The Phoenix Lights - Another Unsolved Mysteries Case

originally posted by: ufoorbhunter
a reply to: Arbitrageur

This whole Phoenix episode sounds like a group of amber orange type ufo orbs in flight formation rather than a solid ship. By concentrating on the orbs any gaps will be ignored and give the impression of a solid craft.

This is the drawing Tim Printy made of what Mitch described with the multiple lights, and Davenport apparently has additional witnesses to confirm this type of observation, that for some reason, he mentions as reliable sources yet seems to ignore them for what I can only guess is due to bias on his part. Mitch Stanley was able to see under high magnification that each "orb" was actually three lights, so if this is what orbs look like, I'm sure lots of people see "orbs" (and in fact studies have shown a fair number of UFO reports happened to be aircraft, among other things):

www.astronomyufo.com...

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: jerryznv

Me?

LOL, NO! I have no affiliation with Brooklyn Paranormal Society.

There is no copyright law when it comes to UFO cases. So if someone rephrases the text and re-orders how it is presented, then a claim of plagiarism doesn't really apply. But the blogger obviously lifted a lot of ingredients included in this thread. Even encompassing CB's story of Richard Curtis and "...the tape that got away". Which I didn't mention in the OP.

But you have to laugh where it says "Made possible by your donations".

I was being sarcastic...the whole thing gave me a good chuckle!

That was the funny part "Made possible by your donations"...I guess you can take that quite literally!

a reply to: Arbitrageur

The three light observation is pretty interesting Arbitrageur.

Then again being honest and realistic about it "if this is what orbs look like, I'm sure lots of people see "orbs" well this does not apply to real amber orange type ufo orbs. I've been 20 feet from a pair of amber orange types and they are definitely of their own and capable of shape shifting, totally bizarre and the military know of them right back to the times of Churchill.

Regardless and I don't want to derail the thread by past sightings, the three light observation at Phoenix is interesting and does make one wonder how many planes have been mistaken for ufo orbs. Just trying to get an idea of the colour from a distance of the three lights when mixed

I was watching an episode of UFO Witness with Ben Hansen about Triangles when I noticed the following while they were referencing the Phoenix Lights…..



These shows usually mix real pics and clips….with graphic/special effects artists renditions.

I had never seen the above negatives black & white film frames……..could this be legit?

Can anyone link to any other webpage/website that show the same frames and claim it to be true. I assume during that night….other people had cameras from different vantage points and clicked away…

Btw…notice the top right arrow pointing to an object independent of the “V” formation of lights.

If these are legit……then I have to re-think the Flares….as being the cause for the Phoenix Lights.

No details of these pictures were explained on the show.

👽

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

They look very similar to the Lubbock Lights photos from the 1950s. Which were explained away as plovers.

a reply to: mirageman

Plovers 😆

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: mirageman

Plovers 😆

That was until Ed Ruppelt (the former Head of Project Blue Book cleared it up in his 2nd edition of his book)

It was moths reflecting street lights.

...The world famous Lubbock Lights were night flying moths reflecting the bluish-green light of a nearby row of mercury vapor street lights.

Source :The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects (Second Edition) By Edward Ruppelt

Obviously flying in V formation too!

Don't shoot the messenger. The Lubbock case is a bit more complex than looking at a few photos and saying what you see.

But those photos posted by Ophi look very similar.

a reply to: mirageman

Yes…..Of course! The Lubbock Lights……

I had only ever seen the bottom two pics B & D…….never A & C.

It’s been so long, I hadn’t made the memory connection.

Thx

Clearly the same set of pics!



Beware of …..False image manipulations by production companies to make their point ……it will have someone thinking differently…..if what is being viewed is not traceable to its root source.

👽

GREAT documentary about the Phoenix lights case, it's a must see if not seen already. There is another new documentary that came out for the 25th Anniversary of the Phoenix Lights and was played in a movie theater in the Phoenix area, I haven't seen it yet and forget the name of it off hand.

a reply to: mirageman

I would never shoot anyone. The messenger just made me laugh because it's funny 😊

Plovers. And not geese or cranes? I have no way of knowing whether the photos are real or not of course, but just look at them

Phoenix lights is one of my favorites. I saw something that fits into this category. Those were some pretty big moths. Fast too

People need to find explanations that fit their realities. Different realities, different explanations

I think we might finally be getting to the point where we can talk about this stuff, but obviously there's going to be some people that are going to go with moths

I get it - it's a lot

a reply to: mirageman

I definitely don’t buy the Moths statement in the book referenced……

As far as I can see……there is no other references on the WWW, that state Insects (Moths) have ever been known to fly in a V formation, let alone any kind of formation.

The plover birds scenario……is a meh....for me.

From wiki ….

Birds that fly in V formation - This list is not comprehensive as it does not cover all birds that fly in V formation. Geese, Swans, Gulls, Cranes, Pelicans, Cormorants, Ibis, Ducks

What’s notable of the list above, is that, the birds mentioned are very large birds species …….not smaller birds such as the plovers.

I suppose out of the 45 species of plovers…..some may fly in a V formation……still it’s a bit weak for me to accept them as being the cause of the Lubbock Lights.

Is it that rare…..that since the 1950’s ……and now being in 2000’s ….no one else has captured plovers flying in V formation at anytime of the day, to replicate the 1950’s type of pictures? Even with artificial lighting to illuminate them.

If it was plover’s in a V formation….then they are migratory…..and usually migratory birds roughly follow the same route pattern year after year….imo….and yet no pics subsequently thereafter that I’m aware of.


Here’s an older thread about the Lubbock Lights…

www.abovetopsecret.com...

👽

originally posted by: ufoorbhunter
,..., the three light observation at Phoenix is interesting and does make one wonder how many planes have been mistaken for ufo orbs. J...:

Another type of multiple-lights-cluster is a heavy satellite reentry fireball swarm [NOT over Phoenix], and it's sobering how consistent the witness misperceptions could be.

Witness Reactions to Fireball Swarms from Satellite Reentries.
www.jamesoberg.com...

Hate to bust ur bubble, but the "Phoenix Lights" was a test flight of a neutral-buoyancy aircraft with stealth skin. It was a single wing aircraft blended with lighter-than-air blimp tech; the wing was inflated with hydrogen, making possible its' absolutely mind-blowing scale. It was described in detail in an article in either Popular Science or Popular Mechanics Magazine in the late 80's early 90's. #Skunkworks
More about the design, which goes back to a contest in 1964, and how it can come back in a blaze of glory here: rumble.com...

originally posted by: MJTank108
Hate to bust ur bubble, but the "Phoenix Lights" was a test flight of a neutral-buoyancy aircraft with stealth skin. It was a single wing aircraft blended with lighter-than-air blimp tech; the wing was inflated with hydrogen, making possible its' absolutely mind-blowing scale. It was described in detail in an article in either Popular Science or Popular Mechanics Magazine in the late 80's early 90's. #Skunkworks
More about the design, which goes back to a contest in 1964, and how it can come back in a blaze of glory here: rumble.com...

Here’s an old ATS thread……titled Stealth Airship about neutral-buoyancy aircraft. It seems to be a theory of the OP…..no references to link to nor any mention as originating in popular science or popular mechanics that I can see.

Do you have reference links to …..”It was described in detail in an article in either Popular Science or Popular Mechanics Magazine in the late 80's early 90's.”…….?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

👽

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

I've searched their websites and come up with bubkus. Only remember it because my granddad subscribed to both mags, and I would sit with him and fumble through all the cool gadgets and jets pic's. I can still recall the "dissected" view of the craft, different tubes within the wing containing specific gas mixtures. All those mags are long gone now, but I did hold it in my hands and read it, see it for myself. Every description and eye-witness account validates what I read.

originally posted by: MJTank108
Hate to bust ur bubble, but the "Phoenix Lights" was a test flight of a neutral-buoyancy aircraft with stealth skin. It was a single wing aircraft

I've heard that theory and the military may indeed have secret rigid hull airships or "stealth blimps", but this video of the earlier Phoenix lights event rules out the single wing aircraft hypothesis because the lights move with respect to each other, plus Mitch Stanley saw it through his telescope, and confirmed using high magnification that the formation was not a single wing aircraft:

The Phoenix Lights - Laying To Rest The Myth

originally posted by: _BoneZ_

First Event - THE VEE

This was the event that started the whole night off, beginning around 8:30pm, and lasting for the next almost 15 minutes.

There is only one known video of the first event, recorded by retired pilot and contract employee with the U.S. Department of Defense, Terry Proctor, on his VHS camera for 43-seconds. Below is a moving GIF that I made from part of the video, which is not available anywhere online, but small clips of which can be seen on Discovery Channel's Website:

As you can see, the light at the upper-right of the image is already falling out of formation. By the end of the 43-second video, most of the lights have fallen out of formation, indicating that the lights are all separate vehicles, not one massive, single ship:

What is little-known are the witnesses that saw the "vee" formation, but saw that it was planes and not a solid object. One such witness is Mitch Stanley. A 21-year-old amateur astronomer who spends several nights a week in his backyard looking at the sky with his 10-inch Dobsonian, F 5.5 TELEVUE 32mm Plossl, which produces 43X magnification.

Here's Mitch with his telescope:

And Mitch's words:

"It was plain to see. What looked like individual lights to the naked eye actually split into two under the resolving power of the telescope. The lights were located on the undersides of squarish wings."

"They were planes. There's no way I could have mistaken that."

Make a mental note of the "squarish wings" and keep them in mind for later.

...

MUFON investigator Alan Morey, Scottsdale, AZ:

“At first the lights appeared pale orange in color, but through the binoculars we could see a little red light on the port side of each of the five larger orange lights.

They were five independent objects because we could see stars between them. One light was behind the others in a delta wing configuration. But then the formation tightened. The lights covered an area twice the size of my fist if I extended my arm to the sky.”

So that wasn't a single wing aircraft, it was at least 5 separate planes, but it's understandable that witnesses stated they saw a single wing aircraft as we now know this to be a common "connect the dots" illusion the mind experiences sometimes upon seeing multiple lights in the sky.

The second event was of course confirmed to be LUU-2 illumination flares dropped by a national guard training sortie, so that too was no single wing aircraft.

a reply to: MJTank108

Here ya go……have at it to search for that article about a neutral-buoyancy aircraft…….re-live your youth for free!

Grouped by decades…..1970’s, 1980’s, 1990’s and then by monthly

If your using a device that you able to swipe…..swipe the magazine covers to the left …then click on the particular cover. A quick search is to look at the Contents of each magazine shown below the string of covers…..then use the sidebar search bar to the left side and enter the word “page” and then the numerical page # …..to go to that page.

Popular Science Archives

If ya find it….kindly post 👍🏼

Good Luck 🍀

👽

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Let’s try this…….

It is said the craft was approximately 1 mile across.

1 mile divided by 5 planes is 0.2 miles (1056 feet) in distance between each other.

Can a pilots reasonably maintain approximately +/- 1056 feet between each other while maintaining altitude and attitude controlling the aircraft at night with constant radio comms for coordination, and looking to their left and right to maintain an even level V angle? …close enough semblance to a V as shown below

Flying like this would have required previous practice rehearsal flights at some location, and wherever that was……no one has mentioned saying they remember seeing planes….perhaps at day or night practice maneuvering as a V formation shape from an airfield….


I personally think the planes scenario works best to answer the first event.

What I can’t reconcile is this multiple lighting zoomed in…



👽

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Let’s try this…….

It is said the craft was approximately 1 mile across.

You can't take such notoriously inaccurate estimates at face value. Generally it's best to assume estimates of the size, distance and speed of a UFO can be wildly inaccurate, for example look up the Yukon satellite re-entry case.

Perhaps a somewhat accurate measurement of angular distance was provided by Mitch Stanley with his telescope observations, who stated he couldn't quite fit a 3rd airplane within his field of view. In order to convert that angular separation to actual separation we would need some way to calibrate it, such as knowing the distance, but Mitch didn't know the distance. However this sketch nonetheless might give some idea of the separation of the aircraft relative to the size of the aircraft.

www.astronomyufo.com...

What I can’t reconcile is this multiple lighting zoomed in…

If you're just cherry-picking a single frame, that's probably not a good analysis because artifacts can occur in videos.
Astronomers use "frame-stacking" to clarify their long exposures and reduce the noise from any single frame of the exposure. I've also seen such frame stacking used to identify a UFO. Arthur C Clarke featured that method in one of his Mysterious World TV shows, I think it was episode 10 back in 1980 when computers were still relatively primitive compared to today. Now we have much better frame stacking hardware and software. The interesting thing about that episode is you couldn't really identify the UFO from any single frame of the video, but by stacking the frames, enough signal was extracted from the noisy artifacts to identify the UFO. My point being you shouldn't isolate a single frame but should look at multiple frames to try to figure out how much is signal and how much is noise.

For example, look at the gif of the video in the previous post, and see how much the three leading lights vary over the few frames in the gif. I think we are seeing artifacts of the video, and in reality, the lights were more steady than that.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Arthur C Clarke featured that method in one of his Mysterious World TV shows, I think it was episode 10 back in 1980 when computers were still relatively primitive compared to today. Now we have much better frame stacking hardware and software.

Hi, Arby - I won't wade into the discussion but, to help illustrate your point, here is the episode in question: