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 -
UM-Bot

Why is the Pentagon interested in UFOs ?

136 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Earl.Of.Trumps
Posted (edited)
51 minutes ago, Alien Origins said:

Why? We know they exist..

Really? I don't see - as an example, Stereologist, buying into the notion that many people saw the "carpenter's square" shaped UFO in the skies over Phoenix. He denies that and many folks have "explanations" like aircraft flying in V formation as to what the eyewitnesses really saw

Quote

And some do not have mundane explanations..I think where the issue comes in is that believer's automatically assume it's alien's from another planet. Actual eyewitness testimony can only take it so far. Sure people see these things and it's hard to believe they are all lying.

Here's my criterion...   If you have a few eyewitnesses (3, 4, or more) that can clearly be seen as NON connected (to prevent collusion) and all such witnesses report seeing the same thing at the same time, then it has to be truth that they speak. Period. You just can't get several people to sporadically decide to pull a prank on police and make a fake report AND have the report be of the same object. It just doesn't happen. So all the UFO reports with multiple eyewitnesses are real - Phoenix lights, Battle Over LA, Washington DC UFO flap, Cleveland Ohio, and many many more.

Quote

But that said we are human and as such we are not very good data taking machines...Bottom line is we all see what we want to see....Over time stories become more and more embellished, things added, things taken away.....For example. Start a rumor on this forum. It don't have to be true just tell a fake story..By the time it washes out the story will have changed hundreds of times.

That's the way it is with UFO eyewitnesses especially if more than one person saw it....By the time it's over the story has ballooned into who knows what. Eyewitness testimony is just part of a much larger scenario....

Luckily, people's *original* statements - such as in Phoenix lights are preserved.

Edited by Earl.Of.Trumps
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Really? I don't see - as an example, Stereologist, buying into the notion that many people saw the "carpenter's square" shaped UFO in the skies over Phoenix. He denies that and many folks have "explanations" like aircraft flying in V formation as to what the eyewitnesses really saw

Here's my criterion...   If you have a few eyewitnesses (3, 4, or more) that can clearly be seen as NON connected (to prevent collusion) and all such witnesses report seeing the same thing at the same time, then it has to be truth that they speak. Period. You just can't get several people to sporadically decide to pull a prank on police and make a fake report AND have the report be of the same object. It just doesn't happen. So all the UFO reports with multiple eyewitnesses are real - Phoenix lights, Battle Over LA, Washington DC UFO flap, Cleveland Ohio, and many many more.

Luckily, people's *original* statements - such as in Phoenix lights are preserved.

Quote

So all the UFO reports with multiple eyewitnesses are real - Phoenix lights, Battle Over LA, Washington DC UFO flap, Cleveland Ohio, and many many more.

Never indicated they were not real...Just that the standards of evidence that would be required to prove they are from another planet does not exist.

Quote

If you have a few eyewitnesses (3, 4, or more) that can clearly be seen as NON connected (to prevent collusion) and all such witnesses report seeing the same thing at the same time, then it has to be truth that they speak.

Agree, if you are looking at it in the context of what an eyewitness statement means in a court of law then sure...If you turn it around and apply it to the court of science it don't hold up. I think that's where the jist of doubt lies.

Quote

Luckily, people's *original* statements - such as in Phoenix lights are preserved.

True..But even with all that they still do not know what they were from what I have read on the incident.

Quote

Really? I don't see - as an example, Stereologist, buying into the notion that many people saw the "carpenter's square" shaped UFO in the skies over Phoenix.

Cannot speak to this...The way I see it Stereo does a good job of holding his own and seems to be extremely knowledgeable in this stuff. 

Quote

You just can't get several people to sporadically decide to pull a prank on police and make a fake report AND have the report be of the same object. It just doesn't happen.

I don't know they do it with these videos and photos we see here...So I won't say it cannot happen.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Never indicated they were not real...Just that the standards of evidence that would be required to prove they are from another planet does not exist.

And I'm not trying to prove they were from another planet, only that they existed inn the form that eyewitnesses said so.

14 minutes ago, Alien Origins said:

Agree, if you are looking at it in the context of what an eyewitness statement means in a court of law then sure...If you turn it around and apply it to the court of science it don't hold up. I think that's where the jist of doubt lies.

Funny, I thought I was using "science".  Well,  if you want to take a crack at it and show me how - say, 4 people in four separate locations can all call the police on same date/time and say they saw a giant black flying wedge with five huge lights on the bottom and all be fakers, be my guest.

14 minutes ago, Alien Origins said:

True..But even with all that they still do not know what they were from what I have read on the incident.

Cannot speak to this...The way I see it Stereo does a good job of holding his own and seems to be extremely knowledgeable in this stuff. 

 "knowledgable" has nothing to do with it. If one refuses to accept that UFO's exist, then they are liable to say anything

14 minutes ago, Alien Origins said:

I don't know they do it with these videos and photos we see here...So I won't say it cannot happen.

No idea what you mean. Are you saying that the people that claim to have seen the flying wedge have been shown to be wrong?  If so, please show me.  NOBOY has debunked those folks. Oh, people have given lip service to it all yes, but I mean truly debunk it. That's never happened. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Minimalists
10 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

And I'm not trying to prove they were from another planet, only that they existed inn the form that eyewitnesses said so.

Funny, I thought I was using "science".  Well,  if you want to take a crack at it and show me how - say, 4 people in four separate locations can all call the police on same date/time and say they saw a giant black flying wedge with five huge lights on the bottom and all be fakers, be my guest.

 "knowledgable" has nothing to do with it. If one refuses to accept that UFO's exist, then they are liable to say anything

No idea what you mean. Are you saying that the people that claim to have seen the flying wedge have been shown to be wrong?  If so, please show me.  NOBOY has debunked those folks. Oh, people have given lip service to it all yes, but I mean truly debunk it. That's never happened. 

Quote

Funny, I thought I was using "science". 

No your not using science your using eyewitness testimony which will not hold up....As I said we are poor data taking machines. 

Quote

"knowledgable" has nothing to do with it. If one refuses to accept that UFO's exist, then they are liable to say anything

I believe it does even if one does not believe in these things.

Quote

No idea what you mean. Are you saying that the people that claim to have seen the flying wedge have been shown to be wrong? 

Nope. Sure not. 

Quote

 

Well,  if you want to take a crack at it and show me how - say, 4 people in four separate locations can all call the police on same date/time and say they saw a giant black flying wedge with five huge lights on the bottom and all be fakers, be my guest.

 

 I am not trying to debunk anything......

Quote

And I'm not trying to prove they were from another planet, only that they existed inn the form that eyewitnesses said so.

OK. So they existed in the form described by witnesses...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
5 hours ago, stereologist said:

Fallacy: "How about this V shaped UFO as seen by many"

That's artwork.Virtually no one reported seeing such a craft. Please learn about the incident before posting a fake image.

The video shows it to be separate objects, i.e. planes in the sky, not the fake Vee you posted.

some have to use fake pics or art work because they have zip, zero  zlitch. the 3 Zs.

its not great for their integrity or credibility.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
On 5/18/2019 at 3:49 AM, UM-Bot said:

Why has the Pentagon suddenly taken such an interest in the reporting and investigation of UFO sightings ?

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/327783/why-is-the-pentagon-interested-in-ufos

Suddenly?  Really?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
17 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Suddenly?  Really?

:tu:

for safety we need to know whats in our air space just like any country and there are so many new toys and gadgets that fly, and that means what do countries have they keep secret,

sure, its fun to say omg this proves it, the pentagon knows UFOs are alien craft but thats not based in fact,

i do believe all governments are taking a more watchful look at their air space but not to see ET.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dumbledore the Awesome
7 hours ago, stereologist said:

1980 cash Landrum, texas  - blamed their health problems on a UFO, their doctors disagreed with their self diagnosis.

But that's one case where there was without any doubt some kind of device. What's your opinion that it was (I agree that it wasn't necessarily, in fact probably not, of Alien Origin, but the idea of a satellite with an unshielded nuclear reactor being toted about suspended from a Chinook is pretty, well, alarming if that was the case surely.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

But that's one case where there was without any doubt some kind of device. What's your opinion that it was (I agree that it wasn't necessarily, in fact probably not, of Alien Origin, but the idea of a satellite with an unshielded nuclear reactor being toted about suspended from a Chinook is pretty, well, alarming if that was the case surely.)

DtA,,,  this is easy.  Who is the expert on what was seen, the eyewitnesses with ailments or a doctor who was not there?

A doctor actually had an "opinion" that a UFO could NOT cause their illness ?? LOL!   Sorry but that one cracks me up  :D

That's a desperation defense

Edited by Earl.Of.Trumps
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

But that's one case where there was without any doubt some kind of device. What's your opinion that it was (I agree that it wasn't necessarily, in fact probably not, of Alien Origin, but the idea of a satellite with an unshielded nuclear reactor being toted about suspended from a Chinook is pretty, well, alarming if that was the case surely.)

you didnt ask me but i will jump like a mullet anyway i was drawn to this one and did a fair amount of research, weeding thru the bs and embelishment and skeptics dismissing it fully as nothing and i agree althought i wont say without doubt but rather highly likely that there was something that spurred the whole event, not ET. UFO doesnt mean alien.

betty cash and landrum and her grandson saw something but lets jump around,

betty had bad health before this, heart problems and cancer issues, landrum was an older lady with eye problems, her original  doctors papers had never been released last time i looked so all that is unknown and speculative but cash pushed that her doc said she had signs of accute radiation poisoning, that stood out to me for years until reading a few remarks from specialists in that area, they all agreed that and i paraphase if cash had been exposed to that high of radiation it would have killed her quickly, period, landrum and colby too.

that solved that hurdle for me, the rest of her ailments and symptoms were not as epic as she made them out to be, one dr compared it to burns people get from a heat lamp, another point blank accused self affected.

little details hit me, she always says the car was too hot to touch, i live in florida that happens but she went too far saying her and/or landrums fingers melted into the dash, it doesnt take a savvy gearhead to know that is bs,

to get a cars dash hot enough to melt the "plastic" would burn ones fingers to the bone if mashed into the molten plastic, this didnt happen.

im not debunking the event but rather debunking the UFO = aliens angle,

i believe they saw twin rotor choppers and my reason is odd, but collaborated by a nearby sherrif and his wife,

when cash, landrum and grandson of landrum colby went to see the military over it the investagator asked landrum to describe the craft, the kid blurts out, does he mean those helicopters grandma? there was something flying.

but the number they claim is more than we had at that time.

i dont think that was coaching of the kid, i dont believe the choppers were toting it not at first anyway but they could have been and cash thought self propelled was more dramatic i believe this was a secret military flying craft possibly nuclear powered but there simple isnt evidence of the nuclear propulsion, but i believe cash did get burnt, have you ever gotten welder flash burns, let me tell you it sucks, backwash can burn it doesnt mean radioactive.

what happened was ufologists meaning well or not when this became a UFO=aliens event it blew it all to hell, cash never beat her fit it was aliens, she blamed and held the government resposible, but in court she could not prove it caused her health issues because i dont think it did, i believe that she saw this as a scape goat, i think she was to a point sincern they owed her,  but like the old lady who sued micckydeez and won millions over hot coffee burns, cash was too loud, and got greedy, had she kept a low profile and not set $$$ figures had all the alien craft connection not happened, it would have helped her case.

tht dear true belever ufologists not jumped on it and gave it so much spot light things would have went different for her, cash she died 10 years like to the day of the event,

heart attack, not radiation.

 

Edited by the13bats
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
26 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

DtA,,,  this is easy.  Who is the expert on what was seen, the eyewitnesses with ailments or a doctor who was not there?

A doctor actually had an "opinion" that a UFO could NOT cause their illness ?? LOL!   Sorry but that one cracks me up  :D

That's a desperation defense

a UFO could be anything.

of course that drs remark was ridiculous, but then her dr said her radiation poisoning was akin to Hiroshima again ridiculous,

a lot of drs have tossed there 2 cents and no i will go with they mass who say she didnt get radiation poisoning,

you can take the side of the one or two who said she did...but the evidence doesnt support it.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The drawing you saw is a depiction of what that man saw. And it is a DRAWING - not  a damm fake photo. do some reading.

Many people saw this triangular air vehicle including the governor of Arizona, Fyfe Symington:  "Witnesses claim to have observed a huge carpenter's square-shaped UFO, containing five spherical lights or possibly light-emitting engines. Fife Symington, the governor at the time, was one witness to this incident; he later called the object "otherworldly."  Mufon link
 

So that's two people that have said you are not telling it like it is. And there were more

No it is a fake photo. It is not a drawing. It is a vee object superimposed on a photo. It appeared on the front page of America's favoite comic book.

Fallacy: "Many people saw this triangular air vehicle"

First off the fake photo is of a vee. It is ONE person's sighting. It is Tim Ley's sighting. The fallacy is that Symington did not report a vee.

Just because an amazingly few people in Phoenix saw lights means nothing. Video of those lights shows they are not part of a single craft. Witnesses throughoout Arizona saw the lights move relative to each other. These were planes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
3 minutes ago, the13bats said:

a UFO could be anything.

yup. including an secret American craft being test run.

3 minutes ago, the13bats said:

of course that drs remark was ridiculous, but then her dr said her radiation poisoning was akin to Hiroshima again ridiculous,

As far as radiation is concerned, the doctors opinion is Ok here. Not sure what he knows but the extent of burns at Hiroshima were known, of course.

3 minutes ago, the13bats said:

a lot of drs have tossed there 2 cents and no i will go with they mass who say she didnt get radiation poisoning,

you can take the side of the one or two who said she did...but the evidence doesnt support it.

 

I don't push for radiation poisoning.  I don't push for ET and ET controlled craft either. However, it still is a UFO

Flames occasionally  shooting out to keep the craft balanced...?  What's that sound like to you?  Sounds a little primitive to be considered made by "intelligent" beings

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Thanks for your opinion AO, but I much rather rely on testimony from many actual eye witnesses. Believe it or not, people in Arizona know what military aircraft look like. This was nothing our military had.

And Nobody mentioned visitors from another planet, aka aliens.  Juist trying to establish the *existence* of unidentified flying objects, that's all.

Fallacy: "rather rely on testimony from many actual eye witnesses"

What about the witnesses that reported a boomerang shape, or a semi circle, other shapes?

Fallacy: "Believe it or not, people in Arizona know what military aircraft look like."

The people of Arizona are no better and the flares of event 2 show that they are not any better. It was not possible to see the aircraft with binoculars or a telescope. Two witnesses had these instruments and saw they were planes.

Fallacy: "Juist trying to establish the *existence* of unidentified flying objects, that's all."

The event #1 was positively identified as planes.

Event #2 was positively identified as flares.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Minimalists
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Fallacy: "rather rely on testimony from many actual eye witnesses"

What about the witnesses that reported a boomerang shape, or a semi circle, other shapes?

Fallacy: "Believe it or not, people in Arizona know what military aircraft look like."

The people of Arizona are no better and the flares of event 2 show that they are not any better. It was not possible to see the aircraft with binoculars or a telescope. Two witnesses had these instruments and saw they were planes.

Fallacy: "Juist trying to establish the *existence* of unidentified flying objects, that's all."

The event #1 was positively identified as planes.

Event #2 was positively identified as flares.

Quote

 

The event #1 was positively identified as planes.

Event #2 was positively identified as flares.

 

So they know for sure? Hmmm, I keep reading stuff that says they never knew what they were. Maybe I am reading old stuff I guess. Stereo are there any recent research on this? Maybe a link I could look at?

Edited by Alien Origins

Share this post


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

Here's a good one.   link     * UAPs =  Unidentified Ariel Phenomena 

**snipped**

 

Now we know who advised The Stars Academy of Arts and Sciences about the tic tac UFO. 

 

We've over this so many times. These are misinterpretations by the staff at the for profit TTSA and their buddy Luis Elizondo who was described by the Senator from Nevada as doing nothing but creating a pile of paperwork

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Minimalists

Been looking into that TTSA stuff lately...Still trying to figure out what it's all about...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

yup. including an secret American craft being test run.

As far as radiation is concerned, the doctors opinion is Ok here. Not sure what he knows but the extent of burns at Hiroshima were known, of course.

I don't push for radiation poisoning.  I don't push for ET and ET controlled craft either. However, it still is a UFO

Flames occasionally  shooting out to keep the craft balanced...?  What's that sound like to you?  Sounds a little primitive to be considered made by "intelligent" beings

sure, i believe the cash incident was a secret craft "we" were testing.

to be honest i have seen more than one doctor claim to be cashs orginal dr, but i have seen doctors who without question examined her and say no way radiation was involved, 

on one documentary one of her drs compared her symptoms of radiation poisoning to someone in Hiroshima i suspect more for dramatic flare than actual scientic reasons,

then radiation specialists say no, shecwasnt exposed to radiation, a problem here is its all hearsay because there is no published anything that proves she has any radiation exposure.

so no, i do not believe radiation was involved at all, but if it was she wasnt exposed to it.

of course i dont think ET had anything to do with it but it was by definition a UFO.

the intelligent being i believe made this craft are lowly humans.

since i didnt says "flames" you are misquoting me , i suggested heat,  car exhaust will burn you and shouldn't be a flame at the tail pipe,

ive always been into rc stuff and many years back when the mini helicopters came out i saw this,

mini_UFO_blue.thumb.jpg.33bf5b4e4ea0cfa14d542838841d4b90.jpg

dont laugh, its small toy but serves where im going, the craft cash saw might have been very simple and prop driven, drone stuff, in the dark she wouldnt have seen blades and it would have had a hot down draft, more so if malfunctioning, and who knows what type engine,

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Really? I don't see - as an example, Stereologist, buying into the notion that many people saw the "carpenter's square" shaped UFO in the skies over Phoenix. He denies that and many folks have "explanations" like aircraft flying in V formation as to what the eyewitnesses really saw

Here's my criterion...   If you have a few eyewitnesses (3, 4, or more) that can clearly be seen as NON connected (to prevent collusion) and all such witnesses report seeing the same thing at the same time, then it has to be truth that they speak. Period. You just can't get several people to sporadically decide to pull a prank on police and make a fake report AND have the report be of the same object. It just doesn't happen. So all the UFO reports with multiple eyewitnesses are real - Phoenix lights, Battle Over LA, Washington DC UFO flap, Cleveland Ohio, and many many more.

Luckily, people's *original* statements - such as in Phoenix lights are preserved.

The problem for believers is that they really have no idea what they were talking about.

Fallacy in the case of the Phoenix Lights: "all such witnesses report seeing the same thing at the same time,"

Witnesses to the Phoenix lights event #1 disagreed on:

1. The number of lights

2. The height of the lights they saw

3. The color of the lights

4. The speed of the lights

5. The shape of the lights

6. Whether or not star could be seen passing between the lights

7. Was each light one or multiple lights

This is typical. Eyewitnesses are often very poor. This is typical of most cases whether it is a UFO or a traffic accident or a police shooting.

Fallacy: "So all the UFO reports with multiple eyewitnesses are real "

No one is saying that the Phoenix LIghts event #1 did not pass over the city. They were planes.

Correct to some degree: "Luckily, people's *original* statements - such as in Phoenix lights are preserved."

In  those cases we see problems 1 to 7 and probably many others.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

And I'm not trying to prove they were from another planet, only that they existed inn the form that eyewitnesses said so.

Funny, I thought I was using "science".  Well,  if you want to take a crack at it and show me how - say, 4 people in four separate locations can all call the police on same date/time and say they saw a giant black flying wedge with five huge lights on the bottom and all be fakers, be my guest.

 "knowledgable" has nothing to do with it. If one refuses to accept that UFO's exist, then they are liable to say anything

No idea what you mean. Are you saying that the people that claim to have seen the flying wedge have been shown to be wrong?  If so, please show me.  NOBOY has debunked those folks. Oh, people have given lip service to it all yes, but I mean truly debunk it. That's never happened. 

Fallacy: "only that they existed inn the form that eyewitnesses said so."

You haven't done that because the witness reports were all over the place with little in common.

Eyewitness reports rarely match up. Of course, people pretend that they do as you have done concerning the Phoenix Lights. What you have done is argue from a position of personal ignorance. You made up the part about there being some sort of consensus. There wasn't.

No one here is saying some things passing by are unknown. To try and pass the Phoenix Lights off as unknown is laughable.

The great diversity of witness statements led some loonies to speculate that an entire diverse fleet of UFOs passed over Phoenix that night.

Share this post


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

And I'm not trying to prove they were from another planet, only that they existed inn the form that eyewitnesses said so.

Funny, I thought I was using "science".  Well,  if you want to take a crack at it and show me how - say, 4 people in four separate locations can all call the police on same date/time and say they saw a giant black flying wedge with five huge lights on the bottom and all be fakers, be my guest.

 "knowledgable" has nothing to do with it. If one refuses to accept that UFO's exist, then they are liable to say anything

No idea what you mean. Are you saying that the people that claim to have seen the flying wedge have been shown to be wrong?  If so, please show me.  NOBOY has debunked those folks. Oh, people have given lip service to it all yes, but I mean truly debunk it. That's never happened. 

Fallacy: " NOBOY has debunked those folks. "

Happens all of the time. This adamant foot stomping antic does  nothing to support anything. The evidence is clear, the famous reports listed earlier have ALL been debunked. The only lip service comes from true believers that do not want to look at the evidence. Their close minded approach to make up stories rather than review the evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
4 hours ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

But that's one case where there was without any doubt some kind of device. What's your opinion that it was (I agree that it wasn't necessarily, in fact probably not, of Alien Origin, but the idea of a satellite with an unshielded nuclear reactor being toted about suspended from a Chinook is pretty, well, alarming if that was the case surely.)

The women did  not show signs of radiation exposure as they claimed. Are we supposed to accept their poor self diagnosis just because they throw in the factor of seeing something?

Share this post


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

DtA,,,  this is easy.  Who is the expert on what was seen, the eyewitnesses with ailments or a doctor who was not there?

A doctor actually had an "opinion" that a UFO could NOT cause their illness ?? LOL!   Sorry but that one cracks me up  :D

That's a desperation defense

Only loonies think that people without a medical background are better at diagnosis than a doctor.

A doctor did not see the type of issues the women claimed. They diagnosed illnesses the women had.

Of course, there are people so desperate to choose a point of view that they think that the average yokel is better at medicine than a doctor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
2 hours ago, Alien Origins said:

So they know for sure? Hmmm, I keep reading stuff that says they never knew what they were. Maybe I am reading old stuff I guess. Stereo are there any recent research on this? Maybe a link I could look at?

A man with binoculars saw planes.

A man with a telescope saw planes.

The video of event #1 shows the lights moving relative to each just as many witnesses reported especially those in Prescott.

The question has been what planes, not if they were planes.

Look for Tony Ortega. Unlike the next day US Today article, Tony spent a great deal of time researching.

https://tonyortega.org/the-phoenix-lights-20-years-later-still-the-same-set-of-planes-and-flares-over-arizona/

Here is another article going over the issue by someone that has done research.

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

There are those like Ortega and others that do real research and the loons like Dilletoso that are making money telling people the impossible and ridiculous and ludicrous nature of their so-called research.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
2 hours ago, Alien Origins said:

Been looking into that TTSA stuff lately...Still trying to figure out what it's all about...

TTSA was formed as a for profit outfit to reveal UFO whatever. Their original promises of many videos has gone cold. They can't even tell us what the videos contain.

Unless they corrected it they claimed that the IR videos were 1x images. They are  not. They are according to the screen in NAR or narrow mode. You can see in plenty of online places that this is the highest magnification available.

  • 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.