It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

(Part 1) The Phoenix Lights - Laying To Rest The Myth

page: 10
46
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
"Moving slowly and soundless" - not addressed with your "planes" theory.

It was addressed elsewhere in-thread. The higher a plane is, the slower it appears to be traveling. A-10's are the Air Force's quietest jet plane. You're not going to hear them when they're thousands of feet in the air.




originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
It is much more likely that people that saw stars in between lights were mistaken...but...I guess that's not the way you want it.

People also saw the planes through binoculars and telescope. On top of that, the witnesses who saw stars between the lights also gave good descriptions of the color of lights, indicating the lights are likely from planes.

Everything points to planes. I am aware that some people would like to dismiss all the plane evidence and cling to the massive ship evid.... oh wait, there is no evidence of anything other than planes...

According to your statement, all the witnesses that the evidence supports were mistaken, and those that have zero evidence are the one's telling the truth.

Got it.




posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: draknoir2
Witnesses who saw stars through the "formation" were cited as reliable while those who saw a solid mass were either not listed or labeled "mistaken".

Those witnesses who saw stars through the lights support the evidence, and the evidence supports their statements. There's absolutely not one single residue of evidence to suggest a single large craft that blocked out the stars.

Just because a handful of mistaken people say so, doesn't make it so. It goes against the available evidence.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I previously also mentioned the mapping out idea, which might help show if there were separate events.

I've got a plan to map out the witnesses, times and locations when/where available. I'll get to it this Friday, unless someone beats me to it.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: uforn
Well it just so happens there wasn't anything that showed up on Radar. This proves your theory of the first sightings being planes in formation is wrong.

It does not. The link below has an excellent explanation as to why the planes didn't show up on radar.
home.comcast.net...


Researchers were asked back then to obtain the records from the radar towers, but it has since long passed, and the records are now destroyed forever.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: dava6711
But that damned gif clearly shows stars inbetween the lights even though witnesses stated the object was solid.

Those aren't stars in the GIF. That's called video "noise" on the VHS tape. If you watch the video at Discovery Channel's website that I linked to right above the GIF, you can see that the tracking of the VHS tape causes the "noise".



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 06:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: _BoneZ_

Just because a handful of mistaken people say so, doesn't make it so. It goes against the available evidence.


And just because a handful of people don't happen to support your conclusion doesn't make them mistaken. That's you fudging.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 06:23 PM
link   
I'm sorry to be a wet blanket here, everybody else seems quite content to accept your rather labored theory, but it fails in important ways.

Most notably, you seem to ignore the fact that most of the witness actually saw the structure of the craft, which they describe as being dark and metallic, black or blue-black in color, with a wingspan of nearly a mile.

This alone negates your theory of conventional airplanes flying in formation.

There are several other factors that make your explanation simply unworkable, but there is no need to go further. People clearly witnessed the wings of this craft on which the lights were located, and some sightings were of a duration of up to twenty minutes or more.

Why pretend that airplanes is an adequate explanation? I can think of no reason to push such a theory. It seems to be a rather desperate attempt to attach any excuse to an extraordinary event which defies a conventional explanation.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 06:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: draknoir2
And just because a handful of people don't happen to support your conclusion doesn't make them mistaken.

I appreciate your responses. It's not my conclusion. It's the conclusion of the evidence only.




posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: _BoneZ_


It was addressed elsewhere in-thread. The higher a plane is, the slower it appears to be traveling. A-10's are the Air Force's quietest jet plane. You're not going to hear them when they're thousands of feet in the air. 


But if the plane formation was as high as you say it was, it would have looked pretty small. It completely goes against what the witnesses saw.

Also, the dude who saw the plane formation with his friend. Was that even the same object?

I just find it hard to believe that so many people could mistake a formation of planes, thousands of feet in the air, and believe it to be a huge low object that blocked out the stars and moved slowly and silently.

Just does not make sense!

Also, I would like to add this. I see a few people throwing around the fact that the witness to the plane formation was an amateur astronomer. What if an amateur astronomer witnessed the huge low flying craft? Would that be more believable, or would he be labeled unreliable because he is just an amateur astronomer?


Its seems it does not matter what your expertise is. As soon as you say you saw something unbelievable, will will be put in the unreliable group.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Sorry, just found this thread, sorry if this has been told already. I'm sick so I don't feel like reading every page.

I believe it is very likely that the the plane that was spotted in Phoenix was a top secret aircraft from Lockheed Martin. In 2009 there were sighting of similar aircraft in Stephenville Texas, a little afterwards my mother went on a tour of Lockheed Martin in Fort Worth in which she was told by her guide that those air craft were theirs and then went on to show my mom a prototype. My mom told me afterwards that it looked a lot like the aircraft she saw on a documentary of the Phoenix lights the day before she went to Lockheed Martin.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 07:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: aniapi
I know what I saw that night and they definitely were not flares. These lights were huge, each rectangular shaped, amber in color, and in a L formation (or vee shaped depending on your location). There is just no way these lights where flares or lights on a aircraft because the lights alone were much larger that any aircraft I have ever seen in the sky.


Thank you for this post, but the OP says you are wrong, and he has put the myth to rest at last, right? LOL

So just forget about the extraordinary event you actually witnessed with your own two eyes.

The guy who was nowhere near the event at all says you're wrong. And he should know better than you, right?



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Love this thread!

Thank you OP for the well thought out reasoning. Don't listen to everyone else here who is screaming " LOL ALIENS GUIS!". There are plenty of other unexplained occurrences that could very well be something weird. Phoenix Lights have been fully explained by you and other sources.

Thanks for some delightful reason in a sea of sometimes too much belief.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 08:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: uforn

I remember seeing that as well, uforn. That is why I would like to see a full time line with all these bits of testimony, from air traffic control and government sources as well as individuals, mapped out fully.

Thanks for bringing this! If they were flares, they would not show on radar?? I don't know the answer to that. However, I did think the flares were supposed to have happened at the later time?? It gets confusing!!

peace,
AB


It does get confusing. There are a lot of pluses and minuses. If they were A10 planes wouldn't those planes fly over those areas on other times as well? That would also give witnesses a chance to see what A10 planes would look like flying low. Many witnesses describe the lights directly overhead in the same way, as yellowish and set back like in a well.
So what do A10 lights look like when flying overhead at a low altitude? Someone must know? Do they have big round lights on the bottom?


There is other research as well. Coast to Coast did a show with 3 researchers who have been meeting with witnesses for the last decade and some of the witnesses were also on the show explaining what they saw. It's on youtube.
One of the researchers was a doctor but took time off to study the phenomena, is she credible, I don't know?
She gives her name and tells where she practiced medicine and has written a book and video.
Is it a marketing thing? She seems to have had a legit career and wouldn't likely make more $$ publishing a ufo book.

Another researcher on the show was from one of the ufo places, mufon or one of those.

Anyway, these witnesses saw the triangle clear enough to see seams in the material.
Also in the latest Nat Geo documentary on Phoenix lights one witness saw it pass in front of the moon so if that's true he had a very clear look at what it was. He reports an obvious large triangle craft that passes by the moon. He expected it to block the moon but he said he could see the moon through the craft but it was faded. But it did light up the object enough to see it clearly.
He also saw a small red light trailing behind it.

The researchers have sightings over a 2 day period starting near Las Vegas.


Another witness is a Phoenix hospice worker, seems credible enough and has a group of friends who were all sitting outside when it flew overhead. They felt like they could reach up and touch it. Could A10's actually be that silent?
Would military planes ever consider flying low over the suburbs? If one ever crashed it would be such a huge s***storm for the military.
The plane theory seems reasonable but some of the witness reports are pretty crazy and very definitive about it being a craft rather than planes.

As to the lights in the video that move out of the triangle shape, there are other videos of lights doing similar things and hovering while forming geometric patterns. From Phoenix. One shot by a reporter, Brad Drenning, on youtube. They are not a craft but I have no idea what they could be?


But yeah, the flares were obviously flares.
The guy who did the spectrograph analysis on a videotape of the flares - he never mentions doing a second analysis on a different video tape (same quality) of actual flares for a control. Why wouldn't he do that?
edit on 26-1-2015 by joelr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 08:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScarletNyx
Don't listen to everyone else here who is screaming " LOL ALIENS GUIS!".


Which posts were those?



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 10:46 PM
link   
This is an irresponsible selective information post which is so far from the truth its not even funny.
Misleading is an understatement and I cringed at how one sided it is.
The Phoenix lights were NOT Military Flares and its very disappointing to see this misinformation being posted up by an ATS moderator.
a reply to: _BoneZ_



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 10:53 PM
link   
The analysis is good. No question. However, it flies in the face of the testimony of some of the witnesses.
There is no doubt in my mind that some of them saw something huge, and up close. Descriptions that they explain, can not be a separate formation of aircraft, unless they were absolutely delusional. I do not think they were, and there are too many of them.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 11:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: ScarletNyx
Don't listen to everyone else here who is screaming " LOL ALIENS GUIS!".


Which posts were those?


His reply seems like hyperbole to me.
edit on 26-1-2015 by Bloodydagger because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 12:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: _BoneZ_
It was addressed elsewhere in-thread. The higher a plane is, the slower it appears to be traveling. A-10's are the Air Force's quietest jet plane. You're not going to hear them when they're thousands of feet in the air.


How high up would an A-10 need to be before its engines couldn't be heard?



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 01:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Light soul
This is an irresponsible selective information post which is so far from the truth its not even funny.
Misleading is an understatement and I cringed at how one sided it is.
The Phoenix lights were NOT Military Flares and its very disappointing to see this misinformation being posted up by an ATS moderator.
a reply to: _BoneZ_



Not flares based on...? I just found a video of flares in Phoenix from a different night, from far away they look just like the original lights, similar formation and rate of descent. No obvious smoke. Being far enough away makes them appear to hover in a line.

The analysis of the video tape doesn't help at all. He would need to have several different video tapes, one of the Phoenix lights and others of flares from a similar distance away and similar quality. Then analyze and compare all the results.
It could also be done blind where someone edits out all but one light on each video so you can't tell which one is the actual event. Then there is no bias and you check your results and see if the PL video actually comes out to have a distinct analysis from the flares.
He compared the PL footage to flare footage, so he says, but he doesn't say what flares video, what quality, how close, nothing. In fact he doesn't even say he did a comparison, he just says that flares "should" show a wavy line on the spectrograph. Maybe from far away they wouldn't?

I'm just tired of people putting crap evidence forward, even when they actually have a chance to do it properly.
Then act like there is no doubt. Then people look at the UFO field and go "see, they are all delusional".



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 01:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: _BoneZ_
Bree Crownover, Tempe, AZ:
“The red/orange lights seemed to be lower in altitude and oblivious to the fact they were flying directly toward commercial aircraft traffic. They were in a v-formation, three red/orange lights in front, two red/orange lights behind and to each side.




Right but many witnesses reported very large yellowish lights sunken in a well. It took all of 2 minutes to see there is nothing like that on those planes.
The man who saw the craft pass the moon saw the moon dulled out but still visible through the craft. With a small red orb tailing. The craft was translucent but dimming.
That does explain the stars and the tailing red light is also confirmed.
It's on the Nat Geo documentary. So these excerpts could also be used as confirmation of a big ship.

I don't think you could fail to see planes in moonlight. Someone should confirm if it was a full moon or whatever on that night.
edit on 27-1-2015 by joelr because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join