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

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

In this case though, isn't there photo evidence to support the group that saw individual craft but none for those saying it was a single large craft?

That is true. I did watch the video of the lights going in and out of formation that is supposed to be the "real" event. I imagine that some folks here that were there would say that the lights in that video are not what they saw. It certainly could be the case that is what they saw but I am hesitant to force a perception onto someone in this case although I have argued that is what happened in the Yukon case. But I think the Yukon case is different in a number of ways.

Then there is the new theory that there were possibly 3 events? Sounds like special pleading a bit but there is already 2 distinct events that were both possibly military which seems to have caused confusion. Why not a third? Also possibly military? That there is a single grainy video of the real event doesn't exclude that possibility I don't think.

I suppose that a giant experimental military ship of some kind seems cooler than illusory contours. I don't know. I guess I am just waiting for better information before declaring solved.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

Scroll to 29:20

originally posted by: draknoir2

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

I QUIT!

a reply to: _BoneZ_

There were most likely multiple events that night, and probably multiple events within the first and second big events of 8:30 and 10. The A-10 is not quiet.. Any low flying A-10's would have been heard easily, and high flying A-10s fly in the face of many witness accounts that state the lights on the object were huge. The lights from A-10s flying high enough to hardly be heard would be quite small. There could have been A-10s flying along the same path as the large object at almost the same time frame. It's not the first time air craft have been scrambled to chase unknown objects in UFO events. Illusory Contours is a very poor explanation for blocking out stars from very large parts of the sky. Many witnesses stated the object blocked out stars in such a large area that you could open a news paper and not cover the object. That, is huge. I also don't think that Fife Symington would put his career on the line by doing a complete turn around and making statements about UFO's. He also served in the Air Force, I believe, and would have some inkling of whether or not these could have been A-10's. I think that was actually one of the questions that was asked in one of his interviews. He also stated the object was absolutely huge, and again, illusory contours doesn't sufficiently explain this event. I think someone here might be picking and choosing what they want to believe. I also believe it's a bit amateurish to discount and ignore all the great investigative work that has been done on this and throw all that out in such a cavalier fashion. No one can say whether this was an alien craft, and we'll never know for sure. This thread's OP, however, is certainly not the answer to this story.

I guess the Phoenix Lights hologram theory isn't gonna get any traction in these parts. lol

I will say this, it does seem weird to me that an enormous, low flying craft, can cruise over a major metropolitan area with military bases nearby, and the military not respond at all.

a reply to: _BoneZ_

Epic thread OP, probably one of the best I have seen on ATS for quite some time.

Very interesting and plausible.

I have always believed that the phoenix lights were a UFO, you have changed my mind in light of the evidence you have brought I cannot dismiss it all and say it was more likely to be a UFO rather than flares and planes.

So thank you for enlightening me.

S&F.

originally posted by: jordan77
I guess the Phoenix Lights hologram theory isn't gonna get any traction in these parts. lol

Who knows? Run it up the flagpole and see who salutes it.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: _BoneZ_

Epic thread OP, probably one of the best I have seen on ATS for quite some time.

Very interesting and plausible.

I have always believed that the phoenix lights were a UFO, you have changed my mind in light of the evidence you have brought I cannot dismiss it all and say it was more likely to be a UFO rather than flares and planes.

So thank you for enlightening me.

S&F.

Are you kidding? Enlightening you? The OP is laughable. But hey, if you bought that, I can get you a real good deal on a bridge. It's in Brooklyn.

originally posted by: jordan77
I will say this, it does seem weird to me that an enormous, low flying craft, can cruise over a major metropolitan area with military bases nearby, and the military not respond at all.

Well, they may have responded in many ways - there are plenty of ways to track something that doesn't include chasing them down with jets. However.. a truck driver did call in that night, and reported watching huge odd lights, and then two jets flew over and towards the lights. They took up straight up into the sky. So.. there were reports of jets. And he wasn't the only one.

In fact, some folks called into the air force base to ask about the activity and jets. The first response was that yes, they had jets in the air. Then the following calls were responded with "we don't know of anything going on, we don't have any jets in the air."

At any rate, there are far too many witnesses, and view of these lights far from the airbase that the snowbirds were going to, to discount this story that easily. Eyewitness testimony about this thing flying directly over peoples head.. within 100 feet in fact. A whole group of people standing on a street, looking up at this thing wouldn't collectively all be fooled by what is actually jets flying so high, they could not even hear them. That's a ludicrous explanation. But many people including the OP simply ignore any of the witnesses who saw the thing up close. It easier to debunk stuff if you just ignore the most important witnesses.

a reply to: gortex

Or is it that witness testimony is known to be inherently unreliable for reasons of how our brains work and record events. 

You know what, I am sick of all the people jumping on this band wagon. It seems to be the excuse used every time and pretty much makes us all pretty much blind to what we see. Its annoying!

Let's not forget the fact that there are many people in prison because of witness testimony, but that seems to go out the window when it comes to seeing something unexplained, because then we are all stupid and unreliable.

They are only reliable witnesses if they suit your belief. Its as simple as that. If you are a debunker, then you will only take on board a witness as truth if he lives up to your belief. If he or she does not, then you bring up the old "we are all stupid and crap witnesses"

originally posted by: Jay-morris
Let's not forget the fact that there are many people in prison because of witness testimony, but that seems to go out the window when it comes to seeing something unexplained, because then we are all stupid and unreliable.

More notable are all the people being released from prison where DNA evidence shows that eyewitness testimony was wrong:

www.innocenceproject.org...

Mistaken identifications are the leading factor in wrongful convictions

mistaken eyewitness identifications contributed to approximately 72% of the 321 wrongful convictions in the United States overturned by post-conviction DNA evidence.

Emphasis mine.

People in the court systems are increasingly aware of problems with eyewitness testimony and it's getting harder and harder to get any convictions based on eyewitness testimony because it's so unreliable.

You can trust certain aspects of witness testimony but other aspects are totally unreliable. When you have science showing how the anatomy of the eye can make stars disappear, you can't trust someone saying the stars were blocked out. But if they said they saw 5 lights, they probably did, or something that looked like 5 lights. A closer examination of the video from that night suggests it might have been 6 lights, which if that's true then even the 5 lights description isn't totally accurate.

originally posted by: fleabit

originally posted by: jordan77
I will say this, it does seem weird to me that an enormous, low flying craft, can cruise over a major metropolitan area with military bases nearby, and the military not respond at all.

Well, they may have responded in many ways - there are plenty of ways to track something that doesn't include chasing them down with jets. However.. a truck driver did call in that night, and reported watching huge odd lights, and then two jets flew over and towards the lights. They took up straight up into the sky. So.. there were reports of jets. And he wasn't the only one.

In fact, some folks called into the air force base to ask about the activity and jets. The first response was that yes, they had jets in the air. Then the following calls were responded with "we don't know of anything going on, we don't have any jets in the air."

At any rate, there are far too many witnesses, and view of these lights far from the airbase that the snowbirds were going to, to discount this story that easily. Eyewitness testimony about this thing flying directly over peoples head.. within 100 feet in fact. A whole group of people standing on a street, looking up at this thing wouldn't collectively all be fooled by what is actually jets flying so high, they could not even hear them. That's a ludicrous explanation. But many people including the OP simply ignore any of the witnesses who saw the thing up close. It easier to debunk stuff if you just ignore the most important witnesses.

Yes, I think ludicrous is a fair description. An astoundingly inadequate explanation. I'm pretty new here, I kind of thought this was a forum for more rational, productive talk about UFOs. It seems like a lot of posts, including this thread go to the most outlandish lengths to deny the UFO phenomenon.

Thousands of people all across the state of Arizona panicked and went insane because they all forgot what airplanes look like? For just one night? How seriously can you take that level of reasoning?

I don't mean to ruffle any feathers, just my two cents.

But thank you for your post, I enjoyed reading it, and I tend to agree.

originally posted by: debonkers

originally posted by: fleabit

originally posted by: jordan77
I will say this, it does seem weird to me that an enormous, low flying craft, can cruise over a major metropolitan area with military bases nearby, and the military not respond at all.

Well, they may have responded in many ways - there are plenty of ways to track something that doesn't include chasing them down with jets. However.. a truck driver did call in that night, and reported watching huge odd lights, and then two jets flew over and towards the lights. They took up straight up into the sky. So.. there were reports of jets. And he wasn't the only one.

In fact, some folks called into the air force base to ask about the activity and jets. The first response was that yes, they had jets in the air. Then the following calls were responded with "we don't know of anything going on, we don't have any jets in the air."

At any rate, there are far too many witnesses, and view of these lights far from the airbase that the snowbirds were going to, to discount this story that easily. Eyewitness testimony about this thing flying directly over peoples head.. within 100 feet in fact. A whole group of people standing on a street, looking up at this thing wouldn't collectively all be fooled by what is actually jets flying so high, they could not even hear them. That's a ludicrous explanation. But many people including the OP simply ignore any of the witnesses who saw the thing up close. It easier to debunk stuff if you just ignore the most important witnesses.

Yes, I think ludicrous is a fair description. An astoundingly inadequate explanation. I'm pretty new here, I kind of thought this was a forum for more rational, productive talk about UFOs. It seems like a lot of posts, including this thread go to the most outlandish lengths to deny the UFO phenomenon.

Thousands of people all across the state of Arizona panicked and went insane because they all forgot what airplanes look like? For just one night? How seriously can you take that level of reasoning?

I don't mean to ruffle any feathers, just my two cents.

But thank you for your post, I enjoyed reading it, and I tend to agree.

Edit - my karma score dropped four posts the second I posted this, does anyone know why? My karma score only went up in the political forum. Hmm. guess I'm just not understanding how this works.

And it dropped one more point just for the edit...53 and holding, hopefully...I take the concept of karma seriously.

originally posted by: jordan77
I will say this, it does seem weird to me that an enormous, low flying craft, can cruise over a major metropolitan area with military bases nearby, and the military not respond at all.

Check this video out at 6:46

Former Governor comes clean about the Phoenix lights

originally posted by: draknoir2
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

Scroll to 29:20

Yes, Bill Birnes has a very cool "UFO" hat.

The thing about eye witness testimony is, when one person describes an incident, OK they might not have seen what they think they saw. In criminal cases, individual eye witnesses might even have a reason to lie.

But when "thousands" of witnesses cause a "panic" because of a shared other-worldly experience, from different locations along a 300 mile stretch, and have no reason to deceive, isn't that extremely strong evidence? 

Did all of these people truly delude themselves into thinking a group of jets was a giant v-shaped craft? I imagine that many of the witnesses, including the pilots who reported it, would find that a rude insinuation.

In the real world court system, one witness might not get a conviction in a criminal case. But if hundreds of people witness the crime, and describe its occurance in the same manner, do we still consider witness testimony as "inherently unreliable?" 

Im not saying aliens, but the idea that so many people were mistaken in their excitement at what they saw in the sky, just seems preposterous. 

I am still inclined to think something happened that was beyond a military exercise. Not that my opinion really means anything.

The OP is rehashing the same theories that were already out there years ago.

After the Air Force denied having any flights that night, the Maryland National Guard publicly claimed to have left Davis-Monthan AFB for night training maneuvers and dropped those flares at the North Tac range 30 miles SW of Phoenix which fell behind the Sierra Estrella mountain range. The flares were seen after 10PM.

The OP's theory has these jets returning to Davis Monthan which would be after their mission is complete and after the flares were dropped, bringing that after 10PM. The alleged solid V-shape craft was seen between 8:30-8:45. Therefore the theory holds no ground, unless it changes it to people seeing the lights/jets in formation leaving the base and not returning. Do the times coincide at all? I would also like to analyze the flight path of the training sessions and the eyewitness accounts.

I'm sure people saw the jets in the sky that night at one point or another. I also think most residents in that area know what jets look and sound like in the night sky. It seems rather commonplace in that area due to the air force bases. The video is really grainy and although claimed to be the video of the V shape, it's not conclusive. I don't think anyone is clinging to that video as the end all be all. It does look to me that those lights are separate objects. Why were those people so amazed? What was different than other jets they have seen at night? The lights they used? Why don't recreate the same exact formation with the same lights ?

Still, one just can't ignore the other detailed eyewitness accounts of a solid object and claim they all saw an optical illusion. They saw something and that's why this case remains unresolved.

This site has a few eyewitness accounts of the solid craft:

rense.com...

originally posted by: Martianlanded
In the real world court system, one witness might not get a conviction in a criminal case. But if hundreds of people witness the crime, and describe its occurance in the same manner, do we still consider witness testimony as "inherently unreliable?" 

We've got some witnesses saying "planes" and other witnesses saying "giant object". If the only video matches witnesses who say "planes" then the "planes" witnesses are given credibility.

Regarding the credibility of the witnesses who saw a large object, the absence of a video doesn't prove them wrong, but it doesn't help. What might prove them wrong is if we plot all the sightings on a map and the times and track of the "planes" and "large object" sightings is the same, then the "large object" witnesses are probably wrong. If the tracks and or times are different for the "planes" versus the "large object", then there was probably a third event that evening which wasn't recorded on video. Bonez said he's going to try to start plotting the sightings on a map today and I'm curious to see the results as it might tell us something about how many different events there were. I think that's still a crucial question.

a reply to: Jay-morris

You know what, I am sick of all the people jumping on this band wagon.

You know what ? , I don't care.
I'm sick of people ignoring actual evidence to suit their belief.

If you are a debunker, then you will only take on board a witness as truth if he lives up to your belief.

If you're a Blah , Blah , Blah .....
Most of us here want the same thing , some of us are prepared to do the leg work and research to find the truth while others ... like YOU , just cover their ears and eyes to anything they don't like and do NOTHING but repeat the SAME OLD mantras , no research , no evidence just whine about how bad that nasty Debunker over there is.