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

originally posted by: gortex
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.

Way to add nothing. Thanks.

originally posted by: gortex
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.

And what's my belief? Do you put me straight into the ET camp, just because I disagree with you?

Also, because I don't agree with you, that means I have not studied the subject or this case?

Your are not the first Person I have seen on ATS to label people wrong, just because they don't agree with your belief.

I have already stated on here the reasons why I believe the plane formation is not logical. And it was pretty much ignored.

People are very quick to state that an "amateur astronomer" saw a formation of planes, which I believe to be a different sighting. But if that same person saw the same thing as most of the other witnesses, then the same people would say the same old "we all crap witnesses"

Okay, let me explain again. The majority of witnesses saw a very low silent object . You telling me that a very high small formation of planes could trick people to believe that they were seeing a huge low flying object that blocked out the stars and could even be seen?

That just does make sense, unless they were all lying

originally posted by: Jay-morris
You telling me that a very high small formation of planes could trick people to believe that they were seeing a huge low flying object that blocked out the stars and could even be seen?

That just does make sense, unless they were all lying

Now you're saying that makes sense, does this mean you finally read the first post on page 8 and followed the link? I still haven't seen you dispute the science. There is no lying required for a misidentification.

Fact: In the "Hynek UFO report", Hynek describes 10,675 UFO cases which had sufficient information to investigate. Of those about 0.9% were hoaxes and about 5.8% could not be identified, which is 6.7%

The rest, 93.3% were misidentifications. So making a misidentification of planes or something like that as a "UFO", contrary to your implication of being rare, is quite the opposite, it's in fact extremely common, since such UFO reports constituted 93.3% of the cases Hynek studied. This is not a skeptical position, as even the pro-UFO organizations like MUFON say the same thing (they cited about 5% could not be identified, and the other 95% were usually natural phenomena or manmade objects, again with hoaxes being relatively insignificant).

Bill Birnes who published UFO magazine and was on UFO Hunters TV show, cited the same statistic that only about 5% of UFOs can't be explained, meaning about 95% are misidentifications. So MOST UFO sightings ARE misidentifications, where people look at planes or other explainable things, and think they are seeing a UFO. This is a fact, so if 95% of people identify something as a UFO which is really just manmade objects, this is par for the course. Study after study shows it, and the UFO pros don't really argue against this though they may nitpick the actual percentage based on one study or another.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Jay-morris
You telling me that a very high small formation of planes could trick people to believe that they were seeing a huge low flying object that blocked out the stars and could even be seen?

That just does make sense, unless they were all lying

Now you're saying that makes sense, does this mean you finally read the first post on page 8 and followed the link? I still haven't seen you dispute the science. There is no lying required for a misidentification.

Fact: In the "Hynek UFO report", Hynek describes 10,675 UFO cases which had sufficient information to investigate. Of those about 0.9% were hoaxes and about 5.8% could not be identified, which is 6.7%

The rest, 93.3% were misidentifications. So making a misidentification of planes or something like that as a "UFO", contrary to your implication of being rare, is quite the opposite, it's in fact extremely common, since such UFO reports constituted 93.3% of the cases Hynek studied. This is not a skeptical position, as even the pro-UFO organizations like MUFON say the same thing (they cited about 5% could not be identified, and the other 95% were usually natural phenomena or manmade objects, again with hoaxes being relatively insignificant). Bill Birnes who published UFO magazine and was on UFO Hunters TV show, cited the same statistic that only about 5% of UFOs can't be explained, meaning about 95% are misidentifications. So MOST UFO sightings ARE misidentifications, where people look at planes or other explainable things, and think they are seeing a UFO. This is a fact, so if 95% of people identify something as a UFO which is really just manmade objects, this is par for the course. Study after study shows it, and the UFO pros don't really argue against this though they may nitpick the actual percentage based on one study or another.

You don't have to explain that to me. I have been into the subject long enough to know people can be fooled.

But this case is very different in the fact that most of the witnesses are seeing a huge low object with no sound. The planes formation, just does not make sense, and I believe a very high formation of planes would not fool many witnesses that they are seeing a huge low flying object silently moving across the sky.

This is not like other cars where people or person see a light in the sky.

The sad fact is, some people can't just turn around and say "you could have seen that, but we need proof"/They always search for an explanation. Hence the reason why this subject is known to have silly explanations to UFO cases

a reply to: Jay-morris
You still haven't responded to the first post on page 8, don't you think that's relevant?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: Jay-morris
You still haven't responded to the first post on page 8, don't you think that's relevant?

You mean the post about stars vanishing by another light source? Well, considering the planes would have been very high, so formation would have seemed small, then no, its not relevant.

If the plane formation was very low (not possible) then of course the lights from the planes would have blocked out stars.

We have witnesses who said they actually saw defections and colour of the craft because it was moving slow and very low.

Even if it was not a solid object, the formation would have to have been low, and the noise would have been deafening.

The plane formation, a normal planes that we know of that is, does not make sense.

That does not mean ET though.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

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.

That's not the only video.

The main video is of flares.

So we have video of two separate things on the same night... so why can't there be a third? Just because there are only two videos doesn't mean the other witnesses are "mistaken". What is the reason the third, distinctly different variety of account is ignored with extreme prejudice? Are you suggesting that without video it didn't happen? Or is it just an inconvenient loose end that doesn't jibe with your personal belief? Witnesses are only credible when they follow a prescribed narrative?

The event is far from a myth and the OP is far from "laying it to rest".

a reply to: debonkers

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.

The OP has credible proof that it was flares and planes

So in the face of that I cannot simply dismiss this evidence and continue believing it was a UFO

This is the problem with so many on this site, you make your mind up about something and stick to it with out ever wavering no matter what contrary evidence is provided to you.

Sure the OP may have debunked the phoenix lights but that's not to say that Rendlesham never happened for instance.

originally posted by: draknoir2
Are you suggesting that without video it didn't happen? Or is it just an inconvenient loose end that doesn't jibe with your personal belief? Witnesses are only credible when they follow a prescribed narrative?

I already explained my thoughts on that. Read my previous post:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: draknoir2
Are you suggesting that without video it didn't happen? Or is it just an inconvenient loose end that doesn't jibe with your personal belief? Witnesses are only credible when they follow a prescribed narrative?

I already explained my thoughts on that. Read my previous post:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I read it.

Which is why I questioned its validity in my previous post.

a reply to: Jay-morris

And what's my belief? Do you put me straight into the ET camp, just because I disagree with you?

Where did I say anything that puts you in any camp ? , you were the one accusing me of jumping on a band wagon , I was replying to that , I posted a piece explaining why people's memories of events aren't all that reliable.

The evidence for a prosaic explanation to this case is throughout the thread , even the state MUFON investigator who personally interviewed the witnesses and investigated the case believed the first incident was military , for me his opinion holds more weight than the witnesses claiming the extraordinary because he investigated the whole thing.

In my opinion there's a possibility that the formation were on a refueling practice run as one of two known to be up that night isn't accounted for (to us) , as Richard Motzer says on the video I posted to him it does look like a refueling loop.

As I said in my previous post (I don't know how to direct link - I'm new sorry!) this theory is nothing new whatsoever. There are questions regarding that theory that leave more to be explained. The flare explanation behind the mountain range have been accepted an put to rest a long time ago for example. I found some discrepancies in the Operation Snowbird jets returning to base theory as I explained in my previous post, that I'd like to explore further.

I don't doubt that people saw jets in formation, which it appears is what the video was. There definitely were jets in the sky that night. What time? What jets were they? Where were they going? Remember the Air Force initially denied have any craft in the sky, only to admit Operation Snowbird were training and dropped flares behind the mountain range after 10PM. I won't rehash my previous post, but please read it. The question is does it coincide with with the flight path and time of the alleged solid craft? I'm sure there are some documentaries out there that showing the path.

The point is many people, independently, at different locations and times saw a solid craft and provided detailed descriptions. Some descriptions appear to be at different angles or perspectives, some were directly above them. For all of them to be victims of the same optical illusion is as hard to believe as an alien spacecraft.

What are the requirements for this optical illusion? I imagine all of the people would have to be in the same group at the same location for this illusion to actually work perfectly to appear as a solid craft. This was not the case here. One can't just say - it was an illusion and people fell for it. Recreate the illusion with the same jets, that's something that can be verified. Just saying it happened and showing a sample of a black and white picture is not proving the illusion happened by any means.

This is still unsolved and more questions remain.

originally posted by: draknoir2
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

Scroll to 29:20

(At 29:20 is the witness testimony of Terry Mansfield.)


I was very interested in this witness's statement (Terry Mansfield), so I did some more digging...

At first I found a website that had her as a "peace ambassador" and associated with Astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell and his "Quantrek" organization. I immediately wondered if she was associated with this before or after her sighting of whatever "The Phoenix Lights" were, and she clearly was inspired to go in the "ET" and "Peace Ambassador" direction AFTER her sighting. So whatever this event was, it was enough for her to be inspired to change the course of her life to include work for peace and Dr. Edgar Mitchell's organization. Terry Mansfield

In a book titled Aliens in America, by William J. Birnes, there is an excerpt about Terry Mansfield and her sighting, which contains more details than in the clip you shared. All bold text is mine for emphasis:

"Witness Terry Mansfield said she and her friends were meeting about local public school issues when one of them looked out on the balcony windows to see the formation of lights off in the distance...they were awestruck as a huge craft seemed to float directly at them. The whole group fell silent as it glided effortlessly over rooftops. It was actually below the tips of the hilltops surrounding Prescott Valley, moving towards clusters of houses from the northwest to the southeast."

Other witnesses in this same book from the same area as Terry Mansfield:

"Still others on their respective balconies in this valley and hilltop community could observe other aspects of the object as it floated over. One person said she noticed the object had a "wavy" surface..."

Terry Mansfield also said this in the video, and that it was so low she felt that she could have "reached up to touch it." Another of her guests, in the book, said if they'd had a rock they could have thrown it and seen it "bounce off" of the overhead 'craft.'

Another in the area said "it was shiny black," and someone else said it had a "satin surface" that seemed to undulate, according to the book, which Terry Mansfield also corroborates in the video clip, saying it was "wavy."

According to the book, and I'm assuming this came from more than one witness as it is listed as a general fact, "It made no noise, yet was so huge - blotting out the sky from hilltop to hilltop as lights from the houses below played off its bright diamond black texture - and everyone looking at it stood as if in a trance."

Aliens in America, pages 176-178

Link to Google Book "Aliens in America": Link


These are the types of witness accounts that seem to hold evidence of a possible third event, and they certainly do not seem to indicate planes, low-flying or otherwise. I can see how people who give this description of what happened, would be unable to connect to the idea that their sighting was a formation of low-flying planes. The dots do not connect between what people are saying they saw, and the explanation in the OP. Even given a low level of accuracy in individual accounts, the several presented here add up to the same thing. Granted, they are not well documented and I cannot suss out who the "other" witnesses are, as they are anonymous.

peace,
AB

a reply to: AboveBoard

Interesting. This case has peaked my interest a little now because it seems really different than other "mass sighting" cases. The few that I looked at, "The Yukon Mother Ship", being one and a couple of others I cant think of, seem to follow a pattern. The pattern would be something like, they are late at night after midnight (not the Yukon case), one person sees the details of the "alien ship", other witnesses only see lights but are included in the story to confirm the persons sighting that saw the details. Also the main witness is scared out of their mind during the sighting. I also see this pattern in the JAL flight over Alaska case. To me, they seem like cases of late night confusion, gross misperceptions of a real event fueled by adrenaline and lot of cross contamination of the witnesses and told in the third person by the Ufologist. Of course, I could be completely way off on all that speculation but it would be interesting to track.

With this one, I don't see that pattern, although, there could be elements of it. It was fairly early and there seems to be a number of direct witnesses and we get to hear from them directly. I have no idea if this means anything but the descriptions of the Phoenix Lights seem less hallucinatory than the others. Maybe not.

I want a UFO hat.

I'm a bit late picking up on this thread as I got a bit pre-occupied with another one .

Anyway I think anyone who puts the work in _BoneZ_ did to this thread deserves a F&S whether you agree or not with the conclusions.

I haven't read beyond the OPs posts at the moment but will catch up eventually.

I've made it known elsewhere that once the "Phoenix Lights" went out so it seems did the more general interest in Ufology. I know there have been a few events since. But I've always felt this was the last real UFO story that reached the global mainstream. Somehow things have never been the same since. Maybe you agree, maybe you don't?

a reply to: mirageman

I don't know if you take requests

but....

Although i don't often comment, your threads on UFO's are probably the best on ATS, it would be very interesting to read a thread authored by you on the same topic.

Or if you already have could you please post a link.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

How much did you research that one? The Yukon sighting wasn't after midnight.

originally posted by: CosmicRay
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

How much did you research that one? The Yukon sighting wasn't after midnight.

It wasn't? I am probably confused. I don't actually "research". What time was it?

edit: I just looked. You are right, Thanks for pointing that out.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Jay-morris

And what's my belief? Do you put me straight into the ET camp, just because I disagree with you?

Where did I say anything that puts you in any camp ? , you were the one accusing me of jumping on a band wagon , I was replying to that , I posted a piece explaining why people's memories of events aren't all that reliable.

The evidence for a prosaic explanation to this case is throughout the thread , even the state MUFON investigator who personally interviewed the witnesses and investigated the case believed the first incident was military , for me his opinion holds more weight than the witnesses claiming the extraordinary because he investigated the whole thing.

In my opinion there's a possibility that the formation were on a refueling practice run as one of two known to be up that night isn't accounted for (to us) , as Richard Motzer says on the video I posted to him it does look like a refueling loop.

He said it could be military, and he is right, it could be, but no craft that we know of in my opinion.

Let me ask you. How high do you think the planes were?

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: mirageman

I don't know if you take requests

but....

Although i don't often comment, your threads on UFO's are probably the best on ATS, it would be very interesting to read a thread authored by you on the same topic.

Or if you already have could you please post a link.

Well thanks for the support my fellow country member

I do try to write in a way that gives both sides of the story. I try to keep it entertaining but also making it clear when I'm speculating or giving an opinion. Sometimes I think my sense of humour goes slightly over the heads of people as well. But I will let others judge the quality of the threads as they are probably not to everyone's taste.

As for the Phoenix Lights, no I've never done a thread on it. The closest I ever got was one on an incident that happened much closer to home involving the RAF, sonic booms and allegedly triangle UFOs .It occurred just 11 days after the Phoenix Lights.

Did a RAF Tornado crash during a UFO intercept mission in 1997?

I'm not saying there is any link at all. But there are a number of nagging doubts still hanging over that case.

I don't think it's worth me pursuing a thread on this this topic at the present time but I am not saying I never will!