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.

 

Phoenix Lights:1 big craft or multiple objects

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by apex
The thing is, how difficult would it be to make such a massive craft if its that big. Think how much it would weigh!
It would take so much energy to hold up. and it was silent. That is seriously advanced technology.


Fact;

Hindenburg
year built: 1936
length: 804 feet
diameter: 135 feet
max cross section: 14,300 square feet
gas volume: 7,062,000 cubic feet
gross lift: 242.2 tons
structure weight: 130.1 tons
useful lift: 112.1 tons
speed: 85 mph
technology: 1920's
difficulty level: easy



Speculation;

USAF Stealth Blimp
year built: 1986
length: 3216 feet
diameter: n/a (wing shape)
avg cross section: 14,300 square feet
gas volume: 28,248,000 cubic feet
gross lift: 968.8 tons
structure weight: >520.4 tons
useful lift:




posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 10:22 AM
link   
The stealth blimp..............greatest military invention in history.


1) Not very stealthy.
2) You obviously wouldn't have a problem hitting it with a SAM or AAC AAC.
3) What's the point?

Peace



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by nullster

I very much look forward to your convincing video footage that will counter the conclusions made on those two shows. This is what ATS needs, People who can "Walk the Walk" not just "Talk and Talk". I look forward to your video and clear demonstration that debunks the demonstrations on those shows.


[edit on 20-1-2006 by nullster]


several UFO programs are actually pathetic attempts to give disinfo- many times being the unique voice(s) of skeptiscism...

I dont know what programs you watched, but I would ignore the info they presented, since they directly contradict hundreds of eyewitness testimony...
Hummm really- how surprising... that someone would want to explain away the largest sighting in the last 20 years...(WONDER WHO? mmmm maybe SATAN?-not)

Nullster, you asked for the pics of the daylight Phoenix UFO's (not the flare pics that everyone else presented)
I broke ATS rules to post the link... and you ignored it... YOU are choosing ignorance my friend. I tried...

If you really want to see what the ufos that appeared earlier that day across much of arizona, then please go back and find my link...
as far as I know... it is the only daylight documentation from that day... (that was allowed to see the light of day)

I hope it answers your questions, because it is perhaps the only daylight proof we have of a SEPARATE EARLIER incident...

Do you see how effective the flare dropping technique worked now? it got everyone so confused, that most STILL do not realize there were two SEPARATE incidents...

IMO that the person who said the object was so big, it blocked out the stars was a victim of the illusion that bright objects can cause at night, combined with the illusion of "connecting the dots" to form a "solid" form.
He seems to be the lone witness who believes the earlier sighting was of a huge ship... all the others I found said there were several of normal size. which seems to be the consistancy...

Now several people seem to think the night sighting was of a huge ship- it was flares pure and simple.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 11:18 AM
link   
LazarusTheLong - Demonstrations that can Help" to explain a phenomenon can not be classified as "disinformation". Since they can be reproduced, they can help an investigation.

As for your daylight photos, I spared you a response the 1st time around. But here it goes now.

You're kidding right? You mean those low res pixilated photos you linked to on a commercial UFO site. You would accept a "sales" page over repeatable experiments by two seperate independant sources. You ask me to be ignorant of a practical experiments and only accept an obvious commercial UFO sales pitch in "Blind faith"?

I am free from the trappings of being a believer. I am curious and enjoy strange phenomenon, but it is not my life. I am open to objective, level headed, rational discussion about it. I look at all the evidence and make informed conclusions. That's were people get rubbed the wrong way. To them testimonials are more important than verifiable evidence. Simple as that. That kind of passion clouds objectivety.

I dont know what programs you watched, but I would ignore the info they presented. You don't even know the shows but you dismiss them out of hand as disinfo. You want to choose to ignore all the presented evidence from all sides that's up to you. If someone suggests something that goes against your beliefs, they are lieing/wrong/disinfo. Tell me What is ignorance?



[edit on 24-1-2006 by nullster]



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Fine-
I was trying to be freindly... you are just ignoring the facts...
You still seem to be insisting that there was one incident.

I showed you a website that has the only daylight pics i could find of the original incident that was reported during the day to various radio stations in the area....

If you noticed... these pics are his major claim to fame... so of course he is selling them... and the video...
I prefer to have my witnesses be "not stupid" which is what this guy would be, if he allowed free downloads of the best evidence...

and yes, they were pixellated
and yes, they were not the best quality...
and yes, if you still think they are just white daylight flares, gallavanting around the sky, then you are blind, and i give up...

that was the point you wanted, was it not?
to see ANY pics of ufos that day/locallity, that were NOT flares...
well
like i said. i delivered...
You are welcome

advice to others- dont bother... nothing will convince some people...
and i wasn't even trying to convince nullster, but just prove there were 2 incidents... which i did...

balls in his court...
prove that those daylight white flying objects were flares now...
please



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Theox
Fact;

Hindenburg
year built: 1936
length: 804 feet
diameter: 135 feet
max cross section: 14,300 square feet
gas volume: 7,062,000 cubic feet
gross lift: 242.2 tons
structure weight: 130.1 tons
useful lift: 112.1 tons
speed: 85 mph
technology: 1920's
difficulty level: easy

Speculation;

USAF Stealth Blimp
year built: 1986
length: 3216 feet
diameter: n/a (wing shape)
avg cross section: 14,300 square feet
gas volume: 28,248,000 cubic feet
gross lift: 968.8 tons
structure weight: >520.4 tons
useful lift:



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 08:06 AM
link   
please delete!

[edit on 25-1-2006 by Dr X]



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Anyone ask the MD Air National Guard about the incident? Not just the Commanding officers, I mean maybe trying to dig up someone who was actually involved in the flare drop?

I have a couple family members at the Martin base, I'll see if they can find anyone willing to say.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Blimps will always be of interest for defense. There are a few prototypes and designs making the rounds. Interesting enough, "Heavier than Air".
So some of the designs are not the light blow away in the wind variety.
Heavy Lift Blimps 1
Heavy Lift Blimps 2

It is (the Walrus) intended to carry a payload of more than 500 tons 12,000 nautical miles in less than seven days at a competitive cost. Additionally, Walrus will be capable of performing theater lift and supporting sea-basing and persistence missions to meet a range of multi-Service needs.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 12:34 PM
link   
I've done a quick examination of the witness testimonies that I could easily find and plotted there locations on a Map of Arizona.

It is clear to me that an A-10 dropping flares can not explain all of the sightings on the night in question.

You can see from the map here that witness' are spread over a large swath of the State. The object/s traveled from Northwest to Southeast over a period of time.



Blue dots : Location of witnesses.



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 06:53 AM
link   
There is an obvious line there from Area 51 and that surrounding test area if you extrapolate the path of that line there!



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 08:25 AM
link   
these so called ufo lights (well the terms correct - unidentified flying objects)- well they where unidentified - until it was considered they where infact flares from aircraft. Thats what i saw on discovery science anyway. Does this help at all?



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 07:05 AM
link   
That explanation was used on pages 1 and 2 of this discussion, and that was for the other incident, but flares cannot fly in a perfect V formation over a city at about 40 mph. If you can explain how they could do that, I would be very impressed.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by apex
That explanation was used on pages 1 and 2 of this discussion, and that was for the other incident, but flares cannot fly in a perfect V formation over a city at about 40 mph. If you can explain how they could do that, I would be very impressed.


the flares had chutes - humid evening, hence no wind i guess..about 40 mph decent i would imagine. As for the v shape consistency, look at the night sky - stars arnt really aligned, there seperated by something called "angular seperation". their infact millions of light years apart - therefore i beleive these flares looked like in a v but maybe they werent its dependable on your location to these "objects" .





[edit on 27-1-2006 by Im a true sceptic]



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Im a true sceptic - Aside from the practical tests, various people are not phased by practical explanations which is fine. The Skeptic rule cuts both ways.

More important to note is that Phoenix is not some small hick town in the sticks. Looking over the expanse of a city an Unidentified Flying Object is "Unidentified". For those closer to the " Object" or "Objects", they can be more readily identified and do not hasten a "Get the camera" reaction.

One thing I'll note is statements like "a Hotbed of UFO activety", "Numerous Sightings", Various Eyewitness Accounts, Multiple sightings over X number of Nights, Large vehicles 200 or more yards long moving at about 40mph. Are all those statements some form of dramatic license?

If this was happening as described, why are there so few videos and images? These things are slow as mollasses and as big as a city block moving over a large city. How could the city the size of Phoenix not provide a deluge of photographic and video evidence? If the sightings were occuring with regularity, why aren't the people more prepared?

I can assure you if this was happening over my city I would have a video camera and various digital cameras at the ready. My compact camera and cell phone with me at all times. And I am a skeptic. Why are people who want others to believe so ill equiped?


[edit on 27-1-2006 by nullster]



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 03:46 PM
link   



More important to note is that Phoenix is not some small hick town in the sticks. Looking over the expanse of a city an Unidentified Flying Object is "Unidentified". For those closer to the " Object" or "Objects", they can be more readily identified and do not hasten a "Get the camera" reaction.


You sure do make a lot of assumptions here.

You assume that people who got a good look at the object could easily ID it. You assume that people would have had camera's and would stop staring at something "Unidentified" to go get their cameras. Or that people would even have their own "Get the Camera" reaction that you think you would have had in that situation.

Not to mention it is in direct conflict with the actual people who say it flew over their homes.



If this was happening as described, why are there so few videos and images? These things are slow as mollasses and as big as a city block moving over a large city. How could the city the size of Phoenix not provide a deluge of photographic and video evidence? If the sightings were occuring with regularity, why aren't the people more prepared?


What do you use to judge the number of Pictures and video's? Your own personal expectations.

Look at September 11, 2001, that event you'll note that while Airliners smashed into the Trade Center in down town New York City and millions of people looked on in the streets with Hundreds of Sirens and Buildings crashing down there really aren't that many pictures. Many that we have are from News crews , and that happened in broad daylight at 9:00am.

And after 9-11 we had the government coming out and pleading for everyone who had pictures or video to turn it in so it could be analyzed in the interests of National Security.






[edit on 27-1-2006 by lost_shaman]



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr X
Hi All,

OK I put the file on putfile

media.putfile.com...






thanks for the video...

betcha, someone had a camera while they were at Papago Park,
there's a local landmark there called "Hole in the Rock"

...use your imagination on what was going on at night up there.
i know that some daredevil people liked to ride their mountain bikes at the park, including night time.



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by nullster
Im a true sceptic - Aside from the practical tests, various people are not phased by practical explanations which is fine. The Skeptic rule cuts both ways.

More important to note is that Phoenix is not some small hick town in the sticks. Looking over the expanse of a city an Unidentified Flying Object is "Unidentified". For those closer to the " Object" or "Objects", they can be more readily identified and do not hasten a "Get the camera" reaction.

One thing I'll note is statements like "a Hotbed of UFO activety", "Numerous Sightings", Various Eyewitness Accounts, Multiple sightings over X number of Nights, Large vehicles 200 or more yards long moving at about 40mph. Are all those statements some form of dramatic license?

If this was happening as described, why are there so few videos and images? These things are slow as mollasses and as big as a city block moving over a large city. How could the city the size of Phoenix not provide a deluge of photographic and video evidence? If the sightings were occuring with regularity, why aren't the people more prepared?

I can assure you if this was happening over my city I would have a video camera and various digital cameras at the ready. My compact camera and cell phone with me at all times. And I am a skeptic. Why are people who want others to believe so ill equiped?


[edit on 27-1-2006 by nullster]



Well us skeptics are a tuff breed to satisfy (we even have a stigma akin to witches in the dark ages) - standfast nullster, we do a spendid job in exposing the wheat from the chaff - its lonely in skeptic land.

I saw a program on this siting along time ago - maybe and even then i had decided , to me anyway the evidence and the debunking was quite credible. If i was honest, i found this probably one of the most over blown pieces of knee jerk reaction, and found the program very boring. If the more astute watchers of this siting would have noticed these "lights/flares/alien mothership lights" do actually go behind the mountain peaks at diferent times - which to me atleast does tell that this was anything other then several lights/flares decending independantly of each other.

I think people will see whatever fancible things they will want to see.
Ive only ever seen three ufo vids that i can honestly say keep my interest in ufology these days these are :-

(a) vids that get shown by nasa by mistake/intentional


(1) and recently there was a new siting - funny enough over pheonix? its the saucer shape thing that has a shimmering pattern on its side, it looks as if it has windows revolving around it. Think this was only about 4 months ago - it was in broad daylight ..gestimations range from several hundred feet - to several miles in length , and at about 47 thousand feet altitude.

(2) then theres that high altitude silver triangle film from russia - think its dated at 1987 or close to that date. - some have put forward a good explanation for this :- french weather baloon. - i like this film, does look like aurora or an early prototye.


(3) then theres that film over arizona , circa 1960`s
its the mountain range with the saucer moving across these peaks. Looks awesome , similar to a blimp - but it does look like a ufo/saucer side on - it moves very casual - almost as if it was showing off.

thats about it.








[edit on 28-1-2006 by Im a true sceptic]



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
The person who has the best video footage of the daylight sightings has of course cashed in on this, by offering the video for money...

but, if in the interests of information gathering and presenting evidence, it is hopeful that the mods will please forgive this totally unconnected link, to a website selling something, so that you can see at least some pics (which are free) of the daylight sightings...

pics of the daylight phoenix lights


those daylight pics look like high flying seagulls or ducks, could be swans.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 03:38 PM
link   
i lived in phoenix, az for the past 20 years, i was about 14 or so when i saw the lights over phoenix, i know what i saw, and they were not even close to being flares



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join