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

In a Nut’s Shell…..



…..the 5 flying objects are not the Canadian CT-114 Tutor’s of the Snowbirds demonstration team (see my previous post) …..The flying objects remain unidentified…..until the responsible party is identified ..(us and or them).

Imo

👽🛸🍺

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
Ok…..some new information has come to light. The earliest timeframe the Canadian Snowbirds were performing in 1997, in the U.S. was ….I would say no more than a couple of days before April 25 which was their first U.S. performance at Nellis AFB in Nevada. The air show there was on Friday April 25 and Saturday April 26. Then the Snowbirds went on to do their only, one day, Arizona show of the 1997 season, which was Tuesday April 29 at Page, Arizona.

Given that the early and late Phoenix events happened on March 13th…..I can confidently say that the cost of logistics and pre-staging of the Snowbirds and associated support equipment at Nellis for more than a month prior to its first performance at Nellis, would have been cost prohibitive for the Canadian Air Force. It just would not have been done.

I don't follow your logic here. I'm not trying to argue they were Canadian Snowbirds, I have my doubts too, but your argument seems to be leaning more as an argument for them being the Canadian Snowbirds than against.

I'm also not sure why you are focused on Nellis when the planes were said to have flown to the destination of Davis-Monthan AFB, so why didn't you even mention that? March 13th can present undesirable weather in Canada, so I can certainly think of weather reasons why the Canadian planes would prefer to do training in Arizona on March 13th and maybe they just didn't want to admit it. Have you accounted for where all the Canadian Snowbird planes were on March 13th exactly?

In fact, there aren't a lot of good training facilities around Maryland either which is why the pilots flying the A-10s that dropped the ~10pm flares were there all the way from Maryland for training.

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
In a Nut’s Shell…..

…..the 5 flying objects are not the Canadian CT-114 Tutor’s of the Snowbirds demonstration team (see my previous post) …..The flying objects remain unidentified…..until the responsible party is identified ..(us and or them).

Imo

👽🛸🍺

Your argument that they are definitely not Canadian Snowbirds is not convincing, but I do agree the planes with squarish wings remain unidentified.

I’m going to put forth a theory I haven’t read or seen yet, (but may be out there (or not.))

Below is a Calendar of events from the 1997 March issue of Flying Magazine, a well known monthly and established Aviation magazine.

It is possible, imo and until proven otherwise, that the group of 5 unidentified objects on the night of March 13, maybe a small civilian Flying Club of small aircraft flying NVFR along the night lights of cities, towns, highways for reference, headed to Aviation events in areas of Arizona. (examples of 5 planes in daylight “V” formations shown below)

They would be arriving to those area(s) a comfortable week plus before the events beginning on March 21st as the Calendar shows. Notice each of the events are at airports/runways..(note Pima Air & Space Museum as listed in the Calendar, is across from Davis-Monthan AFB).

For the pilots to get there a head of time, would give the pilots time to take in sightseeing and tourist events on the ground in Arizona, ahead of their performances or just participating attendance at the event(s).

Sounds within reason to me. Imo.



….”when the planes were said to have flown to the destination of Davis-Monthan AFB,”….can you point to proof I haven’t read or seen yet, and not witnesses, that they actually landed at Davis-Monthan AFB?

I offered proof of why I believe the Snowbirds, by their schedule, does not put them in the U.S. prior to the month of April. Which is more research than any you have offered up, to trying to find out where the Snowbirds were at all.

You try looking for were they were March 13…..good luck with that.

Arbi….show me definitive proof the 5 craft landed at the runway in Davis-Monthan AFB and not a runway at the Pima Air & Space Museum literally across the road.

The two top pics below, of the flight path by witnesses, YES puts them only in the, ‘area’ of Davis-Monthan…….but that’s not the same as a confirmed touch down landing at Davis-Monthan. As the Calendar shows, one of the three events in Arizona, was at Pima.



Once again, the Calendar of events in combination with a 5 plane Flying Club…..is just a theory in which I’m entitled too.

👽🛸☕️🍩

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
….”when the planes were said to have flown to the destination of Davis-Monthan AFB,”….can you point to proof I haven’t read or seen yet, and not witnesses, that they actually landed at Davis-Monthan AFB?

We are dealing with evidence here, and the evidence stacks up in that direction when eyewitnesses see the flight path heading there and we have that base specified at 5:18 in the video you posted.

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
And now there’s this in a Nut’s Shell ….. it comes down to planes and flares

Phoenix Lights UFO Event Debunked - March 13, 1997 1,472 views · 2 months ago posted 2022

I offered proof of why I believe the Snowbirds, by their schedule, does not put them in the U.S. prior to the month of April.

You try looking for were they were March 13…..good luck with that.

So you claim that they couldn't have been in Arizona March 13 but your only evidence is a schedule showing there were there mere weeks later. I don't see why you rule out the possibility they went there a bit earlier than the schedule called for to do some training. You know they train in advance for these shows, right? Arizona has more reliable weather for training than Canada.

Arbi….show me definitive proof the 5 craft landed at the runway in Davis-Monthan AFB and not a runway at the Pima Air & Space Museum literally across the road.

The two top pics below, of the flight path by witnesses, YES puts them only in the, ‘area’ of Davis-Monthan…….but that’s not the same as a confirmed touch down landing at Davis-Monthan.

You mentioned Nellis. I asked you why you didn't even mention Davis-Monthan AFB. I still don't know the answer, it was clearly mentioned in the video you posted, in the reader's digest article, and in the source used by reader's digest.

My position is the identity of the planes with squarish wings is unknown, so I'm not trying to assert any proof I know what they were, other than most likely some kind of planes with squarish wings. I don't have sufficient evidence to make a determination. Yes you can rule out Canadian Snowbirds in your opinion if you want to, but I'm just saying that the evidence of the schedule you present of them being in the area mere weeks later seems to make the possibility of those planes possibly being there a bit early for some good weather training more likely, not less likely, since we don't know where they were in March.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I agree almost entirely with ….” My position is the identity of the planes with squarish wings is unknown, so I'm not trying to assert any proof I know what they were, other than most likely some kind of planes with squarish wings. I don't have sufficient evidence to make a determination. Yes you can rule out Canadian Snowbirds in your opinion if you want to, but I'm just saying that the evidence of the schedule you present of them being in the area mere weeks later seems to make the possibility of those planes possibly being there a bit early for some good weather training more likely, not less likely, since we don't know where they were in March.”…..

Except for your usage of wording in saying “mere” weeks.

It’s not “mere” to me at 6 weeks and 1 day….that’s a month and half plus. Mere is defined generally as “used when you want to emphasize how small, unimportant, etc.”…

I stand by my Snowbirds opinion as well as my opinion of a Flying Club type group (or mutual friends with planes) in loose formation as possibly the aircraft seen.

We do both agree, that the squarish winged aircraft are yet to be identified. So there’s a bit of a little mystery left.

👽🛸🍺

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
March 13th can present undesirable weather in Canada, so I can certainly think of weather reasons why the Canadian planes would prefer to do training in Arizona on March 13th and maybe they just didn't want to admit it. Have you accounted for where all the Canadian Snowbird planes were on March 13th exactly?

Your argument that they are definitely not Canadian Snowbirds is not convincing.

I’m convinced now, that the Snowbirds don’t train at all in the U.S. especially to be placed in the U.S. March 13, one month and half plus, before their first performance at Nellis AFB on April 25 1997.

The 1997 Snowbirds Schedule was provided to me by the Snowbirds themselves through direct email communication between me and them.

So then your notion that they could have been training in the U.S. 6 weeks prior to their first show at Nellis AFB due to possible inclement weather in Canada, remains a possibility to you.

Well, below I communicated directly by email again, to the Snowbirds and posed questions on their Training time periods and locations throughout the years. Read for yourself, they do not train at all in the U.S….and during the month of March they would have been training at Moose Jaw, SK, Canada.

For me, the Snowbirds were not in the U.S. during March of 1997.



At anytime, you can contact them yourself at………. [email protected]

We are back to the questions ….. what were those 5 aircraft? and who do they belong to?

👽🛸🍺

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
….”when the planes were said to have flown to the destination of Davis-Monthan AFB,”….can you point to proof I haven’t read or seen yet, and not witnesses, that they actually landed at Davis-Monthan AFB?

We are dealing with evidence here, and the evidence stacks up in that direction when eyewitnesses see the flight path heading there and we have that base specified at 5:18 in the video you posted.

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
And now there’s this in a Nut’s Shell ….. it comes down to planes and flares

Phoenix Lights UFO Event Debunked - March 13, 1997 1,472 views · 2 months ago posted 2022

I offered proof of why I believe the Snowbirds, by their schedule, does not put them in the U.S. prior to the month of April.

You try looking for were they were March 13…..good luck with that.

So you claim that they couldn't have been in Arizona March 13 but your only evidence is a schedule showing there were there mere weeks later. I don't see why you rule out the possibility they went there a bit earlier than the schedule called for to do some training. You know they train in advance for these shows, right? Arizona has more reliable weather for training than Canada.

Arbi….show me definitive proof the 5 craft landed at the runway in Davis-Monthan AFB and not a runway at the Pima Air & Space Museum literally across the road.

The two top pics below, of the flight path by witnesses, YES puts them only in the, ‘area’ of Davis-Monthan…….but that’s not the same as a confirmed touch down landing at Davis-Monthan.

You mentioned Nellis. I asked you why you didn't even mention Davis-Monthan AFB. I still don't know the answer, it was clearly mentioned in the video you posted, in the reader's digest article, and in the source used by reader's digest.

My position is the identity of the planes with squarish wings is unknown, so I'm not trying to assert any proof I know what they were, other than most likely some kind of planes with squarish wings. I don't have sufficient evidence to make a determination. Yes you can rule out Canadian Snowbirds in your opinion if you want to, but I'm just saying that the evidence of the schedule you present of them being in the area mere weeks later seems to make the possibility of those planes possibly being there a bit early for some good weather training more likely, not less likely, since we don't know where they were in March.

Peter Davenport put a lecture together that has a lot of information I was not aware of. I have seen it a few times, much is anecdotal, the dispatcher isn't confirmed, the pilot isn't confirmed or even if jets were sent up. But he proposes from witness statements and times that there were several different sightings of different craft.
I cannot find information that confirms A-10 have these bright orange lights on the bottom and many of these reports depend on how accurate the re-tellings are.
Formations of planes are not uncommon and do not cause these types of sightings.

Kurt Russell ended up being the amateur pilot who was seeing bright lights in a V shape above his landing pattern. The tower had no reading. Strange for aircraft to be in the vicinity of an airport with no way to ID or detect them. I don't know what to think?

www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: joelr314
Kurt Russell ended up being the amateur pilot who was seeing bright lights in a V shape above his landing pattern. The tower had no reading. Strange for aircraft to be in the vicinity of an airport with no way to ID or detect them. I don't know what to think?

No that's not strange and was brought up earlier in this thread. The estimated altitude of the planes in the V-formation was something in the ballpark of 10,000-19,000 feet, which is way too high to be coming in for a landing at the Sky Harbor's (Phoenix) Air Traffic Control radar, so there are a couple of reasons why they might not show up on radar.

First, the airport may filter out altitudes that high so they can focus on takeoffs and landings at lower altitudes which are what matters to the airport. Planes passing through the area at cruising altitudes would be monitored on a different radar system, the Albequerque regional air traffic control.
Second, the radar display might be showing transponder signals instead of raw data, so if they were military aircraft which seems likely since they were allegely headed toward Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, there is no requirement for them to fly with transponders on at that altitude, and maybe they had their transponders turned off.

It's too bad that nobody bothered to request the air traffic radar data from Albequerque during the period of time when it was retained.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: _BoneZ_
Since the formation of lights (shown to be planes in the OP) were traveling between 10,000 and 19,000 feet, they would not have shown up on Sky Harbor's (Phoenix) Air Traffic Control radar.

They would have shown up on Albuquerque regional radar, though. And numerous researchers at the time were implored to request the radar data from Albuquerque regional. However none did, and since records are destroyed after 11 days, the records are now gone forever.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
No that's not strange and was brought up earlier in this thread. The estimated altitude of the planes in the V-formation was something in the ballpark of 10,000-19,000 feet, which is way too high to be coming in for a landing at the Sky Harbor's (Phoenix) Air Traffic Control radar, so there are a couple of reasons why they might not show up on radar.

First, the airport may filter out altitudes that high so they can focus on takeoffs and landings at lower altitudes which are what matters to the airport. Planes passing through the area at cruising altitudes would be monitored on a different radar system, the Albequerque regional air traffic control.
Second, the radar display might be showing transponder signals instead of raw data, so if they were military aircraft which seems likely since they were allegely headed toward Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, there is no requirement for them to fly with transponders on at that altitude, and maybe they had their transponders turned off.

It's too bad that nobody bothered to request the air traffic radar data from Albequerque during the period of time when it was retained.


They would have shown up on Albuquerque regional radar, though. And numerous researchers at the time were implored to request the radar data from Albuquerque regional. However none did, and since records are destroyed after 11 days, the records are now gone forever.<

I honestly don't know enough about it, Russell didn't give enough information, he just saw 6 lights in a V shape over the airport, reported it and they had no id. He didn't give the altitude but his son asked if they were going to be a problem.

The seminar by Davenport, while anecdotal, at least maps out sightings to show it was not just one set of planes.
He did not comment on the amateur astronomer who claimed one of the group of lights were A-10s in formation.

The massive amount of reports that claim there were large amber lights under the wing/craft, zero sound and speeds far slower that planes would go, sometimes hovering, is odd.
The family on the highway could have mistaken a wide formation of planes for a super-large craft. But there are many strange reports, planes must fly in formation over similar areas here and there, they don't create a Phoenix Lights event.

He plays a tape of a dispatcher from Luke who claims jets intercepted one of the objects. It's quite a story but this person never came forward nor did any other Airforce personell. It's possible they were told is they spoke about the case they would face charges. Or it's all B.S. I don't know. But the lecture makes the information much more organized and more interesting.
I've seen formations, Westover AF base flys over my house and is within a few miles they are very impressive at night. But easy to hear at any altitude. Super loud at low altitude, sounds like a crash is about to happen.

It would be interesting to hear the different reports that happened for each different path drawn on the map. Looks like he has at least 5 different routes put together using all the reports.

The Air Force jet caught up to one and it lowered to 10,000 feet and dimmed it's lights. Instrument panel went white noise but the Lantirn 2 pod system should have taken video. If so it's being withheld and no one is rushing to expose it. The pilot never came forward either. You would think with all the tic-tac stuff happening someone would have mentioned this but just silence.
So, I don't know? Never came up at any hearing? I don't know what to believe anymore.

I may have posted this previously……

Here’s a screenshot, I believe from a parking lot from a camcorder near storefronts (bottom edge of picture). Read the caption…



Contrast and brightness turned up 100%


It appears to be coming over a hill….with rectangle shaped southwest style adobe homes on the hill before passing over a small shopping center….imo

👽

a reply to: Ophiuchus1
Who's camcorder? What's the provenance of that? Where is the video the screenshot is from? Why does it show two extra lights? Is that because it's a fake? Or some other reason? The video with some provenance shows only 5 lights in the V formation though there could have been a 6th as Kurt Russell claimed he saw six lights when dredging up an old memory, but I think 5 lights was commonly reported more reliably closer in time to the event than Russell's old and possibly distorted or unreliable memory.

This is the video from the OP, well a gif from the video. Note the number of lights, five.

originally posted by: _BoneZ_
Discovery Channel's Website:

The video that gif is from has been claimed to be the only known video of the 8pm event, so if there's another video, where's it been hiding?

This is the famous newspaper image. note the number of lights, five:


Phoenix Lights

The first incident, often perceived as a large “flying triangle” by witnesses, began at approximately 8:00 pm, and was due to five A-10 jets from Operation Snowbird following an assigned air traffic corridor and flying under visual flight rules. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) rules concerning private and commercial aircraft do not apply to military aircraft, so the A-10 formation displayed steady formation lights rather than blinking collision lights. The formation flew over Phoenix and on to Tucson, landing at Davis-Monthan AFB about 8:45 pm.

Without any provenance for that image showing too many lights, my first instinct is it's some kind of either outright fake, or "artist's conception", where the artist got the number of lights wrong, not matching eyewitness accounts. But if it's really a screengrab from a video, where's the video?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Arbi…….if another video exists….I got no clue.

Below….the caption reads that the capture was done by the good Dr. Kitei.



She’s definitely a self promoting ufo bandwagoner Phoenix Lights Network

Beyond that….I got squat..

It’s probably a BS..screen capture from a simulation..

👽

a reply to: Ophiuchus1
There were two events, five planes ina V-formation at around 8pm, and later there were some flares dropped, but they didn't make a clear V formation. There was said to be one known video of the earlier event with the five lights that formed a V, but there were multiple videos of the later flare drop event, none of which showed a clear V, see example below.

It’s probably a BS..screen capture from a simulation..

That's my guess unless someone can prove otherwise, because it just doesn't seem to match the known documentation we have of those two events.

This is a screenshot from the OP showing the second flare drop event around 10pm. It has more lights, but it doesn't look like a V-formation in this view and it's kind of hard to imagine how this would look like a V from another angle, maybe not impossible, but I'm not seeing it:

originally posted by: _BoneZ_

Second Event - FLARES

Dr. Kitei never acepted the flares explanation for the ~10 pm event, but it's a solid explanation, so she seems to be in her own alternate reality bubble, along with a handful of her followers or fans.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Found the source…..and it is from a simulation…..


It shows “SIMULATION” but for a brief moment….as it plays in Dr. Kitei’s own documentary titled ….The Phoenix Lights

Here’s the full clip…..look to bottom left…



It’s BS that both local papers of AZ did not indicate in the captions, that the screenshot from the “camcorder” was actually a screenshot from the Simulation……in the Dr.’s presented simulation within the documentary.

It misleads to infer there might be actual other footage.

👽

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: Ophiuchus1
There were two events, five planes ina V-formation at around 8pm, and later there were some flares dropped, but they didn't make a clear V formation. There was said to be one known video of the earlier event with the five lights that formed a V, but there were multiple videos of the later flare drop event, none of which showed a clear V, see example below.

That's my guess unless someone can prove otherwise, because it just doesn't seem to match the known documentation we have of those two events.

This is a screenshot from the OP showing the second flare drop event around 10pm. It has more lights, but it doesn't look like a V-formation in this view and it's kind of hard to imagine how this would look like a V from another angle, maybe not impossible, but I'm not seeing it:



Dr. Kitei never acepted the flares explanation for the ~10 pm event, but it's a solid explanation, so she seems to be in her own alternate reality bubble, along with a handful of her followers or fans.

Dr Kitei went off the deep end with multiple things. Some bad editing made the flares look as if they were in front of the mountain and she can't seem to accept they are just flares. Her lecture went into all types of nonsense including describing earlier sightings of what sounded like flares and claiming she "felt they were watching her".

That simulation video was super suspicious, good catch, it would have surfaced a long time ago.

Davenport and his team spent a year interviewing witnesses and organizing reports and put together the map at 16:30, of 5 different paths the sightings followed.
www.youtube.com...

At 36:20 he goes over the different light formations were, not all V shaped.

At 55:18 he plays part of the call he got from the dispatcher at Luke AF base. That was a triangle with 3 lights up front and one on each rear side.


He mentions the 10pm flares and says Dr Kitei doesn't think they are flares but you can kind of tell he's not at all on board with that one.

Operation Snowbird, the A-10 formation landed in Davis-Monthan AFB about 8:45 pm according to Skeptical Inquirer which is 80 miles away from Phoenix. Most of the unidentified sightings were from 8-9pm in Phoenix area.

Any follow up information is now of course a dead end. If a pilot did go up they would be retired and they have nothing to say. Same with the dispatcher. He claimed he called Davenport because that night no one had yet told him not to speak about it.

Now with Dr Lynn spreading such nonsense it gets difficult to know what to believe. Peter Davenport does seem to be trying his best to provide a credible report, although it's all from witness claims.
The lecture is interesting but it's super frustrating. If true there is a report, why hasn't anyone tried to access it or find the dispatcher? And if the military jet did see a large triangle why would they only have a small dept. now defunct to study the phenomenon?
Or are they and it's kept quiet?

originally posted by: joelr314
And if the military jet did see a large triangle why would they only have a small dept. now defunct to study the phenomenon?

Why would you give the pilot's interpretation (misinterpretation?) of a large triangle any more credibility than a ground observer's interpretation (misinterpretation?) of a large triangle? Especially since the "connect the dots" phenomenon is now documented to be so commonplace among UFO witnesses? It's not unusual at all for multiple separate lights to be misinterpreted as all being connected on a large craft, when as the video in the opening post shows, the lights moved relative to each other so they were not all part of the same craft, despite some witnesses claiming otherwise.

Davenport tells an interesting story, but at the end of the day UFOlogy is way more about the stories than it is actual evidence. In this case, we have actual evidence in the form of a video, showing the lights are not connected. When the stories and the evidence don't match, the evidence wins. It shouldn't be too surprising they don't always match, given the documented fallibility of human observation.

Superb deconstruction of this quite mundane event. I've always thought this incident was completely overblown and its longevity attributable to its occurrence in a year when interest in this peculiar subject was at an all time high.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Why would you give the pilot's interpretation (misinterpretation?) of a large triangle any more credibility than a ground observer's interpretation (misinterpretation?) of a large triangle? Especially since the "connect the dots" phenomenon is now documented to be so commonplace among UFO witnesses? It's not unusual at all for multiple separate lights to be misinterpreted as all being connected on a large craft, when as the video in the opening post shows, the lights moved relative to each other so they were not all part of the same craft, despite some witnesses claiming otherwise.

Davenport tells an interesting story, but at the end of the day UFOlogy is way more about the stories than it is actual evidence. In this case, we have actual evidence in the form of a video, showing the lights are not connected. When the stories and the evidence don't match, the evidence wins. It shouldn't be too surprising they don't always match, given the documented fallibility of human observation.

www.youtube.com...
The dispatcher speaks at 55:28

There was no "pilot's interpretation (misinterpretation?)" The pilots of the F15s were also unsure if it was one craft or separate craft. There was mention of gun camera footage and lantirn pod footage. I mistakenly wrote "triangle craft" but the pilots were actually not sure. That was the point of time stamping the video, I was just giving a quick summary.

What I was referencing, if this story is true, is the lantirn2 pods the jets used which would give good footage of whatever it was, as well as possible gun camera footage.
The trouble Davenport and his crew took to assemble the sightings into different routes based on time, description of lights was interesting. This case is complex, I don't know what is true and what isn't so it does amount to a story. I'm just pointing it out. But if his retelling is true than it's more complex than most retellings realize. The pods on F-15 should have no problem seeing a bunch of A-10s flying in front of him.
But the question is if it is true why isn't the information made public? The dispatch said they got gun camera footage but the radar showed white noise. If it's A-10s why don't they show that footage?
Davenport claims he knows the pilot but he doesn't want to talk about it.
There are many lines of evidence but none confirmed. This lecture is interesting, or Davenport is just using confirmation bias and making a big deal out of nothing.
If that video dispels the entire case for you then great, please ignore.

originally posted by: joelr314
There was no "pilot's interpretation (misinterpretation?)" The pilots of the F15s were also unsure if it was one craft or separate craft. There was mention of gun camera footage and lantirn pod footage. I mistakenly wrote "triangle craft" but the pilots were actually not sure. That was the point of time stamping the video, I was just giving a quick summary.

OK so if you take that at face value, the pilots didn't know whether the lights were some planes, or were attached to a large craft. No surprise there, since ground witnesses interpreted the same lights either way, where the large craft was the now obvious misinterpretation for reasons discussed below. But if you take the part of the story about the pilot being scared seriously (I am not sure how seriously to take it, it's just a story as I'm concerned, which may or may not be true, and even Davenport seems to express skepticism saying something like pilots don't get scared like that), then the only reason the pilot would be scared of some planes is because of a misinterpretation. But even Davenport doesn't seem completely convinced the pilot was really scared. I don't see any problem with the pilots estimating the lights descended from 18000 feet to 10500 feet, since other estimates put them at about 14000-15000 feet. If they were military planes they didn't have to use lights so turning them off and back on is something they could do if that's what really happened.

What I was referencing, if this story is true, is the lantirn2 pods the jets used which would give good footage of whatever it was, as well as possible gun camera footage.

I don't know about that. Do you remember the three "fuzzy blob" videos flir, gimbal, and gofast, released by the pentagon in 2020, that were leaked some years earlier?

This Lantirn image from wikipedia doesn't even look as good as those fuzzy blob videos, it looks even fuzzier:


One thing we saw in the Gimbal video is that heat signature or thermal videos may not clearly show the airplane at all, since depending on camera zoom, distance of the target, etc, the heat signature of the jet exhaust can completely obscure the airplane. What we see in Gimbal is the heat signature of the plane and we can't see the plane at all, same for these F-15 images, you can't see the planes at all so there's no way to tell they are F-15s from the images.

The pods on F-15 should have no problem seeing a bunch of A-10s flying in front of him.

Again, it might show planes, or it might just show fuzzy blobs if the heat signature obscures the plane. Depends on distance and other factors.

But the question is if it is true why isn't the information made public? The dispatch said they got gun camera footage but the radar showed white noise.

Why would it be made public? As far as I can tell, the pentagon didn't even want to release those three UAP videos that they released officially in 2020. But they had already been leaked years earlier and so they finally made the release official, since they were already in the public domain from the leaks. What they really show isn't anything alien-looking, they show how crappy the images are from distant objects and that's why they can't be identified solely from the video.

Mitch Stanley's view of the earlier planes may be a far better description than what you would get from the Lantirn pod.

www.astronomyufo.com...

That drawing may be way better than what you would get from a Lantirn image, which could be nothing but fuzzy blobs.

There are many lines of evidence but none confirmed. This lecture is interesting, or Davenport is just using confirmation bias and making a big deal out of nothing.

Well the flare drop around 10pm is confirmed beyond doubt.

We can also see Davenport's bias very clearly in that video at 28:27, when he says "Clearly we are dealing with a technology that is vastly, vastly beyond anything we have on this planet, and it shouldn't be a surprise that it would have an effect on an image of an object". Then we see it again immediately when he shows a slide with a remarkable similarity to Tim Printy's drawing of what Mitch Stanley described with three lights per plane. But Mitch Stanley saw them through a telescope and the person who made this slide didn't so he could only see the three lights per plane and not the plane:

PETER DAVENPORT - LECTURE ON THE PHOENIX LIGHTS MASS UFO SIGHTING

So Davenport interprets this as a large triangluar object, instead of 5 planes, so obviously he's biased to apparently not even consider the prosaic explanation of planes that makes more sense.

Hesin giving far too much credit to Lynn Kitei for tht event, so I don't think it's a reach to say he's biased. It's even worse than that, he's relying on Jim Diletosso to analyze things and I wouldn't believe a single word coming out of Diletosso's mouth. He claims to be doing things that are impossible to do. Some of what Diletosso said about the Phoenix lights is completely fabricated and you should know this from your technical background that he's full of crap. He was trying to claim that a spectral analysis of the videos proved the flares weren't flares. As I hope you realize, you can't do a spectral analysis on lights filmed with an ordinary camcorder. If you want to do a spectral analysis, you have to do it the same way the scientists who documented ball lightning did it using a special spectral recording setup.

This article talks about Diletosso being a fraud/liar, and how offended a real scientist is by his lies:

The Hack and the Quack

What they won't tell you is that Dilettoso employs the language of science to mask that, given the tools he uses, he is incapable of doing what he claims to be doing.

So what? you say. Does anyone really care if a few oddballs gain notoriety from science fiction? Who are they hurting?

Dr. Paul Scowen, a visiting professor of astronomy at Arizona State University, cares.

"I become quite offended when people pull this sort of nonsense," Scowen says. "We in the science business make our living doing this stuff to the best ability we can, and applying all of the knowledge that humankind has assembled to this point in science to figure out what's going on. . . .

"Why should people care? Because it's been so high-profile and they've been told lies. That's why people should care."

So not only is Diletosso a fool who lies though either total deception or complete incompetence, or both, but it's sad if other people who are not fools turn into fools by believing anything the liar says. I also don't trust his tracking work for similar reasons, he's claiming to be able to do things he can't accurately do. I also don't trust anyone foolish enough to associate themselves with a fool like Diletosso, so the guy working with Diletosso is also a fool by association.

a reply to: joelr314
I also have no doubt Davenport is making a bigger deal than it actually is, but that's what he's expected to do at a UFO conference, right? We do have videos of both events, and neither one shows anything remotely like this, so I think Davenport showing this slide proves beyond any doubt he's making a bigger deal of it than it is, I'm sure this is totally bogus:



At 32 minutes, he's talking about people seeing lights moving from one part of the fuselage to another part of the fuselage, which again makes no sense if they were lights on a large fuselage, but it makes perfect sense if they were planes not holding a formation. Then at 35:15, he says he wishes he had a video of the lights changing positions like the witness described. We do have a video of the planes changing their positions! That's also the proof it's planes and not a solid object. So once again the prosaic explanation works much better, and it's not even on Davenports list of ideas about what it could be. He's basically presenting a mountain of evidence like that which shows it's not a big solid object, yet he continues to obliviously deny his own evidence it's not a big solid object, and claims it's a big solid object! The bias is strong in this one!


1:04:30 he thought the ~10pm event was flares but then he says Lynn's data has caused him to back away from the flares. They were flares so I don't think he's rational to dismiss the flares.

Some parts of his stories seem convoluted and either improbable or nonsensical even if they are true. He says the president flew in air force one from Washington DC to Florida and was accompanied by protection aircraft. Then those protection aircraft flew to Arizona? Why would they fly all the way from the east coast to Arizona? I don't see how that makes any sense, the president was still on the east coast.

He's also trying to connect unrelated dots at the end like saying President Clinton's knee surgery had something to do with the Phoenix lights (really?) and even brings up the incident with Craig Button on April 2, 1997, weeks after the phoenix lights incident on March 13 1997. It's really a stretch to claim those events had anything to do with each other, but that's what he seems to be trying to suggest.