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.


The "Phoenix Lights" from 1997??

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 08:02 AM

Originally posted by Tiloke
They didnt burnout after 2 or 3 minutes, they decnded behind the mountain range.... I am searching now but i saw on UFO files, (i think) that when you overlay the mountain range on the nightime video , ALL of the flares dissapear when the get to the top horizenline of the mountains. Since they are behind the mountains , we can use them to get a general hight assumption. I do not know how high those mauntains were , but ill bet about 3000ish feet, just a guess dont yell at me. When the flares start they are alittle more than double the hight of the mountains so 6000ish feet. that means that they could indeed have been that high.

Well from the video the OP posted, I didn't see a mountain, so I guess if there was a mountain it could be correct, and would explain the dimming effect. I need to see the daytime overlay I guess.

Originally posted by Tiloke
I think its your numbers..
Using your number A flare would have to be dropped at 9000 feet to blow up before it hit the ground, but that cant be right because they are no good above 2000, right? You know theres are more than one kind of aircraft illumflare, right?

I meant that the LUU-2 flares do not light up the ground very much above 2000 feet. It would be useless to deploy them at what seems to be 10,000+ feet shown in the video.

Originally posted by Tiloke
If they had 2 or 300 men out searching for something they might not have NVGs on anyways. I assume you were a real seal, so you know as well as me that its pretty hard to get nvg issued if your not deployed.....

I wasn't talking about NVG's for the ground troops, I was talking about the NVG used by the pilots them self. Usually pilots use the flares so that the pilots them self can see the ground for bombing runs, or other reasons. If a search group was out, they would carry their own illumination flares. As a note, I have never been deployed at night without NVG's, but I'm sure we have different accessibility.

---upon watching the video further, I'm starting to think they are flares---

[edit on 23-8-2006 by LAES YVAN]

posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 08:40 AM
Wow, thi argument went way better than our last one LAES. I hope i was polite.
And dont forget the frlares they were dropping were propbably just dropped so the military would have a halfway good cover story and it didnt matter what height they were at. In fact they might have even dropped them higher than normal so more people could see them and say" Those people are crazy, those are just flares...."

I hope your not dumber for reading this...

posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 09:01 AM
heh, yeah we didn't insult each other.

Also, there is video of some unexplainable lights during that phoenix night. Maybe they were trying to make excuses with proof.

posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 10:08 AM
Oh for CRIPES sake...why is the title of this thread that the Phoenix lights are FINALLY EXPLAINED, which I was hoping to read, but you come out asking people which theory they think is true???

One of my pet peeves.

Thanks for your time.

posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 11:08 AM
From the best consolidation of the previous thousand threads
the consensus seems to agree that:

there were many legitmate sightings, and so the military had to cover them up, by doing a poorly coordinated flare drop just after nightfall...
(the now famous "red lights slowly going out" video was flares)
there is much more daytime video of the Phoenix lights though... (not the flares, but the real deal)

from all across Arizona that day, there is daytime footage that shows craft of a unidentified nature (but much less clear than the flares were, hence the more common flare video being used as support)

perfect way to cause confusion about a legit sighting... and perhaps we will never have a FINAL answer due to that, but I do...
for the daytime sightings, just add "daytime" in quotes to the search terms phoenix lights...

posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 11:11 AM
At least they put the weather balloon stories to rest.

Actually, i believe Lazarusthelong is correct. Two for the price of one.

posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 11:21 AM
Thanx for taking up the struggle this thread. The mountain range footage overlay is one of the key points. I cannot stand hearing how they were "over the city", when these things were provably miles away.

Then you have Dilettoso doing his "spectral analysis" of the tapes saying they arent flares.

"I"m a scientist." Dilettoso said on that particular show. I laughed so hard tears were running down my face.

He's no scientist...not even close. As spectral analysis is impossible to do on tape. 100% physically impossible.

Dilettoso is one of the reasons the flare drop has gotten the press of being a UFO, or "unknown". He's a clown. Has been for years. This is the guy who "authenticated" the Meier photos....go that oughtta seal it for ya.

In case anyone wants to see the truth of the story on Dilettoso, read here...

It's the article that should have put Dilettoso out of the UFO business, but unfortunately these people are resilient, and many dont ever check out who they really are.

posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 11:56 AM
I know this is Rense,
But they coordinated most of the DAYLIGHT phoenix sighting info into his page here
so just think of Rense as the blogger, and not the origin...

daylight video and pics

posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 11:56 AM
They were Flares

I saw it on a Documentary where a Video Expert took a photo in Daylight from the Exact location of the Filmd video and Overlayed it with the Video. and the Lights(Flares) Disapeared Exactaly as they hit the top of the Mountain range,

So in my opinion its Game over,

Game over man! ...Knock it off Hudson.

posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 12:06 PM
Flares are not visible in the dark. Flares don't reflect light. Flares are used for radar signals, not for visible light.

Who ever introduced flares into the equation must have thought we are all ignorant.

posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 12:48 PM
"Flares are not visible in the dark",

That sounds pretty stupid to me, would you like some pics of flares in the dark?

or maybe your thinking of some other type of flare.
the flares I know, giv off there own light.

posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 01:37 PM
I was in the Army for eight years, and I've seen the A-10 a few times. More importantly, I've heard the A-10 a few times. It has a very loud and distinct sound. Scary loud. It is an unmistakeable hellish roar that puts the fear of God in the enemy. You can hear it for miles. Were there any reports of this with the Phoenix Lights?

posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 02:02 PM
Here is the link to the video with the witnesses

All of these people must be on acid, right? Give me a fcking break, flares....

Our government lies to us, just get over it. ETVs are real.

posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 02:11 PM
I haven't decided one way or another - but maybe someone can answer the one thought I had about the flares possibility ..... if they were flares with parachutes -- wouldn't flare remnants and little parachutes be found by someone??

I know where I live if the Coast Guard is doing flare exercises they put it out over the airways for boats etc to know that is what is happening that night. We hear it because we are boaters and also since DH is a volunteer fireman and also on the Rescue Squad and Water Rescue Squad and they work closely with the Coast guard at times - we have a scanner that picks up the Coast Guard. I realize that these exercises are far enough out to sea that it isn't seen onshore and that it isn't broadcast on the radio or television to let people know - but they do make a point to announce it to the people who might see it.

posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 03:30 PM
LOL OMG Jrritzman didnt me and you also get in an argument ?

And to clarify, I think there was a legitimate UFO event that took place over a couple of days over pheonix. However, the most famous video of the incident, depicting 4 or 5 or 6 lights against the night sky is only a video of a flare drop from an UNKNOWN(I dont know why everyone says A-10) aircraft for unknown purpises.

[edit on 23-8-2006 by Tiloke]

posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 03:32 PM

Originally posted by masterp
Flares are not visible in the dark. Flares don't reflect light. Flares are used for radar signals, not for visible light.

Who ever introduced flares into the equation must have thought we are all ignorant.

You have got to be kidding with that statement. Please tell me your kidding.

These are illumination flares. You gonna tell me flares used back in WWII to give soldiers light for night attacks arent visible in the dark? Please.

Trent is 100% correct, these flares dropped behind the mountain range by virtue of seeing the overlay of the daylight and nightime footage. It's that easy.

I seriously doubt anyone would have heard any plane that many miles away at that altitude, AND across a city. Nope.

posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 03:57 PM
Ok, I just got off the phone with MD National Guard HQ (who according to the media, were reponsible for the flare drop).

This was an operation known as SnowBird, that took place over Goldwater Gunnery Range. I'll be calling MD Air National Guard relations next, and speaking to those who can explain what Snowbird is, if possible, and why the delay in coming forward in saying the flares belonged to them. I will say though, that the 175th Wing seemes to fall under several layers of chains of commands, so I'm not surprised no one knew what the story was initially.

I was also told by the officer I spoke to that A-10's would not be heard across the city, nor most likely even from the top of the mountain range at such altitudes.

I'll see what else I can get.

posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 04:01 PM

Originally posted by masterp
Flares are not visible in the dark. Flares don't reflect light. Flares are used for radar signals, not for visible light.

Who ever introduced flares into the equation must have thought we are all ignorant.

Seems to me 1,800,000 candle power is a LOT of light for a flare that isn't supposed to put off light. I bet you could see those a long ways away.

I wouldn't doubt that they did indeed drop the flares as a coverup.

Also according to what I've read about these particular flares, they burn Magnesium, which would be a white light and not a red one. Also, I think if the distance was far enough, you wouldn't see the "explosive bolt" that is to seperate the parachute.

I remember when I was younger, my uncle worked on the pipeline and they use magnesium for something or other, I think seeling pipes or something. He brought a big chunk of this home with him, and we threw it in a fire. After about 15 minutes it started burning, and it was amazingly bright, it hurt your eyes it was so bright. This was out in the country and it lit up a HUGE area. I could easily see the trees across a 20 acre field, it was almost like daylight. Little off topic but that's my experience with Magnesium :p

[edit on 23-8-2006 by Ecidemon]

posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 04:09 PM
Please change the title of this thread, for the 'Pheonix Lights' is not yet fully explained, and you don't have to put 'finally' in your title too, I mean the roswell case is almost 60 years old and in all the threads that think they got the explanation, they don't put the word 'finally' (although they should...) the pheonix case is only going on its 10th year anniversary so be a little more patient (within your title, of course) besides that, I believe there was something that night over Pheonix, and i don't think it was only flares. Does someone have a daylight picture of this area? for comparison, if so, please share.


posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 05:15 PM
I am no expert with photoshop but I found this pic

converted the flv file from youtube to avi and layered this image over the top for every frame getting the dimensions right (ie lights from buildings and the hill in the foreground) and found the lights dont disappear behind the hills they go in front of them then disappear so whatever they/it was dont seem to go behind the hills.
you can try it yourself and see with this screen shot just before they get to the hilside. just use photoshop to layer the image over the other with 50% opacity then line everything up.

I might be doing this all wrong but it seems to look right.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in