Phoenix lights

[ChrLzs]

OK, so first let's do a quick potted history of the thread, and in particular EarlofTrumps claims about the squiggly lines.
Note that a number of these claims were made to me in a PM, but as they are relevant to the thread I shall respond here, in this and a later post or two to come...  Thankfully for you, dear readers, I have removed the adhoms and foul language.

First up TrumanB posted a video showing a mixture of blurry indistinct distant lights that frankly could have been anything, most of which were unrelated but some of which have previously been discussed at some length here, and been identified beyond doubt to a reasonable observer..

I pointed out that the topic had been covered before, here.

I also offered further suggestions here:

.. on how to Google this stuff up to avoid duplicated posts.  Yes, I'm helpful that way...

The thread wandered aimlessly for a while, then on Page 4, EarlofTrumps posted this:

.. which appears to be only vaguely related to the OP imagery.  Earl did NOT, I repeat NOT, cite the image source for the two seemingly identical images..  (Does posting two identical images make them twice as convincing?)  Thankfully the images had a name on them to allow checking....

I replied, asking Earl what his claim was about those squiggly line photos, and also asking if he was aware of the other images that were taken at the same time which showed camera shake effects.

Earl replied, telling us that the image was from a video.  He didn't link to the video..  He said the objects were moving left to right (does that make them alien?), and assured me, on no grounds, that it was NOT camera shake.

As Earl was clearly disinterested in linking to the source, I did it for him and showed several of the images which show very obvious camera shake effects on city lights, eg this corker:

Earl says that is not camera shake - everyone ok with that?

I'll be back later with more comments on Earl's very 'pleasant' (!) personal message...  It contains equally impressive lack of knowledge....

[ChrLzs]

BTW, Earl, where is the video from which that frame came from - you have assured us it's a video you've seen.  So where is it?

I found this:

As the image you posted appears, she says quite clearly she took 6 pictures in a row.  Stills, NOT a video.  As that is germane to your claims, please clarify.  I hope you weren't wrong or... lying...

[JessicaButerfly]

What do I think? It is Aliens, UFO. They are here. They live here and studying us. Time to time they show their ships or just light to study our reaction.

[TrumanB]

6 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

BTW, Earl, where is the video from which that frame came from - you have assured us it's a video you've seen.  So where is it?

I found this:

As the image you posted appears, she says quite clearly she took 6 pictures in a row.  Stills, NOT a video.  As that is germane to your claims, please clarify.  I hope you weren't wrong or... lying...

listen from 6:41. The technician said that there is no way that those 6 lights are flairs. 

Edited April 10, 2019 by TrumanB

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, TrumanB said:

listen from 6:41. The technician said that there is no way that those 6 lights are flairs. 

The technician is an idiot to be blunt about it. A video camera cannot collect the information needed to do a spectral analysis. The company that makes the software stated that the person was using the software for a task it was not designed to accomplish.

This is as lame as the ghost hunters not knowing how to use a meter and claiming they've detected a ghost.

[Minimalists]

1 hour ago, TrumanB said:

listen from 6:41. The technician said that there is no way that those 6 lights are flairs. 

And how could he be so sure they are not flairs?  

Edited April 10, 2019 by Alien Origins

[TrumanB]

1 hour ago, Alien Origins said:

And how could he be so sure they are not flairs?  

i don't know, I'm not the expert!

[the13bats]

this thread is to me a farce from the start, not saying that in a mean way just the phoenix lights had there day  were well played out and even with so much embelishement and outright lies by actual and pseudo witnesses the case was well debunked, for logical rational minded.

i cant help being dumbfounded that some people still are mixing up 2 different sources for the lights, flares and air craft, its true you can lead a horse to knowlege but you cant make them think.

true believers are fine but i have no time to waste on true believers who use it as a conduit to troll proven by having zero when called out to put up or shut up, try not to feed the troll.

so it ends with true believers see the phoenix lights as the smoking gun, the only possibility is it was ET in his space craft, of course the rest know it was air craft, flares and a lot of bs.

 

 

[Minimalists]

6 hours ago, TrumanB said:

i don't know, I'm not the expert!

Apparently the technician isn't either.

[Hazzard]

Dont get me wrong. I understand that some people love the idea of Earth and its human inhabitants have not only attracted the attention of galactic neighbors, but encouraged them to visit. But frankly, there is no support (hard scientific evidence) to this somewhat self-indulgent idea. Confronted with this, the aliens on Earth believers usually take refuge in two possible explanations: (1) The material that would be convincing proof has been collected and secreted away by the U.S. government. While endlessly appealing, this is an argument from ignorance (tantamount to saying “we cant show you good evidence because we havent got it), and perforce implies that every government in the world has efficiently squirreled away all alien artifacts. Unless, of course, the extraterrestrials only visit the U.S. where retrieval of material that falls to Earth is supposedly a perfected art form. (2) Scientists have simply refused to look carefully at this phenomenon. In other words, the scientists should blame themselves for the fact that the visitation hypothesis has failed to sway them. Which one do you prefer, or is there a third one..?