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: 9
46
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 09:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: aniapi
I know what I saw that night and they definitely were not flares. These lights were huge, each rectangular shaped, amber in color, and in a L formation (or vee shaped depending on your location). There is just no way these lights where flares or lights on a aircraft because the lights alone were much larger that any aircraft I have ever seen in the sky.


Actually, you know what you "perceived" and no what you "saw." Big difference. You and I can both perceive the same thing in completely different ways even though we are actually seeing the same thing. Lighting, angle, bias, any number of things can alter what we see as to how we perceive it.




posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 09:33 AM
link   
I seem to recall accounts of the flying "V" blocking out the stars while reflecting the city lights from more than just the witnesses mentioned in the O.P.... one being a retired U.S. Marshal.

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



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 09:45 AM
link   

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

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



OP was very clear about dashing dreams of UFOs, lol. For my money, the OP is objective. Eye witnesses, where they differ in their statements, shoudl usually be viewed with keeping an eye towards all reasonable and rational explanations. People in authority--AS THE THREAD STATES AND SHOWS MANY TIMES--did in fact make it VERY CLEAR that they could see the stars between the lights. The photographs provided show the same thing.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: jaffo


The OP was cherry picking testimony which, in my book, is not objective.

Witnesses who saw stars through the "formation" were cited as reliable while those who saw a solid mass were either not listed or labeled "mistaken".


edit on 26-1-2015 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 09:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: draknoir2
a reply to: jaffo


The OP was cherry picking testimony which, in my book, is not objective.

Witnesses who saw stars through the "formation" were cited as reliable while those who saw a solid mass were either not listed or labeled "mistaken".



So ditch them all and go with the rest of the evidence. At that point, the UFO disappears and the explanation is clear.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 09:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: draknoir2
a reply to: jaffo


The OP was cherry picking testimony which, in my book, is not objective.

Witnesses who saw stars through the "formation" were cited as reliable while those who saw a solid mass were either not listed or labeled "mistaken".




So ditch them all and go with the rest of the evidence. At that point, the UFO disappears and the explanation is clear.



Whatever it takes to achieve your desired conclusion, I guess.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: aniapi
I know what I saw that night and they definitely were not flares. These lights were huge, each rectangular shaped, amber in color, and in a L formation (or vee shaped depending on your location). There is just no way these lights where flares or lights on a aircraft because the lights alone were much larger that any aircraft I have ever seen in the sky.


I'm curious: How far away from them were you? Did you hear anything, or were they too far away? Most described the lights as circular - can you go into more detail about them at all? Did it seem like a single object, or smaller "connected" (i.e. flying as one) objects... I hope you will explore your memory and see what else you can recall...

Thanks!

- AB



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 10:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: draknoir2
a reply to: jaffo


The OP was cherry picking testimony which, in my book, is not objective.

Witnesses who saw stars through the "formation" were cited as reliable while those who saw a solid mass were either not listed or labeled "mistaken".




So ditch them all and go with the rest of the evidence. At that point, the UFO disappears and the explanation is clear.



Whatever it takes to achieve your desired conclusion, I guess.


"Hand Waving."



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: draknoir2

When I look at the testimony as a whole, I also see three separate categories. 1) Flares (second event), 2) Planes, and 3) massive low flying soundless object sometimes with lights sometimes without, that solidly blocked out the stars.

I've read other skeptical arguments online in addition to the OP's. To my thinking, those making efforts to conclude the Phoenix Lights story is something simple and ordinary, must make three huge assumptions:

1) the people in the third category are all either lying or mistaken,
2) everyone is looking at the exact same thing (i.e. was the boy with the telescope who saw planes looking at exactly the same thing at the same time as the witnesses who saw a low flying, massive silent object??)
3) none of the people who saw something mundane (i.e. planes) were mistaken.


If I had time, which I really don't right now, I would love to plot everything out - the times everything happened from a large database of witness testimony (there are folks who claim to have interviewed hundreds of people, which I assume means they kept records of the interviews), and I would like to see a FOIA documentation for the flight plan from Operation Snowbird that night, as well as any information from the military/national guard/commericial airport traffic control side of this that is relevant. Why? I know others have plotted a trajectory for the event, but I would love to see if the records all match up, and that we definitively have only TWO events, and not THREE. Other's may have already done this as well, but its good to see with one's own eyes...

This isn't mere scratching desperately to turn planes into a giant UFO, but a desire to dot all 'i's and cross all 't's before holding to a definitive answer, one way or another.

Whether this is a case of people mistaking the mundane for the extraordinary, or the extraordinary for the mundane, or neither, it is interesting to me to explore carefully all the options available. I may simply be newer to this in-depth sort of look at the Phoenix Lights and might come away eventually with the same conclusion as the OP, or I might draw an entirely different one, based on my own research and experience.

What I do know, from my experience, is that it IS possible for this to be something other than mundane, and that is my only desired bias.

Granted, my other bias is that the majority of "paranormal" experiences are the mundane masked, however temporarily, as the extraordinary (i.e. the hung-up coat in the dark that looks like a shadowy figure of doom! Until the lights are turned on!! Or the UFO that turns to an IFO when one sees its just a plane.)

I would rather "REAL" experiences be proven out than mundane ones be elevated to "paranormal" status!

The OP argument is strong, if the above assumptions are held. If those assumptions are not held, then I can see holding this as a possible answer, with the need for expanding the view to a possible bigger answer of three separate events.

Therefore, my curiosity is not satisfied, personally, by the OP argument alone. I still have questions that I cannot answer, at least for part of the evening's events.

- AB
edit on 26-1-2015 by AboveBoard because: clarity

edit on 26-1-2015 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-1-2015 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard


I mostly agree. I think the overall "event" was in fact a synergism of three or more things.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: draknoir2

Agreed. I do think this is a strong possibility - three simultaneous, or nearly so, but separate happenings combined into one large confusing mess. This may be able to be teased out with enough open-minded research, but then again, the "paranormal" has a way of deflecting definitives and slinking away from the light of discovery... Then again, it could just be planes and flares. I lean however, very strongly, to your suggestion.



- AB



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: draknoir2
I've read other skeptical arguments online in addition to the OP's. To my thinking, those making efforts to conclude the Phoenix Lights story is something simple and ordinary, must make three huge assumptions:

1) the people in the third category are all either lying or mistaken,
2) everyone is looking at the exact same thing (i.e. was the boy with the telescope who saw planes looking at exactly the same thing at the same time as the witnesses who saw a low flying, massive silent object??)
3) none of the people who saw something mundane (i.e. planes) were mistaken.
I agree with your comments about 1 and 2, but not 3, because the video evidence supports 3. As I said when I have a choice between witness testimony and a video, if they don't agree, I prefer to trust the video unless there's some compelling reason not to. In this case, the video at least strongly suggests at least some of the planes witnesses were correct...and you can definitely see stars so it's not blocking any stars.

I previously also mentioned the mapping out idea, which might help show if there were separate events. I'm not sure how accurately the witnesses recalled the times however so you'd have to be aware in some cases they might not recall the time too accurately.
edit on 26-1-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Hey Arbitrageur,

I mentioned number 3 so as to be fair from a psychological point of view. When faced with high strangeness, some people react by dismissing it as something mundane, just as folks who see something mundane can claim high-strangeness.

There is some video evidence to suggest planes and flares. I do understand that as well.

I'm glad Im not alone in the desire to objectively map out what happened. A large number of witnesses would be needed in hopes of finding accuracy by comparison between accounts, so that "outliers" from the data set could be seen as such.

Peace,
AB



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: _BoneZ_ Hi _BoneZ_ I was sure I had seen something relating to my post asking you if there were any Radar reports or anything.

Well it just so happens there wasn't anything that showed up on Radar. Michael W Pearson Air Traffic Controller at the Phoenix Sky Harbour International Airport witnessed the V light formation just above the southern mountains at around 8-15pm from the tower. He stated they were visible for around 10 mins and that they appeared to be stationary or moving very slowly.

He said that the tower had received numerous calls from the public as well as Law Enforcement Agency's asking if they knew what they were or if they had anything on Radar. Pearson and his colleague's were just as baffled as everyone else as nothing showed up on Radar.

This proves your theory of the first sightings being planes in formation is wrong.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: uforn

I remember seeing that as well, uforn. That is why I would like to see a full time line with all these bits of testimony, from air traffic control and government sources as well as individuals, mapped out fully.

Thanks for bringing this! If they were flares, they would not show on radar?? I don't know the answer to that. However, I did think the flares were supposed to have happened at the later time?? It gets confusing!!

peace,
AB



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 11:50 AM
link   
The reason I don't think it was a "UFO" is because we didn't blow it out of the sky. This is the good ol' USA. We would shoot first and try to make "contact" later. LOL. I'm half sarcastic.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: uforn

What was the range of the radar?
What was the distance of the objects?
How do you know these things?
Are these distances consistent with your claim?



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vaedur
The reason I don't think it was a "UFO" is because we didn't blow it out of the sky. This is the good ol' USA. We would shoot first and try to make "contact" later. LOL. I'm half sarcastic.


Plus, if it were a genuine ET craft, flying about a major metropolitan area within scramble distance of a major AFB would be pretty stupid. Take those things and be reasonable about it, however...and you have the logical explanation of the flares and the formation flight and a bunch of confused people seeing something they couldn't readily identify.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 04:07 PM
link   
I won't lie, I'm pretty gutted after reading this thread as I really thought there was a chance that something out of the ordinary may have happened in the skies over Arizona that night.

But that damned gif clearly shows stars inbetween the lights even though witnesses stated the object was solid.

So, looks like it was regular aircraft after all!
edit on 26-1-2015 by dava6711 because: Spelling



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 04:29 PM
link   

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

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



You're Fired!



new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join