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: 11
46
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 02:25 AM
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.


So you feel that if those were planes...and were high up in the sky...high enough to be silent and slow moving...that half the Phoenix would be looking up at the sky at some distant dots ?

hm...okey dokey.

Does not compute logically...




posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 02:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: charlyv
The analysis is good. No question. However, it flies in the face of the testimony of some of the witnesses.


Eyewitness testimony is the lowest standard of evidence. The other evidence Bonez presented (the videos) trumps it.



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 03:06 AM
link   
a reply to: JadeStar

And I guess we should all take what is said in the videos at face value too, huh?



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 05:14 AM
link   
a reply to: jaffo

Um no, nice try though. I know with certainty what I seen that night.



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 06:58 AM
link   
a reply to: _BoneZ_

Except that it made no noise. The A-10 is still a jet aircraft and would be clearly heard.



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 07:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Jay-morris




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!



The movie Independence day came out less than a year before the Phoenix incident.

Think of how much media sources influence peoples minds.

I think many did see what they said they saw however what people see and whats really there are many times two different things especially in the UFOlogy field.



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 07:56 AM
link   
Good thread and I can fully appreciate the line of thought involved.

However I can't imagine any jet, even an A10' being silent as shown in the video below. (presuming I have the right aircraft) because if these jets were as high up as you say, surely the undercarriage lights would appear much much smaller than what were witnessed.

Just a thought on my behalf but nice thread.



edit on 27-1-2015 by studio500 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 08:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Morg234
a reply to: _BoneZ_

Except that it made no noise. The A-10 is still a jet aircraft and would be clearly heard.


Yes, it has 2 big engines sat outside the fuselage, plus another 8 flying with it attached to other aircraft. It's envelope is not that high so they wouldn't be possibly more than 15k possibly 10k - certainly half the height of a Boeing 747 you can clearly hear at 40k ft with 4 engines.

It wasn't meant to be quiet and if you watch them on YouTube, they aren't. it was meant to scare the crap out of you if you survived it's onslaught.

That said, if it were a few miles away and 10k ft, possible the sound could drop before it reaches you.



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 08:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Forensick

If it flew directly above you, at 10-15k you would hear it? If it was really high, directly above, would you still hear it? It's lights would diminish in size the further up they are so... If the lights are large, then they are flying low and could be heard if going directly overhead? If the lights are small and in the distance, it might seem silent, but that would make it seem pretty small???

Hm. Also, to appear to be going slowly, they would have to be high up. That would make them less able to be heard as well. If they were low down, they would appear to be going much faster and they would then be clearly loud.

???

AB



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 08:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Forensick

If it flew directly above you, at 10-15k you would hear it? If it was really high, directly above, would you still hear it? It's lights would diminish in size the further up they are so... If the lights are large, then they are flying low and could be heard if going directly overhead? If the lights are small and in the distance, it might seem silent, but that would make it seem pretty small???

Hm. Also, to appear to be going slowly, they would have to be high up. That would make them less able to be heard as well. If they were low down, they would appear to be going much faster and they would then be clearly loud.

???

AB


A-10's fly "low and slow".



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 09:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

originally posted by: draknoir2
I seem to recall accounts of the flying "V" blocking out the stars while reflecting the city lights from more than just the witnesses mentioned in the O.P.... one being a retired U.S. Marshal.

I think this thread could have been a bit more objective in its presentation of the evidence. A lot more, in fact. The obvious intent is to debunk.



You're Fired!


Hey, I can only go so long without a paycheck.



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: draknoir2

Ok. Have you seen The Empire Strikes Back? You know when Han Solo is frozen in the carbon based material that levitates above the ground?

While working with the NSA as a programmer for eight years time, technically 'in the same class' as Snowden in 2003, but according to 'written record here' it's 2002 for reasons I will get into in a bit - It was my job to decode a 'foreign' database's and decipher the information within it.

On asking questions about the origin, I was introduced to a material which was being used to transport heavy goods back and forth, a material which could levitate at hip height level 'at touch'. Another material, the one presented in the Roswell images and claimed to be 'mylar' - is bs - to demonstrate its structure, I was told to take a pen to it, an engineer working on the material actually had sharp knife like blades to assert this - but the material could NOT be perceived. Heck, it didnt even leave a 'scar' from where we'd tried to pierce it.

In any case. Look. I get it. You're all programmed to be skeptics and like any good programs you're expected to elicit responses which provoke support.

Reality's created by imagination, that was the end result of our dive into the 'alien' database, which the true origin of it would defy your imagination. In any case, ATS is about believing. not suspending belief and eliminating the opposition.

New here? Nope. I've lurked since this site's been around. ;-) Probably before you were in diapers, kid.



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: MissMars

Thanks, Miss. I had someone else flame me for lack of credibility. I've lurked on ATS for years, and admittedly should have been participating with what I know LONG before now.

I'm like many others coming out of government service. I was afraid for my life and my family's life.

I know that's not a problem any longer. And there's SO MUCH MORE going on than what you're all reading about here.

Some bad. Some good. I try not to judge.

But my advice is. Go outside. Pop a blanket on the ground with your loved one.

And look to the skies more often.

The stars deserve more attention.

Because they have something incredible coming our way.



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Forensick

lol about the southern drawl. I often confuse people (just as much as I confuse myself) on where I am from.

programmed, I suppose ;-)

In any case, Forensick, in 1988, I worked in Aerospace - Orbital to be specific - as a Software Engineer back in 1988 to 1993. That was my first 'professional' gig, and I'd been told that was the cutting edge too.

Now here's the thing - I've learned just how naive I was.

I've always lurked on ATS and sites like this since their inception, and have only gotten 'the courage' to discuss my experiences because others deserve to hear them.

Now I don't really care if you believe.

It's like the X-Files, right? "I believe" was David Duchovny's modus operandi.

Now religious nuts have understood the importance of belief in manifesting reality for years, and to some degree this has led to the enslavement of people like me and you as others live the lives we dream of.

Anymore. I CHOOSE to believe in everything I read.

And rather than using this fact or fiction label - I compartmentalize what makes sense by labels of alternate realities instead. If it's something I don't want in my world, I can't outright deny it's existence, but I can keep my world - and my mind - safe - by compartmentalizing things I do not want 'in an alternate reality', ya know?

Accordingly, the things I write about - are a direct result of personal experiences while working for the US Government for at least 8 years that I am aware of. But I suspect, technologically and through programs like MKUltra, that that employment (and the perceptual simplicity of my life throughout that time) - may have actually been from a very young age - maybe even starting as I worked on Top Secret things for the Air Force at Orbital.

I dont know. I dont question my mind. I do allow my imagination to run and roam free. And as a result, i allow my memories and consider those 'memories' as possibilities rather than absolutes.

Accordingly, the experiences I write about. Sure, to me they are quire vivid. But I MUSt give you the same opportunity I am presenting my own mind - which is - you be the judge what is best to accept as truth in your reality.

After all. If my suspicions are accurate.

We are our own God when we accept that right. And responsibility



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: universalbri
a reply to: draknoir2

Ok. Have you seen The Empire Strikes Back? You know when Han Solo is frozen in the carbon based material that levitates above the ground?

While working with the NSA as a programmer for eight years time, technically 'in the same class' as Snowden in 2003, but according to 'written record here' it's 2002 for reasons I will get into in a bit - It was my job to decode a 'foreign' database's and decipher the information within it.

On asking questions about the origin, I was introduced to a material which was being used to transport heavy goods back and forth, a material which could levitate at hip height level 'at touch'. Another material, the one presented in the Roswell images and claimed to be 'mylar' - is bs - to demonstrate its structure, I was told to take a pen to it, an engineer working on the material actually had sharp knife like blades to assert this - but the material could NOT be perceived. Heck, it didnt even leave a 'scar' from where we'd tried to pierce it.

In any case. Look. I get it. You're all programmed to be skeptics and like any good programs you're expected to elicit responses which provoke support.

Reality's created by imagination, that was the end result of our dive into the 'alien' database, which the true origin of it would defy your imagination. In any case, ATS is about believing. not suspending belief and eliminating the opposition.

New here? Nope. I've lurked since this site's been around. ;-) Probably before you were in diapers, kid.


I saw The Empire Strikes Back the weekend it was released... with a particularly hot date, so I probably was not in diapers.

Assuming anything you just typed isn't complete BS, then, also like Snowden, you talk too much.



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: _BoneZ_

What CAS missions require the Thunderbirds team to fly A-10s?
LOCKED in formation going to or from a location?
Aircraft drift when they fly as well as blink.



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Forensick



If it flew directly above you, at 10-15k you would hear it? If it was really high, directly above, would you still hear it? It's lights would diminish in size the further up they are so... If the lights are large, then they are flying low and could be heard if going directly overhead? If the lights are small and in the distance, it might seem silent, but that would make it seem pretty small???



Hm. Also, to appear to be going slowly, they would have to be high up. That would make them less able to be heard as well. If they were low down, they would appear to be going much faster and they would then be clearly loud.



???



AB


This is probably not a good example because of the massive ambient noise, but this is low and slow, and yet amongst thousands of screaming fans you can clearly hear them. But do note, they are pretty quiet from the front and from the side once they pass, so its all relative to where the observers were, directly below yes, a mile either side, perhaps? Half a mile either side with a busy freeway inbetween, perhaps not.

Really really sorry about the singing, perhaps forward it a bit.




posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 12:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: charlyv
The analysis is good. No question. However, it flies in the face of the testimony of some of the witnesses.


Eyewitness testimony is the lowest standard of evidence. The other evidence Bonez presented (the videos) trumps it.


I think in this day and age, Eyewitness testimony trumps photographic evidence, because we cannot even authenticate them anymore due to our technology, it made that switch rather fast.

I have seen some of the interviews that were done on people who describe a huge solid object. Sure, there are liars and fakes , but if you have enough of them that cooberate a story well, then there is something else afoot. That testimony, again, flies in the face of the data presented, so you have to put a nail in that testimony that explains it.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 06:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: charlyv
That testimony, again, flies in the face of the data presented, so you have to put a nail in that testimony that explains it.


Or conveniently dismiss any testimony that does not fit the desired narrative.

That's my problem with the OP. It's not about aliens and airplanes... it's about assertions and assumptions.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 07:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: charlyv
That testimony, again, flies in the face of the data presented, so you have to put a nail in that testimony that explains it.




That's my problem with the OP. It's not about aliens and airplanes... it's about assertions and assumptions.


Yep, and there is a lot of that on the whole UFO topic. The subject tends to breed a lot of armchair experts that think they know anything and everything regarding the subject. Sure, some know more than others do, but a lot of the time, what they know is what someone else before them already said and theorized. A lot of coattail riding and parroting happens on the topic. Its a really dry topic at times due to these things.

But yeah, there is always more assertions and assumptions than anything.
edit on 28-1-2015 by Bloodydagger because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
46
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join