It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

(Part 2 with Map) The Phoenix Lights - Laying To Rest The Myth

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 12:26 PM
Remember the active camoflage that was developed? where do you think they got the tech to pull that off? It bends th e light around itself so it makes the object appear transparent. The craft can turn it on and off at will. Also the smaller tris can link up mid air so it might explain th e multiple objects

posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 02:22 PM
a reply to: _BoneZ_

And yet you keep the 'I'm not hearing you, I say what I want and this is the truth' ear plugs. In a word, it's called - ignorance. I don't think it really matters if it was a V shaped object or several in formation.. why? If so ordinary well known stealth models, why would they release the lights afterwards? What were they trying to cover by repeating that?

Do you see that your story is only like half as$ed explanation ... , I really don't like the title, again I don't see aliens but there has to be something unordinary to be covered up and a whole big case made out of it.

posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 03:32 PM
a reply to: _BoneZ_

Once again I applaud you _Bonez_ for the considerable time and effort taken to follow up on your initial post with another coherent and informative post. It's a very convincing piece and I guess the Phoenix Lights becomes another UFO case to cross off the "promising" list.

It seems that a number of people are highly pre-disposed to these events of March 1997 being something otherworldly and simply unable to accept your explanations. This is something that we see time and again with a lot of UFO cases when people attempt to de-construct them in search of the real truth. I guess it's because it's also challenging other people's belief systems

Despite your conclusion though, I'd like to ask you to be brutally honest and say whether any pieces of the evidence you've found don't quite add up?

edit on 8/2/15 by mirageman because: typo

posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 04:27 PM

originally posted by: mirageman
I'd like to ask you to be brutally honest and say whether any pieces of the evidence you've found don't quite add up?

There's nothing that doesn't add up with this case for me. The only thing of concern is the number of people who think they saw a solid object.

When "I Know What I Saw" was made, Fife Symington was no longer a governor. I believe he told a tall tale, as most politicians do, to put (and keep in a small part) himself in the spotlight once again.

If we could remove from the pool of witnesses the hoaxers and those who wanted their 15-minutes of fame, there might not be so many claiming to have seen a large, solid craft.

The thing that's kept this story alive the most, though, is the media hype for the viewer ratings. If the media had done it's investigative reporting years ago, this story would've have died then.

But, as with most UFO stories, there will be those who claim that there was some sort of UFO no matter what the evidence proves. That's evident with the Billy Meier "wedding cake UFO" hoax. There are still people to this day who think the "UFO" was real, even though most of the parts that made up the "UFO" have been identified as household items.

posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 04:41 PM

originally posted by: _BoneZ_
As can be seen on the map, the two varying descriptions overlap. Indicating one vee formation of lights, and differing descriptions of what those lights were.
Nice work Bonez. This certainly puts a damper on the view that maybe some people saw planes but other people saw a giant triangle. That may be what they appeared to see, but they were apparently all looking at the same thing in the same place at the same time.

It's also a good point that all the witnesses who used magnification could tell that there wasn't a giant object blocking the stars. I still see people who haven't yet recognized that stars getting dim or disappearing in the center of our vision is part of human physiology as was explained in the other thread:

originally posted by: timbolarian
Something that seems to have been missed is that stars seem to disappear when you look at them.
Why do stars disappear when I look at them?

And fainter points of light dim in the presence of nearer, brighter lights. Just try seeing stars past a street light, etc.

I think these two points can explain the optical illusion of a solid craft reported by some of the witnesses.
Once we consider how human physiology works as part of the explanation for what witnesses saw, your case is very convincing!

It doesn't explain the witness who said it flew overhead so low she could see the texture and felt like she could reach out and touch it, but that was an outlier and the documentary which presents what she saw explains most people didn't see what she saw (texture, etc). This account could also have some different physiology at work, as some people have less than perfect night vision. People shouldn't get confused and think a thousand people saw what she saw; they didn't. I don't know what she saw, but it seems like the planes and human physiology would explain most sightings of the large triangle object appearing to block out the stars.

posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 01:43 AM
a reply to: mirageman

Some things with his theory that dont add up:

The solid object sightings were in the 730pm to 830pm time frame. The theory is that it was the jets from operation snowbird returning to base. Those jets dropped their flares between 10pm and 1030 pm, approx 2 hrs after the solid object sightings. So, it could not have been those jets returning to base. Also, they dropped flares 30 miles SW of Phoenix and looking at the map, their flight path does not coincide. Maybe someone else can further confirm this by watching this video at the 2:30 mark here/. UNless we can confirm their entire flight path and times of their training session, the theory just doesn't add up.

I appreciate the map but can't take it at face value, because I don't think it takes into account all of the eyewitness testimony of an object. It would be good to also have which testimony goes with what point on the map.

There is testimony that jets were scrambled to pursue this alleged object. There is a possibility that some of the plane lights accounts were of them.

A radar operator admitted to visual of the lights, but they did not appear on radar. So, if eyewitness testimony is unreliable, it can't be a one way street. They can all be accurate or wrong at the same time.

What are the conditions for a mass optical illusion to take effect? There were different people at different locations, at different times, describing a solid object at different angles, but with similar detail such as a solid surface and lights within a "well" in the object not emitting light in a conventional manner.

Some of the witnesses were very familiar with jets flying overhead in formation and this did not comply anything they have seen before. If these were in fact operation snowbird a-10s, then what was so different in their formation and lighting that tricked people into seeing a solid structure unlike anything they have seen before? All were hallucinating and lying at the same time? Why not simply reproduce the same exact thing and see if it happens again? Why did the air force deny they had anything in the air that night only to later admit operation snowbird dropped flares in a completely different area.

I think there was a lot going on that night in the sky and many questions remained unanswered. They is far from solved from my point of view. Not to mention this is not a new theory at all.
edit on 9-2-2015 by NYCUltra because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 10:50 AM
a reply to: _BoneZ_

The map is interesting and does show this a little clearer. To be fair, I think what needs to be shown is the raw data. Is there a list for the various sightings? I honestly didn't know that there were that many people that saw planes.

posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 12:32 PM

originally posted by: [post=18977074]_BoneZ_

Out of all witness testimony, every single witness who used binoculars or telescope, could clearly see that the vee formation of lights were individual lights, and/or planes. There is no known witness who claimed to have seen a solid large object, and viewed it through binoculars. There is also no known photos or videos of the alleged solid large object. Therefore, there is no proof what-so-ever that a single, large solid object flew around the state of Arizona on that night.

If there had been more than one vee formation, i.e. a large craft, and a separate vee formation of planes, then witnesses would have commented that there were two vee's flying around..

Some of the witnesses saw aircraft/jets in the sky simultaneously with the object. A woman did say she viewed the object through her camera and claimed it was too big in her field of vision to take a picture. Still true, however, there are no photos or video of a solid object. Obviously, that's a problem for myself and others. However, the eyewitness accounts still cannot be so easily dismissed. The reference to court witnesses really is not related to this type of event. More or less, those would be identifying a person's physical identification and not a large object in the sky above them. Not that easily comparable.

Conclusion on Witness Accounts

The faulty witnesses statements, along with the Illusory Contours phenomena explained in Part 1, we can dismiss those witnesses who claimed to have seen a single, solid object that blocked out the stars, and conclude that the lights were a formation of planes and nothing more.

I really don't think the optical illusion explanation holds, when you have so many descriptive eyewitness accounts. Remember, groups of people are actually describing a close object down to the texture of the craft and light wells, from different perspectives and different locations. They are not all in the same location looking directly at the same angle at the lights, which I believe would be needed for a mass of people to be victims of the same optical illusion. They not simple "connecting the dots in the sky." People that have seen aircraft in the sky before and are familiar with their characteristics, so what was different this time?

No Sound

It has been reported that the formation of aircraft were flying between 10,000 and 19,000 feet. Most people will not hear those aircraft that high in the sky.

Not Visible on Radar

Martin Hardy, manager of Sky Harbor (Phoenix) Air Traffic Control has stated that the lights/object(s) did not show up on radar. Sky Harbor's radar only goes up to 3000 feet. If the planes were flying at 10,000 to 19,000 feet as reported by other pilots, then they would have been far above Sky Harbor's radar range.

Not entirely true:

Air Traffic Control Frequencies

Air Traffic Control Frequencies - the Federal Aviation Administration maintains a Control Tower and a Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) facility at Sky Harbor International Airport. TRACON controls the aircraft within a 40-mile radius and up to 21,000 feet (MSL) and the Control Tower has responsibility for the airport and airspace within five miles up to 3,000 feet. Radio communication between the control facilities and the aircraft take place on a number of radio frequencies


So the lack of radar is neither confirmation or denial of anything. Unfortunately, we do not know if other towers picked up anything as it's not a given that this object would even have a signal or not. However, planes were not confirmed either. There is a radar operator that confirmed visual of the "lights" but no radar reading. The radar issue remains inconclusive.

edit on 9-2-2015 by NYCUltra because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 12:33 PM

Final Conclusion

Everything presented proves that military exercises involving planes were going on the night of March 13, 1997. And that the vee formation of lights were aircraft heading from near Las Vegas, Nevada, to Davis-Monthan Air Force base in Tuscon, using the interstate as a flight marker.

The two differing witness reports can't both be correct. All available data and evidence proves which one is correct: a vee formation of planes. Those who saw a solid single object were mistaken and incorrect, plain and simple.

It's not that simple because the flight path of the Operation Snowbird jets do not coincide with the sightings path nor do the times they would have been completing their mission and returning to base. The planes reported departed from Davis-Monthan at 8:15PM, at least an hour after the first sighting occurred and their mission ended at 10:30PM after they dropped the flares. source Flares were dropped at 10PM SW of Phoenix, far away from the path on the map and the solid object sightings were at least two hours earlier. This strongly suggests that the Operation Snowbird training mission was not what people were witnessing in the Phoenix area and were not the v-shaped formation of lights in the theory.

Your theory which isn't technically your theory since it has been suggested years ago does not hold. You can refer to my previous posts as well. This is still not solved.

edit on 9-2-2015 by NYCUltra because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-2-2015 by NYCUltra because: typos/formatting

posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 02:39 PM
a reply to: _BoneZ_

Thanks for the response. You seem 100% certain. I know when I've looked into other "classic" cases that there usually are two sides to the story. With always at least a tiny element of doubt left over. That doesn't mean it was aliens just that all the information doesn't quite fit together perfectly to jump to a definitive conclusion.

However I have never gone into this case in depth. I remember it when it happened, I've read about it a bit and also seen a couple of documentaries. I could never work out Symington's crawl out from the woodwork years later to admit he'd seen the "object". Could be he was really being truthful but who trusts a politician to tell the truth?

Anyway - good of series of threads!

posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 03:29 PM
a reply to: _BoneZ_

Hey BoneZ

I appreciate all the work you have put into this.

Where did you draw your source material from for the witness accounts you used in the map?


posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 08:36 PM
It looks like the Phoenix Lights mystery remains unsolved, while this thread has been laid to rest.

posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 07:23 AM
a reply to: NYCUltra

Excellent points, clear and concise.
The fact that the OP couldn't reply to them shows that the case is still unsolved.

posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 08:20 AM
a reply to: Iamnotadoctor

Failing to reply due to having a life, other responsibilities, and just plain forgetting due to aforementioned responsibilities, doesn't make the case automatically unsolved. And it's foolish to even imply such a thing.

I guess I'll have to spell it out again:


Everyone who used binoculars or telescopes to view the vee-shaped "craft" saw it as separate aircraft or points of light that did not make up a solid object (stars could be seen between the points of light.


There is only one known image/video in existence of the vee-shaped "craft", and it shows separate objects.


There are no images or videos of an alleged solid vee-shaped object.


There was a solid vee-shaped object that flew over Arizona that was over a mile-wide.

There is absolutely zero proof that such an object flew over Arizona that evening. And all available evidence points to that vee-shaped object being a formation of planes. It has been proven time and time again that witness testimony is quite faulty without any corroborating evidence. Since there is none:

Every witness witness claiming to see a solid object can only be believed based on faith alone.

Sorry, but those of us in the scientific/research community do not base things off of faith. For those that would rather ignore evidence and instead believe in unsubstantiated faith, that is their choice and opinion. But choosing unsubstantiated faith over documented evidence does not make a case still unsolved for anyone but themselves, and doesn't change or make the available evidence "disappear".

edit on 23-10-2015 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 09:38 AM
a reply to: _BoneZ_

Nice little quick copy and paste there, but you didn't address any of NYCUltra's points in their posts on this page. Those points and issues are what I was referring to.
It is odd that to me that you didn't respond to that member's posts/points back in February this year, but responded to my post within an hour.
That makes me think that NYCUltra's points/issues may have had you at a loss for an explanation.

posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 10:14 AM

originally posted by: Iamnotadoctor
Nice little quick copy and paste there

Care to show where it was copy/pasted from? Since you can't: Credibility points= -1.

originally posted by: Iamnotadoctor
you didn't address any of NYCUltra's points in their posts on this page

Their points were addressed in this thread, the Part 1 thread, and all over the internet with other peoples' research. Rehashing them over and over won't make someone understand or comprehend.

You can lead a person to water, but you can't make them drink it.

originally posted by: Iamnotadoctor
It is odd that to me that you didn't respond to that member's posts/points back in February this year

I already explained why in my previous post when you already made the claim. I didn't see those posts until you resurrected this thread.

You got anything meaningful to share on this subject, or are you here just to call people out?

edit on 23-10-2015 by _BoneZ_ because: formatting

posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 10:22 AM

originally posted by: _BoneZ_

originally posted by: mirageman

I'd like to ask you to be brutally honest and say whether any pieces of the evidence you've found don't quite add up?

There's nothing that doesn't add up with this case for me. The only thing of concern is the number of people who think they saw a solid object.

Agreed, that's always been a puzzle -- but fortunately, accidental spaceflight events have provided double-blind perceptual calibration experiments that show how eagerly witnesses CAN and often DO misinterpret a swarm of bright lights in the night sky as a large structured object.

Here's my draft study on this surprisiong and anti-common-sense assessment:

posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 10:30 AM
a reply to: _BoneZ_

Ok, if you believe that all the explanations are out there on the net that explain those points then have a nice day.

posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 12:33 PM

originally posted by: JimOberg
Here's my draft study on this surprisiong and anti-common-sense assessment:
Great article!

Some people put way too much faith in human perception and don't understand all the ways we can mis-perceive things. Scientists who study human perception know this but apparently the general public doesn't. Some people might claim that there must have been 9 different motherships in the sky at the same time as the less alien observations made by others, because they believe what everyone saw couldn't be in error:

However people with an open mind will at least consider that all nine of those observations can be understood not in terms of the witnesses lying or fabricating, but in exercising our "pattern recognition" abilities. That's what we do, look for patterns. We see faces in rocks on other planets and shapes in clouds, and potentially motherships when we see a bunch of lights in the sky.

But some people want to believe so badly that the witnesses can't be this much off that they conclude there must have been multiple extraordinary events at the same time, instead of the Occam's razor conclusion that one event explains all these disparate and not perfectly consistent witness observations. I saw that happen in the Yukon case...some people still think there was a mothership. But the open minded people will consider the occams razor option.

That case is a good example of how we can "connect the dots" and why we shouldn't think any less of witnesses who do that, they're only human. But we shouldn't take their observations at face value either...they need to be interpreted in light of human perception science.

posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 01:08 PM
a reply to: Arbitrageur
I wonder though, is this more of a distortion of memory rather than a distortion of perception? There could be witnesses that observed lights but over time "remember" details. Just curious, do we know how long it was after the event that the pictures were drawn?

And to be fair, we don't really know how people do react when giant spaceships of unknown origin do a fly by. Its sort of like doing a study where the participants receive a placebo only and nobody gets the actual drug. So I'm sort of holding out that this was the experiment to fill in that gap
edit on 23-10-2015 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)

<< 1    3 >>

log in