First Clear Evidence on "Phoenix Lights"?

These two Articles, interviewing Col. Brian Fields, (USAF), and showing clear, digital photographs of Objects over Arkansas, are, to me, the most intriguing publicized evidence so far of UFOs inside the atmosphere. Some good food for discussion, here!



The photos takes by Col. Fields are the most convincing ground photos I have seen yet. That they were taken by an ranking Officer and Pilot with 32 years of experience in the USAF just lends loads to their overall credibility.
Even more interestingly, the "orbs" bear a striking resemblance to the objects photographed by NASA Shuttles, and shown in the David Sereda's movie "Evidence".
Both articles (below) have pics and are startling, a MUST Read!!

Related News Links:
www.wnd.com
www.wnd.com
video.google.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Confessions of a Area 51 employee
Breaking News: NASA tracking object near shuttle!
UFO�s Prominent in Space.

[edit on 22-1-2007 by Ed Littlefox]

Some out of focus lights are the best evidence? HArdly. The origional pics and vids I've seen of the phoenix lights are much better than these. The ones in those link you provide could just be out of focus christmas lights.

Sesfan--

Going in the Door-- please understand that this is NOT a "disagreement", or an "argument" with, your statement, as it is as valid as any other.

These pictures, indeed,"could be" a lot of things, but, I believe they are what they are, owing to the credibility of the photographer/witness. More specifically, I find it hard to believe that a Command-grade USAF Officer with a substantially good record and fine career as a fighter pilot would suddenly desire to perpetrate a Hoax. Secondly, we must begin to understand at some point, providing that what we are seeing is of off-planet origin, that what we are witnessing may represent a technology we are not capable of reproducing, or even imagining, at this point in human history and science. Yet, at the same time, I believe that Science is, at least, approaching the possibilities; possibilities that would explain why these, and so many other, pictures are "fuzzy". To be brief, chalk that up to a combination of "nerves" and the limits of our present photographic technology.

Seagulls? Weather Balloons? Unconventional Military Aircraft? Optical Illusions? Earth Lights? Oh, I am absolutely sure that these will explain 90 or even 95% of "sightings". That doesn't interest me. Whats DOES interest me is the 10% proved to be "none of the above". Skepticism is fine, provided it isn't self-serving and doesn't toss the baby out with the bath water. Educated and well disciplined skepticism is one of the two driving forces of scientific research. It has it's place, as does any other form of advocacy.