Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Jorge Rios

Do Aliens exist?

148 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Big Jim
2 hours ago, the13bats said:

jim,

why i basically agree with your thoughts and opinions when this subject pops up on a forum like this a true believer isnt involved because there might be a 3 eyed snail that lives in 200 degree water devoid of oxygen, or a single celled whatever.

what this subject really is for the TB is a gateway, its that door to say oh gee, IF theres life in the universe then it must be an "ET" as seen in sci fi flicks and that they must have been here are coming here yada yada yada,

while i know the odds stacked against it not only do i believe somewhere in the universe is life i even believe there is life similar to humans in that they will have cultures and communities, and tech, but we wont meet them, we wont even likely ever know they are there because of the daunting task of anything travelling that vast distance.

 

It's unclear whether you put me in the TB category or not.  Regarding the bolded text, even the concept of vast distance may be different on other worlds.  We've seen it change in our own lifetimes and can see the change over relatively recent history.  The daunting task of traveling a vast distance at one time applied to a trip from NY to LA, now covered in hours.  At the time it was unimaginable that it could change as drastically as it has because their imagination was based on what they knew.  Same as ours is now.  All of the reasons we have for thinking it can't be done are based on the theories of one man, proposed over a century ago.  He might be wrong.  Being the only genius in the universe would be even more unimaginable than us being the only life.  Someone else, somewhere out there, may have found answers to questions we haven't even thought to ask yet.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats

jim, i didnt place you in any camp from my comment on that one post of yours,  i have no idea if i consider you a TB or not.

a trip across the nation is a far cry different than a trip across the universe, and while tech does evolve we still have physics, i know someone will say other worlds will have there own physics, and so forth, it can go on and on,

all the things needed to complete the daunting task are still sci fi for us and it must be for any other beings in the universe as they havent visited us in any tangable proven way, sure sci fi becomes reailty but its still just fantasy and speculation for now and not an area i have interest to spend much time on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
5 hours ago, Big Jim said:

It's unclear whether you put me in the TB category or not.  Regarding the bolded text, even the concept of vast distance may be different on other worlds.  We've seen it change in our own lifetimes and can see the change over relatively recent history.  The daunting task of traveling a vast distance at one time applied to a trip from NY to LA, now covered in hours.  At the time it was unimaginable that it could change as drastically as it has because their imagination was based on what they knew.  Same as ours is now.  All of the reasons we have for thinking it can't be done are based on the theories of one man, proposed over a century ago.  He might be wrong.  Being the only genius in the universe would be even more unimaginable than us being the only life.  Someone else, somewhere out there, may have found answers to questions we haven't even thought to ask yet.

General relativity is a well established theory. It may have been the brain child of a single person, but it did not end there. The fact that Einstein figured this out over a century ago does not mean his or other people's work ended a century ago. What it really means is that the theory has withstood over a century of intense testing. 

You say he might be wrong. After over a century of testing showing that the theory is correct you suggest what might be wrong? I am not aware of areas in which it is suggested that Einstein might might be wrong except for the fact that his theory is not a quantum theory.

As far as life goes on other planets it must be remembered that the existence of life is constrained by physics. The stability of molecules is restricted to ranges of temperature, and chemical environments. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bison

Relativity Theory has its limitations, of course. It deals well with gravity, but can not cope successfully with the other three forces of nature, as we understand them. Something is lacking in it, obviously. The same can be said for Quantum Mechanics, in that it works for electromagnetism, and the strong and weak forces, but not, so far at least, for gravity.

 Relativity Theory and Quantum Mechanics will presumably be superseded, eventually, by a better explanatory framework, one which can explain the workings of all four forces harmoniously. They might still be considered useful approximations, just as Newtonian physics still is, even though Relativity deals with gravity better, over a wider range of conditions. Recall that Newtonian physics is still used to work out the motions of the planets and their moons, and guide spacecraft to them.

It is perfectly possible that a practical means of warping space will be worked out. A theoretical framework for this has already been devised, scientifically, and it is even being tested by NASA scientists. Such a system could provide a 'work-around' of the light speed limit, eventually making interstellar travel practical. In such a system, a space vessel could globally exceed the speed of light, while not doing so in the space surrounding the ship, which is the light speed limit that is specified by Relativity Theory.   

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
39 minutes ago, bison said:

Relativity Theory has its limitations, of course. It deals well with gravity, but can not cope successfully with the other three forces of nature, as we understand them. Something is lacking in it, obviously. The same can be said for Quantum Mechanics, in that it works for electromagnetism, and the strong and weak forces, but not, so far at least, for gravity.

 Relativity Theory and Quantum Mechanics will presumably be superseded, eventually, by a better explanatory framework, one which can explain the workings of all four forces harmoniously. They might still be considered useful approximations, just as Newtonian physics still is, even though Relativity deals with gravity better, over a wider range of conditions. Recall that Newtonian physics is still used to work out the motions of the planets and their moons, and guide spacecraft to them.

It is perfectly possible that a practical means of warping space will be worked out. A theoretical framework for this has already been devised, scientifically, and it is even being tested by NASA scientists. Such a system could provide a 'work-around' of the light speed limit, eventually making interstellar travel practical. In such a system, a space vessel could globally exceed the speed of light, while not doing so in the space surrounding the ship, which is the light speed limit that is specified by Relativity Theory.   

A GUT, grand unified theory, quest has been going on for a long time. Still relativity describes with incredible accuracy gravity. It doesn't really cover the other forces.  There are observable relativistic effects on particles. Fast moving muons last longer was a prediction that verifies that time dilation applies to particle physics.

https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201412/muon.cfm

As you point out there are theoretical ways to get around the c limit on speed. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Jim
2 hours ago, bison said:

Relativity Theory has its limitations, of course. It deals well with gravity, but can not cope successfully with the other three forces of nature, as we understand them. Something is lacking in it, obviously. The same can be said for Quantum Mechanics, in that it works for electromagnetism, and the strong and weak forces, but not, so far at least, for gravity.

 Relativity Theory and Quantum Mechanics will presumably be superseded, eventually, by a better explanatory framework, one which can explain the workings of all four forces harmoniously. They might still be considered useful approximations, just as Newtonian physics still is, even though Relativity deals with gravity better, over a wider range of conditions. Recall that Newtonian physics is still used to work out the motions of the planets and their moons, and guide spacecraft to them.

It is perfectly possible that a practical means of warping space will be worked out. A theoretical framework for this has already been devised, scientifically, and it is even being tested by NASA scientists. Such a system could provide a 'work-around' of the light speed limit, eventually making interstellar travel practical. In such a system, a space vessel could globally exceed the speed of light, while not doing so in the space surrounding the ship, which is the light speed limit that is specified by Relativity Theory.   

Thanks for putting in more scientific terms what I was trying to refer to.  I come at things from a more intuitive angle since I lack formal scientific training.  My view is that if something is called a theory then it is not settled science and therefore is subject to correction or refinement.  Hence my suggestion that Einstein could be wrong, or at least, incomplete.  In my limited schooling an incomplete answer was the same as being wrong.  I've only been trying to propose that we, as earthlings, could be wrong about some critical points regarding how the universe works and that being wrong, we can't imagine how some other species might have gotten it right.  That little bit could be all the difference.  We talk about other worlds being more advanced than us almost as a given.  We can see from our own history that science advances by accidental discoveries or by improving on work already done, even if it means proving our former heroes wrong.  The progression of science has a certain randomness to it.  The right genius has to be born at the right time and occasionally stumble onto the right solutions.  It only appears linear looking back on it, we can't predict what might be discovered tomorrow.  So other worlds may be more advanced than us in some ways and surprisingly primitive in others.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats

john keel waxed a lot about how we are not as we believe we are and the universe isnt as we believe it to be and when questioned would get his impish little grim.

"we can't predict what might be discovered tomorrow", but for now its all theory all sci fi, if folks want to write long winders trying to show how tech savvy they believe themselves to be go wild....:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
9 hours ago, Big Jim said:

Thanks for putting in more scientific terms what I was trying to refer to.  I come at things from a more intuitive angle since I lack formal scientific training.  My view is that if something is called a theory then it is not settled science and therefore is subject to correction or refinement.  Hence my suggestion that Einstein could be wrong, or at least, incomplete.  In my limited schooling an incomplete answer was the same as being wrong.  I've only been trying to propose that we, as earthlings, could be wrong about some critical points regarding how the universe works and that being wrong, we can't imagine how some other species might have gotten it right.  That little bit could be all the difference.  We talk about other worlds being more advanced than us almost as a given.  We can see from our own history that science advances by accidental discoveries or by improving on work already done, even if it means proving our former heroes wrong.  The progression of science has a certain randomness to it.  The right genius has to be born at the right time and occasionally stumble onto the right solutions.  It only appears linear looking back on it, we can't predict what might be discovered tomorrow.  So other worlds may be more advanced than us in some ways and surprisingly primitive in others.

A scientific theory is not as you suggest. It is an explanation for a collection of facts. In the case of relativity the theory is amazingly sound. Theories make predictions. Those predictions are tested. Testing of relativity for over a century has not turned up any problems. For example, every few years someone thinks they have discovered supraluminal events (faster than light). Although they initially look compelling the events turn out to be something other than supraluminal travel.

There will  more than likely be a new version of physics which describes how the universe works. But it is unlikely to affect the parts already well established. Relativity explains events in extreme situations such as extreme gravity, and extreme speeds. If that isn't the case Newton works extremely well.

The important issue to  understand is that as you suggest there is no alien physics. Humans and aliens are constrained by the same physics. It is all about the knowledge of how the universe works.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

So here is what is interesting about Kitei and her observation. She saw event number 2.

She saw the flares. She thought that the flares were aliens. That's a mistake she has never fixed.

There are those that want to pretend that pointing out evidence either for or against a subject and discussing that is being a scoffer. No, it is being a skeptic.

A scoffer is someone that avoid the evidence and spends considerable time discussing other posters and even coins new words which mean scoffer - what they are doing.

But back to Kitei. She interviewed a few people and wrote a book. So what is so interesting in the book that should be discussed?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rashore

All righty folks, let's keep the discussion civil and friendly please.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Minimalists
4 hours ago, stereologist said:

So here is what is interesting about Kitei and her observation. She saw event number 2.

She saw the flares. She thought that the flares were aliens. That's a mistake she has never fixed.

There are those that want to pretend that pointing out evidence either for or against a subject and discussing that is being a scoffer. No, it is being a skeptic.

A scoffer is someone that avoid the evidence and spends considerable time discussing other posters and even coins new words which mean scoffer - what they are doing.

But back to Kitei. She interviewed a few people and wrote a book. So what is so interesting in the book that should be discussed?

Stereo in my humble opinion there is nothing to be gained really from her observations of this event...I think the reason many take it to heart is because of the MD beside her name.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
1 hour ago, Alien Origins said:

Stereo in my humble opinion there is nothing to be gained really from her observations of this event...I think the reason many take it to heart is because of the MD beside her name.

I do too. Any mention of her name begins with her credentials and not the evidence. It is an appeal to authority. The same happens with Greer.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
2 hours ago, Alien Origins said:

Stereo in my humble opinion there is nothing to be gained really from her observations of this event...

I'm glad to see you say "opinion".  finally

2 hours ago, Alien Origins said:

I think the reason many take it to heart is because of the MD beside her name.

Well, you can think that  but to a lot of people like me, it's her video, pics, and many interviews that make her quite a valuable resource. She did a lot of research into this. Another reason why I find her quite credible is because I could NEVER see a high wage earning doctor waste time persuing such a child's game as faking UFO evidence. So I think she's legit. Remember, this event is not all about Dr. Ketei. She is a player but only one of thousands of testifiers, including the governor of the state. So Ketei is not operating in a vacuum.

Ya know, before the night of the event, Ketei already bought a 35 mm movie camera because of all the UFO activity that was going on in the weeks ahead. On the night of the event, she was fully prepared. A lot of good it did in here, right?

Now, if you can prove that she falsified her pics/vid, please show me. But just SAYING it ain't going to cut it with me. And I am not trying to urge you to believe her. But I am trying to show you that I have better reasons to believe her than I do the people of a BB who were never there. She got the goodies, the non eyewitnesses in here DON'T. Simple as that.

For you to think about:    A man, say, Jim, is on trial for a drive-by shooting. Tony saw it all.  But the assistant DA doesn't like Tony so instead gets Mary to testify, even though Mary was nowhere near the scene.  Make any sense?

This is what you people are doing in here. You are demanding that I brush aside witness testimony and go with your testimony because you all think you are better people than the witness.  Ya dig? 

Bottom line, your "feelings" about Ketei prove nothing.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Minimalists
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I'm glad to see you say "opinion".  finally

Well, you can think that  but to a lot of people like me, it's her video, pics, and many interviews that make her quite a valuable resource. She did a lot of research into this. Another reason why I find her quite credible is because I could NEVER see a high wage earning doctor waste time persuing such a child's game as faking UFO evidence. So I think she's legit. Remember, this event is not all about Dr. Ketei. She is a player but only one of thousands of testifiers, including the governor of the state. So Ketei is not operating in a vacuum.

Ya know, before the night of the event, Ketei already bought a 35 mm movie camera because of all the UFO activity that was going on in the weeks ahead. On the night of the event, she was fully prepared. A lot of good it did in here, right?

Now, if you can prove that she falsified her pics/vid, please show me. But just SAYING it ain't going to cut it with me. And I am not trying to urge you to believe her. But I am trying to show you that I have better reasons to believe her than I do the people of a BB who were never there. She got the goodies, the non eyewitnesses in here DON'T. Simple as that.

For you to think about:    A man, say, Jim, is on trial for a drive-by shooting. Tony saw it all.  But the assistant DA doesn't like Tony so instead gets Mary to testify, even though Mary was nowhere near the scene.  Make any sense?

This is what you people are doing in here. You are demanding that I brush aside witness testimony and go with your testimony because you all think you are better people than the witness.  Ya dig? 

Bottom line, your "feelings" about Ketei prove nothing.

Quote

Bottom line, your "feelings" about Ketei prove nothing.

Da...Neither do yours...Appeal to Authority and Conformation Biased are not evidence of aliens or ufos.

Quote

For you to think about:    A man, say, Jim, is on trial for a drive-by shooting. Tony saw it all.  But the assistant DA doesn't like Tony so instead gets Mary to testify, even though Mary was nowhere near the scene.  Make any sense?

Well for starters if a DA has a witness to a crime he is not going to jeopardize a sure conviction because he does not like a person...Your analogy is a little stupid if your applying it here. 

Quote

Now, if you can prove that she falsified her pics/vid, please show me. But just SAYING it ain't going to cut it with me. And I am not trying to urge you to believe her. But I am trying to show you that I have better reasons to believe her than I do the people of a BB who were never there. She got the goodies, the non eyewitnesses in here DON'T. Simple as that.

I do not recall saying she falsified anything.....Because some one as an MD or Phd beside their name believer or not people seem to think they are always right... You take it hook, line and sinker straight to the bottom.

Quote

I'm glad to see you say "opinion".  finally

I don't know who this was directed at?

Quote

I find her quite credible is because I could NEVER see a high wage earning doctor waste time persuing such a child's game as faking UFO evidence.

And there in lies your Appeal to Authority that Stereo spoke of....I am sure she recorded something that night and no one seems to know what the lights were.

Quote

Ya know, before the night of the event, Ketei already bought a 35 mm movie camera because of all the UFO activity that was going on in the weeks ahead. On the night of the event, she was fully prepared. A lot of good it did in here, right?

Why? Because some of us do not bow down to her MD status?

Edited by Alien Origins
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
53 minutes ago, Alien Origins said:

Why? Because some of us do not bow down to her MD status?

One name......

Ben Carson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
Posted (edited)
57 minutes ago, Alien Origins said:

Da...Neither do yours...Appeal to Authority and Conformation Biased are not evidence of aliens or ufos.

You're putting words in my mouth, I never said they were. Why are you doing this?? You have seen me repeatedly say "video, pics and eyewitness testimony".  Also, just *saying* there were no UFO's in the skies over phoenix is not good evidence there were none. In fact it is not evidence at all.

Quote

Well for starters if a DA has a witness to a crime he is not going to jeopardize a sure conviction because he does not like a person...Your analogy is a little stupid if your applying it here. 

I am applying it here because it is just as stupid to expect me to blow off the testimony of the eyewitnesses in favor of what people who were hundreds of miles away from the incident have to say. Yes, that would be real stupid.

Quote

I do not recall saying she falsified anything.....

Well, you have to take that posture or it's all over, no?  Surely you don't believe Dr. Ketei, do you?

Quote

Because some one as an MD or Phd beside their name believer or not people seem to think they are always right...

It's an irrelevent point, Alien. Why keep raising the issue?  Her testimony is what counts, not her pedigree.

Quote

 You take it hook, line and sinker straight to the bottom. And stop the sanctimonious higher than thou crap please....

excuse me???  Well, I did my job and kept it on track and civil. You just can't do that even once, eh?

Quote

I don't know who this was directed at?

And there in lies your Appeal to Authority that Stereo spoke of....I am sure she recorded something that night and no one seems to know what the lights were.

Oh, that's no the point. the point is, nobody cares whether her evidences are real/relevant and even worse again, anyone in here who tries to explore it and discuss it in here is jumped on. Aren't you  interested in knowing what the truth is???

Quote

Why? Because some of us do not bow down to her MD status?

You sure have an infactuation with her education and intellect, eh?

Anyway, I am here to find the truth. If you or anyone can show me that any or all of Dr. Ketei's evidences are in error, I will no longer use them as evidence. Up to you.

and also, let us remember there are thousands of other people whose testimony should be vetted before you blow it off. 

Edited by Earl.Of.Trumps
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
2 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

...

Now, if you can prove that she falsified her pics/vid, please show me. But just SAYING it ain't going to cut it ...

Cuts both ways.That's a fact, Jack.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

...

and also, let us remember there are thousands of other people whose testimony should be vetted before you blow it off. 

The population of Phoenix was about one million at the time. The testimony of one person in a thousand is not impressive.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
1 hour ago, Golden Duck said:

Cuts both ways.That's a fact, Jack.

Golden, if evidences are produced,  the presenter is convinced they are real, obviously. so it is really on the doubter to prove said evidence is false. IMO.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
1 hour ago, Golden Duck said:

The population of Phoenix was about one million at the time. The testimony of one person in a thousand is not impressive.

duck, I have no idea how many people really witnessed it. But if thousands of people from all over, acted up on the same day and roughly same time, then - absence a conspiracy, that is all the evidence you need to establish that something major happened.

As to what happened.... ?  Here's a novel idea, why not ask the eye witnesses!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

duck, I have no idea how many people really witnessed it. But if thousands of people from all over, acted up on the same day and roughly same time, then - absence a conspiracy, that is all the evidence you need to establish that something major happened.

As to what happened.... ?  Here's a novel idea, why not ask the eye witnesses!

How come a forthright witness with a telescope is abused?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
Posted (edited)

this thread asked if aliens exist and was imho derailed into another dead horse beating of the well play out well debunked Phoenix lights event, i say derailed because there is a thread on the subject of the Phoenix lights,

i really do find this is a case of you can lead a horse to knowlage but you cant make them think,

yet another good read summing it up

https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/the-phoenix-lights-are-no-mystery-6661825

true believers will denounce it and that is fine and i will rebute their denouncing with show me your proof it wasnt airplanes and flares and show me proof it was ET craft, no insults, no tantrums no threats just show me your proof, if you have none that is fine be comfortable in your beliefs i will be more comfortable with the facts.

 

Edited by the13bats
call me capt typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
8 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I'm glad to see you say "opinion".  finally

Well, you can think that  but to a lot of people like me, it's her video, pics, and many interviews that make her quite a valuable resource. She did a lot of research into this. Another reason why I find her quite credible is because I could NEVER see a high wage earning doctor waste time persuing such a child's game as faking UFO evidence. So I think she's legit. Remember, this event is not all about Dr. Ketei. She is a player but only one of thousands of testifiers, including the governor of the state. So Ketei is not operating in a vacuum.

Ya know, before the night of the event, Ketei already bought a 35 mm movie camera because of all the UFO activity that was going on in the weeks ahead. On the night of the event, she was fully prepared. A lot of good it did in here, right?

Now, if you can prove that she falsified her pics/vid, please show me. But just SAYING it ain't going to cut it with me. And I am not trying to urge you to believe her. But I am trying to show you that I have better reasons to believe her than I do the people of a BB who were never there. She got the goodies, the non eyewitnesses in here DON'T. Simple as that.

For you to think about:    A man, say, Jim, is on trial for a drive-by shooting. Tony saw it all.  But the assistant DA doesn't like Tony so instead gets Mary to testify, even though Mary was nowhere near the scene.  Make any sense?

This is what you people are doing in here. You are demanding that I brush aside witness testimony and go with your testimony because you all think you are better people than the witness.  Ya dig? 

Bottom line, your "feelings" about Ketei prove nothing.

No one is saying that anyone falsified anything. Itis all about the interpretation.

Kitei saw event 2. The videos shot of event 2 were used by Maccabee to determine through triangulation that the lights were over the Barry Goldwater range. That is where the flares were dropped.

The lights were not as Kitei suggests - outside here window.

There is no need for anyone to disprove Kitei. The onus is on Kitei to show that the videos show what she claims. That has never happened.

Pointing out that the governor and Kitei are special people  is an appeal to authority. If you want to play that game which avoids the evidence you should know that Symington was convicted of extortion and bank fraud.

The video she made and others are the evidence and they show that the lights she saw were 70 miles away, not just outside her window.

The bottom line is that the evidence shows her video is of distant flares.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
5 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Golden, if evidences are produced,  the presenter is convinced they are real, obviously. so it is really on the doubter to prove said evidence is false. IMO.

Wrong. The burden is on Kitei to show that here feelings such as the lights were "intelligent" needs to be demonstrated.

There is no need for anyone to prove her wrong. Besides that was done by Bruce Maccabee. It is the presenter that must defend their evidence.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

duck, I have no idea how many people really witnessed it. But if thousands of people from all over, acted up on the same day and roughly same time, then - absence a conspiracy, that is all the evidence you need to establish that something major happened.

As to what happened.... ?  Here's a novel idea, why not ask the eye witnesses!

There were not that many witnesses. You have lied already that Kitei interviewed 10,000 people. That was a laughable lie.

Event number 2 could not be seen from Phoenix. You needed to be above the valley and have a view towards the Barry Goldwater range to see the flare drop.

http://www.nicap.org/articles/PhoenixLights_MUJ_Feb1999.pdf

Quote

The triangulation results consistently showedthe lights to be southwest of Phoenix at distances be-tween 60 and 80 miles from K and L, farther from Rand as close as 40 miles to P. This placed the lightsover the Air Force range. The durations of these lights,when they were recorded from the time of their initialappearance to disappearance with no stopping of thecamera, were within the range of 4'/2 to 5 minutes.

That is what Bruce Maccabee determined.

Quote

The witnesses were impressed by the extreme brightness, orange color, and stability of these light arrays seen on March 13, 1997, Jan. 14, 1998, and other days not discussed here. They were convinced that the arrays were relatively close to Phoenix, perhaps near the Estrella Range or even closer. If this were so, they could not have been caused by the Air Force dropping flares. (How could the Air Force, on Jan. 14, 1998, drop flares in a straight line anyway?)Besides, they could see no smoke and no parachutes,both of which are obvious when parachute flares are observed "close up" (within a few miles or with powerful telescopes from a distance).

The triangulation data, however, show that the lights actually were quite far away, much farther than the witnesses and the initial UFO investigators had believed.

There you have it. The witnesses up above the valley where Phoenix is located were under the impression that the lights were close, but triangulations shows that the lights were far off.

 

And you wrote " Bottom line, your "feelings" about Ketei prove nothing. " understand that Kitei's feelings mean nothing either.

Edited by stereologist
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.