didn't look like flares he has seen. Claims that he dropped flares in the military.

Alright... that is all well and good but he didn't comment about the footage we've been discussing as far as I could tell. He has an opinion about what he saw and I respect that, but he didn't mention anything about the footage we've been discussing or the analysis which you've failed to disprove. How exactly does what he has said disprove the evidence that has been presented in this thread? It doesn't. Simple as that.

ending :46 narrator is talking about earlier sightings.

:46 an example of flares on video... and 1:02 Jim Dilettoso, etc...

Most of these examples make the same mistake you have made before. They are examples of flares at a much closer proximity than the flares in the footage we've been discussing. We've been over this many times. All it proves is that you still have no argument against the analysis as it stands.

There was one shot that looked a lot like the videos, however. I assume this was from the Air Force demonstration. They apparently didn't accept it because the flares didn't line up quite as precisely as the original? Funny how that confirmation bias works isn't it?

1:30 Commercial Airline Pilot

40+ Years Airline Pilot, Military Helicopter & Fighter Pilot

(Face blurred...)

Claiming that the flare explanation is some kind of cover-up.

That is nice. Did the flares kill JFK too? Maybe they know who was responsible for 911 too...

Conspiracy theorists with their faces blocked out simply aren't credible. Sorry. Besides, he offers no commentary about the footage we were discussing. You do recall that we were discussing the actual footage of the event, right?

1:55 to 2:30

Narrator raises argument that flares have been dropped over the BGR for several decades as though that is a reason to single this occasion out.

transcript of 2:30 to 2:43 Narrator

"The biggest hole in the flare theory is that it completely contradicts thousands of eye witness testimonies consistently describing a massive V shaped craft flying slower than the stall speed of a small plane, totally silent, and very low to the ground.

Some witnesses were directly underneath as the craft flew over.

From the small town of Pauldon all the way to Phoenix and Tuscon. Flares don't travel hundreds of miles. And witnesses in southern and northern Arizona couldn't possibly see flares over the BGR."

First of all... why so many witnesses?

Hale Bopp comet? Thousands of people were out to watch the comet who normally wouldn't have been looking up. This alone explains why there were numerous reports that night. There were more eyes on the sky... pretty simple really.

Secondly, he again talks about the earlier sightings. Once again, that isn't the topic at hand. You've claimed that the K footage and other videos aren't of flares. Once again, what you've presented does nothing to substantiate your claim. They were flares. Sorry.

3:10 More Narrator...

"Another valid argument against the flare theory is that these mysterious orbs are commonly seen over populated areas of Phoenix and the ??hindibed?? indian reservation."

Wait... commonly seen? Didn't this guy just get through saying that this was an uncommon occurrence? Hrmmm... contradicting oneself isn't the best way to make a compelling argument.

Yes, people have seen these flares before. They are, in fact, quite common it would seem. And besides, the last time I checked, the BGR isn't populated...

3:19 Our masked pilot

"Nobody would ever drop those flares over a populated area. They are cylindars that are about 3 feet tall, 10 inches wide, and they are intense magnesium. And they sometimes hit the ground; they're still burning, so they start fires."

The BGR isn't populated. Nuff said.

3:38 Narrator

"Dropping flares, or anything for that matter, over populated areas or indian reservations is a serious FAA violation and prohibited due to possible injury to civilians, damage to property, and ground fires."

The BGR isn't populated. No FAA violation. Nuff said.

If I missed the part where the analysis we've been discussing was somehow refuted, please point me to the right spot.

I see you've posted more video links. I'll watch the video in full, but don't count on me doing your homework for you this time.

I have courteously gone through your first video in great detail. If you intend to use a feature length film for the rest of your evidence, I kindly request that you pull out the relevant portions which you believe refute the flare conclusion regarding actual footage analysis and explain how it refutes it. I'm not doing your work for you beyond this.

[DONTEATUS]

Its one thing to be open minded,and one thing to Not accept the possibility of the Phoenix lights as something other than Flares. And all together another thing To Just Be rude to people !

iam therefore iam. Go see the Movie! Please.

As for Phoenix Lights You Gotta be Kidding me If you Think that there is not quite a bit of Leeway either way on this sighting ! 10,000 peep`s and Stationary posistion should be a clue ? Flares dont Sit around for that Long.

Watch more Bill Nye the Science Guy next time.

I vote we Look for actual evidence for E.T. A Wrapper maybe with an Alien Candy Bar from Fraggnot !

[booNyzarC]

Boony and Pericynthion...Thanks for taking the time out to reply!

I much appreciate your non-condecending posts to a mathematical ignoramus such as I!

I'm still not much wiser as to the over-all distance width of the of the 'light display'.Although Peri's post highlighting the amount of zoom from video K, and his own demonstration of google earth with a frame from that video overlayed has tempered my imagined distance from the two extremities...but not that much! (without the correct mathematics, this will always be a sticky-point for flare acceptance).

Boony said...

The brightness from that distance is actually quite expected for the LUU2B flares they were using which put out something between 1.6 and 1.8 billion candlepower. In other words... they are extremely bright.

Yep!..been checking up on these LUU-2B/B flares, and am willing to conceed that these things could be seen from even further ,(150 miles according to one pilot!).

But at $825.62 each...is it really acceptable for the airforce to waste taxpayers dollars in this manner?

And just to clarify one more thing here...I know that the calculations that have been done to show that the lights could have been 'flares' from 70miles away, seen above the mountain range using the video footages are correct. But were all of the witnesses of the 'lights/flares' at, at least the same vantage point as the video positions?

i.e you stated that video K was at 300ft above phoenix,...where were the other two?...Could Sky be on to something here?

Cheers.

Hiya 1963, always a pleasure to discuss things with you. First... please don't quote my erroneous billions reference... it should have been millions...

In terms of the financial waste, I'm right there with you. I've read somewhere (I don't recall where exactly and I'm a bit tired to track it down at the moment) that one of the pilots stated that it was a safety precaution to jettison the flares before landing. I don't know how true that is or what danger the flares would pose, but I totally agree that for the cost of those puppies it seems a waste to have jettisoned them without a good reason.

In terms of the "all the witnesses" there hasn't been an accurate analysis presented of the exact positions of each witness. Or at least, I haven't seen one. Keep in mind also that the footage we've been talking about is just one aspect of that night. Many witnesses reported seeing things earlier in the day, including good ol' guv Fife. That has created a lot of confusion about who saw what, where, and when. I really wish that some of those other witnesses had managed to capture something worth analyzing beyond anecdotal statements.

As it stands, there was only one person I'm aware of who related an identification of the earlier sightings, and that was Mitch Stanley who stated that he saw planes flying in formation through his telescope. I believe him, but that might just be confirmation bias on my part so I can't say definitively that this is factual. I believe him primarily because people looking with their eyes are less likely to get a clear picture than he did with a telescope like this bad boy:

Nice telescope don't you think? That isn't his, but it is the same kind he used. That is why I take his word over others. He simply had a better view of the situation.

In terms of whether sky is onto something... well, if he is, he has yet to produce anything substantial to back it up. I'm driven by evidence. If someone can present compelling evidence I'm all for accepting it. If all they can do is blow smoke up my hind end, I'm probably not going to be very forgiving. And if they ignore the compelling evidence which refutes their position, I might not be too cordial either.

[booNyzarC]

Its one thing to be open minded,and one thing to Not accept the possibility of the Phoenix lights as something other than Flares. And all together another thing To Just Be rude to people !

iam therefore iam. Go see the Movie! Please.

As for Phoenix Lights You Gotta be Kidding me If you Think that there is not quite a bit of Leeway either way on this sighting ! 10,000 peep`s and Stationary posistion should be a clue ? Flares dont Sit around for that Long.

Watch more Bill Nye the Science Guy next time.

I vote we Look for actual evidence for E.T. A Wrapper maybe with an Alien Candy Bar from Fraggnot !

With all due respect D... the footage in question is unquestionably footage of flares. If you have some compelling reasoning for how it isn't, by all means, place it on the table. God knows that skyeagle could use your help if you have this reasoning.

[mcrom901]

Its one thing to be open minded,and one thing to Not accept the possibility of the Phoenix lights as something other than Flares. And all together another thing To Just Be rude to people !

If all they can do is blow smoke up my hind end, I'm probably not going to be very forgiving. And if they ignore the compelling evidence which refutes their position, I might not be too cordial either.

easy mate... there is no need for that.... really.... just chill....

everyone is entitled to their own opinions.... after all facts are opinions too *cough* it doesn't have to be be either the aristotelian a or b....

eta....

coming back to the topic at hand....

Edited April 23, 2011 by mcrom901

[DONTEATUS]

With all due respect D... the footage in question is unquestionably footage of flares. If you have some compelling reasoning for how it isn't, by all means, place it on the table. God knows that skyeagle could use your help if you have this reasoning.

The Lights in several of the NEws video`s shot that night were not the same as the ones shown on the Youtube video that has been around until were all about to Puke !

Its the massive numbers of wittness,and time aloft ,and actual sightings from people that know what they were Looking at Is What keeps it alive in the media.

To This day you cannot get the Air Guard,nor AFB ,LUKE to show any actual Radar tapes of that night.

But thats a Whole nother Storie I guess?

[mcrom901]

To This day you cannot get the Air Guard,nor AFB ,LUKE to show any actual Radar tapes of that night.

But thats a Whole nother Storie I guess?

no... you're wrong... they addressed that....

[booNyzarC]

easy mate... there is no need for that.... really.... just chill....

everyone is entitled to their own opinions.... after all facts are opinions too *cough* it doesn't have to be be either the aristotelian a or b....

eta....

coming back to the topic at hand....

I assure you that I'm quite chill regarding this topic. Another way to put that would be that I'm quite confident in the analysis which has brought clarity to such a clouded sighting.

Are you saying that you have compelling evidence or data which refutes the documented analysis of the footage in question? Because so far, I haven't seen anyone refute the analysis of that footage. That is the topic of the debate, just in case you missed it. The anecdotal testimonies are cursory simply because they are subjective. We are talking about hard data related to the captured footage.

Skyeagle claims that the footage isn't of flares. Do you concur with his assessment?

[booNyzarC]

The Lights in several of the NEws video`s shot that night were not the same as the ones shown on the Youtube video that has been around until were all about to Puke !

Its the massive numbers of wittness,and time aloft ,and actual sightings from people that know what they were Looking at Is What keeps it alive in the media.

To This day you cannot get the Air Guard,nor AFB ,LUKE to show any actual Radar tapes of that night.

But thats a Whole nother Storie I guess?

As I just mentioned to mcrom, the debate is actually very specific. We are discussing the K video and other videos included in Bruce Maccabee's analysis. These videos definitively provide irrefutable evidence that the lights in question were not only over the BGR, but that they were filming flares. If you have evidence which refutes this, by all means please share.

Likewise, if you have additional footage from that event, by all means present it for everyone to review.

Don't take this the wrong way D, I really appreciate your contributions and would love to enjoy a beer with you hanging out at your smoker some day, but if you intend to make arguments to defend sky's opinions you should realize that those arguments will be questioned and deeply analyzed. By the way, the pilots who dropped those flares were stationed in Tuscon, which might clarify why the records haven't been shown. Has anyone actually asked Davis–Monthan AFB for records from that night?

[mcrom901]

I assure you that I'm quite chill regarding this topic.

that's cool then...

Another way to put that would be that I'm quite confident in the analysis which has brought clarity to such a clouded sighting.

pls, be clear... don't cloud the two (or should i say 'several') sightings into one....

Are you saying that you have compelling evidence or data which refutes the documented analysis of the footage in question?

you're putting unnecessary words in my mouth...

Because so far, I haven't seen anyone refute the analysis of that footage.

hmmmm.... what should i say... cool...

That is the topic of the debate, just in case you missed it.

no... i didn't miss anything... please don't project your perceptions onto others...

The anecdotal testimonies are cursory simply because they are subjective.

like the guy who saw through his telescope?

We are talking about hard data related to the captured footage.

i didn't say anything about that.... meh

Skyeagle claims that the footage isn't of flares.

he must have his reasons for stating as such... i don't know

Do you concur with his assessment?

i don't concur with anybody...

[lost_shaman]

I haven't ignored it at all, and in fact, I pointed out the fact that you can hardly see the top of a 1400-foot building from 50 miles away, which is why I posted the link to the Chicago skyline. The Earth's curvature played a prt in that photo and I am very aware of the curvature of the Earth and long distance,and even short distances as well, and an example can be found in regards to the curvature of the Earth and the Golden Gate bridge in San Francisco and its two towers.

So what sky? What does your little drawing show you? What is the minimum Altitude suggested by your 'drawings' for a flare to be seen from K's position?

I've posted Altitude numbers.

Here is another equation I came across which is the inverse of the WWII equation I posted earlier. This directly takes Earth's curvature into account. The height of an object in feet to be seen at a distance is given by distance in Miles squared divided by 1.513. So @ 77 miles this equates to 3,919 ft.

The Mountains block ~1.293 degrees of K's view. Therefore @ 77 miles this equates to 9,176 ft.

Add these two numbers and we get 13,095ft as a minimum altitude for a Flare to be seen over BMGR from K's position.

So what is the minimum altitude for a flare to be seen from K's position do your 'drawings' suggest? Please post this for all to see!

[booNyzarC]

(edit)

This was in response to mcrom, not LS... should be clear, but just in case...

(/edit)

Funny. Yes, actually that was pretty funny. Cheers for that.

Thanks for clarifying that you don't actually have anything to back up skyeagle's claims. Much appreciated.

And by the way... asking you questions does not mean that I was putting words in your mouth. I was just asking questions.

Edited April 23, 2011 by booNyzarC