The Phoenix lights

[Fila]

On 18/01/2018 at 10:36 PM, stereologist said:

I know you don't back up your claims.

Are we reading the same post? I never said this.., not sure who you are agreeing with.

Or is this something like "I know you are, I said you are, so what am I?"

On 18/01/2018 at 10:36 PM, stereologist said:

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..

I have.., in another thread. I'm just being a smart ass, trying to highlight the hypocrisy. But it seems to be lost.... fun times.

http://www.nuforc.org/EncyclopediaPhoenixLights.htm, https://www.*** blocked ***/news/weird/769047/Phoenix-Lights-MEMORY-LOSS-UFO-Congress, https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Phoenix_Lights.html, http://www.craveonline.com.au/mandatory/1164531-convincing-facts-phoenix-lights#/slide/1, http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/extraterrestrials-in-arizona-the-five-most-infamous-alien-encounters-in-the-state-8300570, http://www.collective-evolution.com/2017/11/26/former-governor-of-arizona-tells-the-truth-about-the-phoenix-incident-could-have-been-extraterrestrial/, http://www.educatinghumanity.com/2011/05/ufo-sighting-viewed-by-multiple.html

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, Fila said:

Are we reading the same post? I never said this.., not sure who you are agreeing with.

Or is this something like "I know you are, I said you are, so what am I?"

I have.., in another thread. I'm just being a smart ass, trying to highlight the hypocrisy. But it seems to be lost.... fun times.

http://www.nuforc.org/EncyclopediaPhoenixLights.htm, https://www.*** blocked ***/news/weird/769047/Phoenix-Lights-MEMORY-LOSS-UFO-Congress, https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Phoenix_Lights.html, http://www.craveonline.com.au/mandatory/1164531-convincing-facts-phoenix-lights#/slide/1, http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/extraterrestrials-in-arizona-the-five-most-infamous-alien-encounters-in-the-state-8300570, http://www.collective-evolution.com/2017/11/26/former-governor-of-arizona-tells-the-truth-about-the-phoenix-incident-could-have-been-extraterrestrial/, http://www.educatinghumanity.com/2011/05/ufo-sighting-viewed-by-multiple.html

Here is what you wrote " I have also posted my sources any[sic] times regarding the Phoenix Lights ". I assume that is many, not any.

The simple fact is that you don't. You make statements showing me that  you have not looked into the Phoenix Lights. You really know very little about the events. You don't even an idea of all of the different stories people told.

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.

[stereologist]

4 hours ago, Fila said:

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

 

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).

Not asking you to name every single Phoenix Lights witness. Here we go again with the straw man arguments.

Please support your statement that there are thousands of witnesses. You are the one raising the bar on standards. So please provide 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.

Let's see if you can support your statement that people reported the same object they think they saw.

As far as planes go we know that:

1. People heard planes
2. People with binoculars and telescopes all reported planes
3. People reported that the lights changed position relative to each other
4. The planes were recorded in a video showing planes
5. The person reporting the formation in front of the Moon
6. The pilot in the airplane reported planes

As you should know the telescope was 60x. Here is what was seen.

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/john-mccain-jeff-flake-rip-trumps-attacks-on-news-media-10049690

Quote

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.

Unlike the people that only saw lights we have a direct observation at 60x that reports the shape of the aircraft in the formation.

So now please back up your statement of thousands of witnesses and show us that they all observed the same thing.

[psyche101]

15 hours ago, Fila said:

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

Yep you made the claim of thousands first and I simply don't believe it. By your own word you are being unscientific by accepting the claim of thousands of corroborating calls when I already showed you that the star witness, Fyfe Symington has to be lying to hype the event up, no doubt to get public approval. 

But you do this as you did with Rendlesham. You dismiss recorded evidence that matches the time frames of Halts merry wandering in the woods over verified records to support two conflicting claims. That's not objective by any means, that's a zealous approach. You say your not an ET nut, yet you take UFOlogy as gospel over any other report 

You said,  and I assume you are being honest, that you contacted Phoenix Airport for flight records and got ignored. I would expect that. The USAF had to employ people just to deal with roswell inquiries, I doubt the airport is as generous or has the budget to answer what must be thousands of requests. Unless you are willing to pay someone to do a particular job that you want done why should they bother? It's simple economics. It is not their responsibility to resolve the issue. 

Quote

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).

No it's not unscientific its deduction of common items and the most likely answer. Of the UFO reports I see little corroboration. Some say 100 feet long some say obverse a thousand, some say a distinct delta, others say crescent and some even say rectangular. 

The people who gave reports of individual lights range from 4 to 5 lights and match the description of navigation lights. Consistency. There is a local airport so there is going to be air traffic and more people than usual were looking up to see the spectacular show created by Halle Bopp.

As such he the planes explanation makes sense. All the elements to support the hypothesis are in place before we start. The conflicting reports of a giant craft can easily be resolved by applying illusory contours. When we work with what we do have available to is, we can reach a reasonable hypothesis. All that supports the claim of one giant craft is a claim of thousands of reports and the ones we do have, which certainly do not number in the thousands, conflict. Reasonable deduction infers planes here. 

Edited January 19, 2018 by psyche101

[psyche101]

12 hours ago, Fila said:

Are we reading the same post? I never said this.., not sure who you are agreeing with.

Or is this something like "I know you are, I said you are, so what am I?"

I have.., in another thread. I'm just being a smart ass, trying to highlight the hypocrisy. But it seems to be lost.... fun times.

http://www.nuforc.org/EncyclopediaPhoenixLights.htm, https://www.*** blocked ***/news/weird/769047/Phoenix-Lights-MEMORY-LOSS-UFO-Congress, https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Phoenix_Lights.html, http://www.craveonline.com.au/mandatory/1164531-convincing-facts-phoenix-lights#/slide/1, http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/extraterrestrials-in-arizona-the-five-most-infamous-alien-encounters-in-the-state-8300570, http://www.collective-evolution.com/2017/11/26/former-governor-of-arizona-tells-the-truth-about-the-phoenix-incident-could-have-been-extraterrestrial/, http://www.educatinghumanity.com/2011/05/ufo-sighting-viewed-by-multiple.html

Claims of cover ups, claims of ET and Fyfe  Symington shown to be fabricating his claim. 

This is your 'proof'?? 

But your not an ET nut???????? 

[Fila]

On 19/01/2018 at 0:52 AM, stereologist said:

Here is what you wrote " I have also posted my sources any[sic] times regarding the Phoenix Lights ". I assume that is many, not any.

Yessum

On 19/01/2018 at 0:52 AM, stereologist said:

The simple fact is that you don't. You make statements showing me that  you have not looked into the Phoenix Lights. You really know very little about the events. You don't even an idea of all of the different stories people told

I just don't place high importance on eye-witnesses observations varying. I have explained why many times.., but we cannot agree. I think we have to just leave it there. I am more like a police officer.., judge or investigator. I know for a fact that all humans are like this.., and find ways to work around it. I've explained this many times., but we always come back to it being an issue.

To finally put it to rest.., I will start a thread about it, so I can simply reference that thread next time.., and if you have an issue we can discuss it there, as opposed to going around in circles on different threads.

On 19/01/2018 at 0:52 AM, stereologist said:

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 never set the standard actually. I mentioned my reference to Frances Barwoods investigation in another thread.., and you said I need to fact check her results. That's when I said.., fair enough.., but you gotta do that too with Ian Ridpath and Mitch Stanley etc. I remember very clearly.., and can provide quotes happily if required.

Addresses? Kinda creepy. If I saw a UFO or some new type of plasma or energy source.., I would NOT be giving out my personal details. IF I can get your name, address and DOB.., I'm on my way to getting your mothers maiden name, gathering your bills from yr mailbox, and applying for a birth certificate via post, starting a bank account and applying for a passport via post.

I don't want to disprove that everyone was hallucinating. I think this is probably the best angle to attack UFOlogy. Rather than seeing every single credible UFO report as being a lie, or hoax. Perhaps.., they are telling the truth, in the sense that they did "see" a UFO or ETV.., just in their mind.

Perhaps these people need help. Rather than ignoring them and allowing them to suffer in pain.., we should determine the cause of the mass hallucinations.., and sort it out.

Might be China sabotaging the water supply. Could be hazardous materials leaking. Some new type of bacteria or disease that warps the mind. Its all interesting stuff.., not sure why we keep pushing it aside assuming they are either lying.., or simply saw a star or lighthouse, lol.

On 19/01/2018 at 1:04 AM, stereologist said:

Not asking you to name every single Phoenix Lights witness. Here we go again with the straw man arguments.

Not 100% sure what it means.., but I wouldn't classify it as a strawman argument.., as I am still discussing the actual topic. I just thought you meant all witnesses.

On 19/01/2018 at 1:04 AM, stereologist said:

As far as planes go we know that:

1. People heard planes
2. People with binoculars and telescopes all reported planes
3. People reported that the lights changed position relative to each other
4. The planes were recorded in a video showing planes
5. The person reporting the formation in front of the Moon
6. The pilot in the airplane reported planes.

Can you re-write this list, but with the numbers of people. How many heard planes, how many had telescopes. etc as I think this information is important context.

On 19/01/2018 at 1:04 AM, stereologist said:

As you should know the telescope was 60x. Here is what was seen.

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/john-mccain-jeff-flake-rip-trumps-attacks-on-news-media-10049690

Unlike the people that only saw lights we have a direct observation at 60x that reports the shape of the aircraft in the formation.

So now please back up your statement of thousands of witnesses and show us that they all observed the same thing.

I followed the link, but couldn't see anything related to the Phoenix Lights. I have backed up my claims of thousands. Not by performing an investigation or reading all the reports. Others have done the hard work.., and I reference them.., just as you and everyone else does.

Simple because there is no alternative when relying on witness testimony.., to discount other witness testimony. Zzzzzzz.
Everyone is avoiding the one thing that can actually solve this once and for all.

Flight records! Heaps better than he said she said, he saw, but I think...

[Fila]

On 19/01/2018 at 0:10 PM, psyche101 said:

Yep you made the claim of thousands first and I simply don't believe it. By your own word you are being unscientific by accepting the claim of thousands of corroborating calls when I already showed you that the star witness, Fyfe Symington has to be lying to hype the event up, no doubt to get public approval.  

When I initially wrote that on other threads.., I provided links. I have mostly been talking to Stereo.., and did provide links, and figured he remembered. But he keeps saying I didn't. Ya'll then complain to me that you have posted links in other threads.., and don't want to do it again. So then I said the same. That's where this stems from. I'll stop trying to make a point by doing the same thing.., it doesn't seem to work.

I have posted many links stating thousands. Just tell me what else you want me to do, and I'll have a go.

When did you show me that about Fyfe Symington? Why does he have to be lying?

On 19/01/2018 at 0:10 PM, psyche101 said:

You said,  and I assume you are being honest, that you contacted Phoenix Airport for flight records and got ignored. I would expect that. The USAF had to employ people just to deal with roswell inquiries, I doubt the airport is as generous or has the budget to answer what must be thousands of requests. Unless you are willing to pay someone to do a particular job that you want done why should they bother? It's simple economics. It is not their responsibility to resolve the issue.  

I did. I didn't even get a response. I might try again through a US proxy.

On 19/01/2018 at 0:10 PM, psyche101 said:

No it's not unscientific its deduction of common items and the most likely answer. Of the UFO reports I see little corroboration. Some say 100 feet long some say obverse a thousand, some say a distinct delta, others say crescent and some even say rectangular.  

Yea, that's kewl. But we can't then apply that as a solid conclusion. Its still, a deduction. An inference. Not verified. I'm all up for smashing this case once and for all.., but we have to do it properly.

On 19/01/2018 at 0:10 PM, psyche101 said:

Of the UFO reports I see little corroboration. Some say 100 feet long some say obverse a thousand, some say a distinct delta, others say crescent and some even say rectangular. 

I'm going to have to start a thread about this... I have to explain a lot in order to answer this thoroughly.

Basically estimating range and size is difficult, especially for an object you have no idea of the size. It can be high and big, or low and small, or vice versa. (Have a go tomorrow. I practice with distance and size almost everyday, and still find it difficult) People have different vision capabilities (poor eyesight, blurred vision, varying distances), perspective and altitude variables, initial memory, compared to recalling and much much much much more just running through my head that will need more time to explain. 

(And around we go). Then you say yea, people are silly so why believe them with UFO stories at all.., but then I will say no.

Knowing how people's minds work doesn't mean minds don't work. It just means we know eyewitness details vary. Is simple, fact.., but then this will be the end of it, then it will come up again tomorrow in a different thread. So.., yea. I'll make a thread tomorrow.

On 19/01/2018 at 0:10 PM, psyche101 said:

The people who gave reports of individual lights range from 4 to 5 lights and match the description of navigation lights. Consistency. 

Really? I never saw those reports. Can you show me them? (Yea, asking for a link. Gotta chillax man.., its standard) If you think I don't post links.., then quote them and I will. But you gotta stop accusing me with no proof.

On 19/01/2018 at 0:10 PM, psyche101 said:

There is a local airport so there is going to be air traffic and more people than usual were looking up to see the spectacular show created by Halle Bopp.

Well yea. Planes are in the sky. If people look up, they will see planes. Kinda obvious.., isn't it?

So are you implying that those who witnesses the UFO.., are unaware of this? This is kinda the weakest argument so far. UFO witnesses are just dumb. I get it.., I thought the same way.., but realised how dismissive I was being with a blanket statement and no actual substance to support this.

It also means that no one can ever see anything new.., because seeing something new MUST be a hoax, or mis-ID of a plane.

I don't want to be one of those angry old men who just complain about everything and dismiss everything new because of my own assumptions, and negative attitude and view on life and other people.

Such a horrible way to live. I can listen to ghost stories.. without getting angry, or emotional in any way. I don't take it as gospel either, nor do I feel "duped" or "gullible".., just because I listen, and investigate. I don't feel the need to prove them wrong, or call them fools. I don't feel the urge to place them on a pedestal. 

On 19/01/2018 at 0:10 PM, psyche101 said:

As such he the planes explanation makes sense. All the elements to support the hypothesis are in place before we start.

Planes fly in the sky. Elements are already in place... lol, well yea. Planes may fly, stars will shine. But how this is used as proof an event never occurred is very weak, and would never be used in court, an investigation or scientific analysis. It would be thrown out.

On 19/01/2018 at 0:10 PM, psyche101 said:

The conflicting reports of a giant craft can easily be resolved by applying illusory contours. When we work with what we do have available to is, we can reach a reasonable hypothesis. 

How do we apply illusionary contours?

On 19/01/2018 at 0:10 PM, psyche101 said:

All that supports the claim of one giant craft is a claim of thousands of reports and the ones we do have, which certainly do not number in the thousands, conflict. Reasonable deduction infers planes here. 

Oh, you want to see the original eye-witness reports? (To count them)
I do too. I've been searching for a while. I even asked at least 3 times if anyone can help me track them down. (not to count them.., but just to read)

Lets try and make that a priority.

Edited January 19, 2018 by Fila

[quillius]

14 minutes ago, Fila said:

 

Oh, you want to see the original eye-witness reports? (To count them)
I do too. I've been searching for a while. I even asked at least 3 times if anyone can help me track them down. (not to count them.., but just to read)

Lets try and make that a priority.

Fila, try here: 

http://www.cufos.org/pdfs/Skeptical_Explanations_Appendix_A.pdf

 

maybe a starting point

[Fila]

On 19/01/2018 at 10:23 PM, quillius said:

Fila, try here: 

http://www.cufos.org/pdfs/Skeptical_Explanations_Appendix_A.pdf

maybe a starting point

Thx Q. NUFORC, readers digest, the book and website accounts.Nice selection. The NUFORC one was all I could find https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/314170-documentary-i-know-what-i-saw/?do=findComment&comment=6310135

From my understanding Phoenix city councilwoman Frances Barwood was the only elected official to launch a public investigation in 1997. Barwood spoke with over seven hundred witnesses, including police, pilots and former military, who provided very similar descriptions. However I am unable to find the report or even her contact details to try and ask her about getting them.

Can you help me with this?

Edited January 19, 2018 by Fila

[quillius]

15 minutes ago, Fila said:

Thx Q. NUFORC, readers digest, the book and website accounts.Nice selection. The NUFORC one was all I could find https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/314170-documentary-i-know-what-i-saw/?do=findComment&comment=6310135

From my understanding Phoenix city councilwoman Frances Barwood was the only elected official to launch a public investigation in 1997. Barwood spoke with over seven hundred witnesses, including police, pilots and former military, who provided very similar descriptions. However I am unable to find the report or even her contact details to try and ask her about getting them.

Can you help me with this?

have a look at the post I made with the links to email exchanges, Frances email address is in there....but I would use a large pinch of salt for anything she says. I would also add another pinch if they are not reports from the time, ie she has asked for these much after teh event which would make them quite meaningless as they would no doubt have been heavily influenced by the media and hype that followed

[stereologist]

4 hours ago, Fila said:

Yessum

I just don't place high importance on eye-witnesses observations varying. I have explained why many times.., but we cannot agree. I think we have to just leave it there. I am more like a police officer.., judge or investigator. I know for a fact that all humans are like this.., and find ways to work around it. I've explained this many times., but we always come back to it being an issue.

To finally put it to rest.., I will start a thread about it, so I can simply reference that thread next time.., and if you have an issue we can discuss it there, as opposed to going around in circles on different threads.

I never set the standard actually. I mentioned my reference to Frances Barwoods investigation in another thread.., and you said I need to fact check her results. That's when I said.., fair enough.., but you gotta do that too with Ian Ridpath and Mitch Stanley etc. I remember very clearly.., and can provide quotes happily if required.

Addresses? Kinda creepy. If I saw a UFO or some new type of plasma or energy source.., I would NOT be giving out my personal details. IF I can get your name, address and DOB.., I'm on my way to getting your mothers maiden name, gathering your bills from yr mailbox, and applying for a birth certificate via post, starting a bank account and applying for a passport via post.

I don't want to disprove that everyone was hallucinating. I think this is probably the best angle to attack UFOlogy. Rather than seeing every single credible UFO report as being a lie, or hoax. Perhaps.., they are telling the truth, in the sense that they did "see" a UFO or ETV.., just in their mind.

Perhaps these people need help. Rather than ignoring them and allowing them to suffer in pain.., we should determine the cause of the mass hallucinations.., and sort it out.

Might be China sabotaging the water supply. Could be hazardous materials leaking. Some new type of bacteria or disease that warps the mind. Its all interesting stuff.., not sure why we keep pushing it aside assuming they are either lying.., or simply saw a star or lighthouse, lol.

Not 100% sure what it means.., but I wouldn't classify it as a strawman argument.., as I am still discussing the actual topic. I just thought you meant all witnesses.

Can you re-write this list, but with the numbers of people. How many heard planes, how many had telescopes. etc as I think this information is important context.

I followed the link, but couldn't see anything related to the Phoenix Lights. I have backed up my claims of thousands. Not by performing an investigation or reading all the reports. Others have done the hard work.., and I reference them.., just as you and everyone else does.

Simple because there is no alternative when relying on witness testimony.., to discount other witness testimony. Zzzzzzz.
Everyone is avoiding the one thing that can actually solve this once and for all.

Flight records! Heaps better than he said she said, he saw, but I think...

You still have not supported your story of the consensus of the witnesses. You made a statement at one point which was based on a fake photo in a story about Tim Lay, a single witness. Please show that witness statements you keep going on about have any consistency. The simple fact is they do not. All it shows is that the witnesses were confused about what they saw. That makes the bulk of the witness statements of little value. And I won't go off to another thread to avoid the issues of each case. The problem is always that you pretend there is some value to the statements of people that are confused. You also have claimed there were thousands of witnesses. You have not supported that statement either.

The only person trying to elevate the standards is you. Asking you to check out Barwood does not elevate the standards. That is clearly a false idea. You asking that you want flight logs is elevating the standards. I have asked you repeatedly to support your contention that the witnesses statements were consistent. As I repeatedly pointed out they are not. Asking for flight logs appears your attempt to divert attention away from you inability to produce anything at all to support your stories. I did not specify what you needed to provide only that you needed to provide support for your stories. So get on and start supporting your stories. If you don't you basically become like almost every other believer in the PL, a story teller.

Addresses? I asked for that because you wanted radar reports and flight logs and all sorts of things. All I asked for was you to go from story teller to evidence provider. You've failed miserably in moving forward.

This appears to be a falsehood " I have backed up my claims of thousands. " Where did you do that?

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.

Again with the failure to understand that you use straw man arguments.

As far as planes go we know that:

1. People heard planes
2. People with binoculars and telescopes all reported planes
3. People reported that the lights changed position relative to each other
4. The planes were recorded in a video showing planes
5. The person reporting the formation in front of the Moon
6. The pilot in the airplane reported planes.

Your request to adjust this list is denied. You have not supported anything you stated. But you do admit that my list is in fact correct. The facts mentioned in the list have been posted in this thread. Sources have been posted for each and every item in the list.

Seems that the links are changing on a daily basis. If it changes again just enter the quoted text into a search engine to find the article.

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/the-great-ufo-cover-up-6422930

Quote

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.

It was planes. The lesson here is that witnesses are mistaken especially when all there is are little dots of light in the sky. That's the simple lesson.

[Fila]

On 19/01/2018 at 11:14 PM, quillius said:

have a look at the post I made with the links to email exchanges, Frances email address is in there....but I would use a large pinch of salt for anything she says. I would also add another pinch if they are not reports from the time, ie she has asked for these much after teh event which would make them quite meaningless as they would no doubt have been heavily influenced by the media and hype that followed

Yea, I want to see her work. Not just hear her interpretation. If she really did interview all these people.., where are the reports, with names etc.

Thanks heaps Q-store.

[Fila]

On 20/01/2018 at 2:16 AM, stereologist said:

You still have not supported your story of the consensus of the witnesses. You made a statement at one point which was based on a fake photo in a story about Tim Lay,

I don't recall doing this.., but I do remember you accusing me of this. I have never seen Tim Lay, nor his image.

On 20/01/2018 at 2:16 AM, stereologist said:

You still have not supported your story of the consensus of the witnesses. You made a statement at one point which was based on a fake photo in a story about Tim Lay, a single witness. Please show that witness statements you keep going on about have any consistency.

Stereo..... listen man. I have said this waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too many times. I do not place importance on discrepancies regrading witness testimony. Therefore I do not need to prove there aren't any. Because I am fully aware that this is a normal thing.

I provided my reference here, https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/305172-the-phoenix-lights/?do=findComment&comment=6338540 and on many other threads in the past for example. https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/314170-documentary-i-know-what-i-saw/?do=findComment&comment=6310135

Are we good?

On 20/01/2018 at 2:16 AM, stereologist said:

The only person trying to elevate the standards is you. Asking you to check out Barwood does not elevate the standards. That is clearly a false idea. 

You would need to quote where I have lied. Otherwise this is a lie.

On 20/01/2018 at 2:16 AM, stereologist said:

Addresses? I asked for that because you wanted radar reports and flight logs and all sorts of things. All I asked for was you to go from story teller to evidence provider. You've failed miserably in moving forward.

Radar, flight logs. These are things that can be obtained. So.., rather than "telling stories" about planes.., how about going from story teller to evidence provider. People's names and addresses.., will not solve anything. Just adds to the whole witess profiling BS which I don't get into as a means to solve a mytery that requires hard evidence.

Waste of time.

On 20/01/2018 at 2:16 AM, stereologist said:

This appears to be a falsehood " I have backed up my claims of thousands. " Where did you do that?

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/305172-the-phoenix-lights/?do=findComment&comment=6338540

On 20/01/2018 at 2:16 AM, stereologist said:

Again with the failure to understand that you use straw man arguments.

The only times you accused me of this.., I explained how I either misinterpreted your words (you are very literal), or your words were ambiguous. I have responded to each accusation.., and sufficiently explained the issue. They are not strawman arguments..

On 20/01/2018 at 2:16 AM, stereologist said:

As far as planes go we know that:

1. People heard planes
2. People with binoculars and telescopes all reported planes
3. People reported that the lights changed position relative to each other
4. The planes were recorded in a video showing planes
5. The person reporting the formation in front of the Moon
6. The pilot in the airplane reported planes.

Your request to adjust this list is denied.

Sure ok. But if you did add the numbers, then this would change the context. The way you are wording this is an obvious attempt at skewing the facts to make it seem like a lot of people had binoculars and telescopes.., and they all saw planes.

I cannot participate with this form of exaggeration and wordplay. Soz broz.

It also ignores the description of the actual craft.., which was much bigger than any formation of planes. And I just can't do that. I just can't ignore the initial claims.., to work my own conclusion into the story. I just can't do it. Sorry man. I understand though, because I was exactly like this. I'm just on a different level now.., where I cannot make these kinds of assumptions. They will simply be thrown out and ignored.
I cannot convince my peers of anything (regardless of UFOs).., just because Mitch said so. Its just not possible.

I.e. Mitch says it seems like Global Warming is not real. Therefore its not. Everyone will laugh at me.., and I will get a FAIL mark.

On 20/01/2018 at 2:16 AM, stereologist said:

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 plane

What "looked like" is not a confirmation. "They seemed" is also not very convincing.

It could of been a Russian or Chinese blimp for example. But because he saw lights.., and a wing maybe.., and assumes planes. (looked like, seems like)
This does nothing to solve the case. It is just another opinion. Can you not see this?

What would solve the case.., would be to verify the claim of planes. Why you can't see this, is beyond my comprehension. Just shows that I really need to leave this web forum, and converse with professionals in an intellectual environment relying on facts, without name calling or anger, or letting emotions form opinions..

I'll wrap up all my threads over the next couple of months.., then leave this site.

Edited January 19, 2018 by Fila

[stereologist]

14 hours ago, Fila said:

I don't recall doing this.., but I do remember you accusing me of this. I have never seen Tim Lay, nor his image.

Stereo..... listen man. I have said this waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too many times. I do not place importance on discrepancies regrading witness testimony. Therefore I do not need to prove there aren't any. Because I am fully aware that this is a normal thing.

I provided my reference here, https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/305172-the-phoenix-lights/?do=findComment&comment=6338540 and on many other threads in the past for example. https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/314170-documentary-i-know-what-i-saw/?do=findComment&comment=6310135

Are we good?

You would need to quote where I have lied. Otherwise this is a lie.

If you have not seen the image associate with Tim Ley or heard of Tim Ley then you know nothing at all about the Phoenix Lights. Tim's statement is one of the most often mentioned statements when it comes to the Phoenix Lights. This shows that you have not looked into the Phoenix Lights at all.

You have claimed that the Phoenix Lights is a UFO. The fact that you don't care how poor the witness statements are simply tells me and everyone else that you don't care at all about doing a reasonable job at understanding the Phoenix Lights. It makes your statements rather worthless. You claim there was a UFO so please tell us what it was. You claim there are thousands of witnesses yet you don't show there were thousands of witnesses.

It is clear that you used links from UFO sites that produced incomplete and purposely misleading statements from a few witnesses while making false claims about the event. And it seems that you did not read your own links. One of those crappy sites refers to itself it seems to support some asinine hyperbole of the number of witnesses. Another pathetic link confuses events 1 and 2. Another link tells you the Tim Ley story without mentioning it was one witness. No wonder your posts are so bad. You used horrible links and did not read them. How do I know?

Now you want to call it a lie and not a false idea. Fine. You raised the bar, not any other poster. You and you alone.

Here is one of your BS posts.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/305172-the-phoenix-lights/?do=findComment&comment=6329405

Quote

Thousands of people reported seeing a similar object. A "few people" claimed to see a "formation of planes" does not negate thousands of other claims.

To prove the other witnesses wrong who claimed to see planes;

1) Commercial and private planes do not fly in formation.

2) Air traffic control says there were no other planes reported in that area. Especially a V-formation.

3) Military must confirm flight paths with ATC towers when flying in commercial airspace.

4) The military said it didn't have any aircraft in the area between 7pm and 10pm along the objects flight path.

1. Now we know that #1 is a lie as you false it. I'd call it false.

2. ATC does not regulate all flights in the area. This was told to ou yet you repeat what you call a lie.

3. ATC does not cover flights except when in commercial airspace. This is just misleading.

4. This is correct. This misleading statement is based on your lie in #1.

Then you were repeating this total lie "Thousands of people reported seeing a similar object." That is an outright lie. It seems that your lie is based on your willingness to consider anything at all as being 'similar.' Despite repeatedly pointing out that this is a lie and that witnesses did not report seeing a 'similar object' you have continued to repeat this lie.

Then you state " I just can't trust any ".com" website's word " Really? You trust some lame UFO sites which apparently you didn't bother to read. The sites made false claims and rely on referencing other false reports in the same group to support their false statements. Later you state " The consistency is the object.., period. " To suggest there is any consistency in the witness reports is a lie. That's a flat out lie. I repeatedly pointed out that is a lie and yet you continue to pretend that it was something other than planes which were reported by 100% of the people with binoculars and telescopes.

So who started demanding flights logs. You Fila. You demanded them as a follow up to the lie that civilian aircraft are forbidden to fly in formation. Then you started demanding more and more and more when none of that is necessary.

 

[stereologist]

15 hours ago, Fila said:

Radar, flight logs. These are things that can be obtained. So.., rather than "telling stories" about planes.., how about going from story teller to evidence provider. People's names and addresses.., will not solve anything. Just adds to the whole witess profiling BS which I don't get into as a means to solve a mytery that requires hard evidence.

Waste of time.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/305172-the-phoenix-lights/?do=findComment&comment=6338540

The only times you accused me of this.., I explained how I either misinterpreted your words (you are very literal), or your words were ambiguous. I have responded to each accusation.., and sufficiently explained the issue. They are not strawman arguments..

 

Radar and flight logs are not needed. Why don't you start by supporting your false claim that there were thousands of witnesses. We all know that is a lie promoted by the UFO sites.  You also admit your utter ignorance of the issue by stating that you don't know who Tim Ley is. And mentioning profiling witnesses is just another asinine straw man argument. The simple fact is that you have bounced from thread to thread with the same unsupported BS: thousands of witnesses.

You continue to commit one straw man argument after another. That's just the way you post. It's a lack of coherent thinking and addressing what the other posters write.

So you backed up your claim of thousands from a UFO site that speculates and then other sites refer to an unwarranted speculation. Well that is a giant failure. You have not supported your claim of thousands unless you want to admit that you are repeating a wild eyed unsupported speculation made up by a dubious UFO site.

[stereologist]

15 hours ago, Fila said:

Sure ok. But if you did add the numbers, then this would change the context. The way you are wording this is an obvious attempt at skewing the facts to make it seem like a lot of people had binoculars and telescopes.., and they all saw planes.

I cannot participate with this form of exaggeration and wordplay. Soz broz.

It also ignores the description of the actual craft.., which was much bigger than any formation of planes. And I just can't do that. I just can't ignore the initial claims.., to work my own conclusion into the story. I just can't do it. Sorry man. I understand though, because I was exactly like this. I'm just on a different level now.., where I cannot make these kinds of assumptions. They will simply be thrown out and ignored.
I cannot convince my peers of anything (regardless of UFOs).., just because Mitch said so. Its just not possible.

I.e. Mitch says it seems like Global Warming is not real. Therefore its not. Everyone will laugh at me.., and I will get a FAIL mark.

Seems that reading and comprehension are a problem here. I did not suggest numbers in any way or form. It is absolutely clear that 100% of the people that used binoculars and telescopes had a better view and all reported planes. This is not as you word play or exaggeration. The words are clear and explicit. No wonder you get into so many straw man arguments, you make up stuff all of the time.

Looking over information provided by Quillius we can expand the list. As far as planes go we know that:

1. People heard planes
2. People with binoculars and telescopes all reported planes
3. People reported that the lights changed position relative to each other
4. The planes were recorded in a video showing planes
5. The person reporting the formation in front of the Moon
6. The pilot in the airplane reported planes.
7. Some witnesses reported seeing stars pass between the lights

When I think of asinine ideas I think of this one "much bigger than any formation of planes" There is a size restriction to a formation? That has to be one of the most uneducated ideas ever. What pumpkin head came up with that idea? The simple fact is that the planes were seen by many witnesses to move relative to each other. The video shows that. One plane is reported by many witnesses to have fallen behind the others and caught up. Not nly is "much bigger than any formation of planes" downright dumb but it was intended to be passed off to the extremely foolish.

Then the claim that "just because Mitch said so". Mitch is not the only one saying it was planes. He was the one that saw the planes so well he identified the shape of the planes. Other saw them as planes. Your global warming commentary simply illustrates your ignorance of the Phoenix Lights event.

So which of the dozens of different craft in the sky are you falling for in your incredibly gullible state? At one time you claimed it was a Vee, or was it the triangle, or the boomerang, or the semicircle, or the diamond? Maybe it was the high flying fast idea, or the slow low flying craft? Was it 5, 6, 7,8, 9, or more lights that you believe happened? Are you discounting all of the witnesses that heard the planes or are you going for the silent idea? So which of these and the other variables are you choosing?

[stereologist]

16 hours ago, Fila said:

What "looked like" is not a confirmation. "They seemed" is also not very convincing.

It could of been a Russian or Chinese blimp for example. But because he saw lights.., and a wing maybe.., and assumes planes. (looked like, seems like)
This does nothing to solve the case. It is just another opinion. Can you not see this?

What would solve the case.., would be to verify the claim of planes. Why you can't see this, is beyond my comprehension. Just shows that I really need to leave this web forum, and converse with professionals in an intellectual environment relying on facts, without name calling or anger, or letting emotions form opinions..

I'll wrap up all my threads over the next couple of months.., then leave this site.

Mitch was clear in stating what he saw unlike the unsupported wild eyed speculation that you repeat often that there were thousands of witnesses.

So Mitch sees planes and really doesn't care much till the next day when he finds out that other people in Phoenix are clueless about what they saw.

A blimp? LOL. Ridiculous. He saw square wings. Not maybe saw wings. He saw wings. He looked for a minute with a telescope and saw wings. This is a fact. Your thousands is an opinion. It is an unsupported wild eyed speculation from a UFO site that has ever been supported and in the aftermath is shown to be wrong.

I don't think you have a clue as what opinion means.

Unlike some giant craft Mitch sees individual planes. He is familiar with planes as we all are. He even reports the wing shape as square and not swept back as in a military plane. There is zero chance Mitch was mistaken.

Only fools that fell for the giant craft BS would drag this out and pretend that more investigation needs to be done.

Your posts reek of fear, the fear to be mistaken. They reek of a lack of research. You make up stories left and right such as thousands of witnesses and civilian planes can't fly in formation and that there is a consensus of the craft in the witness statements.

If you want to leave the site go ahead. You have that freedom. If you want to learn something then stick around and learn something.

 

[stereologist]

Fila we can look at the reports from the PDF so graciously supplied by Quillius to see that witnesses imagined all sorts of different things. That happens with confused people.

1. Three Vees joined by triangle or diamond

2. 1 craft white lights

3. 1 triangular

4. V with 6 lights and sound

5. V silent

6. flying wing 8-9 amber lights sound

7. hexagon 9-10 lights

8. 1 UFO

9. 2-4 pinkish-orange lights

10. boomerang 4 orange lights

That is the first 10 witnesses in the list. Could it be anymore diverse? Sounds to me like these people are all mistaken or looking at different things. Their descriptions are completely different as to altitude, number of lights, color of lights, number of craft, shape of craft, sounds, solid vs not solid ...

As far as planes go we know that:

1. People heard planes (witnesses 4 and 6 for starters)
2. People with binoculars and telescopes all reported planes
3. People reported that the lights changed position relative to each other (witnesses 1 and 9 for starters)
4. The planes were recorded in a video showing planes
5. The person reporting the formation in front of the Moon (Witness 76)
6. The pilot in the airplane reported planes. (Witness 120)
7. Some witnesses reported seeing stars pass between the lights (Witnesses 34 and 35 for starters)
8. Some witnesses thought they were planes (Witness 20 for starters)

[Fila]

On 21/01/2018 at 1:18 AM, stereologist said:

If you have not seen the image associate with Tim Ley or heard of Tim Ley then you know nothing at all about the Phoenix Lights. Tim's statement is one of the most often mentioned statements when it comes to the Phoenix Lights. This shows that you have not looked into the Phoenix Lights at all.

If I don't know all witnesses claims.., then I "know nothing at all".

I dunno hey.., its more like this in my head. If I don't know about Tim Ley.., I don't know about Tim Ley. I'm just going off the majority of the majority of the witness accounts investigated by NUFORC and Frances Barwood, and reports in media from reputable sources like CNN and local newspapers.

On 21/01/2018 at 1:18 AM, stereologist said:

You have claimed that the Phoenix Lights is a UFO. The fact that you don't care how poor the witness statements are simply tells me and everyone else that you don't care at all about doing a reasonable job at understanding the Phoenix Lights. It makes your statements rather worthless. You claim there was a UFO so please tell us what it was. You claim there are thousands of witnesses yet you don't show there were thousands of witnesses

I have explained many times. Yet you never counter my points. You just keep saying this. If you disagree.., quote my points and provide a rebuttal.

On 21/01/2018 at 1:18 AM, stereologist said:

It is clear that you used links from UFO sites that produced incomplete and purposely misleading statements from a few witnesses while making false claims about the event. And it seems that you did not read your own links. One of those crappy sites refers to itself it seems to support some asinine hyperbole of the number of witnesses. Another pathetic link confuses events 1 and 2. Another link tells you the Tim Ley story without mentioning it was one witness. No wonder your posts are so bad. You used horrible links and did not read them.

I provided those links to support the "thousands of witnesses" claims only.

On 21/01/2018 at 1:18 AM, stereologist said:

1. Now we know that #1 is a lie as you false it. I'd call it false.

Not a lie. It is obvious I was mistaken.., and cleared it up.

It is against aviation law from my understanding. Just making a few enquiries with CASA and will get back to you. I don't think police have authority over the sky.., and can only make complaints to the FAA.

Hi ChrLzs, sorry been busy. Yea, I should have gotten his name in case he was wrong. No, I did not make it up.., I hate people who just want to be right all the time. I'm very open to being wrong, and really don't see it as a problem. Everyone makes mistakes.

I will most likely make (at least) 1 more mistake before I die at age 100. At least.., one. How we handle the situation at the time determines how big or stressful a problem it is.

I can see where you are coming from. I just claimed to make a phone call.., and could not provide a reference. Whereas you can provide a link.

Why would I look for posts where you are wrong? I don't have time for silly things like keeping tabs on who was wrong the least amount of times. Sorry. I'm happy that you are happy.

Thank you ChrLzs for providing a 1st hand link to that information. You have done what I was unable to achieve, quite well. I commend your information gathering abilities. A+

I apologise for being wrong.., and am glad ChrLzs pulled me up on this. He did an excellent job. This is not a lie however. Lying would be if I knew I was telling you porkies.

On 21/01/2018 at 1:18 AM, stereologist said:

2. ATC does not regulate all flights in the area. This was told to ou yet you repeat what you call a lie.

I might ask Merc to help me out with this one. There are different classes of airspace, and I guess I need to get a map of the Phoenix region and check the area. I tried calling the FAA to ask a few questions.., but my SIM card doesn't allow international calls. Sending an email will be tedious. I'm reading through these atm to get some references, but I might have to work on something else today. I'll leave the links here, rather than bookmarking them, in case someone else wants to follow through with it, to finally prove once and for all these things are planes. 

GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=3efaad1b0a259d4e48f1150a34d1aa77&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10&idno=14, 

PART 61—CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND INSTRUCTORS: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=40760189a03dfea0b501608f33820a45&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.1.2&idno=14

We are looking for IFR Flight plan requirements, cruising altitude / flight level, operating rules for various classes of airspace etc.

(The yellow circles are airports) http://knowbeforeyoufly.org/air-space-map/

FAA Freedom Of Information: https://www.faa.gov/foia/foia_request/

On 21/01/2018 at 1:18 AM, stereologist said:

3. ATC does not cover flights except when in commercial airspace. This is just misleading.

Military aircraft must comply with FAA regulations in controlled airspace.

On 21/01/2018 at 1:18 AM, stereologist said:

4. This is correct. This misleading statement is based on your lie in #1.

No, it was based on an article I provided a reference to when we discussed it weeks ago. I'll dig it up for you.

On 21/01/2018 at 1:18 AM, stereologist said:

Then you state " I just can't trust any ".com" website's word " Really? You trust some lame UFO sites which apparently you didn't bother to read.

Only because there doesn't seem to be any credible investigations done.., so there are no credible sites to visit regarding UFOs. I understand your frustration with this.., as most here hate it also. This is something I think needs to be changed. I'm sorry, I can see the double standards.., but I don't know what else to do about it. Its all I have to go off.

All we can do is post from these sceptics.com and believer.com websites.., and maybe wikipedia which just references other .com websites.

For factual information.., I prefer 1st hand sources as CHrLzs provided, when it can be provided. Hope this clears things up.

On 21/01/2018 at 1:32 AM, stereologist said:

Radar and flight logs are not needed

I explained why they are needed. If you disagree.., quote my points and explain why they are wrong. Otherwise.. repeating the same thing over and over doesn't make it true.

On 21/01/2018 at 1:32 AM, stereologist said:

Radar and flight logs are not needed. Why don't you start by supporting your false claim that there were thousands of witnesses. We all know that is a lie promoted by the UFO sites.  You also admit your utter ignorance of the issue by stating that you don't know who Tim Ley is. And mentioning profiling witnesses is just another asinine straw man argument. The simple fact is that you have bounced from thread to thread with the same unsupported BS: thousands of witnesses.

You continue to commit one straw man argument after another. That's just the way you post. It's a lack of coherent thinking and addressing what the other posters write.

So you backed up your claim of thousands from a UFO site that speculates and then other sites refer to an unwarranted speculation. Well that is a giant failure. You have not supported your claim of thousands unless you want to admit that you are repeating a wild eyed unsupported speculation made up by a dubious UFO site.

 

On 21/01/2018 at 2:00 AM, stereologist said:

A blimp? LOL. Ridiculous. He saw square wings. Not maybe saw wings. He saw wings. He looked for a minute with a telescope and saw wings. This is a fact. Your thousands is an opinion. It is an unsupported wild eyed speculation from a UFO site that has ever been supported and in the aftermath is shown to be wrong.

Yea, I agree, lol. It was more of an extreme possibility. i got the idea after seeing NASA's range of blimps. Now they want to make a blimp city on Venus, lol. Blimps...

 

Edited January 20, 2018 by Fila

[Fila]

On 21/01/2018 at 2:24 AM, stereologist said:

Fila we can look at the reports from the PDF so graciously supplied by Quillius to see that witnesses imagined all sorts of different things. That happens with confused people.

That is the first 10 witnesses in the list. Could it be anymore diverse? Sounds to me like these people are all mistaken or looking at different things. Their descriptions are completely different as to altitude, number of lights, color of lights, number of craft, shape of craft, sounds, solid vs not solid ...

You keep showing me the discrepancies. And I keep telling you that I am aware of these.

I have attempted to explain why this is not an issue.., but you have not actually replied to this. I have told you I might have to make a new thread about it, to explain it in more detail perhaps.

But you just keep spamming and ignoring me. I will simply copy and paste this message in response if you continue.

Edited January 20, 2018 by Fila

[stereologist]

1 minute ago, Fila said:

The statement is incorrect; If I don't know all witnesses claims.., then I "know nothing at all".

If I don't know about Tim Ley.., I don't know about Tim Ley. Its simple.

I have explained many times. Yet you never counter my points. You just keep saying this. If you disagree.., quote my points and provide a rebuttal.

I provided those links to support the "thousands of witnesses" claims only.

Not a lie. It is obvious I was mistaken.., and cleared it up.

It is against aviation law from my understanding. Just making a few enquiries with CASA and will get back to you. I don't think police have authority over the sky.., and can only make complaints to the FAA.

Hi ChrLzs, sorry been busy. Yea, I should have gotten his name in case he was wrong. No, I did not make it up.., I hate people who just want to be right all the time. I'm very open to being wrong, and really don't see it as a problem. Everyone makes mistakes.

I will most likely make (at least) 1 more mistake before I die at age 100. At least.., one. How we handle the situation at the time determines how big or stressful a problem it is.

I can see where you are coming from. I just claimed to make a phone call.., and could not provide a reference. Whereas you can provide a link.

 

Tim Ley has been in so many articles that it is inconceivable that anyone reading about the Phoenix Lights could miss him. I'm even more surprised that you didn't bother to look up the name.

There were not thousands of witnesses. I have asked for you to support that claim and you have failed and failed and failed. You provided a link that made some irrational speculations. You provided other links that referred to that wild eyed speculation. Your witness claim is BS. Those links were a stunning failure because there is nothing there but wild eyed unsupported speculation from UFO sites.

1. Civilian planes can fly in formation. I knew that because my friends do it.

2. Air traffic control only deals with aircraft in their regulated airspace.

3. ATC does not cover flights except when in commercial airspace. This is just misleading.

Your response to this is ' Military aircraft must comply with FAA regulations in controlled airspace. " In general, any airplanes in controlled airspace must comply. The aircraft were not in controlled airspace.

The simple fact is that any planes can fly in formation. Planes do not need to check in with ATC when not in ATC controlled airspace.

What do we know? We know that the number of witnesses for event #1 is in the hundreds. We know this is bigger than the number of people that saw event #2. We know it was planes. The evidence for planes is overwhelming. What I find to be of interest in the Phoenix Lights is how poor witnesses are. Do we need any more information to determine it was planes. No. If you had read anything at all about the Phoenix Lights - anything at all - you'd know about radar information. I think it is very clear that you have a limited knowledge of the Phoenix Lights. The sites you used are UFO sites that seem to have misled you.

[Fila]

On 21/01/2018 at 10:41 AM, stereologist said:

Tim Ley has been in so many articles that it is inconceivable that anyone reading about the Phoenix Lights could miss him. I'm even more surprised that you didn't bother to look up the name.

I don't see the importance of this one witness.., compared to the rest. What is your point?

On 21/01/2018 at 10:41 AM, stereologist said:

There were not thousands of witnesses. I have asked for you to support that claim and you have failed and failed and failed. You provided a link that made some irrational speculations. You provided other links that referred to that wild eyed speculation. Your witness claim is BS. Those links were a stunning failure because there is nothing there but wild eyed unsupported speculation from UFO sites.

Tell me the steps in point form how to go about doing this.

On 21/01/2018 at 10:41 AM, stereologist said:

Your response to this is ' Military aircraft must comply with FAA regulations in controlled airspace. " In general, any airplanes in controlled airspace must comply. The aircraft were not in controlled airspace.

Yes, that was my response to your question (3) which was a reply to my statement "Military must confirm flight paths with ATC towers when flying in commercial airspace."

 

The rest of your post is just you repeating the same information we have gone over, Ike you are stuck in a loop.

The fact that you keep telling me its not important to double check the plane theory.., and to stop trying etc... is making me wonder wth is going on.., and why there is so much anger and interest in preventing me from looking further into the mater objectively.

Edited January 21, 2018 by Fila

[stereologist]

6 minutes ago, Fila said:

You keep showing me the discrepancies. And I keep telling you that I am aware of these.

I have attempted to explain why this is not an issue.., but you have not actually replied to this. I have told you I might have to make a new thread about it, to explain it in more detail perhaps.

But you just keep spamming and ignoring me. I will simply copy and paste this message in response if you continue.

It is a huge issue. Witnesses are bad. That is what the Phoenix Lights story tells us. You can pretend all you want that the lack of consistency of witnesses does not matter but it does.

Let's try the next 10 while you continue to repeat falsehoods about the number of witnesses and how the stories are similar.

11. Vee low and slow

12. 5 orange or amber lights

13. 5 diamond shaped objects

14. boomerang 5 white lights

15. triangle and 3 white spheres

16. Vee silent

17. Arrow shaped

18. 5 spherical lights

19. flying wing

20.formation of planes

There we have it. Another 10 witnesses and clearly al over the place as to what they saw.

 

[Fila]

On 21/01/2018 at 11:23 AM, stereologist said:

It is a huge issue. Witnesses are bad. That is what the Phoenix Lights story tells us. You can pretend all you want that the lack of consistency of witnesses does not matter but it does.

Let's try the next 10 while you continue to repeat falsehoods about the number of witnesses and how the stories are similar. There we have it. Another 10 witnesses and clearly al over the place as to what they saw.

You keep spamming what I am aware of and explained my POV. You keep spamming without replying to my POV. I will make a thread about it.

Why not address my other points and questions I have asked in the last 2 posts I made?

If you are happy believing stories.., then I guess we really have nothing to talk about anymore. I require proof.., Don't hate on me, just because I'm a sceptic.

Edited January 21, 2018 by Fila

[stereologist]

34 minutes ago, Fila said:

I don't see the importance of this one witness.., compared to the rest. What is your point?

Tell me the steps in point form how to go about doing this.

Yes, that was my response to your question (3) which was a reply to my statement "Military must confirm flight paths with ATC towers when flying in commercial airspace."

 

The rest of your post is just you repeating the same information we have gone over, Ike you are stuck in a loop.

The fact that you keep telling me its not important to double check the plane theory.., and to stop trying etc... is making me wonder wth is going on.., and why there is so much anger and interest in preventing me from looking further into the mater objectively.

Because that is the one that almost all of the UFO sites refer to.  That makes Tim Ley important Anyone looking into the Phoenix Lights with anything other than a cursory interest would be aware of that.

You have repeatedly claimed there were thousands of witnesses. Seems unlikely. The reports are few and far between. What you need to understand is that regardless of source see what is being stated. The more I looked the fewer reports there seemed to be. My opinion is that most people looked up and realized it was planes. That is why there are so few reports.

Let me give you a further hint. The video tells us how many lights were there that night. Every report in the first 20 that gives a number count is wrong. Weird right? How could so many witnesses be completely wrong?

I'm not telling you "its not important to double check the plane theory". That is a straw man argument. I am telling you that looking for radar reports and flight logs is not needed. People know what planes look like. It is a familiar  object. They are seen regularly.