Phoenix Lights - UFO witness summary (11/3/2015)

a reply to: JimOberg

I agree with you on your study of the fireball swarms. Human perception is not at all intuitive or as clear cut as we generally think.

However, I do see some differences with regards to the Phoenix case. In your study of the fireball swarms, I believe you get about a 50/50 split with some seeing fireballs and others seeing craft. If we are to believe the reports in the Phoenix case, it seems to lean heavily towards the perception of a structured craft.

Also with your study, fireball swarms are an extremely rare event where A10s are pretty common. I have seen them at air shows. Wouldn't we expect to see more events like this?

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: JimOberg

I agree with you on your study of the fireball swarms. Human perception is not at all intuitive or as clear cut as we generally think.

I'm confident I could differentiate between the Leonids and the Goodyear blimp floating 100ft overhead, but that's just me.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: JimOberg

I agree with you on your study of the fireball swarms. Human perception is not at all intuitive or as clear cut as we generally think.

Thanks. My biggest surprise was the realization that this does not represent a 'malfunction' of the human perceptual process, but its baseline, desirable functioning. Identification of visual stimuli must be delivered rapidly enough to provide time, in case of mortal danger [or food access], to react constructively when split-seconds count. Run way, or grab it -- right now.

Based on past perceptions, jumbled and incomplete visual clues are automatically matched against most expectable interpretations. A successful system leads to organisms that avoid being eaten, or alternately, eat well.

Such a system can't WAIT for 'certainty', it must be hair-trigger to actionable interpretations -- and this inevitably will lead to 'false positives' It's not a 'bug', it's a 'feature', as software geeks preach.

This is acceptable because 'false positives' are usually LOW cost -- run away when you didn't have to, grab at something that isn't there. Some lost energy, some embarrassment. No big deal.

'False negatives', however -- NOT reacting while still uncertain -- can have extremely serious consequences. You can wind up as tiger turds. Or at least, very, very hungry, and weakened.

So both through evolution [who lives long enough to procreate] and life training [what specific significant visual objects you're used to], our autonomous perceptual system serves up to our conscious minds a vivid perception that provides survival-positive interpretations and reactions.

It's not stupid people, or children, or the drunk or mentally impaired, who exemplify this process. It's the most intelligent, experienced, and educated. Because the process is in general over the long run survival-positive.

But it does have second-order consequences, and sometimes seeing a giant UFO 'mother ship' when you're watching a silent pattern of bright lights pass across the sky could well be one of those consequences.

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: JimOberg

I agree with you on your study of the fireball swarms. Human perception is not at all intuitive or as clear cut as we generally think.

I'm confident I could differentiate between the Leonids and the Goodyear blimp floating 100ft overhead, but that's just me.

We're not talking about scattered random meteors flying off at different angles -- we're talking a GROUP of bright lights moving in formation.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
.... , I do see some differences with regards to the Phoenix case. In your study of the fireball swarms, I believe you get about a 50/50 split with some seeing fireballs and others seeing craft. If we are to believe the reports in the Phoenix case, it seems to lean heavily towards the perception of a structured craft. ...

That's a good point. But the unknown factor is how many people report which of the two alternate interpretations, and how many calls would typically come in about something witnesses considered routine? Wouldn't you EXPECT a self-filtering selection of the weirdest interpretations to dominate among the people who decide to call in?

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
... Also with your study, fireball swarms are an extremely rare event where A10s are pretty common. I have seen them at air shows. Wouldn't we expect to see more events like this?
....

Good point, let's think about that.

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: JimOberg

I agree with you on your study of the fireball swarms. Human perception is not at all intuitive or as clear cut as we generally think.

I'm confident I could differentiate between the Leonids and the Goodyear blimp floating 100ft overhead, but that's just me.

We're not talking about scattered random meteors flying off at different angles -- we're talking a GROUP of bright lights moving in formation.

Kind of an early Hyneckian splain nation.


Someone describing the surface of a low flying object in detail would have to be lying on multiple levels if that were the case.

And I still could tell.


I recall an episode of that old TV series Project Bluebook where the proposed explanation was a formation of ducks flying into a power line.

originally posted by: JimOberg

We're not talking about scattered random meteors flying off at different angles -- we're talking a GROUP of bright lights moving in formation.

All fair enough regarding natural response etc but my point was that they were a group moving in formation. Even if not in close formation 5 planes at 17,000 ft would take up, at a guess, a maximum space in the sky equivalent to a football held at arms length.

With nothing to relate to in the Proctor video it is impossible to tell, and I'm not aware he ever made reference to size, but where they were identified through binoculars or telescope they were said to occupy 1 degree of sky. Mistaking that for something low that is hundreds of metres wide seems to me to be another thing altogether.

With the Kiev case or others were there also any massive differences in estimates of size ?

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

a reply to: JimOberg



I agree with you on your study of the fireball swarms. Human perception is not at all intuitive or as clear cut as we generally think.

I'm confident I could differentiate between the Leonids and the Goodyear blimp floating 100ft overhead, but that's just me.

We're not talking about scattered random meteors flying off at different angles -- we're talking a GROUP of bright lights moving in formation.

Kind of an early Hyneckian splain nation.





Someone describing the surface of a low flying object in detail would have to be lying on multiple levels if that were the case.



And I still could tell.



I recall an episode of that old TV series Project Bluebook where the proposed explanation was a formation of ducks flying into a power line.

OK, are you making the argument that the 1963 Kiev witnesses who described a detailed structured object while they were actually seeing the satellite reentry were lying? What's your explanation for their detailed descriptions?

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

You aren't doing that yourself though.Not if you feel your opinion is better than eyewitnesses

My opinion is not better than the eyewitnesses but it is different to theirs , it's also based on years of interest in the case where as theirs is based on a short sighting and the recollections of .
I was once a Phoenix Lights supporter , looking at all of the available evidence changed that position.
Most people now accept the actual Phoenix Lights were flares so the mystery has shifted to the first incident , the one that wasn't well documented with video although a largely ignored video does exist of it.

To come in here and act like you can do that is embarrassing for all to see.

I'm as entitled to my opinion as any of you are yours , embarrassing or not I believe it to be true.

I don't care how popular you are Gortex

I think you'll find I'm not popular but I speak my mind and search for the truth , that's what is important to me , if ET are or have been here the truth is the only way we'll find them.

Fair enough,
As far as flares go, I know there were flares that night as well, and I saw the flares. The Governor saw the flares that night, and he also saw a structured craft much earlier than the time as the flares. There were also tons of witnesses who saw a large object long before the time of the flares that night. There are witnesses who saw the airplanes, and the flares, and a structured craft all along a specific timeline.

So it is great to have an opinion and all that, but blanket statements that pretend to be superior to testimony by credible witnesses who saw everything that night just doesn't work for me.


The military put planes up that night after the 911 boards were being inundated with panicked callers, and then had them release flares which just stayed in the one area as they descended, and I remember that night when people saw the flares, and then jokingly said "I bet they will use the flares to try and rubbish the earlier sighting of the humongous craft so many people saw right over their homes that night"

And we know they sure did..

originally posted by: chunder

originally posted by: JimOberg



We're not talking about scattered random meteors flying off at different angles -- we're talking a GROUP of bright lights moving in formation.

All fair enough regarding natural response etc but my point was that they were a group moving in formation. Even if not in close formation 5 planes at 17,000 ft would take up, at a guess, a maximum space in the sky equivalent to a football held at arms length.



With nothing to relate to in the Proctor video it is impossible to tell, and I'm not aware he ever made reference to size, but where they were identified through binoculars or telescope they were said to occupy 1 degree of sky. Mistaking that for something low that is hundreds of metres wide seems to me to be another thing altogether.



With the Kiev case or others were there also any massive differences in estimates of size ?

Seems to me you're basing your argument on your presumptions. Try to determine what the evidence is telling you, not what you're telling the evidence.

Reports from fireball swarms often describe objects tens of degrees in scale, which is commensurate with the scatter of the flaming debris objects.

I'm just intrigued by the perceptual similarities with the Phoenix lights and fireball swarms, which doesn't mean they were of the same nature -- but perhaps represent the same human perceptual pattern.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
....
As far as flares go, I know there were flares that night as well, and I saw the flares. The Governor saw the flares that night, and he also saw a structured craft much earlier than the time as the flares. There were also tons of witnesses who saw a large object long before the time of the flares that night. There are witnesses who saw the airplanes, and the flares, and a structured craft all along a specific timeline....

"There are witnesses who saw the airplanes, and the flares, and a structured craft all along a specific timeline.... "

Now THAT would be a significant thing to document. where can we check up on it? Who said that, where can we see it too?

You still seem enamored of the governor's story, have you read the detailed timeline analyses which claim to show it was absolutely impossible?

originally posted by: JimOberg

OK, are you making the argument that the 1963 Kiev witnesses who described a detailed structured object while they were actually seeing the satellite reentry were lying? What's your explanation for their detailed descriptions?

Not at all. The point I'm making is specific to the Phoenix Lights case. I don't buy the assertion that human perception is so wildly unreliable that an eyewitness would confuse the close up surface of a slow moving object with the lights of a distant jet aircraft formation. It seems like a convenient way to dismiss outlier testimony to keep from cluttering up the desired explanation. I do believe people to be capable of exaggeration or outright fabrication, but that applies to all of the witnesses involved.

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: JimOberg



OK, are you making the argument that the 1963 Kiev witnesses who described a detailed structured object while they were actually seeing the satellite reentry were lying? What's your explanation for their detailed descriptions?

Not at all. The point I'm making is specific to the Phoenix Lights case. I don't buy the assertion that human perception is so wildly unreliable that an eyewitness would confuse the close up surface of a slow moving object with the lights of a distant jet aircraft formation. It seems like a convenient way to dismiss outlier testimony to keep from cluttering up the desired explanation. I do believe people to be capable of exaggeration or outright fabrication, but that applies to all of the witnesses involved.

You don't have to buy that assertion, but you then ought to explain why in case after case people who WERE seeing only bright lights crossing the sky DID report seeing a structured object with detailed features. The common features of this reaction, across decades and continents and cultures and ages and professions, is striking. How do you assess it? Just pretend it never happened? It can't be, therefore it ISN't -- is that your argument, bluntly?

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: JimOberg



OK, are you making the argument that the 1963 Kiev witnesses who described a detailed structured object while they were actually seeing the satellite reentry were lying? What's your explanation for their detailed descriptions?

Not at all. The point I'm making is specific to the Phoenix Lights case. I don't buy the assertion that human perception is so wildly unreliable that an eyewitness would confuse the close up surface of a slow moving object with the lights of a distant jet aircraft formation. It seems like a convenient way to dismiss outlier testimony to keep from cluttering up the desired explanation. I do believe people to be capable of exaggeration or outright fabrication, but that applies to all of the witnesses involved.

"It seems like a convenient way to dismiss outlier testimony to keep from cluttering up the desired explanation".

Yes, it could be, and we both know situations where the outlier testimony was the more accurate. So it's a valid point.

But is that where the 'smart money' is? Isn't it also true that in any mass sighting case there will ALWAYS be a scattering of outlier testimony which can be justifiably disregarded if a more prosaic stimuls is also documented?

"The point I'm making is specific to the Phoenix Lights case"

Maybe that's your mistake. Don't consider it in isolation, but see if it MIGHT represent a wider perceptual pattern.

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: JimOberg



OK, are you making the argument that the 1963 Kiev witnesses who described a detailed structured object while they were actually seeing the satellite reentry were lying? What's your explanation for their detailed descriptions?

Not at all. The point I'm making is specific to the Phoenix Lights case. I don't buy the assertion that human perception is so wildly unreliable that an eyewitness would confuse the close up surface of a slow moving object with the lights of a distant jet aircraft formation. It seems like a convenient way to dismiss outlier testimony to keep from cluttering up the desired explanation. I do believe people to be capable of exaggeration or outright fabrication, but that applies to all of the witnesses involved.

You don't have to buy that assertion, but you then ought to explain why in case after case people who WERE seeing only bright lights crossing the sky DID report seeing a structured object with detailed features. The common features of this reaction, across decades and continents and cultures and ages and professions, is striking. How do you assess it? Just pretend it never happened? It can't be, therefore it ISN't -- is that your argument, bluntly?

I don't think that was my argument, as I reread what I just wrote.

The Phoenix lights case involves two such examples - seeing the distant jet formation as a "V shaped craft" and seeing the distant flares as a "boomerang shaped craft". I'm talking about the loose end witness to the close up surface of a large, slow moving craft. As I see it, and I have no dog in the hunt, there are the following possibilities:

1. She saw what she described as she described it.

2. She saw what others saw, but embellished the story.

3. She didn't see anything and lied.

I do not believe she mistook a distant arrangement of point light sources for a close up, solid craft.

a reply to: JimOberg

That's a good point. But the unknown factor is how many people report which of the two alternate interpretations, and how many calls would typically come in about something witnesses considered routine? Wouldn't you EXPECT a self-filtering selection of the weirdest interpretations to dominate among the people who decide to call in?

Yes, absolutely. People who saw planes, well, they saw planes. I live fairly close to a major airport and dont recall ever reporting planes. But after the fact if there were reports of giant spaceships, I would expect more people to come forward and say they saw planes during that time. Its possible or even likely that we don't have that information and what we are seeing is heavily biased reports.

Also, you did get drawings from people who saw and drew light swarms... How did you get that data and why wouldn't that same method work in this case?

Regarding the Symington story, here's the argument that it's imaginary:

badufos.blogspot.com...

[Sheaffer] did not realize that former Arizona governor Fife Symington's belated confession that he, too, saw the big V-shaped UFO of the Phoenix lights, ten years after the fact, was made while Fox was interviewing him. Later I had an opportunity to talk to Fox, and told him that there is good reason to believe that Symington is lying about his me-too sighting. (Symington was, after all, convicted on seven felony counts of fraud, overturned on a technicality, then pardoned by the outgoing President Clinton.) The first UFO event of the evening, the V-shaped lights (actually five Air National Guard A-10s flying in formation from Las Vegas to Tucson; Tim Printy has more about this) occurred from just before 8:00 PM until 8:45. The second event, that Fox agreed was a flare drop from different Air National Guard planes, began at 10:00 and lasted at most ten minutes. I reminded Fox that Symington claimed to have seen news coverage of the lights on TV, then went outside to look. He says he walked down to where the news crews had been filming the lights (the flare drop), and then saw the V-shape fly over, big and mysterious. However, there was no news coverage of the sightings before the planes landed about 8:45, and there could have been nobody filming the "lights" prior to 10:00, because the flares had not yet been dropped. Therefore Symington's claimed sighting occurred after 10:00, probably well after, and hence is an obvious fabrication. "No, he saw it at 8:20. It was 8:20," Fox insisted. "How could he have seen news coverage of this by 8:20?", I asked. "Maybe he heard chatter on the radio or something," Fox said. "How could there have been news crews filming this by 8:20?", I asked? Fox was having no more of this conversation. "Why would Symington have made this up?", another man asked me. "Because of the news coverage it gave him, and feature stories in which he talks about his new business ventures. It would have cost a lot to buy the publicity he got for free by claiming a UFO sighting."

Further,

In an interview on Larry King Live on CNN (July 13, 2007), Symington said:
"I was up in the sunny slope area around 8:00 at night. And I went out to look to the west where the -- all the news channels were filming the Phoenix Lights. And to my astonishment this large sort of delta-shaped, wedge-shaped, craft moved silently over the valley, over Squall Peak, dramatically large, very distinctive leading edge with some enormous lights. And it just went on down to the Southeast Valley. And I was absolutely stunned because I was turning to the west looking for the distant Phoenix Lights and all of a sudden this apparition appears."

Of course, the Phoenix Lights (flares) were not dropped until 10 PM, so nobody was filming anything at 8 PM. And if it was late enough for the news crews to be filming the flare drop, the 'giant V' was long gone.

"Oh! what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive!" - Sir Walter Scott

Tim Printy commented:

In his interview on the program "UFOs on the record", he states:

On March 13th, I was having dinner with my family and we had the TV on and I was well aware of the news about the UFO. So, I said, I am going to jump in my car and I am going to go down Lincoln drive past squaw peak and see if I can see what is going on. When I got here there were people milling around just enjoying the park. I was here for probably five or ten minute and somebody said
look at that...look at that... Out to the northwest was this great big massive craft.....

www.youtube.com...

The location given there was Sumida Park. What he is describing is having dinner, watching TV and hearing about the UFO. He then took 5 or so minutes to get in his car and drive to this location (it may have been longer but I am generous). Then we have an additional five minutes until the UFO appeared. That is a ten minute lag between being aware and then seeing the UFO. The first reports in Prescott were around 8:15 PM (according to NUFORC). Most of the witnesses (including the never mentioned/ignored Mitch Stanley) in the Phoenix area saw it between 8:20 and 8:40.

Compare this to all the other individuals who saw the event. They were all surprised by it. They had no forewarning. The media could not have broadcasted alerts on TV (for that matter on the radio since nobody else seemed to be aware of this -even those in cars!). Why should I believe Symington is telling the truth here. I wonder if anybody ever checked to see if the governor was even home that night. Who knows, he may have been at a fund raiser or working late. Inquiring minds would want to know that.

Can anybody reconcile Symington's timeline with reality?

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: JimOberg







OK, are you making the argument that the 1963 Kiev witnesses who described a detailed structured object while they were actually seeing the satellite reentry were lying? What's your explanation for their detailed descriptions?

Not at all. The point I'm making is specific to the Phoenix Lights case. I don't buy the assertion that human perception is so wildly unreliable that an eyewitness would confuse the close up surface of a slow moving object with the lights of a distant jet aircraft formation. It seems like a convenient way to dismiss outlier testimony to keep from cluttering up the desired explanation. I do believe people to be capable of exaggeration or outright fabrication, but that applies to all of the witnesses involved.

You don't have to buy that assertion, but you then ought to explain why in case after case people who WERE seeing only bright lights crossing the sky DID report seeing a structured object with detailed features. The common features of this reaction, across decades and continents and cultures and ages and professions, is striking. How do you assess it? Just pretend it never happened? It can't be, therefore it ISN't -- is that your argument, bluntly?

I don't think that was my argument, as I reread what I just wrote.



The Phoenix lights case involves two such examples - seeing the distant jet formation as a "V shaped craft" and seeing the distant flares as a "boomerang shaped craft". I'm talking about the loose end witness to the close up surface of a large, slow moving craft. As I see it, and I have no dog in the hunt, there are the following possibilities:



1. She saw what she described as she described it.



2. She saw what others saw, but embellished the story.



3. She didn't see anything and lied.



I do not believe she mistook a distant arrangement of point light sources for a close up, solid craft.

How did the Kiev witnesses -- and others like them in later repetitions -- report structured objects when they were only seeing a fireball swarm? What is this data trying to tell you?

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: JimOberg







OK, are you making the argument that the 1963 Kiev witnesses who described a detailed structured object while they were actually seeing the satellite reentry were lying? What's your explanation for their detailed descriptions?

Not at all. The point I'm making is specific to the Phoenix Lights case. I don't buy the assertion that human perception is so wildly unreliable that an eyewitness would confuse the close up surface of a slow moving object with the lights of a distant jet aircraft formation. It seems like a convenient way to dismiss outlier testimony to keep from cluttering up the desired explanation. I do believe people to be capable of exaggeration or outright fabrication, but that applies to all of the witnesses involved.

You don't have to buy that assertion, but you then ought to explain why in case after case people who WERE seeing only bright lights crossing the sky DID report seeing a structured object with detailed features. The common features of this reaction, across decades and continents and cultures and ages and professions, is striking. How do you assess it? Just pretend it never happened? It can't be, therefore it ISN't -- is that your argument, bluntly?

I don't think that was my argument, as I reread what I just wrote.



The Phoenix lights case involves two such examples - seeing the distant jet formation as a "V shaped craft" and seeing the distant flares as a "boomerang shaped craft". I'm talking about the loose end witness to the close up surface of a large, slow moving craft. As I see it, and I have no dog in the hunt, there are the following possibilities:



1. She saw what she described as she described it.



2. She saw what others saw, but embellished the story.



3. She didn't see anything and lied.



I do not believe she mistook a distant arrangement of point light sources for a close up, solid craft.

How did the Kiev witnesses -- and others like them in later repetitions -- report structured objects when they were only seeing a fireball swarm? What is this data trying to tell you?

It's telling me nothing with regards to the Phoenix witness who was reporting a CLOSE UP, SOLID OBJECT'S SURFACE.

Please re-read the points in my post without without filling in your own structure.


Ignoratio elenchi.