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 -
TrumanB

Phoenix lights

135 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

TrumanB

1. One possible explanation is that their technology is so advanced that they can move in a non-linear way. There are many theories about that, from our point of view it's impossible but it doesn't mean that it really is.

2. What sort of natural phenomena? Never heard for the phenomena where unknown objects move extremely fast. Misinterpretation...possible but it's a long shot. It seems to me that sceptics are trying to explain something unexplainable at this moment ( due to limited knowledge ) with some really lousy theories.

3. Some kids were sure that they saw It from a very short distance, not the man covered in mud, and there are other strange things there too...Yes, there's more but it only makes things worse from the perspective of a sceptic!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trelane

1. Possible? Maybe but highly unlikely. Do you have a link to any of these theories?

2. Lousy because you do not agree with the more logical and probable reason.

3. It has been discussed ad nauseum how unreliable eyewitness accounts (let alone that of children) are.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TrumanB

1. Unfortunately, I don't. When I run to some ( such as those about anti-gravity, warm holes etc. ) I will paste it here

2. They don't all seem more logical to me. Different people, different logics. I'm not saying that I'm smarter than the others, it's just that we are different.

3. They may be unreliable but they may be reliable too. We don't know that. Depends on the case to case. For example, in this The Varginha Incident there are many strange things, not just children's' testimony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
29 minutes ago, TrumanB said:

1. One possible explanation is that their technology is so advanced that they can move in a non-linear way. There are many theories about that, from our point of view it's impossible but it doesn't mean that it really is.

Rather than imagining how such things could be alien spaceships, it might be a good idea to work out why advanced tech would behave like that. Its not practical, and defies physics as the inertia would kill any pilot. 

What's the point in non linear motion? What theories say its viable, and what indicates the need for practical use of such erratic manoeuvres? 

29 minutes ago, TrumanB said:

2. What sort of natural phenomena? Never heard for the phenomena where unknown objects move extremely fast.

Arial plasmas mimick the motions and even descriptions attributed to UFO claims. This has been positively documented at Hessdalen. 

29 minutes ago, TrumanB said:

Misinterpretation...possible but it's a long shot.

Why? 

If these things are moving as fast as claimed, how can an accurate description of such be obtained? 

And how does someone even identify anything as alien, when we have never seen alien technology? 

29 minutes ago, TrumanB said:

It seems to me that sceptics are trying to explain something unexplainable at this moment ( due to limited knowledge ) with some really lousy theories.

I really don't think so. Mundane explanations are the most likely because they are known factors is all. 

29 minutes ago, TrumanB said:

3. Some kids were sure that they saw It from a very short distance, not the man covered in mud, and there are other strange things there too...Yes, there's more but it only makes things worse from the perspective of a sceptic!

But what's the connection to aliens exactly? 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats

Truman i see you are a true believer and i have seen with most true belivers they toss logic out the window and get little jabs at skeptics, i am fine with this i dont take it personal but it places a huge hurdle on any actual science or merits, i do not waste time with such types, at least i try hard not to.

Its fine to say "i know it" and not require proof and even dismiss proof offered to the contrary but its not of any value to me or my learnings.

Let me use examples to explain my mindset the phoenix lights, the big V was seen as aircraft in formation by a guy with his telescope, he showed his telescopes and there is collaborating information he is correct including other Vs floating over that were known aircraft,

I dont demand pictures or more proof from him because aircraft are well known to fly in formation his claim is not extraordinary its very prosaic. However, had the same young man said he saw it as some otherworldly, aliens then you darn right i want pictures proof, not ridiculous theories that aliens can make cameras blur or not work, give me a break.

Heres another, you say a hostpital was closed surrounded by police and military because a dwarf was giving birth, so this was an official report? Are there pictures of said police and military surrounding a closed hospital or just here say,

Start with posting copies of that official report and the pictures and prove that if the hospital was closed it was what you claim because they had an alien there and not from some other reason like a gas leak, a bomb scare, or other normal reason a business might have to close, the mickydees by my house closed for a few days, no aliens just a remodel, are you someone who believes hospitals never close, that is pretty silly.

Do you believe everthing you read or are told at face value, thats scary,

Actually truman and it makes me a bit sad to say this, i dont know of any in this case ufo accounts that give any evidence of anything otherwordly or or alien origins, unexplained doesnt mean ET we cant jump to that starting with unknown and if we do that is the most ridiculous concept of all.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TrumanB

I see your logic and respect your opinion. But I never said that alien technologies make cameras blur...but the theory is that they make their crafts invisible.

Regarding these ET technologies, there is a very interesting story about Maria Orsic, her drawings and Vril society...but that's for a different thread that I will open when I find time and inspiration.

 

psyche, regarding plasmas mimick the motions...do you have any good link on this? These that I see are about smth that doesn't look like UFO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
4 minutes ago, TrumanB said:

I see your logic and respect your opinion. But I never said that alien technologies make cameras blur...but the theory is that they make their crafts invisible.

Regarding these ET technologies, there is a very interesting story about Maria Orsic, her drawings and Vril society...but that's for a different thread that I will open when I find time and inspiration.

https://www.quora.com/Who-is-Maria-Orsic

4 minutes ago, TrumanB said:

psyche, regarding plasmas mimick the motions...do you have any good link on this? These that I see are about smth that doesn't look like UFO.

Here is a link to the project Hessdalen webpage. I suggest you go straight to observations. There is quite some interesting reading there. 

 

http://www.hessdalen.org/index_e.shtml

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats

Truman,

You ignored 100% of my requests of proof from you about any of your claims adding now aliens have a "cloaking device" ( term i stole from startrek, ) but now you ask for links, without first posting your own play fair true believer....and you want ridiculous vril is it.

Edited by the13bats
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
onlookerofmayhem
48 minutes ago, TrumanB said:

1. Unfortunately, I don't. When I run to some ( such as those about anti-gravity, warm holes etc. ) I will paste it here

2. They don't all seem more logical to me. Different people, different logics. I'm not saying that I'm smarter than the others, it's just that we are different.

3. They may be unreliable but they may be reliable too. We don't know that. Depends on the case to case. For example, in this The Varginha Incident there are many strange things, not just children's' testimony.

Now you've piqued my interests...

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats

Hum...is that related to alien probing?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast
7 hours ago, TrumanB said:

Maybe because those guys who run UFOs have an advanced technology that doesn't allow us to see them in a sharp and focused manner.

Thats the useless standard answer to my question given and it makes no sense at all.

Quote

There are so many sightings of UFOs that move faster than the fastest military aircraft.

So what? Who measured? Farmers who had a "sighting"? How were the measurements conducted? By view? Explanations, please. And, for example, the JU248/Me262/Me163/SR71 flew faster than every to the public (or, the "witnesses") known military aircraft in their times so the claim faster than blahblah itself is useless.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats

Truman while i dont agree with everything the author has written there i like that the blogs are short written well but not too darn seriously, you know with some snarky humor

http://www.theironskeptic.com/articles.htm

Im sure you will find lots to disagree with....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Minimalists

Have we not beat this topic to death enough on other threads? Just asking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
37 minutes ago, Alien Origins said:

Have we not beat this topic to death enough on other threads? Just asking.

I havent been in other threads but i know this topic well enough to know its a closed case and only naive newbies or true believers cling to it...:(

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TrumanB
10 hours ago, psyche101 said:

https://www.quora.com/Who-is-Maria-Orsic

Here is a link to the project Hessdalen webpage. I suggest you go straight to observations. There is quite some interesting reading there.

An another poor and dry explanation that you take for granted. Nothing about her drawings, nothing about her visions...Somebody even said that she never existed and you take it as the truth.

Edited by TrumanB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast
13 minutes ago, TrumanB said:

An another poor and dry explanation that you take for granted. Nothing about her drawings, nothing about her visions...Somebody even said that she never existed and you take it as the truth.

:sleepy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TrumanB

This video was recommended to me by one person that I already mentioned and that I trust. What do you think about the argument that flares would have lit up their smoke trail?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast

Freak show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
24 minutes ago, TrumanB said:

This video was recommended to me by one person that I already mentioned and that I trust. What do you think about the argument that flares would have lit up their smoke trail?

The argument that flares would have lit up their smoke trail supposes that the smoke trail would be prominent and that the light of the flares was not directed towards the ground. Also, the flares were 70 miles away. Would the reflection off the smoke trails have been visible at 70 miles? How do we know the distance? Bruce McCabee used triangulation from the 4 video tapes to determine the distance.

There were also parachutes connected to the flares. At 70 miles the chutes, the flares, and the smoke trails all appear as a single point of light.

Edited by stereologist
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

TrumanB, the Phoenix Lights is probably one of the more famous but also one of the poorest reported events ever. The witnesses could not agree on anything. Here are some of the things they did not agree on:

1. Lights high or close to ground

2. The color of the lights

3. The number of lights

4. The shape formed by the lights

5. Whether or not the shape formed by the lights changed

6. Whether or not the lights passing by produced a sound

7. The path that the lights took

8. Whether or not stars could be seen between the lights

You'd think that a UFO would be consistently reported given the length of time it was viewed. On the contrary, there was no consensus.

That asks the simple question, which set of properties are probably correct? Can't really say since the witnesses statements offer no clues as to what was seen.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TrumanB

Yes, I saw that message on yours on the old thread. This is an interesting fact per se.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

Then you noticed that the other poster kept claiming a consensus of the witnesses but would never bother to state what the consensus is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TrumanB

He claims that most of witnesses saw a very big object in event 1...that cannot be a military airplane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats

Occams razor i believe the guy with the telescope who said the V were a formation of airplanes.

Side note i used to believe Bruce McCabee was beyong reproach that he knew his stuff and was never wrong, shame on me,

He has supported that many very much exposed as hoax cases were the real deal, IE gulf breeze and ed walters, he supported Bob Oechsler and that his carp case was a "craft" and the other day i noticed his wife took a picture of something in the woods while hog hunting they akin to the predator alien when cloaked...my bubble busted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
21 hours ago, TrumanB said:

Because I don't see why would it be ridiculous that in this universe there are other living beings than humans.

How many times do we see this ridiculous fallacy?  NONE of us deny that there is a pretty high possibility of other life out there.

but WTH has that got to do with UFO's?

Think about it - what traces of our existence are detectable beyond a few pitiful light years - nobody outside our spiral arm of our (sadly very small and average galaxy), could possibly have a clue that we are here.  Do you not see the logical problem, and the hypocrisy of your claims?

As always, I'd just ask you to think about the very 'best' evidence you've found.  Is it all that convincing, and why?  Bring it.

Then, think about what you claim to be the most ridiculous debunking you've seen - and be brave, post it here.  Prove your point.

Finally, if you honestly believe that the reason why that evidence is so lousy is that the clebber alienz are using stealth technology (aka Thunderbirds-type-camera-detection), do you not realise how lame that sounds?  You can't lose if you just keep changing goalposts.  And that doesn't explain why almost every example of lights in the sky is DISTANT.  Why didn't the folks closer get a better image?

Here, I'll tell you - they saw it was something mundane, and people don't bother taking pictures of passenger jets, etc....  Yes, call me ridiculous...

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.