The Phoenix lights

[Fila]

On 18/01/2018 at 0:27 PM, stereologist said:

No we don't need flight logs. No we don't need radar returns. No we don't need trace elements. There is no need for a body, DNA, or a piece of the aircraft.

What we demand from UFO reports is evidence. A bright light in the sky is a bright light in the sky and not evidence of anything other than a bright light in the sky.

This logic works both ways. I demand evidence from UFO believers.., and UFO sceptics. But it doesn't seem to work this way.

If someone says they saw a UFO.., we want proof. Not evidence. (I.e. ET craft, DNA etc)

If someone says it was a plane.., we don't even need evidence. (Flight records, radar returns etc)

Kinda a bit biased from my POV

On 18/01/2018 at 0:27 PM, stereologist said:

In the case of the Phoenix Lights is there a consensus of what was seen by the UFO believers? No.  That is the reason a UFO believer proposed that Phoenix had been visited by a dozen different craft that night. This was an excuse to get around the fact that everyone claimed to see something different. A normal person would quickly figure out the witnesses were confused about what they saw.

Minor or major discrepancies in multiple eye-witness accounts is normal. This does nothing to negate the event.

On 18/01/2018 at 0:27 PM, stereologist said:

Area201 tried to make the false claim that the objects in the sky were silent. They posted " Yeah the formation of planes made so much noise that no witnesses were able to hear them." Lots of people heard the sound of planes. But, that is a typical "mistake" posted on UFO sites. There are plenty of false statements about the event. What is clear is that those that had a better view all saw planes. No hedging on their part - they saw planes.

Is there anything suggesting it is not planes? Not really. There are plenty of witnesses that couldn't figure out what they saw. That's par for the game.

I did read reports where the UFO was silent. This is not a lie from Area201.

Yes.., the eye-witness accounts of a large silent craft, slowly floating over the sky wider than a newspaper doesn't sound like planes.., or even a formation of planes.

[Fila]

On 18/01/2018 at 2:35 PM, psyche101 said:

Nobody is stopping you. I have provided you with links to back claims it's just your turn. The report is all repeated in many places on the net not just one site. So I ask you to provide any documentation to refute the repeated claim. 

I'm on a phone. So nah.., can't check anything. But I can make as many wild accusations as I want.., without backing them up.., cause I'm on a phone.

The Phoenix Lights was observed by thousands of people, not just in Phoenix. The descriptions given do not match any known object. It is concluded that the Phoenix Lights (1997) is a legitimate UFO.

Edited January 18, 2018 by Fila

[Area201]

10 hours ago, stereologist said:

Area201 tried to make the false claim that the objects in the sky were silent. They posted " Yeah the formation of planes made so much noise that no witnesses were able to hear them." Lots of people heard the sound of planes. But, that is a typical "mistake" posted on UFO sites. There are plenty of false statements about the event. What is clear is that those that had a better view all saw planes. No hedging on their part - they saw planes.

The irrational skeptics logic: Any witness statement  there was no noise with the lights/phenomenon is "false". Any statement that says there was noise and planes is true.  

The guy who captured the only video of the 1st event (posted here earlier) says he heard no noise. We have hundreds of witnesses to the events and what they provide is not characteristics of planes. What we have here is complete denial to the evidence, both visual and testimony of an event observed by thousands of people over a major U.S city. We see this tactic of sticking head in the sand regularly by so-called skeptics.

10 hours ago, stereologist said:

There are plenty of witnesses that couldn't figure out what they saw.

There were plenty of witnesses who could figure out what they saw. 

https://truestrange.com/2017/05/29/phoenix-lights-60-eyewitness-accounts-and-conclusion/

There's many more, and all these witnesses describe a silent moving set of lights, very similar in description, in some cases performing various maneuvers. Whatever these were, planes, helicopters, flares, Chinese lanters, satellites, moons, suns, planets, are ruled out. What we see here is making false statements about witness false reports, complete denial of the facts. When witnesses called the U.S. Air Force, they too deny anything happened despite the obvious reality of it.

Phoenix lights goes down as one of the significant UFO events in history. 

Edited January 18, 2018 by Saru
Replaced quoted material with a link

[psyche101]

6 hours ago, Fila said:

1) Because there were reports of an object that was much larger than a formation of planes from 7pm to 10pm.

There are also reports from people saying it was not one large object. 

Janet Gonzales that appeared in the Phoenix New Times, videotape of the v shape shows the lights moving as separate entities, not as a single object;

Mitch Stanley, an amateur astronomer, observed high altitude lights flying in formation using a Dobsonian telescope giving 43× magnification. After observing the lights, he told his mother, who was present at the time, that the lights were aircraft

Rich Contry (pilot) I was on my way from Flagstaff to Laughin Thursday when I saw the light formation reported on the radio the other night. I'm a pilot and was in the u.s. air force 4 years. Being in the mountains on highway 40, the night was clear and still. As the formation came towards me I stopped my car and got out with my binocs to check out what this was. As it came towards me, I saw 5 aircraft with there running lights (red and green) and the landing lights (white) on. They were also flying fairly slow and in the delta formation.

Peter Davenport also confirms that the lights were possibly composed of two or more lights as Mitch states, "Mitch is correct that each of the larger lights was, by at least two good observers, reported to consist of two or three individual lights" 

 

Tim Ley also confirms the observations that each of the lights were not just one light but at least two, "We noticed that one of the lights on the far side arm seemed to flicker into two lights." (Ley). Tim added, "The light I was focused on seemed to split into two lights, one above the other, and slightly separated from each other" (Ley). Another report from Prescott also pointed out that there were two lights, "When viewing them through binoculars their shape could not be determined, however, each object seemed to display two reddish-orange steady lights"

 

Plenty of people saw planes if you read outside of UFOlogy circles. 

6 hours ago, Fila said:

2) The formation of planes cannot be verified. Its simply a theory.

And how do you come to the conclusion of one large object? UFOlogy. 

That's not on objective at all. Your just jumping on the bandwagon with the zealots. 

6 hours ago, Fila said:

The case is still unsolved. Technically.., its a UFO.

To you and other UFOlogy proponents. To the rest of the world sufficient information exists to call the first event planes and the second a military exercise 

If you refuse to accept rational sound explanations that does not make it unexplained, that's just the stance you choose to take. It's not even compelling knowing people like Fife Symington deliberately fabricated stories to hype the event up. 

[psyche101]

21 minutes ago, Fila said:

I'm on a phone. So nah.., can't check anything. But I can make as many wild accusations as I want.., without backing them up.., cause I'm on a phone.

That's rich 

I've given you quite a bit of information and links 

What have you offered? Zilch wasn't it? 

 

21 minutes ago, Fila said:

The Phoenix Lights was observed by thousands of people, not just in Phoenix. The descriptions given do not match any known object. It is concluded that the Phoenix Lights (1997) is a legitimate UFO.

Another wild claim with no supporting evidence that is more than obviously exaggerated yet you don't seem to play by your own rules do you? 

[stereologist]

9 minutes ago, Fila said:

This logic works both ways. I demand evidence from UFO believers.., and UFO sceptics. But it doesn't seem to work this way.

If someone says they saw a UFO.., we want proof. Not evidence. (I.e. ET craft, DNA etc)

If someone says it was a plane.., we don't even need evidence. (Flight records, radar returns etc)

Kinda a bit biased from my POV

Minor or major discrepancies in multiple eye-witness accounts is normal. This does nothing to negate the event.

I did read reports where the UFO was silent. This is not a lie from Area201.

Yes.., the eye-witness accounts of a large silent craft, slowly floating over the sky wider than a newspaper doesn't sound like planes.., or even a formation of planes.

No we want evidence. Stories are not evidence.

Seeing the object with sufficient resolution to make out its structure is evidence. Hearing that it is a plane is evidence. We know what planes are and the way that planes operate. Flight records are not needed.

Example. People see an animal run by through tall grass. They aren't sure what it is. Someone with binoculars sees that it is a dog with a collar. It was too far away for people without binoculars to be sure. Closer people that could not see well heard the dog bark. There is no need to go and find the owner of the dog or collect DNA to verify it is a dog. We don't need to get photos.

Now suppose that some people decide it was an unknown species. Some people say it was striped. Others though it was spotted. Some claim it had a massive head. Other say it had a small head but large teeth. Some see a short tail while others saw a bushy long tail. Some say it ran fast and other say it loped along.

Before I accepted an unknown species with a widespread and vague description I'd want to know more. People are well aware of dogs and those that see and hear it are sure it was a dog. The rest seem a bit confused and can't decide what they saw. Before I accepted an unknown species I'd want more information.

----------------

No one is negating the event. Frankly I doubt you know anymore what you are babbling on about. Major discrepancies tell us that that the witnesses are of no use. They saw but had no idea what they saw.

Area201 lied when they posted " " Yeah the formation of planes made so much noise that no witnesses were able to hear them. " Are you really so incompetent that you cannot understand the lie?

There is nothing at all suggesting it was anything other than planes.

[stereologist]

24 minutes ago, Fila said:

I'm on a phone. So nah.., can't check anything. But I can make as many wild accusations as I want.., without backing them up.., cause I'm on a phone.

The Phoenix Lights was observed by thousands of people, not just in Phoenix. The descriptions given do not match any known object. It is concluded that the Phoenix Lights (1997) is a legitimate UFO.

The descriptions given were so worthless that it is concluded that eyewitnesses are of little value.

[psyche101]

9 minutes ago, Area201 said:

The irrational skeptics logic: Any witness statement  there was no noise with the lights/phenomenon is "false". Any statement that says there was noise and planes is true.  

Planes in the shy cannot always be heard 

How many times have you seen a plane fly over and not heard it? I know I do near every day. 

9 minutes ago, Area201 said:

 

 

There's many more, and all these witnesses describe a silent moving set of lights, very similar in description, in some cases performing various maneuvers. Whatever these were, planes, helicopters, flares, Chinese lanters, satellites, moons, suns, planets, are ruled out. What we see here is making false statements about witness false reports, complete denial of the facts. When witnesses called the U.S. Air Force, they too deny anything happened despite the obvious reality of it.

Why did Fyfe Symington lie about it if it was so spectacular? 

9 minutes ago, Area201 said:

Phoenix lights goes down as one of the significant UFO events in history. 

Significant that some are still wishing it to be a spaceship after all this time and rational explanation 

If it was a spaceship why didn't it come from or leave via space? Isn't that a significant question? 

[stereologist]

15 minutes ago, Area201 said:

The irrational skeptics logic: Any witness statement  there was no noise with the lights/phenomenon is "false". Any statement that says there was noise and planes is true.  

The guy who captured the only video of the 1st event (posted here earlier) says he heard no noise. We have hundreds of witnesses to the events and what they provide is not characteristics of planes. What we have here is complete denial to the evidence, both visual and testimony of an event observed by thousands of people over a major U.S city. We see this tactic of sticking head in the sand regularly by so-called skeptics.

There were plenty of witnesses who could figure out what they saw. 

** snipped **

There's many more, and all these witnesses describe a silent moving set of lights, very similar in description, in some cases performing various maneuvers. Whatever these were, planes, helicopters, flares, Chinese lanters, satellites, moons, suns, planets, are ruled out. What we see here is making false statements about witness false reports, complete denial of the facts. When witnesses called the U.S. Air Force, they too deny anything happened despite the obvious reality of it.

Phoenix lights goes down as one of the significant UFO events in history. 

You posted a bald faced lie that NO witnesses heard any sounds. That's just a lie. Some witnesses reported hearing the planes.

Thanks for posting the statements of witnesses that couldn't identify what they saw. Good job showing I was correct.

Got to love it when you post statements howing confused witnesses that couldn't figure out the difference between events 1 and 2. Great job there showing how bad witnesses are.

Then there is the witness suggesting it was not a single large craft. Great job showing that witnesses could not agreed on what they saw.

If this was a significant UFO event it shows how pathetic UFO events are.

Edited January 18, 2018 by stereologist

[Fila]

On 18/01/2018 at 3:07 PM, psyche101 said:

There are also reports from people saying it was not one large object. 

Janet Gonzales that appeared in the Phoenix New Times, videotape of the v shape shows the lights moving as separate entities, not as a single object;

Mitch Stanley, an amateur astronomer, observed high altitude lights flying in formation using a Dobsonian telescope giving 43× magnification. After observing the lights, he told his mother, who was present at the time, that the lights were aircraft

Rich Contry (pilot) I was on my way from Flagstaff to Laughin Thursday when I saw the light formation reported on the radio the other night. I'm a pilot and was in the u.s. air force 4 years. Being in the mountains on highway 40, the night was clear and still. As the formation came towards me I stopped my car and got out with my binocs to check out what this was. As it came towards me, I saw 5 aircraft with there running lights (red and green) and the landing lights (white) on. They were also flying fairly slow and in the delta formation.

Peter Davenport also confirms that the lights were possibly composed of two or more lights as Mitch states, "Mitch is correct that each of the larger lights was, by at least two good observers, reported to consist of two or three individual lights" 

Thousands say it was big. 4 say it was small. What are we gonna do about it?

Its funny how a pilot is 100% trustworthy and experienced.., as long as they don't say UFO. Kinda shows the bias with UFOlogy. Well.., in other reports pilots who see UFOs are deemed fools. Then all pilots are categorised as not "knowing everything".Well.., this logic now applies both ways. Pilot's testimonies are no better than my own. New rule.

I need to see the flight logs. Radar data. And the video footage needs to show planes with NAV lights flashing. Not just one permanent light.

Not jumping on a bandwqagon. Not calling anyone names either. Simple investigation techniques. Proof is required.., not hearsay.

Edited January 18, 2018 by Fila

[stereologist]

4 minutes ago, Fila said:

Thousands say it was big. 4 say it was small. What are we gonna do about it?

Its funny how a pilot is 100% trustworthy and experienced.., as long as they don't say UFO. Kinda shows the bias with UFOlogy. Well.., in other reports pilots who see UFOs are deemed fools. Then all pilots are categorised as not "knowing everything".Well.., this logic now applies both ways. Pilot's testimonies are no better than my own. New rule.

I need to see the flight logs. Radar data. And the video footage needs to chow planes, with NAV lights flashing.

Thousands say it was big. Oh please stop the BS and start posting evidence to support your statements.

Then comes the faulty generalization, the non sequiturs and the rest of the BS we expect from those pushing the UFO stories.

Area201 posted a bunch of stuff copied from a site with no link showing where it came from - copyright violation.

So please support your statement of "Thousands say it was big." because frankly I don't believe you can. I think you made this up.

You should take your request even further. If there is no video footage with planes and NAV lights flashing then the entire story never happened.

Edited January 18, 2018 by stereologist

[Area201]

7 minutes ago, stereologist said:

You posted a bald faced lie that NO witnesses heard any sounds. That's just a lie. Some witnesses reported hearing the planes.

Thanks for posting the statements of witnesses that couldn't identify what they saw. Good job showing I was correct.

Got to love it when you post statements howing confused witnesses that couldn't figure out the difference between events 1 and 2. Great job there showing how bad witnesses are.

Then there is the witness suggesting it was not a single large craft. Great job showing that witnesses could not agreed on what they saw.

If this was a significant UFO event it shows how pathetic UFO events are.

Great job showing your cognitive dissonance knows no bounds with a string or statements that contradict everything posted. I don't have to do anything now.  

[stereologist]

Just now, Area201 said:

Great job showing your cognitive dissonance knows no bounds with a string or statements that contradict everything posted. I don't have to do anything now.  

I see that you can do nothing but cut and paste from a site and violate their copyrights by not stating where you copied the text.

It is a fact that people heard the planes. It is a fact that you posted a falsehood that no witnesses heard sounds.

Maybe you did not read what you posted and had no idea you used a statement so confused that it mixed up events 1 and 2.

You posted a statement that the lights were from separate objects although most witnesses thought it was a single object and reported a variety of shapes from a V, to a diamond, to a U, to a semicircle and probably other shapes as well.

As UFO events go this is probably one of the lamest there is.

 

[Fila]

On 18/01/2018 at 3:25 PM, stereologist said:

Thousands say it was big. Oh please stop the BS and start posting evidence to support your statements.

Amen brother. Do you see now Psyche101?

The onus is on you to provide the proof. Otherwise I'd just tell Stereo to "go look it up".

[stereologist]

3 minutes ago, Fila said:

Amen brother. Do you see now Psyche101?

The onus is on you to provide the proof. Otherwise I'd just tell Stereo to "go look it up".

Fila, when I look back through your posts I do not see much in the way of directly backing up your statements.

I know that this material has been done again and again by Psych101 right here at U-M. Frankly, it gets boring finding and posting the same material for every new blockhead that comes here. I'm fairly bored with this pathetic story myself. It was planes and it was shone to be planes and then blockhead after blockhead comes in with the same old tripe.

Now it is your turn to back up a claim I think is BS. So get to work and back up your statements " Thousands say it was big. 4 say it was small. " I'm fairly sure you are counting more people than actually reported it. So I am calling your bluff on what I am fairly certain is a fib. You made up this number. Your posts make it abundantly clear that you have almost no idea about the Phoenix Lights.

If were to show that the sentence is BS I'd show that there are more than 4. Area201 has already posted 1 in the small column. Just need to get 4 more to show your numbers are BS.

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, Fila said:

Thousands say it was big. 4 say it was small. What are we gonna do about it?

List the names of the thousands thanks

Your a stickler for information so you best start providing some instead of getting everyone else to repeat themselves simply because you are too lazy to use the search function on this very site. 

1 hour ago, Fila said:

Its funny how a pilot is 100% trustworthy and experienced.., as long as they don't say UFO. Kinda shows the bias with UFOlogy. Well.., in other reports pilots who see UFOs are deemed fools. Then all pilots are categorised as not "knowing everything".Well.., this logic now applies both ways. Pilot's testimonies are no better than my own. New rule.

They would be able to identify a sound just like a decent mechanic can pick an engine problem by listening to it

An experienced pilot should be able to even identify the type of plane by sound just as a car enthusiast can pick the type of engine that just drove past 

1 hour ago, Fila said:

I need to see the flight logs. Radar data. And the video footage needs to show planes with NAV lights flashing. Not just one permanent light.

Then email phoenix Airport and ask for them

Your the only one doubting that there was air traffic, if there was a massive UFO in the skies it would be a hazard to a busy airport but I don't remember reading about air traffic warnings or diversions to avoid the claimed craft

1 hour ago, Fila said:

Not jumping on a bandwqagon. Not calling anyone names either. Simple investigation techniques. Proof is required.., not hearsay.

You are a hypocrite, you make wild claims with no backup and demand mountains of evidence which is already here via the search function I think you just like ordering others around 

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, Fila said:

Amen brother. Do you see now Psyche101?

The onus is on you to provide the proof. Otherwise I'd just tell Stereo to "go look it up".

I see tremendous hypocrisy 

You are yet to provide any more than your opinion 

Again, it's all here, been done to death, your just regurgitating failed arguments 

[ChrLzs]

Hear hear, Stereo & Psyche.

 

Fila, you are just showing yourself to be a newbie who refuses to do the hard yards, yet you expect everyone else to go off and do your work for you.  I think it's fair to say that those of us who HAVE spent the required time to look into the ACTUAL reports are getting mighty sick of this, especially when repeated over multiple threads.

Clearly you did not bother to look up past threads on this topic.  WE are not making the extraordinary claims.  The UFO's were, almost certainly, aircraft and flares.  To date you have shown NOTHING to suggest otherwise, except a few (NOT thousands, NOT even hundreds) bits of poorly transcribed anecdotal testimony - testimony that is in direct contradiction to other testimony, and thus USELESS.  UNLESS, of course, you wish to deliberately mislead this forum.

[psyche101]

Good call Chrlz 

If we have conflicting reports why on earth would the rational explanation be at fault? 

[Fila]

On 18/01/2018 at 3:11 PM, stereologist said:

No we want evidence. Stories are not evidence.

Seeing the object with sufficient resolution to make out its structure is evidence. Hearing that it is a plane is evidence. We know what planes are and the way that planes operate. Flight records are not needed.

This sounds like "believer" talk to me. Something an ET nut would say.

"Hey, check out this video. Can't really tell its a plane.., but I think it is a plane." (This is not proof its a plane)

"Hey, check out this video. Can't really tell what it is.., but I think its an ETV." (This is not proof its an ETV)

On 18/01/2018 at 3:11 PM, stereologist said:

Area201 lied when they posted " " Yeah the formation of planes made so much noise that no witnesses were able to hear them. " Are you really so incompetent that you cannot understand the lie?

There is nothing at all suggesting it was anything other than planes.

Oh, I see it. Very literal. No witnesses.., meaning all. If 1 person heard a noise.., then this would be a false statement.

On 18/01/2018 at 3:12 PM, stereologist said:

The descriptions given were so worthless that it is concluded that eyewitnesses are of little value.

Concluded by whom? Police investigators know this is normal, and work around it. Rather than dismissing witness testimony.

Edited January 18, 2018 by Fila

[Fila]

On 18/01/2018 at 3:52 PM, stereologist said:

It was planes and it was shone to be planes and then blockhead after blockhead comes in with the same old tripe.

Now it is your turn to back up a claim I think is BS. So get to work and back up your statements " .

I have also posted my sources any times regarding the Phoenix Lights.., and also find it tiresome.

You tell me to back up my claims.., yet you and Psyche101 don't have to? Pfft, whatever man.

On 18/01/2018 at 3:25 PM, stereologist said:

You should take your request even further. If there is no video footage with planes and NAV lights flashing then the entire story never happened.

I only saw the video of "planes in formation" once.., but couldn't see NAV lights. Can you find the original video? I can't seem to locate it

[psyche101]

7 minutes ago, Fila said:

You tell me to back up my claims.., yet you and Psyche101 don't have to? Pfft, whatever man

What a load of rubbish 

I've backed the claims I've made, I haven't gone and got flight records for every plane flying over Phoenix that night at your demand and I just don't see why you should not do so because implying there was no air traffic with a local airport is as ridiculous as claiming an alien spaceship was hovering over Phoenix that night! 

Edited January 18, 2018 by psyche101

[Fila]

On 18/01/2018 at 4:44 PM, psyche101 said:

List the names of the thousands thanks

Your a stickler for information so you best start providing some instead of getting everyone else to repeat themselves simply because you are too lazy to use the search function on this very site. 

Okay. The information can be found in the threads on this site. Go look it up. I have posted it before.., so I guess that means I don't have to provide it never again. Thanks for letting me know the rules round here.

 

On 18/01/2018 at 4:44 PM, psyche101 said:

They would be able to identify a sound just like a decent mechanic can pick an engine problem by listening to it  An experienced pilot should be able to even identify the type of plane by sound just as a car enthusiast can pick the type of engine that just drove past

Okay cool. So experienced pilots are capable of determining planes.., compared to say a UFO right?

On 18/01/2018 at 4:44 PM, psyche101 said:

Then email phoenix Airport and ask for them

As mentioned.., I already did. But no reply. I think maybe because I am Australian.., not sure.
I hate this throwback technique of making wild accusations and claims.., but then telling me to fact check. I guess that's my job around here.

I guess I can say that YES.., I looked into the planes. But found no proof showing there were planes in the area. Just like UFO reports.., its merely a claim. The same logic applies both ways.

On 18/01/2018 at 4:44 PM, psyche101 said:

You are a hypocrite, you make wild claims with no backup and demand mountains of evidence which is already here via the search function I think you just like ordering others around 

I disagree. But feel free to pull me up when it happens. That way we can address the issue.., rather than waiting weeks and then bringing it up, and I have no idea what you are referring to.

[Fila]

On 18/01/2018 at 8:23 PM, psyche101 said:

What a load of rubbish 

I've backed the claims I've made, I haven't gone and got flight records for every plane flying over Phoenix that night at your demand and I just don't see why you should not do so because implying there was no air traffic with a local airport is as ridiculous as claiming an alien spaceship was hovering over Phoenix that night! 

But you want me to name every single Phoenix Lights witness? Yet you won't double check if it was really planes?

 

On 18/01/2018 at 5:50 PM, psyche101 said:

Good call Chrlz 

If we have conflicting reports why on earth would the rational explanation be at fault? 

Because its unscientific to do this. Its not that its wrong.., it may be the correct answer. Most likely is.., but the way its worked into a conclusion is wrong. We cannot say.., there is a lack of evidence.., so it must be this (whatever we assume).

Edited January 18, 2018 by Fila

[stereologist]

2 hours ago, Fila said:

I have also posted my sources any times regarding the Phoenix Lights.., and also find it tiresome.

You tell me to back up my claims.., yet you and Psyche101 don't have to? Pfft, whatever man.

I only saw the video of "planes in formation" once.., but couldn't see NAV lights. Can you find the original video? I can't seem to locate it

I know you don't back up your claims. For example, you claimed most people saw a Vee and you never backed that up. I knew that was due to a fake photo you saw and nothing more. you didn't even realize it was due to Tim Ley.

Now back up your thousands story. Time to do that and I expect full names and addresses (you set the standard, not us). Please state the shape, color, number of lights, size, altitude, sound heard, etc showing that these thousands were not hallucinating but seeing the same object.

I think I will review the thread quickly and see who posts more relevant links you or I.