The Phoenix Lights revisited

[TheMacGuffin]

I never said I believed him either. I too, wasn't there.

He doesn't have to believe me since there were plenty of witnesses on the ground that night who saw the UFO, but none who saw any military exercise.

I cant imagine that anyone, after seeing the evidence put fourth in this thread, can still claim that there was an ET craft flying over Phoenix that night. Speaking "greek" or not.

The only way I see it to be possible is if this case is so important to the person that he applies willful ignorance.

That's all you ever say, and it means no more here than it does with any other UFO case.

[booNyzarC]

Hey Boon, I will address your lengthy post further tomorrow as I only have around 40 minutes left before I leave work and I am unlikely to log on tonight from home to post as I will never leave the PC otherwise.

Okay, feel free to. Don't expect me to respond in depth though. I've already said my piece for the most part, not only here in this thread but in numerous other threads around the forum related to this sighting. Forgive me but I find rehashing the same points over and over again to be somewhat tedious at times, especially when my points keep getting ignored or completely twisted into something that they weren't.

I thought as a starting point I would address a couple of points and maybe briefly the three 'things we are left with' you highlighted above.

Firstly as far as I am concerned I thought it was only Rich and Mitch that have said they identified planes, and even that is not entirely correct as Mitch said he saw the silohettes of the planes as opposed to the actual planes themselves, I am unsure at what point he said he saw silohettes as opossed to lights he thought were planes. The same way witnesses add bits to their story as they go or just add bits to strengthen their sighting (or what they thought their sighting was) this may have happened in Mitchs case, especially as he feels he was shunned at the meeting....

Well no, he said quite unequivocally that he saw planes. This goes back to Tim Printy's link.

Mitch Stanley, 21, spends several nights a week in his backyard with a 10-inch telescope, exploring the night sky. He's owned the telescope for about a year, and has learned the sky well. With its 10-inch mirror, the telescope gathers 1,500 times as much light as the human eye. And with the eyepiece Stanley was using on the night of March 13, the telescope gave him 60 times the resolving power of his naked eye.

That night Mitch and his mother, Linda, were in the backyard and noticed the lights coming from the north. Since the lights seemed to be moving so slowly, Mitch attempted to capture them in the scope. He succeeded, and the leading three lights fit in his field of vision. Linda asked what they were. "Planes," Mitch said.

It was plain to see, he says. What looked like individual lights to the naked eye actually split into two under the resolving power of the telescope. The lights were located on the undersides of squarish wings, Mitch says. And the planes themselves seemed small, like light private planes.

Stanley watched them for about a minute, and then turned away. It was the last thing the amateur astronomer wanted to look at. "They were just planes, I didn't want to look at them," Stanley says when he's asked why he didn't stare at them longer. He is certain about what he saw: "They were planes. There's no way I could have mistaken that."

(Ortega

Great

)

There is nothing ambiguous there. He saw planes.

also the Snowbirds, firstly as far as I knew there is no confirmation that the pilot who interupted the call was actually a pilot from the 'formation of lights'.....I assume you realise the conspiracy theories I can add here that help the idea that all isnt what it seems here. Especially when we are relying on the pilots who reported a UFO (tongue in cheek maybe) being wrong about what they heard the pilot say,....i.e. there is confirmation that the snowbirds were not in Arizona that month......could they have made such a huge error???? I dont buy that fully as I am sure you can appreciate.

The pilots were at 17000 feet and said the lights were at 19,000ft, this makes the analysis on height by Tim Printy very weak as his range is 19-40,000ft, and 35-40,000 is the ideal height to counter and explain the witness statements about speed and lack of noise.

You can feel free to take any kind of conspiratorial stance that you'd like regarding the testimony from these pilots. I believe I've already expressed my opinion of that kind of stance.

As to the details related to the pilots' sighting and communication goes, I have to agree with Tim Printy when he says:

The "snowbird" reference may have been an error and the pilots in the aircraft may have stated they were flying Tutors like the Snowbird demonstration team or Middleton/Campbell just placed the snowbird term to the Tutors because they are the ones that commonly fly the craft. It is not commonly known that the Tutor aircraft was flown by units of the Canadian Air Force in 1997 (

They were replaced in 2000

). The formation may or may not have actually been Tutors but, if they were, they did not have to be the Snowbird demonstration team.

Even if we were to ignore this portion of the evidence we still have two completely conclusive identifications from Contry and Stanley plus the footage from Proctor. Conclusive identifications should trump inconclusive non-identifications don't you think?

The Tim Ley video can also be supported in a different way in as far as many witnesses spoke of the large v formation splitting up and then rejoining....this explains the seperation in video (I mean may explain)

And how exactly is this opposed to planes flying in formation but temporarily breaking formation at some point?

anyhow back to your points:

1. Looking at something other than the other witnesses who couldn't identify the lights. I am not entirely convinced they are all in the same parts of the sky, let alone the same thing, maybe this would be an interesting part to. analyse more precisely, personally I would not rule out military craft being sent up and these are what Mitch and Rich observed.....possible, yes no?
   
2. Lying about what they saw. you are correct in that I dont find this likely, exaggerating...yes, especially Mitch but no disinfo agent accusation from me on this one.
   
3. Mistaken in their identification. to be honest Boon, yes I think it is possible, possible in the same way the other witnesses turned lights into ET craft, Mitch and Rich tunred lights into their favoured planes in formation...an even easier leap to make than that of the ET one dont you think.
   

As I said buddy will be back tomorrow, try not to give me too much work to do as I have a busy day

I hope you have a great rest of your day and night Q.

Keep in mind that the planes in formation conclusion allows us to account for and accept pretty much all of the testimonies, including the folks who didn't identify the lights when they saw them. In order to maintain the mystery of an actual huge triangular craft we have to openly dismiss some of the witnesses entirely. I can't speak for others, but this does kind of rub me the wrong way. Testimony is testimony whether some consider it tantalizing or not.

Cheers.

[booNyzarC]

I never heard of David Tanaka, but I know there were witnesses on the ground that night who stated no such military exercise ever took place, either with flares or anything else.

That whole story is completely bogus and was made up after the fact.

You have heard of Tanaka, though apparently you've forgotten about him and what he said. Fortunately you can watch that YouTube video linked to before to again hear what he had to say.

You have absolutely nothing substantial in support of your claim that no such military exercise ever took place or that it was made up after the fact. I've seen what you attempt to use in support of it, and if you are referring to the same piece of non-evidence it isn't proof of anything at all. I'll let you cite it though if you feel the need, and I'll be more than happy to explain why it is meaningless to the question at hand.

Cheers MacG.

[TheMacGuffin]

Okay, feel free to. Don't expect me to respond in depth though. I've already said my piece for the most part, not only here in this thread but in numerous other threads

Keep in mind that the planes in formation conclusion allows us to account for and accept pretty much all of the testimonies, including the folks who didn't identify the lights when they saw them. In order to maintain the mystery of an actual huge triangular craft we have to openly dismiss some of the witnesses entirely. I can't speak for others, but this does kind of rub me the wrong way. Testimony is testimony whether some consider it tantalizing or not.

Cheers.

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.

[bee]

There is nothing ambiguous there. He saw planes.

he said he saw planes......would be the correct way of putting it

.

[TheMacGuffin]

You have heard of Tanaka, though apparently you've forgotten about him and what he said. Fortunately you can watch that YouTube video linked to before to again hear what he had to say.

No, I have never heard of him in my life. Today was the first time I ever even heard that name, in connection with this case or anything else.

[booNyzarC]

Extremly good post, boon..... after this one there can be no more doubt about what happened that day.

Unless you really REALLY need it to be ET related of course.

Thanks Debunker, I can't help but agree that the mystery seems to be self imposed by those who want to maintain it in face of the actual facts which have laid the subject bare.

I cant imagine that anyone, after seeing the evidence put fourth in this thread, can still claim that there was an ET craft flying over Phoenix that night. Speaking "greek" or not.

The only way I see it to be possible is if this case is so important to the person that he applies willful ignorance.

I couldn't agree more, and yet there are so many who cling to the mystery no matter what. I find that behavior baffling.

It isn't as if acknowledging the mundane nature of this single night back in 1997 is going to take away all of the other truly unreconciled UFO cases that are still on record. Why hold onto it as if it is a critical or crucial piece of UFO=ET evidence? It makes no sense to me at all.

[Hazzard]

That's all you ever say, and it means no more here than it does with any other UFO case.

Not to guys like you or zoser perhaps. Guys that has already made up their mind about a case and closed it to everything else.

But Im pretty sure that others following this thread will take a look at the evidence, for and against, and form their own opinion.

Edited October 10, 2012 by Hazzard

[psyche101]

Sure did, all greek to me and like I said to psyche101, using math to constitute evidence for flares like you did, makes no sense.

Hi BB

I must beg to differ.

Triangulation is tried and true and in use for all sorts of navigations, locations, and targeting. It cannot possibly be incorrect, as I said, math does not lie. It makes perfect sense to use the same methods one would if the craft was ET to track it. And if the craft was ET, then we would have used those same methods to track it leaving the solar system, so that we have a general idea where "it" came from.

But it never left the atmosphere. If it was one big craft, which I dispute, it has to be still here.

And besides this, there were flares dropped that night over AZ and that was done specifically by the government to use as a decoy and smokescreen.

Not possible. The flares were not discovered until some times after the event. Due to a rather basic stuff up by a reporter, the wrong logs were checked, and it was weeks I believe before the A10 exercise was confirmed. Had it been a cover up, this information would be easily available.

The main event, the one witnessed by 1000's of Arizonians was not flares and as they testified it slowly moved over them, their houses, schools etc.

Thousands also offered a different account. It's a big he said she said. Another pilot says the lights were definitely individual, no doubt about it. When Mitch Stanley came forth with his explanation for the 8PM sighting at a town meeting, he was shouted out. The promoters of the event did not want his story getting out there.

So who is suppressing who here? The UFOlogists have actively tried to stop the actual truth getting out!

Edited October 10, 2012 by psyche101

[psyche101]

what evidence is there for the aircraft flying in formation theory?

Contrey and Ley were suppressed by the promoters of the incident. They confirm Stanley's observations but their evidences and testimonies were buried by the likes of Symington. Yet Symington is screaming for the truth? Could he be a bigger hypocrite?

[psyche101]

If I exclude the comments about the later event, which have nothing to do with evidence for the earlier 8/8.30 sighting, I am left with one witness' testimony (Mitch's) and some other witness about them hearing a jet engine.

This then leads nicely back to, if we are to accept Mitch testimony as 'evidence' which you are claiming it is, can I now point you to the TT thread by Zoser which is loaded with 'evidence'?

Or do we choose when testimony counts as evidence?

Fair go mate. The TT thread is a joke, it's for believers to fantasise in, nothing more.

If you want to look at some proper research on the 8PM event, check this link.

[Rafterman]

I'm obviously going to have to state this again because it's not registering with some of you.

I joined this forum to talk about topics that I'm interested in and topics of discussion on this message board. I didn't come here to have my ideas or beliefs questioned, scrutinized and picked apart. I came here to share information with like-minded people and to discuss those topics with those similar people. You won't find me initiating arguments trying to convince the holy rollers in the religious forums that god doesn't exist while providing mathematical equations demonstrating why. I should never have given my opinion in the AA bashing topic, that was my mistake and I'm new here. Now that I see how some of the members on this board operate and how things seem to work here in general, you won't ever find me on those topics again. So, I would appreciate it those who don't believe that aliens or bigfoot exist do not respond to any topics I've started on these subjects. if you have nothing to say besides trying to convince me that my logic is flawed, I'm really not interested. I'm not going to spend all my time here defending my beliefs or others who believe what I do. I would never have thought that a message board called, "Unexplained Mysteries", containing discussions about bigfoot and aliens would lure in so many over the top skeptics. If you don't believe in these things, why are some of you here, seriously? If it's because of other forums that suit your interests, then why don't you stick to those forums with your own like-minded people..

Thank you.

You must be new to the internet.

[TheMacGuffin]

Not to guys like you or zoser perhaps. Guys that has already made up their mind about a case and closed it to everything else.

But Im pretty sure that others following this thread will take a look at the evidence, for and against, and form their own opinion.

I haven't made up my mind about every case. *snip*

Edited October 10, 2012 by Saru
Removed personal attack.

[psyche101]

If you would watch the video I posted at the beginning of this topic you would see that yes, 1000's of people ARE claiming that they were not flares, not planes, not helicopters or balloons, but something they couldn't identify. The producer of the video, Dr. Lynne Kitei and many other volunteers spent over 3 months calling each and every one of the witnesses. Dr. Kitei said she made over 700 phone calls herself.

The same link admits that the discrepancies are massive.

LIGHTS ON MOVING CRAFT: These are the lights associated with the March 13th event (shortly after 8pm) that appeared to be fixed to a large v-shaped or triangular shaped craft. There are varying witness descriptions of different light arrays, patterns and number of lights which could suggest the possibility of multiple craft or a singular craft that changed as it flew across the Arizona skies. Witnesses all unanimously agree that the craft, or multiple craft, were completely silent and flew very close to the ground. One craft was over a mile wide according to hundreds of documented witness accounts.

What is the point of hundreds of accounts if they say different things? Changing shape? If that does not indicate individual lights, I honestly do not know what does.

Edited October 10, 2012 by psyche101

[booNyzarC]

he said he saw planes......would be the correct way of putting it

.

Okay bee, if that makes you happier. He said that he saw planes. Considering that you are interested in being full and accurate, we should probably re-post the whole thing here right?

Mitch Stanley, 21, spends several nights a week in his backyard with a 10-inch telescope, exploring the night sky. He's owned the telescope for about a year, and has learned the sky well. With its 10-inch mirror, the telescope gathers 1,500 times as much light as the human eye. And with the eyepiece Stanley was using on the night of March 13, the telescope gave him 60 times the resolving power of his naked eye.

That night Mitch and his mother, Linda, were in the backyard and noticed the lights coming from the north. Since the lights seemed to be moving so slowly, Mitch attempted to capture them in the scope. He succeeded, and the leading three lights fit in his field of vision. Linda asked what they were. "

Planes

," Mitch said.

It was plain to see, he says. What looked like individual lights to the naked eye actually split into two under the resolving power of the telescope. The lights were located on the undersides of squarish wings, Mitch says. And the planes themselves seemed small, like light private planes.

Stanley watched them for about a minute, and then turned away. It was the last thing the amateur astronomer wanted to look at. "

They were just planes, I didn't want to look at them

," Stanley says when he's asked why he didn't stare at them longer.

He is certain about what he saw:

"

They were planes. There's no way I could have mistaken that.

"

(Ortega

Great

)

Emphasis added by me.

Yes, it is best to be complete in order to not misunderstand his intentions, I agree....

No, I have never heard of him in my life. Today was the first time I ever even heard that name, in connection with this case or anything else.

In that case I retract my statement about you having heard of him. I'm a bit surprised that you haven't considering how many times I've mentioned him and posted that very same video, but perhaps you just never read any of those posts or ever watched that video clip.

At this point though, you have. Assuming that you did actually watch the clip anyway.

Cheers.

[bee]

.

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

.

[booNyzarC]

.

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

.

Yeah, that's a compelling and convincing response to what he said....

Sorry bee, but you're really grasping at straws here. There is no question in what he stated. And we're talking about a kid here. Are you trying to suggest that he was a government disinformation agent or something?

This is bordering on ridiculous. No, actually, it has long since surpassed ridiculous.

[bee]

And we're talking about a kid here. Are you trying to suggest that he was a government disinformation agent or something?

He was a young man, not a kid.

And who's to say he wasn't coerced....you must surely have considered that?

Which ever way you look at it...its very weak evidence at best.

sorry

.

[booNyzarC]

He was a young man, not a kid.

And who's to say he wasn't coerced....you must surely have considered that?

Something tells me that you wouldn't be saying this if he had reported seeing ET...

Your bias is showing through in spades today bee.

Which ever way you look at it...its very weak evidence at best.

sorry

.

I disagree. It is extremely strong evidence.

You just don't like it because of the mundane implications.

[bee]

Your bias is showing through in spades today bee.

as is yours.......

[S2F]

He was a young man, not a kid.

And who's to say he wasn't coerced....you must surely have considered that?

Which ever way you look at it...its very weak evidence at best.

sorry

.

If he was coerced into this, why not more? If this was covered up we would have more than just a couple of people offering testimony, we would likely have a large amount with flight logs handily passed around for everyone to see and interviews with the pilots etc. etc. If the Phoenix lights were covered up then it was a pretty shoddy job done of it.

[booNyzarC]

as is yours.......

How so bee?

[TheMacGuffin]

I haven't made up my mind about every case. *snip*

I have good reasons to believe this was not just conventional planes or flares.

Edited October 11, 2012 by TheMacGuffin

[TheMacGuffin]

And what the governor of Arizona saw and thousands of others saw is not strong evidence? I beg to differ.

Edited October 11, 2012 by TheMacGuffin

[booNyzarC]

And what the governor of Arizona saw and thousands of others saw is not strong evidence? I beg to differ.

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?

Edit: Added a word.

Edited October 11, 2012 by booNyzarC