synchronomy Posted October 12, 2012 #201 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Some UFO cases just can't be debunked. This case has done the rounds far and wide. Sorry, but it's in the history books now as one of the all-time big ones. The fact remains that many people saw a solid v-shaped craft with 5 lights traverse slowly over several areas of Arizona, including Phoenix. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bionic Bigfoot Posted October 12, 2012 Author #202 Share Posted October 12, 2012 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? It works because the video I posted clearly shows something different. It corroborates the eye witness accounts and debunks any flare theory. I am guessing that is why you are avoiding the math, which is not up for discussion because math is what it is? And you and others are avoiding the basic properties of how flares work. The 'math' that has been presented to triangulate the lights was based upon the one video that the debunkers keep referring to, and ONLY that video. It's impossible to triangulate any lights from videos that were taken around 10pm because the ones that were taken, were taken from different areas over a 30 minute time frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted October 12, 2012 #203 Share Posted October 12, 2012 It works because the video I posted clearly shows something different. It corroborates the eye witness accounts and debunks any flare theory. But you are saying that there is no way you can say they are the same event. There were two that night, and the earlier event was planes, the later event flares. If they are two seperate events, how does one discount the other? You have absolutely no proof that the video I posted shows the same event as the one used by the debunkers. See what I mean? How can one event prove anything about the other? And you and others are avoiding the basic properties of how flares work. The 'math' that has been presented to triangulate the lights was based upon the one video that the debunkers keep referring to, and ONLY that video. It's impossible to triangulate any lights from videos that were taken around 10pm because the ones that were taken, were taken from different areas over a 30 minute time frame. I believe testimony was also used in the triangulation calculations? Both showed the same thing. Having two triangulation co-ordinates trumps one if one confirms the other? Is this the sort of thing you are looking for? If not can you clarify and I will do my best to accomodate, but please be warned, I have no access to Youtube. I believe the threads I referred to go into great detail about operational performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted October 12, 2012 #204 Share Posted October 12, 2012 (edited) Some UFO cases just can't be debunked. I agree. I have never been able to personally resolve the Portage County case. This case has done the rounds far and wide. Thanks to the media largely and a handful of zealots. Sorry, but it's in the history books now as one of the all-time big ones. And it will continue to be. It does not mean it is a convincing case, it means lots of people are talking about it, again we are back at the media. This has not made rounds because it has good evidence, it has made rounds because a lot of people argue about it. Roswell is a lousy story that has been constantly regurgitated for 60 years now, and we are still no closer to an answer that all are happy with. Personally I think there are quite a few far more intriguing cases than this lacklustre old chestnut. The fact remains that many people saw a solid v-shaped craft with 5 lights traverse slowly over several areas of Arizona, including Phoenix. That is not by any means fact, that is opinion. Not the same thing. People have differing opinions about it. If it were fact, I'd still like one person to tell me when it left the planet, and even more interesting, what direction did it take when it left here? Edited October 12, 2012 by psyche101 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted October 12, 2012 #205 Share Posted October 12, 2012 And you and others are avoiding the basic properties of how flares work. This also might be of further assistance. - LINK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bionic Bigfoot Posted October 12, 2012 Author #206 Share Posted October 12, 2012 (edited) If you can't provide a video showing military illumination flares floating in the sky for over an hour long, moving together in fixed positions and in clear view, then the flare theory is debunked. I/we don't need to see schematics and detailed pictures of those types of flares, we need to see a video of how the flares behave as they're descending. You can't just point to the other Phoenix lights videos like the one I posted and just claim that yes, those are the flares. Provide a video that is completely separate from this case of such flares displaying the properties that I've just described. P.S. You've posted that link twice now and again, that proves nothing. Edited October 12, 2012 by Bionic Bigfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
synchronomy Posted October 12, 2012 #207 Share Posted October 12, 2012 *inserts tongue in cheek and tries to change subject* Any of you heard of Phil Schneider? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badeskov Posted October 12, 2012 #208 Share Posted October 12, 2012 If you can't provide a video showing military illumination flares floating in the sky for over an hour long, moving together in fixed positions and in clear view, then the flare theory is debunked. <snip> By all means of respect, but I am not sure you really understand how a discussion works. Just because there no video presented here (although I am sure such exists, I honestly can't be bothered by something so rather banal), does not mean that the flare explanation is refuted. And it is not our fault that you do not understand how flares descend. But please allow me to turn it upside down: why should flares not stay in "formation"? The same type of flares are dropped in succession into the same environment (wind, humidity, pressure). They will behave roughly the same and what small deviations there are will be hard to see at a distance. Please explain to me why you do not think that is the case as I do not understand. Cheers, Badeskov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bionic Bigfoot Posted October 12, 2012 Author #209 Share Posted October 12, 2012 I understand completely how flares descend, it's not hard to understand at all and there is no math involved to calculate their descent pattern. The only thing you've said that I will agree with is that it could seem that flares 'appear' to be staying in formation and if viewed at a great distance, which by the way was the case in the video that keeps being brought up here. But again, if you or anyone else on this board or elsewhere can't provide a different video of flares displaying the characteristics I'm talking about, the flare theory is indeed debunked. Not just by me, tons of other people who've viewed the video footage would agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted October 12, 2012 #210 Share Posted October 12, 2012 (edited) If you can't provide a video showing military illumination flares floating in the sky for over an hour long, moving together in fixed positions and in clear view, then the flare theory is debunked. I/we don't need to see schematics and detailed pictures of those types of flares, we need to see a video of how the flares behave as they're descending. You can't just point to the other Phoenix lights videos like the one I posted and just claim that yes, those are the flares. Provide a video that is completely separate from this case of such flares displaying the properties that I've just described. P.S. You've posted that link twice now and again, that proves nothing. I told you I do not have access to Youtube. I cannot give you something from there. All the clips on this page are just white rectangles to me. How much do you understand about the Human Eye? Do you know that a video camera can see spectrums we cannot? Do you realise that a video is not going to be exactly what the eye sees either? Can you show a video of a perfect triangle of lights that does not change shape, and hovers over Phoenix for an hour? Do you understand the diagrams and links given, and how the flares work, their function and how they are deployed? Can you falsify the math? Edited October 12, 2012 by psyche101 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
booNyzarC Posted October 12, 2012 #211 Share Posted October 12, 2012 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? Wrong on all counts. The video you posted was recorded by Tom King while he was at Steve Blonder's prior residence. King filmed the exact same event that Mike Krzyston and Chuck Rairdon filmed at roughly 10 PM in the evening. The video you posted does not last an hour, and that's because the flares in question weren't in the sky for over an hour. You need to understand that there were two events that night. One event was at around 10 PM and that is what most of the footage depicts. This event was flares. The other event was earlier in the evening between 8 and 9 or so, and there is only one piece of footage of that event which was shot by Terry Proctor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
booNyzarC Posted October 12, 2012 #212 Share Posted October 12, 2012 I understand completely how flares descend, it's not hard to understand at all and there is no math involved to calculate their descent pattern. The only thing you've said that I will agree with is that it could seem that flares 'appear' to be staying in formation and if viewed at a great distance, which by the way was the case in the video that keeps being brought up here. But again, if you or anyone else on this board or elsewhere can't provide a different video of flares displaying the characteristics I'm talking about, the flare theory is indeed debunked. Not just by me, tons of other people who've viewed the video footage would agree. You want a comparative flare video? This Video below shows Cannon fired illumination Flares at a distance of ~28 miles from the Camera. Shot in Brazil in 1993, these Flares have a shorter duration than the LUU-2's but otherwise look more or less identical to the Phoenix Flares. K's video is also included in the video with K's audio. [media=] [/media]http://forgetomori.c...phoenix-lights/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bionic Bigfoot Posted October 12, 2012 Author #213 Share Posted October 12, 2012 I told you I do not have access to Youtube. I cannot give you something from there. Then provide a link to a video from another site on the internet, there are thousands of video sites. Can you show a video of a perfect triangle of lights that does not change shape, and hovers over Phoenix for an hour? Other than the one I posted recently, no I can't and not for an hour. But here's the thing, even if you want to dismiss the eye witnesses and that they were misidentifying what the lights actually were, you can't dismiss the length of time that the lights were seen. Or are you going to say next that 10,000 people can't tell time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
booNyzarC Posted October 12, 2012 #214 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Then provide a link to a video from another site on the internet, there are thousands of video sites. Other than the one I posted recently, no I can't and not for an hour. But here's the thing, even if you want to dismiss the eye witnesses and that they were misidentifying what the lights actually were, you can't dismiss the length of time that the lights were seen. Or are you going to say next that 10,000 people can't tell time? Want more videos of flares? And here is an animated GIF I made from a special about the Phoenix Lights. This is 13 frames of footage from a film crew who spotted the flares being dropped and filmed them, and later confirmed that they were indeed flares. You can deny the fact that these are flares all you want, but it won't change reality. The footage shot at 10 PM that night in Phoenix was of flares, including the video that you posted. You don't have to take my word for it. MUFON agrees, Stanton Friedman agrees, Leslie Keen agrees, Bruce Maccabee agrees, even James Fox who produced the famous "I Know What I Saw" documentary focused on the Phoenix Lights agrees. These are UFOlogy bigwigs. Take their word for it if you don't trust me. Now, there is the earlier sighting which has not been definitively and conclusively confirmed to everyone's satisfaction to be aircraft flying in formation. If you want to cling to a portion of the Phoenix Lights as somehow mysterious, that's all you have to hold onto. As far as I'm concerned, the case is closed on it, but I know that many are resistant to these conclusions and I completely respect that. I don't understand it, but I respect it. But don't try for a second to tell me or anyone else that the footage you posted is anything but flares or that the flare conclusion regarding the 10 PM footage and event has been debunked because that is patently false. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted October 12, 2012 #215 Share Posted October 12, 2012 I understand completely how flares descend, it's not hard to understand at all and there is no math involved to calculate their descent pattern. LOL, yes there is! That is why we have slow falling, long burning flares, and fast falling quick burning flares. If there was no math done, they might stay ignited whilst they settle gently on someones house and set it alight! The only thing you've said that I will agree with is that it could seem that flares 'appear' to be staying in formation and if viewed at a great distance, which by the way was the case in the video that keeps being brought up here. But again, if you or anyone else on this board or elsewhere can't provide a different video of flares displaying the characteristics I'm talking about, the flare theory is indeed debunked. Not just by me, tons of other people who've viewed the video footage would agree. I cannot youtube, partly by choice, and an animated gif would be massive. To large to post. Does this help any? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted October 12, 2012 #216 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Then provide a link to a video from another site on the internet, there are thousands of video sites. For which event? Other than the one I posted recently, no I can't and not for an hour. But here's the thing, even if you want to dismiss the eye witnesses and that they were misidentifying what the lights actually were, you can't dismiss the length of time that the lights were seen. Or are you going to say next that 10,000 people can't tell time? As Boon mentioned, you seem to be thinking this was one event? What witness claims to have had the lights in their own view for over an hour? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
booNyzarC Posted October 12, 2012 #217 Share Posted October 12, 2012 It works because the video I posted clearly shows something different. It corroborates the eye witness accounts and debunks any flare theory. No, it doesn't show anything different and it doesn't debunk anything. I'm not sure what is making you draw this conclusion. And you and others are avoiding the basic properties of how flares work. The 'math' that has been presented to triangulate the lights was based upon the one video that the debunkers keep referring to, and ONLY that video. It's impossible to triangulate any lights from videos that were taken around 10pm because the ones that were taken, were taken from different areas over a 30 minute time frame. What on earth gives you this impression? The films in question were not taken over a 30 minute time frame, so I'm honestly curious about where you are getting this disinformation. As for triangulation, again, if you don't trust me, try Dr. Bruce Maccabee on for size. Here is his analysis of the videos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bionic Bigfoot Posted October 12, 2012 Author #218 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Those videos and animated .gifs depicting flares are horrible. They are terrible quality, extremely pixilated, shaky and besides this, they don't look anything like the video of the lights I posted. The video that was supposedly taken from an estimated 50 miles away from the lights (post#214) was obviously flares. But being so far away like the videographer mentioned, would make them look similar to the Phoenix lights. However, none of the existing videos of the lights over Phoenix were taken from such great distances. In that animated .gif you could see the individual lights moving and shifting their relative location to one another quite easily. Sorry, those videos and animations are very poor evidence to support the flare theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted October 12, 2012 #219 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Those videos and animated .gifs depicting flares are horrible. They are terrible quality, extremely pixilated, shaky and besides this, they don't look anything like the video of the lights I posted. The video that was supposedly taken from an estimated 50 miles away from the lights (post#214) was obviously flares. But being so far away like the videographer mentioned, would make them look similar to the Phoenix lights. However, none of the existing videos of the lights over Phoenix were taken from such great distances. In that animated .gif you could see the individual lights moving and shifting their relative location to one another quite easily. Sorry, those videos and animations are very poor evidence to support the flare theory. Is there one photo or one video that clearly shows a giant triangular craft hovering over Phoenix? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
booNyzarC Posted October 12, 2012 #220 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Those videos and animated .gifs depicting flares are horrible. They are terrible quality, extremely pixilated, shaky and besides this, they don't look anything like the video of the lights I posted. The video that was supposedly taken from an estimated 50 miles away from the lights (post#214) was obviously flares. But being so far away like the videographer mentioned, would make them look similar to the Phoenix lights. However, none of the existing videos of the lights over Phoenix were taken from such great distances. In that animated .gif you could see the individual lights moving and shifting their relative location to one another quite easily. Sorry, those videos and animations are very poor evidence to support the flare theory. If your criticism is of AlienDan's animated GIF, it wasn't his fault. The video he created it from was crappy in the first place. Getting your hands on quality digital versions of the original Phoenix Lights videos isn't easy to accomplish because they were on video tape from 1997. There is also variation in quality from camera to camera in the first place. I couldn't even get them from Bruce Maccabee when I contacted him a year or so ago while I was looking into this in considerable depth. But that is beside the point really. I don't think you understand the situation here Bionic Bigfoot. The established fact at this point is that the videos from around 10 PM that night were of flares. You are the one who must disprove this if you would like to make some headway. Whether you were ignorant of that or not doesn't matter, it is established at this point and embraced by even the biggest of big wigs in UFOlogy. If you want to attempt to disprove it, you'll need to do some work, but I don't recommend that you waste your time because there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the footage from around 10 PM that night is of flares; including the footage that you posted earlier today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earl.Of.Trumps Posted October 12, 2012 #221 Share Posted October 12, 2012 TheMacGuffin: "That's not really an "explanation", but rather an echo chamber." ROFLMAO!!! MacGuff, you never cease to amaze me 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bionic Bigfoot Posted October 12, 2012 Author #222 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Is there one photo or one video that clearly shows a giant triangular craft hovering over Phoenix? No, and that would have likely been impossible. But, many of the eye witness testimonies clearly stated that the 'body' of the craft appeared to be the same colour as the the night sky. The only way they could tell there was in fact a solid structure was because the stars were being blocked out as it moved over them. Many, many, MANY witnesses said this. The video I posted however shows major discrepancies between any flare videos posted so far. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bionic Bigfoot Posted October 12, 2012 Author #223 Share Posted October 12, 2012 If you want to attempt to disprove it, you'll need to do some work, but I don't recommend that you waste your time because there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the footage from around 10 PM that night is of flares; including the footage that you posted earlier today. I don't agree. I think it's the debunkers who have to come up with better video footage of military illumination flares that CLEARLY show the properties of a) remaining in fixed positions to one another, close enough distance to not create an illusion that they are remaining fixed and c) that can remain lit for over an hour. There is no 1 hour video showing the lights over Phoenix in 1997 either, but the witnesses testified that the lights were seen for approximately 1.5 hour time frame. So, the onus is on the debunkers to prove that flares have all these properties. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
booNyzarC Posted October 12, 2012 #224 Share Posted October 12, 2012 (edited) Flare theory debunked easily and any person with a set of functioning eyes could tell the difference between illumination flares and the lights in the videos taken over the sky in Phoenix in 1997. [media=] [/media] The primary points raised in this video is what is known as a strawman argument. It is full of strawman arguments in fact. The witnesses mentioned in this clip were not witnesses to the flare drop at 10 PM which was captured on video from several vantage points. These witnesses saw the earlier events, and nobody that I know of is claiming that the earlier events were flares. If you'd like to see an in depth analysis of the earlier events, I will once again refer you to Tim Printy's page here, though I really shouldn't have to considering that it has been mentioned multiple times here in this thread and expounded upon by myself and others with additional commentary and sound reasoning. Of course flares don't fly across the sky. We are in complete agreement on this point. Nobody I know of is making this claim. (Edit) I also wanted to mention the portion in this video which compares the Mike K video with other footage of flares. This is also a strawman. The stock flare footage that they used for this comparison was at extremely close range, which is why the smoke was visible. All of the footage from that night in 1997 was at a considerable distance and there was no way to see the smoke. Likewise, there were comments about how the lights in the Mike K video were 'locked together' or always moving together as one. This is simply false. The lights in that video, and also in each of the original PL videos, moved independently and at different rates. They were not 'locked together' at all. For that matter, neither were the lights filmed from the earlier sighting that wasn't related to flares at all... (/Edit) I don't agree. I think it's the debunkers who have to come up with better video footage of military illumination flares that CLEARLY show the properties of a) remaining in fixed positions to one another, close enough distance to not create an illusion that they are remaining fixed and c) that can remain lit for over an hour. There is no 1 hour video showing the lights over Phoenix in 1997 either, but the witnesses testified that the lights were seen for approximately 1.5 hour time frame. So, the onus is on the debunkers to prove that flares have all these properties. It doesn't really matter whether you agree or not. Your lack of agreement does nothing to change the reality of the situation. The fact of the matter is that the 10 PM footage is of flares. This is established and accepted by the vast majority, including those in UFOlogy as I have mentioned before. If you disagree with this conclusion the onus is completely on you to prove your case. The sooner that you come to realize this, the sooner you can focus on the elements of that night which still remain mysterious to many; the earlier sightings. Edited October 12, 2012 by booNyzarC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMacGuffin Posted October 12, 2012 #225 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Some UFO cases just can't be debunked. This case has done the rounds far and wide. Sorry, but it's in the history books now as one of the all-time big ones. The fact remains that many people saw a solid v-shaped craft with 5 lights traverse slowly over several areas of Arizona, including Phoenix. That's the real UFO story here, when all is said and done, and it has been covered up well with BS about "flares" and so on. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now