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 -

Debunking the Disclosure Project


drew hempel
 Share

Recommended Posts

I must agree...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you have access to media ..whatever was seen over Phoenix passed the mountains minutes after the first report from an officer at 8:20pm

it cruised on down over Phoenix on a course to Tucson when in a split second it accelerated out of sight

I have been aware that there were reports of the lights heading down toward the Tucson area, and the lights separating as well.

Here's a video of an A-10 dropping flares.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Face the Facts ...Disclosure will NEVER come from any Government that has benefitted from contact by any means ..and the reasons for that are quite simple

Similarly, disclosure will never come from any government that has never had any contact with aliens. Unfortunately, there is no way to tell the difference between the two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So why not just detatch the pod after landing as opposed to firing off all the flares for no obvious reason?

A bit risky landing with loaded flare pods. Things can get very hot if for some reason, the landing gear decides to fold up on landing. Talk about sitting in a hot seat. The Air Force got away from magnesium wheels for that reason.

The plan for a mission is to carry only the necessary weaponry and support measures that are needed..

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bet it was Alien Flares! :innocent:

Those are the kind of flares that are typically used on the ranges by the A-10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont think changing contrast/brightness to make it look the same makes it flares...

No, you are correct, it doesn't make them flares just because of that. What makes them flares is all the other data surrounding them. Changing the contrast/brightness merely renders the argument that they cannot be flares because of the smoke moot. :tu: So yes, you are absolutely correct in your assertion.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Similarly, disclosure will never come from any government that has never had any contact with aliens. Unfortunately, there is no way to tell the difference between the two.

Well Equador (see Boony's link with documentary) the UK, Belgium & New Zealand have disclosed all they have

and its obvious that the US and Russia have much more and yet they wont disclose a damned thing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you are correct, it doesn't make them flares just because of that. What makes them flares is all the other data surrounding them. Changing the contrast/brightness merely renders the argument that they cannot be flares because of the smoke moot. :tu: So yes, you are absolutely correct in your assertion.

Cheers,

Badeskov

I should make you aware of the alignments as well. Big difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly Sky,

Your willingness to throw all reason and common sense overboard to sustain your belief is astounding. bmk posted this great post as a reply to your flawed "smoky flare" post in the best evidence thread and you did not even have the courtesy to offer a single comment, yet you have the arrogance to repost your flawed smoky flare argument in another thread. Good grief! You have no clue at all, do you? I have to repeat what Psyche said, it is Noah's ark all over again, isn't it?

Your argument is dead in the water. They were flares. Period. That you cannot even begin to fathom that clearly goes to show how deeply entrenched your belief is and certainly raises serious doubts about your qualifications as a pilot, which has been a topic numerous times before (no, your alleged skills have no traction with me whatsoever, in fact, they are laughable the way they are presented) and, frankly, I couldn't care less what you believe and how deeply entrenched that belief is, but try and impose your beliefs onto others by your usual deceptive tactics and they will be mercilessly shot down. I have no intention at going into a discussion with you anymore, you lost that opportunity years ago and you have yet to show any signs of reason that would change that decision, but you will be countered when using this kind of deceitful tactics to promote your willful ignorance.

Cheers,

Badeskov

To be totally honest ..the flare pics, they look absolutely nothing like the phoenix lights

and Im goin easy here

your flare pics simply aggravate over a thousand witnesses who claimed to see a giant triangular craft cruising over Arizona, over Phoenix on a course to Tucson then accelerate without a sound, out of sight

and again, those flare pics are truly laughable, absolutely nothing like the phoenix lights

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly Sky,

Your willingness to throw all reason and common sense overboard to sustain your belief is astounding. bmk posted this great post as a reply to your flawed "smoky flare" post in the best evidence thread and you did not even have the courtesy to offer a single comment, yet you have the arrogance to repost your flawed smoky flare argument in another thread. Good grief! You have no clue at all, do you? I have to repeat what Psyche said, it is Noah's ark all over again, isn't it?

Your argument is dead in the water. They were flares. Period. That you cannot even begin to fathom that clearly goes to show how deeply entrenched your belief is and certainly raises serious doubts about your qualifications as a pilot, which has been a topic numerous times before (no, your alleged skills have no traction with me whatsoever, in fact, they are laughable the way they are presented) and, frankly, I couldn't care less what you believe and how deeply entrenched that belief is, but try and impose your beliefs onto others by your usual deceptive tactics and they will be mercilessly shot down. I have no intention at going into a discussion with you anymore, you lost that opportunity years ago and you have yet to show any signs of reason that would change that decision, but you will be countered when using this kind of deceitful tactics to promote your willful ignorance.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Thanks for the photos which prove without any doubt whatsoever the phoenix lights were definately not flares ..the comparisons are so clear the phoenix lights werent flares youd have to be literally blind to even begin to think they were

and thanks for the photos now 99% of skeptics will no longer believe the flare argument ..half of them will look for other ways to dismiss what over a thousand witnesses reported the other half will accept

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be totally honest ..the flare pics, they look absolutely nothing like the phoenix lights

and Im goin easy here

your flare pics simply aggravate over a thousand witnesses who claimed to see a giant triangular craft cruising over Arizona, over Phoenix on a course to Tucson then accelerate without a sound, out of sight

and again, those flare pics are truly laughable, absolutely nothing like the phoenix lights

Frankly, I am not really sure what you mean here. First of all, they were not my flare pictures. In fact, they were Sky's to start with and bmk then took the time to change Sky's rebuttal image (smoky flares) by changing contrast/color to imitate the same conditions. Are you telling me that these do not look similar? Not at all?

008flares_c.jpg

I am not discussing any witnesses or anything else. I merely pointed out the flaw in the rebuttal picture posted. And I cannot even take credit for the work done on that.

That said, I think BooNy and others has done an excellent job describing why these are flares and I cannot find any flaws in their arguments. Maybe you can point them out t me and I'd be more than happy to address them from my point of view :tu:

Cheers,

Badeskov

Edited by badeskov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the photos which prove without any doubt whatsoever the phoenix lights were definately not flares ..the comparisons are so clear the phoenix lights werent flares youd have to be literally blind to even begin to think they were

and thanks for the photos now 99% of skeptics will no longer believe the flare argument ..half of them will look for other ways to dismiss what over a thousand witnesses reported the other half will accept

:huh:

I have no idea what you are talking about, sorry.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, I am not really sure what you mean here. First of all, they were not my flare pictures. In fact, they were Sky's to start with and bmk then took the time to change Sky's rebuttal image (smoky flares) by changing contrast/color to imitate the same conditions. Are you telling me that these do not look similar? Not at all?

008flares_c.jpg

I am not discussing any witnesses or anything else. I merely pointed out the flaw in the rebuttal picture posted. And I cannot even take credit for the work done on that.

That said, I think BooNy and others has done an excellent job describing why these are flares and I cannot find any flaws in their arguments. Maybe you can point them out t me and I'd be more than happy to address them from my point of view :tu:

Cheers,

Badeskov

:huh:

I have no idea what you are talking about, sorry.

Cheers,

Badeskov

OMG I thought the flare pictures were yours ..I apologise sincerely

I will look at the posts youve suggested ..I will make an honest reply

but those flare pics ..even the live simulation done on UFO Hunters honestly look nothing like the phoenix lights

much respects Badeskov, will reply soon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:huh:

I have no idea what you are talking about, sorry.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Edited by dazdillinjah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OMG I thought the flare pictures were yours ..I apologise sincerely

I will look at the posts youve suggested ..I will make an honest reply

but those flare pics ..even the live simulation done on UFO Hunters honestly look nothing like the phoenix lights

much respects Badeskov, will reply soon

No worries dazdillinjah, and no apologies necessary. I was just very confused when I saw your post, so thank you for your very respectful and polite clarification :tu:

Cheers,

Badeskov

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's look at the lights against the backdrop of the mountains. There is no way this is anything other than flares.

phoenixflaresRibbon733x115.gif

Gone back & checked ..youd have to be BLIND to think this picture was even 1% close to the Phoenix lights

this picture shows flares its obvious ...the phoenix lights were not flares ..easy as that

ask Fife Symington III ...who is he ? oh he was a witness as well as the 19th Governor of Arizona ..now who are you ???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's look at the lights against the backdrop of the mountains. There is no way this is anything other than flares.

phoenixflaresRibbon733x115.gif

One more thing ..this image Boony posted is on "RE-LOOP"

which means it keeps on replaying (conveniently) as the flares go out

Edited by dazdillinjah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No worries dazdillinjah, and no apologies necessary. I was just very confused when I saw your post, so thank you for your very respectful and polite clarification :tu:

Cheers,

Badeskov

Umm I need to apologise again because the other reply you made I took the wrong way ..when you said you dont know what Im talking about ..it hurt, because I try and research the topic matter I try I really do

I re-apologise because I made a comment out of spite ...please now maybe we can remove any spite and discuss facts and even theories

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be totally honest ..the flare pics, they look absolutely nothing like the phoenix lights

and Im goin easy here

your flare pics simply aggravate over a thousand witnesses who claimed to see a giant triangular craft cruising over Arizona, over Phoenix on a course to Tucson then accelerate without a sound, out of sight

and again, those flare pics are truly laughable, absolutely nothing like the phoenix lights

Hmmm... about witnesses... thats where psychology jumps in:

psyh_eyew_1.jpg

psyh_eyew_2.jpg

(taken from Psychology by D.A.Bernstein et al).

Its enough for someone to recall triangular/giant etc, and you will have many others who will jump on this wagon.

As for flares - I merely wanted to show Sky, that his comparisons of two images are plainly ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the facts have it, some of those accounts as presented by the DP, have already been verified. and documented, and I am very grateful for the participants for coming forward on what they know about the UFOs.

So am I.

I've said it before and I'll say it again...it must be very hard to keep quiet about 'stuff'

that is of extreme importance to the human race.

Some of the disclosure witnesses were very emotional and I can understand why.

It must have been a relief to speak to the public....finally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gone back & checked ..youd have to be BLIND to think this picture was even 1% close to the Phoenix lights

this picture shows flares its obvious ...the phoenix lights were not flares ..easy as that

ask Fife Symington III ...who is he ? oh he was a witness as well as the 19th Governor of Arizona ..now who are you ???

Hi dazdillinjah, I'm booNyzarC, nice to meet you. I'm not the Governor of anything but my own house, and that is only a third place position behind my fiancé the queen and my cats. ;)

That being said, I'm a reasonable man and I'm willing to listen to your arguments if you can provide full response to the whole body of evidence which proves that the second sighting in Phoenix, which was captured on video, were indeed flares.

You may have missed post #316, so I'll quote the relevant portion here.

---

The Phoenix Lights consist of two different sightings. One was around 8 PM, the other later at about 10 PM. There is still some debate about the earlier sighting, but the later sighting has been conclusively determined to be flares.

Wiki Explanations.

Skeptoid Explanation.

Arizona Republic Article.

Bruce Maccabee's Analysis

confirming the flares dropped behind the mountains.

The earlier sighting, if you read the wiki link, was reported by one person and corroborated by two others as planes.

--

The animation which you have objected to from my post# 350 is a GIF I put together based on the

linked above, consisting of two combined videos, one video is the original phoenix lights video and the other is a daytime video displaying the backdrop. I'll embed the video here for your convenience.

But please do also read the other linked materials which clearly describe how this later sighting in Phoenix was indeed flares.

The earlier sighting, we may have room to debate on, because there was only one witness with two corroborating companions who identified the earlier sighting as airplanes flying in formation. Granted, he made this determination by looking at them through a telescope very much like this one here...

Red_dobsonian.jpg

My guess is that this kind of telescope is going to provide a tad more detail to the viewer than the naked eye would provide.

But the later sighting... yes... behold the Phoenix Lights Flares...

phoenixflaresRibbon733x115.gif

I look forward to your thoughts. :)

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello. :) I don't think I've posted in this Thread before, but I was just wondering, why is it so, apparently, important that the Disclosure Project must be Debunked? It must be important, for this thread to have been going for 25 pages now. Is it just because it's bad Science, and as such must be eliminated before it corrupts the minds of the young? Is it actually doing any harm to anyone? Alright, it may be making money from sales of things, but are there any other very important reasons why it should be eliminated?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hear you . i guess its pure attitude. the word *debunk* itself implies attitude and confrontation.

Edited by SolarPlexus
Link to comment
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.