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: 5
46
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 08:43 AM
link   
Jim Dilettoso also believed that bill meier photos were genuine
Don't know if his opinion has changed on that.




posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 09:14 AM
link   
a reply to: 111DPKING111

Our culture is being FLOODED with UFO mythology stuff:
Ancient Aliens, Youtube, and all these 'fake sightings'.

Our culture is being manipulated on a grand scale,
not seen since Christianity (another psychological
operation).

These 'large sightings' over metropolitan areas
that cannot be 'proven' one way or the other
(and even if they are the power of myth
is overwhelming) are the hallmark of this
type of operation.

Thus it's the non "overly flashy" sightings
which might have something to teach
us... 'these types' may as well.. but
mostly about psychology and methods
of deception.

Lots of very credible people agree with
this synopsis.

Kev



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
a reply to: 111DPKING111

Our culture is being FLOODED with UFO mythology stuff:
Ancient Aliens, Youtube, and all these 'fake sightings'.

Our culture is being manipulated on a grand scale,
not seen since Christianity (another psychological
operation).

These 'large sightings' over metropolitan areas
that cannot be 'proven' one way or the other
(and even if they are the power of myth
is overwhelming) are the hallmark of this
type of operation.

Thus it's the non "overly flashy" sightings
which might have something to teach
us... 'these types' may as well.. but
mostly about psychology and methods
of deception.

Lots of very credible people agree with
this synopsis.

Kev


Well, its pretty much safe to say that something unexplained is flying around. Yes, there is a lot of crap out there, but also many unexplained credible cases that some people seem to forget.

As with UFO mythology on a great scale. You can say the same thing about debunkers. We have things like skeptics society that hold conferences where people turn up in their hundreds just to hear someone laugh and joke about the subject.

And you have to ask yourself why these people spend their money just to hear that. Its because they like it. They feel part of a group, a family. Its not about the truth, its about belonging to a specific group. If anything, things like the skeptics society is a new age religion. Who are their Messiahs?
People like James Randi and Michael shermer

Most people want to be part of something


edit on 25-1-2015 by Jay-morris because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jay-morris
Astronomers have seen unexplained UFOs,


Sure they have but no where near the numbers of other people with less trained eyes.


because you have not, does not mean no astronomers have.


Guess you don't read my posts. I have posted more than a few times I saw two UFOs both of which turned out to be something odd at first but mundane in the end.


Also, what makes you think you should see more? You are looking at stars planets, moons etc, not the Sky.


Actually we amateur astronomers look at the sky quite a lot. As for professionals many observatories have wide angle all sky cameras for stuff like meteor showers.



More chance of a person looking up at the sky with the naked eye and seeing a UFO, than someone looking at stars, planets moons etc


Amateur astronomers often do naked eye astronomy....
edit on 25-1-2015 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 09:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: Jay-morris
Astronomers have seen unexplained UFOs,


Sure they have but no where near the numbers of other people with less trained eyes.


because you have not, does not mean no astronomers have.


Guess you don't read my posts. I have posted more than a few times I saw two UFOs both of which turned out to be something odd at first but mundane in the end.


Also, what makes you think you should see more? You are looking at stars planets, moons etc, not the Sky.


Actually we amateur astronomers look at the sky quite a lot. As for professionals many observatories have wide angle all sky cameras for stuff like meteor showers.



More chance of a person looking up at the sky with the naked eye and seeing a UFO, than someone looking at stars, planets moons etc


Amateur astronomers often do naked eye astronomy....


Most UFOs can be explained, nothing special in you explaining yours. So, what's your eyes trained for? Planets, stars, comets, moons, aircraft?

Okay, I guess the case that involve pilots are more believable to you, as they are trained observers. Or does it only count if you are a debunkers.

I guess debunkers have super powered trained eyes to observe.



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Jay-morris

I hear you on the clique aspect of this.

I'm not sure people get this about me, but I'm a HUGE skeptic.
I throw out 100% of religion and 99% of "spirituality" and about
95% of UFOlogy.

Yes, I do own Carl Sagan's books. I could easily imitate Jadestar
and others who take the approach from that end of the discussion.

I too am saddened by our 'Demon haunted world' like Carl wrote
about.

Unfortunately? (it is what it is), there IS something that goes bump
in the night (just because 95% of 'demons' are just delusions doesn't
mean that 100% are).

This puts me in the very uncomfortable situation where there are only
a small handful of folks I can have a good conversation about this
and related subjects with.. and I've spent decades (longer than
some of the 'skeptics' on this board have even been alive) finding
the few people that I have..

Anyway.. I did S&F this thread; a good explanation about how
the deception may have been done is worth something.

Kev



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 09:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
One possible explanation for the various witness accounts is that there were not just two things going on that night, but possibly three. In addition to the two events bonez described, there could have been a third event where the object actually blocked out some stars and if that was the case all the witnesses could be right.

It's remotely possible, but very highly unlikely. I've edited my 3rd OP to reiterate this point more clearly:

The last two eyewitness accounts I've included, from Dr. Bradley Evans and Stacey Roads, were both traveling on I-10, both near Casa Grande, both seeing the same lights.

Dr. Evans says he could see stars around and through the lights with no sense that it was a solid object. Yet Miss Roads claims to have seen a solid object that blocked the stars.

This brings us to the Unreliabilty of Witness Reports, along with the "Illusory Contours" phenomena.

If there had been two separate events of lights, then the people who were in the same area on the same interstate should have reported this, or reported something similar.

All available evidence suggests that the light formation was military planes, likely A-10's, heading to Davis-Monthan Air Force Base near Tuscon. There is zero evidence to suggest that a massive, single large craft flew over Arizona that some witnesses think they saw.


Thank you, Arbitrageur, for you contributions to this thread. I've added a link to my 3rd OP of your "Unreliable Witness" post, as you can see above.




posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Bigburgh
Is a stealth blimp a possibility?
The TV show "UFO Hunters" covered the Phoenix lights and had an aviation expert guest talking about the possibility of a classified "rigid hull airship" matching the description of witnesses, of the first event (not the flares).

While I wouldn't rule out that possibility, to all the people who assign a high value to eyewitness testimony, there is lots and lots of research saying that this is not justified, where you show the same event to 20 different people and get 8 different descriptions of what happened. So while we can't rule out the possibility of maybe a third event being a stealth blimp or an alien spaceship, we can't rule pout the possibility that bonez explanation is correct and some of the witnesses were more correct about their description of events than others.


That study sounds foolish frankly. But I would say it does depend on the time of day(again, if military, i am surprised it wasnt done at 3am), how close the object was, how big the object was, and how fast it was moving. There was no 8 different accounts of the object, it was freaking huge V shaped craft and SLOWLY moved by. SLOWLY, let that sink in, how can several people observe a huge freaking boomerang ship for 5 minutes as it SLOWLY moves by and be mistaken? I have no doubt this event happened, its just a matter of military vs alien

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear

Our culture is being FLOODED with UFO mythology stuff:
Ancient Aliens, Youtube, and all these 'fake sightings'.

Our culture is being manipulated on a grand scale,
not seen since Christianity (another psychological
operation).

These 'large sightings' over metropolitan areas
that cannot be 'proven' one way or the other
(and even if they are the power of myth
is overwhelming) are the hallmark of this
type of operation.

Thus it's the non "overly flashy" sightings
which might have something to teach
us... 'these types' may as well.. but
mostly about psychology and methods
of deception.

Lots of very credible people agree with
this synopsis.

Kev


And there are lots of those who don't. When making claims like these you have to provide an explanation as to the purposes of a psyop of this magnitude.



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Paperjacket
Reasonable analysis and I prefer to think this add to a strong explanation to the Phoenix lights. However if I am not wrong I remember there was a comparable analysis in some program on Discovery Channel or National Geography Channel which supported that the second lights were not similar to flares.
The so called "analysis" that you're probably thinking of was done by Jim Dilettoso, and he had no idea what he was doing. He was trying to use spectrum analysis from home video to claim that the spectrum on video didn't match flare spectrum, but home videos aren't designed to reproduce spectra accurately enough for this kind of analysis so his "analysis" saying they couldn't be flares was widely debunked. Then he claimed his critics calling him a fool were wrong because he was using "special software", but this claim to is ludicrous because it's not a software issue, rather with the raw data recorded on the video.

Phoenix Lights

UFO advocate Jim Dilettoso claimed to have performed "spectral analysis" of photographs and video imagery that proved the lights could not have been produced by a man-made source. Dilettoso claimed to have used software called "Image Pro Plus" (exact version unknown) to determine the amount of red, green and blue in the various photographic and video images and construct histograms of the data, which were then compared to several photographs known to be of flares. Several sources have pointed out, however, that it is impossible to determine the spectral signature of a light source based solely on photographic or video imagery, as film and electronics inherently alter the spectral signature of a light source by shifting hue in the visible spectrum, and experts in spectroscopy have dismissed his claims as being scientifically invalid.
I think it's pretty safe to dismiss his claims as based in incompetence.


Thx! I have found the documentary and yes it was Jim Dilettoso who performed the comparative analysis. It was long time ago and I just can't recall the name. In fact, in the documentary, it had been already stated that some did not agree with Jim Dilettoso. If his analysis is not sufficient because of either the methodology or the data, I agree that his conclusion should be revisited with great caution. Thx again.



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 11:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: uforn

originally posted by: Paperjacket
Reasonable analysis and I prefer to think this add to a strong explanation to the Phoenix lights. However if I am not wrong I remember there was a comparable analysis in some program on Discovery Channel or National Geography Channel which supported that the second lights were not similar to flares. I just cant remember the name of that program now. As to the first lights in the sky what I do believe is that no man made single craft could be that size from the very beginning and I also support that you just can't hear any sound from man made craft when it flies high enough.


Hi the documentary you refer to is called UFO's over Phoenix ~ Anatomy of a Sighting. It was UFO Investigator Jim Dilettoso that did the analysis and came to the conclusion that the light spectrum signatures of the video he analysed did not match any light signatures of known flares. How accurate the analysis is, is open for debate.

In the documentary UFO researcher Richard F. Motzer disputes Dilettoso's claims saying that video tape does not have the resolution that you need, to perform those particular kind of tests.

Hope this helps.

All the best

uforn


Thx! I have found the documentary and watched again the key part. As I have said in my reply I thought that _BoneZ_ had brought up a quite reasonable analysis and tried to remind everybody the comparative analysis which we just can't ignore. My opinion now is if Jim Dilettoso's methodology or the data he used is not sufficient for proper analysis, the conclusion should be revisited with great caution. Thx again for your help.



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueMessiah

The UFO forum has many long posts on this subject;
just sort by number of flags you can't miss them;
they are some of the most popular ever.

That said, I see your signature line.

I don't disagree with your signature line either.

There is definitely a twisted partnership of deception,
which includes 'aliens' as well.

Not necessarily little green men from mars, but definitely
deserving of the designation 'alien'.

I never mind being 'made honest'.

Kev



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: _BoneZ_
a reply to: kurthall

My third post explains that those who thought they saw a solid object were mistaken and why.

My post includes two people near the same area at the same time seeing the same lights. One person says they could see the stars, they other said the object was solid. See my post as to why the people who claim it was solid were mistaken.




No.. your post includes your OPINION on why you THINK they were mistaken. You post this as if it's proven fact. It's not, you are guessing. There were plenty of witnesses that were adamant about it being a solid object. Although there is no reason it could not have been both. There is no telling if there was just one object flying around that night. There were many reports that night.

The first sighting was in Nevada, and the last, well after the flares were dropped in Phoenix, on the western border of Arizona.. far from the airbase you listed as that flights destination. People watched it fly directly overhead.. they saw it banking.. unless they are morons, I think they would know if it were solid or not. They said point-blank that it blotted out the stars as it passed overhead.

People don't give other humans enough credit. Did a simple flight of airplanes really dupe that many people into thinking they were seeing something spectacular? I highly doubt it. It's also quite the coincidence that an object with large lights is sighted and reported going southward towards Phoenix.. and that was the first AND last time, and that same very night, that the Air Force decided to drop flares in a spot that would be very visible from the city of Phoenix.

What amazing odds that must be.. for those two events to happen on the same night.. in fact, while sightings were still occurring. I'm sure they had a great reason for dropping flares in sight of the city that night.. and it wasn't just an effort to confuse the situation. Which is exactly what it accomplished. Or mission accomplished, I'd say.

I guess that night was just full of coincidences! Like the last witness that actually stopped at a payphone in Kingston... far from that Air Base that supposed slight of planes were headed, to report a bizarre cluster of lights. Odd that a truck driver called in because he sighted a UFO.. and watched two Air Force jets scramble after them.. and they took off straight into the sky.

Perhaps it was just an odd night were a lot hoax callers were calling in UFO reports? And dozens of people were duped by a simple formation of planes? And the Air Force decided on that same night to drop flares?

Sorry.. not buying it.



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: fleabit

originally posted by: _BoneZ_
a reply to: kurthall

My third post explains that those who thought they saw a solid object were mistaken and why.

My post includes two people near the same area at the same time seeing the same lights. One person says they could see the stars, they other said the object was solid. See my post as to why the people who claim it was solid were mistaken.




No.. your post includes your OPINION on why you THINK they were mistaken. You post this as if it's proven fact. It's not, you are guessing. There were plenty of witnesses that were adamant about it being a solid object. Although there is no reason it could not have been both. There is no telling if there was just one object flying around that night. There were many reports that night.

The first sighting was in Nevada, and the last, well after the flares were dropped in Phoenix, on the western border of Arizona.. far from the airbase you listed as that flights destination. People watched it fly directly overhead.. they saw it banking.. unless they are morons, I think they would know if it were solid or not. They said point-blank that it blotted out the stars as it passed overhead.

People don't give other humans enough credit. Did a simple flight of airplanes really dupe that many people into thinking they were seeing something spectacular? I highly doubt it. It's also quite the coincidence that an object with large lights is sighted and reported going southward towards Phoenix.. and that was the first AND last time, and that same very night, that the Air Force decided to drop flares in a spot that would be very visible from the city of Phoenix.

What amazing odds that must be.. for those two events to happen on the same night.. in fact, while sightings were still occurring. I'm sure they had a great reason for dropping flares in sight of the city that night.. and it wasn't just an effort to confuse the situation. Which is exactly what it accomplished. Or mission accomplished, I'd say.

I guess that night was just full of coincidences! Like the last witness that actually stopped at a payphone in Kingston... far from that Air Base that supposed slight of planes were headed, to report a bizarre cluster of lights. Odd that a truck driver called in because he sighted a UFO.. and watched two Air Force jets scramble after them.. and they took off straight into the sky.

Perhaps it was just an odd night were a lot hoax callers were calling in UFO reports? And dozens of people were duped by a simple formation of planes? And the Air Force decided on that same night to drop flares?

Sorry.. not buying it.


Well said



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: fleabit
What amazing odds that must be.. for those two events to happen on the same night..

Yes. What amazing odds it must be that military aircraft from two separate Air Force Bases, Luke Air Force Base and Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, just happened to be running exercises at the same time on the same night, and being responsible for all the lights.

Because it's easier to believe that a large black alien ship against a black sky is far more believable than what the evidence suggests: That the lights seen the night of March 13th were a formation of military planes and flares.

Let's discount all the witnesses who saw stars between the lights, and only believe the witnesses who saw no stars, and claim it was a solid object.

Yes, a big alien ship more believable than a squadron of military planes carrying out training exercises.



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: _BoneZ_

originally posted by: fleabit
What amazing odds that must be.. for those two events to happen on the same night..

Yes. What amazing odds it must be that military aircraft from two separate Air Force Bases, Luke Air Force Base and Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, just happened to be running exercises at the same time on the same night, and being responsible for all the lights.

Because it's easier to believe that a large black alien ship against a black sky is far more believable than what the evidence suggests: That the lights seen the night of March 13th were a formation of military planes and flares.

Let's discount all the witnesses who saw stars between the lights, and only believe the witnesses who saw no stars, and claim it was a solid object.

Yes, a big alien ship more believable than a squadron of military planes carrying out training exercises.




How many people said they saw stars in between?



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

The UFO forum is what I frequently visit the most but I haven't seen any argument convincing enough to sway me towards this being the psyop you explained. Other than preparing the world populace for eventual disclosure, no other reason makes sense.



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: _BoneZ_

Please don't assume which side of this debate I'm on; I frankly
don't have a position on this incident, other than it was either
a purposeful psyop to feed UFO hysteria, or at the very least, the
military was plum off it's rockers to hold it's training exercises
during prime hours over a major city. An infant would have known
this would likely result in "UFO mania". Now, the military might
not care, but really they should.

But this aside, I have a question for you.

How does your theory (yes, it's a theory.. *everything* is a theory
including the theory of gravity) account for the fact this event
was said to have begun over Henderson Nevada?

More witness misidentification?

Were there wartoghs and flares over Henderson at that time too?

Just a straight question.

Kev



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jay-morris
How many people said they saw stars in between?

At least just as many, if not more than those who claim they saw a solid craft.

I know where you're going with this. You're going to claim that hundreds or thousands saw a solid craft blocking out the stars, but that would be a false claim. There's no way to prove that claim unless you can point to a source that has a list of hundreds or thousands of witnesses that reported seeing a solid object.

I know that list does not exist.



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: _BoneZ_

originally posted by: Jay-morris
How many people said they saw stars in between?

At least just as many, if not more than those who claim they saw a solid craft.

I know where you're going with this. You're going to claim that hundreds or thousands saw a solid craft blocking out the stars, but that would be a false claim. There's no way to prove that claim unless you can point to a source that has a list of hundreds or thousands of witnesses that reported seeing a solid object.

I know that list does not exist.



Well, I have not heard many people say that it did not block out the stars. As far as a am aware, there are just two witnesses together who claimed it was planes. But what they said, and what other witnesses said, makes me believe that the two sightings are not related

Like I said before. If the formation looked like a huge craft, the planes would have to of been not very high, and in that case, would have been very loud. If they were very high, then the formation would have looked pretty small.

Logically it just does not make sense. Disagreeing with this, does not mean I believe this to be ET by the way. Seems like these groups you are either one or the other. Quite sad really




top topics



 
46
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join