Science channel new show heads up called "Contact" to debut.

a reply to: JimOberg

I had heard the doubts about his change of statement and the reasoning for it, im sure, somewhere.... Ive seen/read those doubts being questioned too.
Im surprised he changed his statement at all..... I mean..... When does a change of statement ever look good. One thing i do question though, why go down the ' i saw it too' route. There was so many other ways he could have put himself in a better light after the cranky press stunt.

Its all just part of the mystery of the phoenix lights, believer or not.

heads up for new episode tonight. In one segment the team heads to Kansas to look at a very famous sighting incident that I believe was in the town of Delphos which had a landing, and where the soil was found to repel water from where the ufo landed.

a reply to: data5091

Last nights episode concerned a lot of interesting sightings around two areas of Argentina, Salta, and Bariloche, where one ufo was sighted and interacted with airline pilots as well as shut off the lights in the airport area. Possibly same ufo had a touchdown and a white powder residue was found, same as what was seen in the Delphos sighting which was another focus of another landing and a team was sent to interview and investigate. The team took a soil sample from the landing site, which was found to have had a high ph, and was still water repellent, just as it was when the soil was tested way back in the 1970's when the Delphos landing/sighting had happened. What was interesting to me was in the one Argentina crash sight, Salta, of a ufo men in black were seen who were mentioned as being foreigners. So men in black have been seen in other countries not just the U.S.

Good show, maybe not as good as some others, but still liking the show.

originally posted by: data5091
a reply to: data5091

Last nights episode concerned a lot of interesting sightings around two areas of Argentina, Salta, and Bariloche,

Any specifics on date/time/direction? Argentina is a hot-spot for various space booster plume spectaculars from Japan and Russia, and has been since the 1970s.

www.debunker.com...

satobs.org...

originally posted by: Catch_a_Fire
a reply to: JimOberg

I had heard the doubts about his change of statement and the reasoning for it, im sure, somewhere.... Ive seen/read those doubts being questioned too.
Im surprised he changed his statement at all..... I mean..... When does a change of statement ever look good. One thing i do question though, why go down the ' i saw it too' route. There was so many other ways he could have put himself in a better light after the cranky press stunt.

Its all just part of the mystery of the phoenix lights, believer or not.

There is no mystery to the Phoenix flares,, they have been explained beyond questioning. Only the closed minded hold on to the created mythology. The best, unquestionable proof against the believers is the night and day video comparison where the flares are shown dropping behind mountain peaks. UFOs don't behave in accordance with a video. And if you can find a higher-resolution video of the flares you can see the flashing navigation lights of the military planes with the flares.

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: data5091
a reply to: data5091

Last nights episode concerned a lot of interesting sightings around two areas of Argentina, Salta, and Bariloche,

Any specifics on date/time/direction? Argentina is a hot-spot for various space booster plume spectaculars from Japan and Russia, and has been since the 1970s.

Specifics are not necessary when unsupported by evidence when claims are made. "UFO Hunters" is up there with "Ancient Aliens", "America Unearthed" and "Finding Bigfoot", just a bunch of people that can't hold a real job. No one in those shows were ever successful in finding anything. "Contact"/"UFO Hunters" is the worst of the lot.

originally posted by: data5091


They also talked to some Chilean officials about a particular sighting that was talked about in last week's episode. The was the plume incident with a ufo in the sky. This was the video where this Chilean committee who looks into ufo's came to the conclusion that this ufo was "not terrestrial."

This is the Chilean ufo plume article, from a couple of years ago Huffington Post.

Pretty incredible sightings down there in Chile. Definitely a world hotspot.


Chilean ufo and plume video:

Unfortunately, the video isn't long enough to see the plume emitted, but this is the same ufo referenced.


Really good program I thought!

The "Plume" is simply an aerodynamic contrail. The programme is not really investigating in-depth. It is just a mish mash of sound bytes and close ups of dramatic looks and stares. In essence purely for entertainment purposes only.


The Chilean investigation mistake was not considering just how far away the object actually was. They simply assumed that the "UFO" was much closer to the helicopter. You said in an earlier review of the programme that it was on the "helicopter radar". It wasn't.

Example of aerodynamic contrail. Not from aircraft engines but from the upper wing surfaces.



The Contact programme even just gave a lame excuse that someone had suggested that the plume was grey water jettisoned in flight. They didn't even mention aerodynamic contrails. The question is why? Aerodynamic contrails fool a lot of people and especially filmed at distance.

Here is a guy in Australia believing that he is filming a "chemtrail aerosol sprayer" due to complete ignorance of aerodynamic contrails.



Aerodynamic Contrail Link - Study paper

originally posted by: Hunkadinka

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: data5091
a reply to: data5091

Last nights episode concerned a lot of interesting sightings around two areas of Argentina, Salta, and Bariloche,

Any specifics on date/time/direction? Argentina is a hot-spot for various space booster plume spectaculars from Japan and Russia, and has been since the 1970s.

Specifics are not necessary when unsupported by evidence when claims are made. "UFO Hunters" is up there with "Ancient Aliens", "America Unearthed" and "Finding Bigfoot", just a bunch of people that can't hold a real job. No one in those shows were ever successful in finding anything. "Contact"/"UFO Hunters" is the worst of the lot.

You seem dedicated to poo poo every sighting you comment on, so dedicated in fact, that I find it strange. I'm not saying lots of sighting don't have prosaic explanations, but all of them? Do you not find any sightings fascinating and without explanation? I even visited a thread you authored with a video and again more poo poo with no reason at all. I find everyone who believes every UFO video without question bringing nothing to the field. I feel the same about those who ridicule and down play every sighting they come across, but I'm sure there is a reason could you shed some light on that?

originally posted by: keenmachine

originally posted by: Hunkadinka

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: data5091
a reply to: data5091

Last nights episode concerned a lot of interesting sightings around two areas of Argentina, Salta, and Bariloche,

Any specifics on date/time/direction? Argentina is a hot-spot for various space booster plume spectaculars from Japan and Russia, and has been since the 1970s.

Specifics are not necessary when unsupported by evidence when claims are made. "UFO Hunters" is up there with "Ancient Aliens", "America Unearthed" and "Finding Bigfoot", just a bunch of people that can't hold a real job. No one in those shows were ever successful in finding anything. "Contact"/"UFO Hunters" is the worst of the lot.

You seem dedicated to poo poo every sighting you comment on, so dedicated in fact, that I find it strange. I'm not saying lots of sighting don't have prosaic explanations, but all of them? Do you not find any sightings fascinating and without explanation? I even visited a thread you authored with a video and again more poo poo with no reason at all. I find everyone who believes every UFO video without question bringing nothing to the field. I feel the same about those who ridicule and down play every sighting they come across, but I'm sure there is a reason could you shed some light on that?

I don't know what you're talking about and I don't think you do either. All I "poo pooed" were the TV shows. I was specific in naming them. The shows are riddled with stupid people who have no idea what they're discussing. "Contact" is a misnomer and none of the individuals know anything about the subject matter to add to our knowledge. I don't bring UFO videos for anything other than to discuss what is presented. You have the right to post your likes and dislikes but don't attack me. I have 5 or 6 serious UFO sightings. How many unquestionable sightings have you had?

originally posted by: HunkadinkaI have 5 or 6 serious UFO sightings.

yet you buy the phoenix lights 'flares' explanation? i've had numerous sightings but the flares don't fly for me.

originally posted by: keenmachine

originally posted by: Hunkadinka

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: data5091
a reply to: data5091

Last nights episode concerned a lot of interesting sightings around two areas of Argentina, Salta, and Bariloche,

Any specifics on date/time/direction? Argentina is a hot-spot for various space booster plume spectaculars from Japan and Russia, and has been since the 1970s.

Specifics are not necessary when unsupported by evidence when claims are made. "UFO Hunters" is up there with "Ancient Aliens", "America Unearthed" and "Finding Bigfoot", just a bunch of people that can't hold a real job. No one in those shows were ever successful in finding anything. "Contact"/"UFO Hunters" is the worst of the lot.

You seem dedicated to poo poo every sighting you comment on, so dedicated in fact, that I find it strange. I'm not saying lots of sighting don't have prosaic explanations, but all of them? Do you not find any sightings fascinating and without explanation? I even visited a thread you authored with a video and again more poo poo with no reason at all. I find everyone who believes every UFO video without question bringing nothing to the field. I feel the same about those who ridicule and down play every sighting they come across, but I'm sure there is a reason could you shed some light on that?

So you're OK with reporting cases while neglecting to provide the basic information needed to search for prosaic explanations? That's the tried-and-true UFO media gimmick of making cases invulnerable to explanation even when such explanations could exist. It's done by a deliberate practice of withholding critical contextual information. The info doesn't have to be in the program itself, but at least should be on a website or viewers' guide, in a reality-based world.

I haven't investigated the Phoenix lights but there's some reports I've written that may bear on the general question of witness perception. When a large number of people report seeing a large dark object with lights mounted on it, passing overhead in the night sky, the default ufological interpretation is that there's only one explanation: they were really seeing a large dark object with lights mounted on it, passing overhead in the night sky.

The problem is, there are OTHER phenomena that can misleadingly induce many sober, intelligent, clear-eyed witnesses into reporting seeing a large dark object with lights mounted on it, passing overhead in the night sky. It has happened before in thoroughly-documented cases all around the world:

www.jamesoberg.com...

I think the relevance of this provable perceptual effect, to the Phoenix lights part-1, needs some rational discussion.

originally posted by: JimOberg

I think the relevance of this provable perceptual effect, to the Phoenix lights part-1, needs some rational discussion.

You mean, for example, the classic perception of three lights as being the equivalent of a solid triangular object'?

This seems to be a potential explanation for the first sighting that evening... before the flares were dropped and the second sighting led to an unholy mess of contradictory sightings and perceptions. If the intention to drop the flares was to create such a mass of confusion, it was indeed a success.

Was the dropping of flares an instinctive conspiratorial reaction by authorities to the first sighting? Possibly, if the first 'object' was indeed an experimental craft. It is no wonder that the wide expanse of flares led to visions of a 'gigantic' craft, especially when imaginations were fully fired-up by that stage in the evening.

originally posted by: RoScoLaz5

originally posted by: HunkadinkaI have 5 or 6 serious UFO sightings.

yet you buy the phoenix lights 'flares' explanation? i've had numerous sightings but the flares don't fly for me.

My friend, you need to develop logic:

Cognitech, an independent video laboratory, superimposed video imagery taken of the Phoenix Lights onto video imagery it shot during daytime from the same location. In the composite image, the lights are seen to extinguish at the moment they reach the Estrella mountain range, which is visible in the daytime, but invisible in the footage shot at night. A broadcast by local Fox Broadcasting Company affiliate KSAZ-TV claimed to have performed a similar test that showed the lights were in front of the mountain range and suggested that the Cognitech data might have been altered. Dr. Paul Scowen, visiting professor of Astronomy at Arizona State University, performed a third analysis using daytime imagery overlaid with video shot of the lights and his findings were consistent with Cognitech. The Phoenix New Times subsequently reported the television station had simply overlaid two video tracks on a video editing machine without using a computer to match the zoom and scale of the two images.[17]

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit

originally posted by: JimOberg

I think the relevance of this provable perceptual effect, to the Phoenix lights part-1, needs some rational discussion.

You mean, for example, the classic perception of three lights as being the equivalent of a solid triangular object'?

This seems to be a potential explanation for the first sighting that evening... before the flares were dropped and the second sighting led to an unholy mess of contradictory sightings and perceptions. If the intention to drop the flares was to create such a mass of confusion, it was indeed a success.

Was the dropping of flares an instinctive conspiratorial reaction by authorities to the first sighting? Possibly, if the first 'object' was indeed an experimental craft. It is no wonder that the wide expanse of flares led to visions of a 'gigantic' craft, especially when imaginations were fully fired-up by that stage in the evening.

Phoenix alleged lights, Part 1 doesn't sound like the low-resolution night video that was trotted out showing lights in a V formation. The problem with that video is that anyone can tell that it was military jets as the formation kept breaking up ever so gently.

Was the dropping of flares an instinctive conspiratorial reaction by authorities to the first sighting?

Not really. The flare-dropping exercise was planned way in advance but the gullible tie one to the other because they obviously have a problem accepting truth.

originally posted by: JimOberg
I haven't investigated the Phoenix lights but there's some reports I've written that may bear on the general question of witness perception. When a large number of people report seeing a large dark object with lights mounted on it, passing overhead in the night sky, the default ufological interpretation is that there's only one explanation: they were really seeing a large dark object with lights mounted on it, passing overhead in the night sky.

The problem is, there are OTHER phenomena that can misleadingly induce many sober, intelligent, clear-eyed witnesses into reporting seeing a large dark object with lights mounted on it, passing overhead in the night sky. It has happened before in thoroughly-documented cases all around the world:

www.jamesoberg.com...

I think the relevance of this provable perceptual effect, to the Phoenix lights part-1, needs some rational discussion.

While there may be many alleged witnesses to the Phoenix lights part-1, none can claim same for the flares. Figures are blown up saying so many thousands looked up and saw the flares. No one looking up from Phoenix saw anything but a star-laden sky. The only witnesses were the occupants of houses on hills that had a clear view as the main and most popular videos show.

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: keenmachine

originally posted by: Hunkadinka

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: data5091
a reply to: data5091

Last nights episode concerned a lot of interesting sightings around two areas of Argentina, Salta, and Bariloche,

Any specifics on date/time/direction? Argentina is a hot-spot for various space booster plume spectaculars from Japan and Russia, and has been since the 1970s.

Specifics are not necessary when unsupported by evidence when claims are made. "UFO Hunters" is up there with "Ancient Aliens", "America Unearthed" and "Finding Bigfoot", just a bunch of people that can't hold a real job. No one in those shows were ever successful in finding anything. "Contact"/"UFO Hunters" is the worst of the lot.

You seem dedicated to poo poo every sighting you comment on, so dedicated in fact, that I find it strange. I'm not saying lots of sighting don't have prosaic explanations, but all of them? Do you not find any sightings fascinating and without explanation? I even visited a thread you authored with a video and again more poo poo with no reason at all. I find everyone who believes every UFO video without question bringing nothing to the field. I feel the same about those who ridicule and down play every sighting they come across, but I'm sure there is a reason could you shed some light on that?

So you're OK with reporting cases while neglecting to provide the basic information needed to search for prosaic explanations? That's the tried-and-true UFO media gimmick of making cases invulnerable to explanation even when such explanations could exist. It's done by a deliberate practice of withholding critical contextual information. The info doesn't have to be in the program itself, but at least should be on a website or viewers' guide, in a reality-based world.

Mr Oberg: I don't know if you're addressing keenmachine for his insulting comments or you're addressing me because I didn't supply any provenance for the video I posted. The video is a compilation and I did try to find it by itself so that I could find a source. Sometimes you have to accept what's offered for the visual impact. There are several videos on YT that show similar aerial displays. When I can supply info on anything I post, as I did with the Phoenix flares night/day video s, I'll be more than glad to. I want sources also, when they are available.

originally posted by: Hunkadinka

originally posted by: keenmachine

originally posted by: Hunkadinka

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: data5091
a reply to: data5091

Last nights episode concerned a lot of interesting sightings around two areas of Argentina, Salta, and Bariloche,

Any specifics on date/time/direction? Argentina is a hot-spot for various space booster plume spectaculars from Japan and Russia, and has been since the 1970s.

Specifics are not necessary when unsupported by evidence when claims are made. "UFO Hunters" is up there with "Ancient Aliens", "America Unearthed" and "Finding Bigfoot", just a bunch of people that can't hold a real job. No one in those shows were ever successful in finding anything. "Contact"/"UFO Hunters" is the worst of the lot.

You seem dedicated to poo poo every sighting you comment on, so dedicated in fact, that I find it strange. I'm not saying lots of sighting don't have prosaic explanations, but all of them? Do you not find any sightings fascinating and without explanation? I even visited a thread you authored with a video and again more poo poo with no reason at all. I find everyone who believes every UFO video without question bringing nothing to the field. I feel the same about those who ridicule and down play every sighting they come across, but I'm sure there is a reason could you shed some light on that?

I don't know what you're talking about and I don't think you do either. All I "poo pooed" were the TV shows. I was specific in naming them. The shows are riddled with stupid people who have no idea what they're discussing. "Contact" is a misnomer and none of the individuals know anything about the subject matter to add to our knowledge. I don't bring UFO videos for anything other than to discuss what is presented. You have the right to post your likes and dislikes but don't attack me. I have 5 or 6 serious UFO sightings. How many unquestionable sightings have you had?

Well if i misrepresented your stance I apologize. Ufo shows and documentaries haven't been good for a while though i do look forward to the new one by James Fox, as I feel his have been some of the best I've seen. I've only witnessed one unquestionable sighting. it was in the 80's during the flap in Wytheville, Virginia. To this day i have no idea what it was and it was large and unlike anything I've ever seen before or after.

originally posted by: Hunkadinka
The flare-dropping exercise was planned way in advance but the gullible tie one to the other because they obviously have a problem accepting truth.

Which potentially leaves us with just three aircraft flying across for Part 1 of the evening. Not sexy AT ALL.

Gullibility is actually very understandable considering that the infamous flare footage over the mountain is like a poster child for the story in many if not most documentaries and articles. The majority of everyday folk are not wading through ufology as deeply (and probably as unhealthily!) as we are, so we're arguably quicker than most to spot these 'misdemeanours'.

However, we are not really the target audience for such UFOtainment, are we? A buck will be made, whatever we say. In the meantime, I'll continue digging into cases that are genuinely more anomalous in nature. The Wheat and Chaff principle.

One query remains about Phoenix - witnesses to the first event who recall no sound from the three lights. Can we rationalise this as an example of the second part of the evening (silent flares) accidentally coalescing with the first in witnesses' memories?

a reply to: Hunkadinka

"Sometimes you have to accept what's offered for the visual impact."

No, I do not have to.

The visual impact is real, but it's a cheat.

Without context any video is worse than useless, just eye-candy to amaze the target audience without any use in understanding the potential causes of the apparition.

IMHO.