The Phoenix Lights revisited

[DONTEATUS]

THat calls for a Photo Op !

[psyche101]

Psyche101, "Now if you were not ignoring the in depth work done by the skeptics you can follow the link..... "

I ignore it because it SUCKS, in plain unadulterated English.

I see Earl, it sucks why? It is too hard for you? It smashes the claims you have cherry picked? What is wrong with it? You do not want to know what it has to say, and how it agrees with the claims that say individual lights?

10,000 people had something amazing to say.

That is a load, and I showed you. 10,000 people had 10,000 stories to tell. You are speaking for those that do not agree with you.

Skeptics prefer to toally ignore their testimony and to read the opinion of a mathematician and his trig theory and say, "Oh, yeah!"

You are the one ignoring testimony. As soon as it is shown to be disparte, you have a hissy fit and say they all say the same thing, when they most certainly do not.

That you are too scared to tackle the math does not negate it.

Sorry, I will now do just like you and the skeptics do,,, I will CHERRY PICK what I want to read.

When you "cherry Pick" like the skeptics, make sure you cherry pick like we do, and go with factual information as opposed to making something up on the fly. Yes, I will always "cherry pick" that which has fact behind it is opposed to that which is borne from imagination.

And Earl, if you look it up that is not the definition of "Cherry pick" Cherry picking is something like picking out one account, and then claiming it is indicative of thousands, when it is not. That is what you are doing here, and blatantly I might add.

And I would much rather read the accounts of people who were THERE over accounts of mathematicians and MB skeptics who were NOT.

thank you!

You mean you would rather cherry pick the accounts that you like the sound of, and use those few examples to represent the entire group. You were not there either Earl, how do you know which ONE was telling the truth? You seem to think the man with the best view in the house is out of the picture, but you cannot tell me why. And what cannot be disputed is that he did indeed have the best seat in the house.

[psyche101]

Secret floating hotels being towed by Warthogs dropping flares. Are we done here?

Nope.

We have a telescope to squeeze in there somewhere as well. I have a feeling your the man to make the suggestion............

[psyche101]

@ Earl

Interesting... But you must understand that i was very very very sure that phoenix lights were real... I was shown i was very very wrong..sadly...

I could tell you why... but it is boon who made it very clear to me, go do some research or just talk/write belief..which needs evidence..A thing so elusive that i might had more luck with bigfoot or yeti...

Exemplary post Nuke.

If I may I hope you do not mind me pointing you out to Earl here. You are a strong proponent, yet you evaluated the real at hand evidence and have seen this for what it is. Lacklustre. Proponents like the Governor, and Earl, are the people who hurt the pursuit you are on. Naturally it is very hard to take people at their word when they pretend to be interested in the subject, and they refuse real evidence.

You on the other hand have shown objectivity. I can see after the last few posts that had you coe the the triangle conclusion, you would have something behind you to show us what it is you would be seeing in that instance. I cannot help but respect that, and that is what makes Quilllius a well respected and excellent debater. You have displayed the same common sense, and courtesy. Well done mate.

With people like you and Quillius on that side of the fence, I might someday get an answer to Portage County. Kudos Nuke, I tip my hat to you.

[psyche101]

lol

I'll second that.

[psyche101]

Well I have to say I've never really been too impressed by his story either. For one thing he was not an Astronomer, he was a highschool kid who had just barely joined a local group. Also people but a lot of emphasis on the idea that he could supposedly see two wingtip lights through his device and that other witnesses were only seeing one light because the supposed aircraft were too high, however that doesn't really make sense because most Aircraft can't fly high enough for two wingtip lights to appear as one light to ground observers making naked eye observations.

Gidday Mate

Astronomer, amateur astronomer. That is just a description the press makes, and we have not control over that. I think that is potatoes potatos in this instance where the object of discussion is what he sighted, and the indisputable fact that of all the claims, his had the best view. If his experience was in question I think that would be a relevant point. But I do not think one needs to much experience to have a look around your own backyard.

Indeed you are right, when on approach planes do come close enough to the ground however Mitch's initial description is that he had the impression that the private planes he saw were small and high, which might account for those of us that have failing eyesight, such as myself, and parallax error would definitely account for a number of such claims as well.

I do not think what he proposes is at all unreasonable.

Cheers.

Edited October 19, 2012 by psyche101

[booNyzarC]

Well I have to say I've never really been too impressed by his story either. For one thing he was not an Astronomer, he was a highschool kid who had just barely joined a local group. Also people but a lot of emphasis on the idea that he could supposedly see two wingtip lights through his device and that other witnesses were only seeing one light because the supposed aircraft were too high, however that doesn't really make sense because most Aircraft can't fly high enough for two wingtip lights to appear as one light to ground observers making naked eye observations.

I must say that I've never really understood your complaint in this regard LS. What are the details of why you seem to think that he couldn't have seen what he stated?

Are there no angles from which you think this observation could be legitimate? What exactly is it?

I'm honestly curious.

[psyche101]

THat calls for a Photo Op !

What can you do but call a spade a spade!

[lost_shaman]

I must say that I've never really understood your complaint in this regard LS. What are the details of why you seem to think that he couldn't have seen what he stated?

Are there no angles from which you think this observation could be legitimate? What exactly is it?

I'm honestly curious.

There are a number of things, but I'll have to get back to you on this boon because I've moved and don't have internet service at my new house yet and only get just a few minutes a day at work to check up on UM.

I will get back to you on this when I get the chance.

[booNyzarC]

There are a number of things, but I'll have to get back to you on this boon because I've moved and don't have internet service at my new house yet and only get just a few minutes a day at work to check up on UM.

I will get back to you on this when I get the chance.

Thanks LS, I appreciate that and I understand. Hope the move progresses well.

[psyche101]

There are a number of things, but I'll have to get back to you on this boon because I've moved and don't have internet service at my new house yet and only get just a few minutes a day at work to check up on UM.

I will get back to you on this when I get the chance.

I'll echo Boon here, looking forward to an excellent conversation, and I hope the move goes well. Personally, I hate moving. I want one of those bumper stickers that says

"Yes this is my Ute. No I wont help you move"

[mcrom901]

i tried downloading the video of the earlier event...

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/discovery-presents/videos/ufos-over-phoenix-the-v-shaped-object.htm

to check the frames....

http://discidevflash-f.akamaihd.net/digmed/hdnet/f9/aa/11838300102_FirstEvent-200k.mp4

it says 2 gb

[mcrom901]

"CT-144s flying at 19,000 feet"

that should give us a start...

[psyche101]

i tried downloading the video of the earlier event...

http://dsc.discovery...aped-object.htm

to check the frames....

http://discidevflash...tEvent-200k.mp4

it says 2 gb

Interesting website mate

play

Human Mutants

Mermaid Syndrome

96,392 viewspl132,958 views

play

Ted Nugent's Gun Country

Zombie Takedown

7,666 views

Edited October 19, 2012 by psyche101

[psyche101]

"CT-144s flying at 19,000 feet"

that should give us a start...

Good to see you mate.

We did go over this a few pages back, I do not think anyone opposed Tim Printy's take:

Additionally, we discover there were more witnesses to aircraft in formation that night:

...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...

But Capt. Michael Perry, squadron logistics officer for the Snowbirds, denied that any planes were in Arizona that month. "We don't travel ina V-shaped formation, and we don't cruise with landing lights on," he told Readers Digest. (Fitzgerald)

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.

LINK

[mcrom901]

Good to see you mate.

hia matey... the feeling is mutual

We did go over this a few pages back, I do not think anyone opposed Tim Printy's take:

LINK

i think that tim printy is trying the cover his own base by suggesting that the snowbirds and the airforce tutors were different....

he says that...

"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."

from where does he come up with that... i don't get it

here's the updated link re the bomber command museum of canada..... http://www.bombercom...m.ca/tutor.html

but anyways...

"The name was formally adopted on 25 June 1971. The Snowbirds were officially authorized to be designated the Canadian Forces Air Demonstration Team on 15 January 1975. The team was formed into its own squadron by reactivating 431 Squadron (renamed 431 Air Demonstration Squadron) on 1 April 1978."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowbirds

http://en.wikipedia....ir_CT-114_Tutor

maybe i'm missing something here... will check further...

eta...

then he goes on to say...

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

oh

Edited October 19, 2012 by mcrom901

[Space Commander Travis]

It should surely be simple enough to verify whether or not there were any Canadian squadrons visiting the area for exercises at the time, should it not, and if so, what aircraft they were flying? Has that been done yet?

[mcrom901]

It should surely be simple enough to verify whether or not there were any Canadian squadrons visiting the area for exercises at the time, should it not, and if so, what aircraft they were flying? Has that been done yet?

But Capt. Michael Perry, squadron logistics officer for the Snowbirds, denied that any planes were in Arizona that month. "We don't travel ina V-shaped formation, and we don't cruise with landing lights on," he told Readers Digest. (Fitzgerald)

[Just Dave]

For the record, i am still a beliver... just this case got debunked..plenty more work to be done...

[Space Commander Travis]

But Capt. Michael Perry, squadron logistics officer for the Snowbirds, denied that any planes were in Arizona that month. "We don't travel ina V-shaped formation, and we don't cruise with landing lights on," he told Readers Digest. (Fitzgerald)

indeed so, so what was all that speculation from Mr. P about? ""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." So does he mean that there may have been some other Canadian squadron in the area at tha time? That should be easy enough to verify, surely. I suppose the RCAF* must have records going back that far.

* I don't know if it is still Royal, but I like to refer to it as such

[Hazzard]

For the record, i am still a beliver... just this case got debunked..plenty more work to be done...

I would also like to go on the record, saying - As skeptical might be to all these alleged visitations, I remain hopeful that some day (if the ETH is correct) we will find that illusive exhibit A.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Hazzard

[booNyzarC]

It should surely be simple enough to verify whether or not there were any Canadian squadrons visiting the area for exercises at the time, should it not, and if so, what aircraft they were flying? Has that been done yet?

But Capt. Michael Perry, squadron logistics officer for the Snowbirds, denied that any planes were in Arizona that month. "We don't travel ina V-shaped formation, and we don't cruise with landing lights on," he told Readers Digest. (Fitzgerald)

indeed so, so what was all that speculation from Mr. P about? ""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." So does he mean that there may have been some other Canadian squadron in the area at tha time? That should be easy enough to verify, surely. I suppose the RCAF* must have records going back that far.

* I don't know if it is still Royal, but I like to refer to it as such

For the sake of clarity, here is the full reference from Fitzgerald, emphasis mine.

Were Canadian Pilots Pulling a Hoax?

In the radio exchange between the America West airline crew and a pilot claiming to be a part of the lights formation, which I detailed in Part One, the mystery pilot said “we’re Canadian Snowbirds flying Tutors.”

From their Canadian Forces Base in Saskatchewan, the Snowbirds, officially known as the 431st Air Demonstration Squadron, tour the North American continent from April through October performing at air shows. They fly the CT114 Tutor, a two-seat trainer. It has a single whitish-colored landing light in its nose that can be pointed downward.

To get more information, I had numerous contacts with Major Jeff Young, Chief Flying Instructor for the Snowbirds. He told me the following: “we could find no record of our jets going cross country in that time frame. We can’t find anybody in our operation who could have been responsible for the lights that people saw.”

Major Young did concede that Tutor planes could have been in Arizona that night flown by pilots other than the Snowbirds performance team.

That view was echoed by Captain Mike Perry, squadron logistics officer for the Snowbirds, who mentioned that

out of 100 Tutor planes at their base, it was possible that “some may have been flown to Arizona by pilots from our training school,

but it was not our performance team. We don’t travel in a v-shaped formation. We travel in threes and we never fly with our landing lights on.”

Major Young also gave me these characteristics of the Tutor aircraft. Its maximum cross country speed is 420 miles per hour, but it can travel as slow as 100 mph before the engine stalls. The fuel tank range is 450 miles, with another 100 miles available by using an extra tank.

Is it a coincidence that the lights over Arizona traveled the state from northwest to southeast at an average speed of about 400 miles per hour, within the Tutor cruising speed range? Is it a coincidence that the maximum fuel tank range for the Tutor is 550 miles and that distance covers a non-stop flight from the Area 51 military facility in Nevada to the Fort Huachcua military airfield in southern Arizona, south of Tucson? I’ll delve more into that angle in a moment.

So yes, it is still possible, but as yet unconfirmed and will likely remain that way.

Edit to add...

There is a pretty big difference between the version which was originally published in Readers Digest:

But Capt. Michael Perry, squadron logistics officer for the Snowbirds, denied that any planes were in Arizona that month.

And this longer version:

That view was echoed by Captain Mike Perry, squadron logistics officer for the Snowbirds, who mentioned that out of 100 Tutor planes at their base, it was possible that “some may have been flown to Arizona by pilots from our training school, but it was not our performance team.

The reason for this is that the original publication was "in a greatly abridged form," probably to save on space for other articles in that particular issue of the digest. Fitzgerald mentions this in part one, which is here if anyone would like to read the whole piece.

Cheers.

Edited October 19, 2012 by booNyzarC

[Space Commander Travis]

For the sake of clarity, here is the full reference from Fitzgerald, emphasis mine.

Were Canadian Pilots Pulling a Hoax?

In the radio exchange between the America West airline crew and a pilot claiming to be a part of the lights formation, which I detailed in Part One, the mystery pilot said “we’re Canadian Snowbirds flying Tutors.”

From their Canadian Forces Base in Saskatchewan, the Snowbirds, officially known as the 431st Air Demonstration Squadron, tour the North American continent from April through October performing at air shows. They fly the CT114 Tutor, a two-seat trainer. It has a single whitish-colored landing light in its nose that can be pointed downward.

To get more information, I had numerous contacts with Major Jeff Young, Chief Flying Instructor for the Snowbirds. He told me the following: “we could find no record of our jets going cross country in that time frame. We can’t find anybody in our operation who could have been responsible for the lights that people saw.”

Major Young did concede that Tutor planes could have been in Arizona that night flown by pilots other than the Snowbirds performance team.

That view was echoed by Captain Mike Perry, squadron logistics officer for the Snowbirds, who mentioned that

out of 100 Tutor planes at their base, it was possible that “some may have been flown to Arizona by pilots from our training school,

but it was not our performance team. We don’t travel in a v-shaped formation. We travel in threes and we never fly with our landing lights on.”

Cheers.

That really seems very vague; surely it should not be impossible to verify whether there were any [R]CAF squadrons in Arizona during the period in question? There may well have been some participating in excercises, but for NATO exercises they'd most likely use front line aircraft, rather than basic trainers. It seems remarkably vague for Maj Young and Capt Perry to suggest that some may have decided to go ambling down that way for a bit of a day out or something. Surely the USAF would know, even if the CAF seem rather vague on the question?

Edited October 19, 2012 by 747400

[booNyzarC]

That really seems very vague; surely it should not be impossible to verify whether there were any [R]CAF squadrons in Arizona during the period in question? There may well have been some participating in excercises, but for NATO exercises they'd most likely use front line aircraft, rather than basic trainers. It seems remarkably vague for Maj Young and Capt Perry to suggest that some may have decided to go ambling down that way for a bit of a day out or something. Surely the USAF would know, even if the CAF seem rather vague on the question?

I agree that it is somewhat vague, but it is what it is. I don't think we will ever know exactly which planes were involved or who was piloting them unless someone comes forward to claim responsibility. And even if someone does do that at some point, the question will still remain as to whether or not they're telling the truth.

[Space Commander Travis]

I agree that it is somewhat vague, but it is what it is. I don't think we will ever know exactly which planes were involved or who was piloting them unless someone comes forward to claim responsibility. And even if someone does do that at some point, the question will still remain as to whether or not they're telling the truth.

Not really; squadrons keep records of what they do, and it's hardly as if a bunch of pilots would decide to fly military aircraft around in another country's air space (and down almost the entire height of the United States) just for a day out. I'm sure either the [R]CAF or USAF would have records if there ware any Canadian aircraft in the vicinity of the ranges around Phoenix at that time.