PDA

View Full Version : The Phoenix Lights



Pages : [1] 2

Quantum Leap
2011-May-05, 09:22 PM
I realize there are probably other threads about this (I assume this is the correct forum to post this in), but I wanted to point out a few examples of why this is one of the top mass sightings in recent years.

comments from Former Arizona Governor Fife Symington (PDF)

http://www.freedomofinfo.org/news/symington-story.pdf

So many people from all walks of life went on record saying they had seen this huge craft (reported to be over a mile wide). Doctors, lawyers, plumbers , you name it. There are so many accounts from hundreds upon hundreds of eye witnesses.

That is very compelling evidence to me. Much more so than any grainy video.

To my knowledge, this event has never been explained by skeptics or disputed with any measure of accuracy, other than the standard 'flares' explanation which doesn't seem to hold much water given the amount of people who have first hand accounts of that night and quickly dismiss the notion they were flares.

I also watched the critically acclaimed documentary which was full of eyewitness accounts who all had very similar testimony about size and shape etc.

Trailer for the film can be found here (entire documentary can be viewed on YouTube)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhAQrR8Jhkk

Another thing to consider is that this craft was seen all over the state of Arizona with reports flooding in to state and county police and fire stations from all over the state. This was a textbook 'mass sighting' and I am having a hard time believing that the Phoenix Lights wasn't a legitimate visit from extra terrestrials.

Seems like lately, there are so many sightings that are easy to dismiss and explain away as hoaxes...for example that ridiculous 'Haiti' video that was a pretty good CGI. Plenty of fakes videos and other tall tales of little green men. There is no shortage of phony videos and pictures that is for certain.

With that said, the Phoenix Lights seems to be the most compelling and convincing evidence yet to support the existence of UFO's/life on other planets

even with no video, audio or photographic evidence, the amount of people who came forward to give similar accounts of what they witnessed is kind of a deal closer for me.

thoughts ?

Amber Robot
2011-May-05, 09:51 PM
To my knowledge, this event has never been explained by skeptics or disputed with any measure of accuracy, other than the standard 'flares' explanation which doesn't seem to hold much water given the amount of people who have first hand accounts of that night and quickly dismiss the notion they were flares.

Just because there are a lot of first hand accounts that dismiss some notion doesn't necessarily mean that notion is wrong. Think about all those people who said they saw a missile rising up near Los Angeles and simply dismissed the notion that it was an airplane contrail, even though after careful analysis it was very clearly an airplane contrail. Sometimes things in the sky don't look like people expect them to look.

Paul Beardsley
2011-May-05, 10:01 PM
Two thoughts:

1. The flares explanation is compelling; the dismissal of the flares explanation is not compelling.

2. Why do you think aliens would not announce their presence? (Please do not answer, "To avoid panicking us.")

Garrison
2011-May-05, 10:04 PM
I realize there are probably other threads about this (I assume this is the correct forum to post this in), but I wanted to point out a few examples of why this is one of the top mass sightings in recent years.

comments from Former Arizona Governor Fife Symington (PDF)

http://www.freedomofinfo.org/news/symington-story.pdf

So many people from all walks of life went on record saying they had seen this huge craft (reported to be over a mile wide). Doctors, lawyers, plumbers , you name it. There are so many accounts from hundreds upon hundreds of eye witnesses.

Unfortunately this just the same old argument from authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority). Doctors, lawyers etc. are no less prone to making mistakes than anyone else, especially not when seeing something they can't relate to any prior experience.


That is very compelling evidence to me. Much more so than any grainy video.


Actually eyewitnesses are terrible in evidentiary terms because of the fallibility of memory and perception. This link discusses a well known expirment on the problems with recollection:

Bugs Bunny at Disneyland (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=98195&page=1)


To my knowledge, this event has never been explained by skeptics or disputed with any measure of accuracy, other than the standard 'flares' explanation which doesn't seem to hold much water given the amount of people who have first hand accounts of that night and quickly dismiss the notion they were flares.


But were those people familiar with flares? Did they have prior experience of seeing flares deployed? As pointed out above people tend to remember what they choose to remember or are influenced to remember by discussing things with other witnesses or poorly trained investigators. You need to offer some solid reason why the flares explanation should be dismissed. This link is an account of the flares explanation published by the Bad Astronomer himself several years ago and itselfs includes links to some fairly strong evidence to support the flares theory:

Phoenix Lights Again?! (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=98195&page=1)

Including one to a person who saw the aircraft through a telescope.


I also watched the critically acclaimed documentary which was full of eyewitness accounts who all had very similar testimony about size and shape etc.

Trailer for the film can be found here (entire documentary can be viewed on YouTube)

Critically acclaimed by who? And how long after the event was it made? If the eyewitnesses discussed what they saw with one another and read media reports hardly surprising their accounts are similar.


Another thing to consider is that this craft was seen all over the state of Arizona with reports flooding in to state and county police and fire stations from all over the state. This was a textbook 'mass sighting' and I am having a hard time believing that the Phoenix Lights wasn't a legitimate visit from extra terrestrials.


People hear about the UFO reports and begin to reinterpret quite ordinary things as alien spacecraft isn't that more likely?


Seems like lately, there are so many sightings that are easy to dismiss and explain away as hoaxes...for example that ridiculous 'Haiti' video that was a pretty good CGI. Plenty of fakes videos and other tall tales of little green men. There is no shortage of phony videos and pictures that is for certain.

Outright hoaxes make a relatively small percentage of sightings overall, the majority appear to be honest people making honest mistakes and simply misinterpreting what they see in the sky.


With that said, the Phoenix Lights seems to be the most compelling and convincing evidence yet to support the existence of UFO's/life on other planets


If that's so it just shows how poor the quality of evidence for UFO's is. As for life on other planets that's a different story and the best evidence we have for the possibility of that is probably the Kepler data, since it shows the existence of planets that might be in the right range to support life around other stars.


even with no video, audio or photographic evidence, the amount of people who came forward to give similar accounts of what they witnessed is kind of a deal closer for me.


Quantity does not equal quality, especially when it comes to UFO sightings.

Tensor
2011-May-05, 10:04 PM
Exactly why don't you accept the flare explanation for the lights to the west of the Phoenix? Do you have some sort of evidence that invalidates the flare explanation? I'm not talking about the triangular lights, just the row of lights. There was a private pilot and passenger in the air over Phoenix that night who had seen flares in that area before and said the light behaved just as the flares had done before.

How exactly do you go from lights in the sky to existence of life on other planets? Did the lights present some sort of code the allowed people to determine the lights were from another planet? You do realize that UFO stands for UNIDENTIFIED Flying Object, not life on another planet flying object. I've got no problem saying that the triangular lights were a UFO, but not that they came from somewhere else.

R.A.F.
2011-May-05, 10:13 PM
Doctors, lawyers, plumbers , you name it. There are so many accounts from hundreds upon hundreds of eye witnesses.

OK...I call that bluff...name them.


...this event has never been explained by skeptics or disputed with any measure of accuracy...

So you have chosen to ignore a mundane explanation.


I also watched the critically acclaimed documentary which was full of eyewitness accounts who all had very similar testimony about size and shape etc.

So what...they were all looking at the same thing...flares.


Another thing to consider is that this craft was seen all over the state of Arizona with reports flooding in to state and county police and fire stations from all over the state.

Yes...it's called mass hysteria.


This was a textbook 'mass sighting' and I am having a hard time believing that the Phoenix Lights wasn't a legitimate visit from extra terrestrials.

You really need to understand what the burden of proof is in cases like this...simply saying "it must be aliens" is IN NO WAY evidence for those aliens.


the Phoenix Lights seems to be the most compelling and convincing evidence yet to support the existence of UFO's/life on other planets,.

Really?? Is that all ya got??...because personally, I REQUIRE ACTUAL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE before belief.

Apparently your "standards of evidence" meet different criteria.


...even with no video, audio or photographic evidence...

In other words...no actual evidence of aliens.


thoughts ?

Only that the "Phoenix Lights" have been throughtly explained as a mundane occurrence...if you have contradictory evidence then please present that evidence now.

Skyfire
2011-May-05, 10:27 PM
If I have a pain in my stomach that troubles me I go and consult a doctor, and implicitly expect him to be an expert (or at least expert enough) to diagnose the problem. If I have a problem with my plumbing (the household sort, not the other one! .... ) I would call a plumber .... not the aforementioned doctor. Why? Because the he is the expert with knowledge of plumbing problems, not the doctor! That doesn't mean the doctor can't do his own diy plumbing, .... or carpentry, ... or whatever else he may be able to do, but it is always the expert in the given field we would consult for such treatment.

To say that the eyewitnesses are people such as doctors, lawyers, plumbers, or whoever, means nothing as they are not experts in the field of UFO identification. It just means they all can see SOMETHING that they don't recognise from their experience. The pertinent letter is the U of UFO..... as in UNIDENTIFIED flying object. Just stating that it doesn't match their knowledge of objects in the sky is a very long way indeed from it actually being ET.

Quantum Leap
2011-May-06, 12:01 AM
Critically acclaimed by who?

http://www.noufors.com/images/The%20Phoenix%20Lights%20...%20We%20Are%20Not%20Al one%20Documentary.jpg

This film won numerous awards as best documentary at several domestic and international film festivals.

vonmazur
2011-May-06, 12:31 AM
Oi veh!! This again!! It was flares and A 10 aircraft in formation throttled back. I have dropped and observed these flares many times...I won't go into a long winded description of how they work, but it was flares that were shown on tv....

Golly! What is more likely, flares and A-10's or Aliens who left without a trace??

Dale

ZappBrannigan
2011-May-06, 03:40 AM
http://www.noufors.com/images/The%20Phoenix%20Lights%20...%20We%20Are%20Not%20Al one%20Documentary.jpg

This film won numerous awards as best documentary at several domestic and international film festivals.

Here's one that isn't so small you can't read the lettering:

http://www.thephoenixlights.net/Images/DVD_cover_lg.jpg

Note that most of those are "official selections," which mean the festival a) had space, and b) the producer filled out the form legibly and included a check for the entry fee that did not bounce.

So, in total, it won a Best Director (Documentary category - a fact not mentioned on the box) prize at one fest and a Best Documentary prize at a sci-fi fest.

Rotten Tomatoes does not list a single published review of the movie or DVD.

I wouldn't call that numerous awards or critically acclaimed.

So this is similar to your argument from authority concerning doctors and lawyers saying they saw something. Palm leafs on a box do not an esteemed film make.

By the way, my film, "The Audition," was an Official Selection at the 2004 Los Angeles International Short Film Festival. We, too filled out the form legibly and included a check for the entry fee that didn't bounce. It was about talking cows.

Gillianren
2011-May-06, 04:07 AM
Someone I've known all my life has won screenwriting awards at film festivals, too. Let me assure you, that doesn't make him anywhere near the most reliable of my friends.

pepiboy32
2011-May-06, 04:09 AM
So what...they were all looking at the same thing...flares.








Really?? Is that all ya got??...because personally, I REQUIRE ACTUAL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE before belief.

[/i].

no you dont - you have stated that it was 'flares' that caused the phoenix lights - where's your 'actual physical evidence' for this?

eburacum45
2011-May-06, 08:55 AM
There were two events on the evening of March 13, 1997.
The second one, around 10 o'clock PM, was almost certainly flares.
Even arch-UFO proponent Bruce Maccabee accepts this; he provides the proof for the flare explanation here
http://brumac.8k.com/PhoenixSupplement/

I conclude that the comparison between light lifetimes the R and K videos suggests that K's view of the lights was cut off "prematurely" in each case. Since each light was falling downward (as shown in both K and R videos) it is reasonable to explain the premature cutoff as a result of falling behind (i.e., south of) the Estrella range from K’s point of view and, for lights 7,8, and 9 in the R video, the result of falling behind (southwest of) Montezuma’s Head. One notes also, "in passing," that the "long" turn - on times recorded by K and the long turn - off times recorded by R are consistent with flares, whereas the short turn - off time recorded by K is consistent with abrupt visual cutoff by an obscuration (the Estrella mountain ridge).

The earlier sighting, around 8.00 PM, was more interesting, but one witness managed to observe the lights through a telescope and could see that they were a formation of planes
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1997-06-26/news/the-great-ufo-cover-up/

Linda asked what they were.
"Planes," Mitch said.
It was plain to see, he says. 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, Mitch says. And the planes themselves seemed small, like light private planes.
Stanley watched them for about a minute, and then turned away. It was the last thing the amateur astronomer wanted to look at.
"They were just planes, I didn't want to look at them," Stanley says when he's asked why he didn't stare at them longer. He is certain about what he saw: "They were planes. There's no way I could have mistaken that."

--------------
Previous thread about the Phoenix Lights
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/56071-Ex-Arizona-Governor-says-quot-Phoenix-Lights-Enormous-and-Inexplicable-quot

--------------
Fyfe Symington does not seem to be a very reliable witness- shortly after the lights, he held a press conference to mock the event, saying that "they found who was responsible", at which point a member of his staff appeared on stage dressed in as a Grey alien. It was not until ten years later in 2007 that he finally stated that he had seen the lights too- although whether he saw the first or second event, or neither, is difficult to say.

Here is Symington mocking the event a day or so later; look at the smirk on the face of the guy in the shades

NEOWatcher
2011-May-06, 12:47 PM
no you dont - you have stated that it was 'flares' that caused the phoenix lights - where's your 'actual physical evidence' for this?
I am certain that R.A.F. has physically seen and touched a flare before. I have.
So; I can compare what I saw in the video with what a flare looks like.

Has anyone actually physically seen and touched an alien? ("UFO's/life on other planets" as stated)

Besides; there is plenty of evidence and analysis around, INCLUDING THE PILOT WHO DROPPED THEM.
New evidence re, Phoenix Lights flares or what? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAljVczVFmU)(youtube)

R.A.F.
2011-May-06, 02:47 PM
no you dont - you have stated that it was 'flares' that caused the phoenix lights - where's your 'actual physical evidence' for this?

The burden of proof is on the proponent of an extraordinary idea...in other words, you must prove yourself right...it is not our burden to prove you wrong.*



*However in some cases such as this, where there is a readily available, mundane explanation, that explanation is offered as a courtesy.

Garrison
2011-May-06, 03:30 PM
The burden of proof is on the proponent of an extraordinary idea...in other words, you must prove yourself right...it is not our burden to prove you wrong.*



*However in some cases such as this, where there is a readily available, mundane explanation, that explanation is offered as a courtesy.

Also it should make it easier for the proponent of the alien ship viewpoint, after all it gives them a definite target to measure the evidence against and if they can successfully dismiss the mundane explanation their credibility would be enhanced and their viewpoint has to be given more serious consideration. Of course to date that hasn't happened in the CT forum but the opportunity is there.

Quantum Leap
2011-May-06, 05:48 PM
If someone made a post about the sky being blue, I have no doubt there would be posters on this site that would eviscerate it, breaking down each sentence, and refute it with 'expert' testimony, links and other rationale' that suggests it has been proven otherwise.

Swift
2011-May-06, 05:56 PM
If someone made a post about the sky being blue, I have no doubt there would be posters on this site that would eviscerate it, breaking down each sentence, and refute it with 'expert' testimony, links and other rationale' that suggests it has been proven otherwise.
You are welcome to that opinion, but I also do not believe it is true. That the daytime, cloudless sky on Earth is blue is the mainstream scientific finding, is not an extraordinary claim, and is supported by an abundance of evidence. Except as a joke, I don't think people would argue that.

That any UFO (as in unidentified) is an extraterrestrial visitor is an extraordinary claim that requires the claimant to prove their claim. That is how science normally operates and that is the rule on BAUT. I'm sorry if you don't like that rule, but there it is. If you wish to make such statements without this burden of proof, then there are many places on the Internet where you can do so. However, if you are up for the challenge, you can learn a lot here and really test such extraordinary claims. It is your choice.

NEOWatcher
2011-May-06, 06:04 PM
If someone made a post about the sky being blue, I have no doubt there would be posters on this site that would eviscerate it, breaking down each sentence, and refute it with 'expert' testimony, links and other rationale' that suggests it has been proven otherwise.
So? As long as they discuss it in a rational way, be open to the evidence and science that does exist, and would be willing to admit when thier data does not stack up with what we know, then it doesn't matter.

But; if they come here saying the sky is yellow, present some youtubes, some self-proclaimed experts, no experimental evidence to show how our current atmospheric makeup can produce a yellow hue, and a bunch of people swearing the sky is yellow because the picture they took turned yellow, then they will have the same problem as a person suggesting alien visitation.

Edit: considering my post and swifts have passed each other...
Yes; one side being an unknown with many reasonable possibilities is definitely a game changer.

R.A.F.
2011-May-06, 06:10 PM
Edit: considering my post and swifts have passed each other...

That's alright...I was trying to post (and lost it) while the 2 of you were making my points for me. :)

Gillianren
2011-May-06, 06:26 PM
I live in a rain forest. Most of the time, the sky isn't blue.

NEOWatcher
2011-May-06, 06:44 PM
I live in a rain forest. Most of the time, the sky isn't blue.
True; but I'm sure you can discuss that in a manner consistent with what has been scientifically shown.
Or are you just going to point to a YouTube with spooky music?

astrophotographer
2011-May-06, 10:01 PM
If anyone has not read it, I suggest they read my up to date (at least in 2010) review of the "Arizona UFOs" (the phoenix lights is a bad name since they were seen in areas other than Phoenix). The story is on pages 7-14.

http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite2_3.pdf

Garrison
2011-May-06, 10:17 PM
If someone made a post about the sky being blue, I have no doubt there would be posters on this site that would eviscerate it, breaking down each sentence, and refute it with 'expert' testimony, links and other rationale' that suggests it has been proven otherwise.

What's wrong with expert testimony? If we have pilots/technicians who say that the 'Phoenix Lights' look exactly like flares why should we ignore them? Why should we choose to ignore the witness who looked through a telescope and saw airplanes in favour of those who simply saw distant lights and labeled them UFOs? Why should we ignore rationales that explain a sighting mundanely if you can't offer any evidence to counter them? And frankly in this case they seem to do rather more than 'suggest' it has been proven otherwise.

Paul Beardsley
2011-May-06, 11:20 PM
If someone made a post about the sky being blue, I have no doubt there would be posters on this site that would eviscerate it, breaking down each sentence, and refute it with 'expert' testimony, links and other rationale' that suggests it has been proven otherwise.

How about addressing points, and maybe even considering the possibility that the mundane explanation just might be the correct one. It might be difficult to accept that there isn't any evidence of alien visitation, but it would be more admirable than this gross mischaracterisation of the good people on this board.

Don J
2011-May-07, 04:01 AM
I live in a rain forest. Most of the time, the sky isn't blue.
A rain forest ....really?Are you an Amazonian Woman?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Rainforest

Gillianren
2011-May-07, 04:12 AM
No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoh_Rain_Forest

PetersCreek
2011-May-07, 04:43 AM
What Gillianren said. The Pacific Northwest, including Alaska, is home to some rather sizeable temperate rain forests.

Don J
2011-May-07, 06:02 AM
No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoh_Rain_Forest

Is it the legendary ....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BIG_LEAF_MAPLES_HOH.jpg

Man-eating tree ???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-eating_tree

Sorry could'nt resist!

Return to the scheduled program. --The Phoenix Lights---

captain swoop
2011-May-07, 08:25 AM
While very interesting Forests in the Pacific North West and their rain are edging the thread off topic.

Donnie B.
2011-May-07, 02:21 PM
Well, Gillianren doesn't need to worry about a man-eating tree.

Don J
2011-May-14, 07:10 PM
Well, Gillianren doesn't need to worry about a man-eating tree.
Off course she is lucky to be a women ....but who knows what other dangers are around.



Actually, I look up all the time. Though I do acknowledge that most people don't.


Keep looking up.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBQPfTem21g&feature=related

Warning don't take that video seriously .....

Jim
2011-May-17, 12:04 PM
... edging the thread off topic.

Oh, we're way past the edge! Let's try to get back to the OP... or move the trees discussion to OTB.

aquitaine
2011-May-17, 12:21 PM
You know if you guys enjoy b grade sci-fi movies,you should check out Night Skies (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0460883/), based on the "real story" of what "really happened" during the Pheonix Lights Non-Incident. It's a decent scifi popcorn flick if you can get past the psuedoscience.

dark_spot
2011-Sep-19, 04:15 PM
I think most of you bad astronomy guys need to find a middle ground and not be ridiculously aggressive with your debunking. Do you plan on apologizing just as aggressively if uncle Sam declassifies some exotic platform that it turns out lots of people saw and called a "UFO"? Because, uncle Sam has indeed done that before. Tens of thousands of UFO reports from the 50's, 60's, and 70's were the U2 and A12/SR71. History certainly has a way of repeating itself does it not?

You could also deflate the "alien" theory by pointing out that the earth is blanketed by the US "space fence" and similar space detection systems in other countries that would make it quite impossible for something large to head down to the surface without being detected. Just say "space fence" and call it a day. No need to insult for pages on end.

And finally, you can do a little homework on the "giant triangle". It was seen all across the state, not just in Phoenix. It was seen over many decades in many different instances. It may or may not be a "stealth blimp", but certainly there is something extremely large and most likely an LTA platform of some sort owned by the DoD or another agency.

captain swoop
2011-Sep-19, 04:47 PM
If the US Govt declassifies some experimental aircraft then it wouldn't be an alien spaceship so no aliens, they would still be wrong.

Garrison
2011-Sep-19, 06:33 PM
I think most of you bad astronomy guys need to find a middle ground and not be ridiculously aggressive with your debunking. Do you plan on apologizing just as aggressively if uncle Sam declassifies some exotic platform that it turns out lots of people saw and called a "UFO"? Because, uncle Sam has indeed done that before. Tens of thousands of UFO reports from the 50's, 60's, and 70's were the U2 and A12/SR71. History certainly has a way of repeating itself does it not?

If they are proven wrong about a particular case isn't it those who cried 'alien spaceship' who should apologize? The very same people who when 'debunkers' offer up such explanations denounce the skeptics as 'shills' or 'close-minded'?


You could also deflate the "alien" theory by pointing out that the earth is blanketed by the US "space fence" and similar space detection systems in other countries that would make it quite impossible for something large to head down to the surface without being detected. Just say "space fence" and call it a day. No need to insult for pages on end.
And of course the believers would't point to our own stealth technology and dismiss this 'space fence' out of hand? In fact I suspect such a stance would just make skeptics look foolhardy.


And finally, you can do a little homework on the "giant triangle". It was seen all across the state, not just in Phoenix. It was seen over many decades in many different instances. It may or may not be a "stealth blimp", but certainly there is something extremely large and most likely an LTA platform of some sort owned by the DoD or another agency.

The problem is that the Phoenix sighting and others do have mundane explanations that don't involve exotic craft either terrestrial or otherwise. Why should we assume the rest don't?

Garrison
2011-Sep-19, 06:36 PM
BTW the way Dark_spot could you point us to some of these 'pages of insults'?

R.A.F.
2011-Sep-19, 06:45 PM
...you can do a little homework on the "giant triangle".

Why the assumption that we haven't?

Van Rijn
2011-Sep-19, 07:50 PM
And finally, you can do a little homework on the "giant triangle". It was seen all across the state, not just in Phoenix. It was seen over many decades in many different instances. It may or may not be a "stealth blimp", but certainly there is something extremely large and most likely an LTA platform of some sort owned by the DoD or another agency.

As has been discussed a few times on BAUT, there's a common perceptual issue where someone sees lights or light spots in a dark sky and perceives this as a triangle. I've seen videos where exactly this happens, where you see three lights, but everybody is talking about "the triangle." It's easy to see how they could assume that, but when you consider what is actually visible, it's clear that this is an interpretation of limited information - an assumption that is a step too far.

So I'm quite sure there are a good many people who think they've seen giant triangles in the sky. What hasn't been at all established is if there are any singular objects associated with what they see, let alone giant triangular blimps that are supposed to be stealthy, but have lights.

JayUtah
2011-Sep-19, 08:16 PM
...

I think most of you bad astronomy guys need to find a middle ground...

We're looking for the truth. Why do you assume it must lie somewhere in the middle? It is quite conceivable that someone could be almost completely wrong.

...and not be ridiculously aggressive with your debunking.

I hate to break it to you, but the standards of inquiry that skeptics apply to UFO claims is pretty normal in the investigative sciences. Instead, UFO proponents seem to want the standards relaxed to allow for their farfetched speculation.

Do you plan on apologizing just as aggressively if uncle Sam declassifies some exotic platform that it turns out lots of people saw and called a "UFO"?

I'm not sure what you're trying to ask. Human-built air and spacecraft are among the explanations sometimes put forward by skeptics to account for some sightings, when the evidence suggests it. Now you seem to be saying that skeptics reject this explanation. It is typically the UFO proponents who insist that sighted objects must be otherworldly, and they are the ones who pooh-pooh suggestions that these are high-performance aircraft or returning spacecraft, etc.

You could also deflate the "alien" theory by pointing out that the earth is blanketed by the US "space fence" and similar space detection systems...

I'm not sure what you mean by a "space fence." There is radar surveillance of orbital space, but it is not comprehensive, continuous coverage. We mostly track objects we ourselves have left there.

Further, the orbital surveillance to which I refer is conducted by government and military, institutions that UFO enthusiasts historically consider extremely untrustworthy. If one of the primary activities among UFO believers is to accuse governments of coverup, then it doesn't make sense to insist that government-sponsored surveillance should uncover signs of alien visitation. The UFO believers can simply claim that visiting spacecraft aren't being reported, even if they were detected.

And finally, you can do a little homework on the "giant triangle".

Please don't assume we disbelieve UFO claims simply because we are unaware of them. Most of us are very well acquainted with the prominent UFO anecdotes.

It was seen all across the state, not just in Phoenix.

No, the Phoenix Lights have been very well explained by ordinary causes. The "giant triangle" concept in general is also well explained by optical phenomena -- the tendency to assume an object (even to the extent of failing to see "occluded" stars) between putatively delimiting points such as lights is well enough established.

From an engineering standpoint, a gigantic stealth blimp is enormously impractical.

eburacum45
2011-Sep-19, 08:19 PM
... you can do a little homework on the "giant triangle". It was seen all across the state, not just in Phoenix.
If it was seen all across the state, why could it not have been the same flight of aircraft that Mitch Stanley identified?

It was seen over many decades in many different instances. Another triangle which seems to have been identified is the Belgian photo from Petit-Rechain, now revealed as a hoax
http://www.smh.com.au/world/mysterious-ufo-made-of-polystyrene-20110727-1hzzn.html

HenrikOlsen
2011-Sep-20, 06:31 AM
I think most of you bad astronomy guys need to find a middle ground and not be ridiculously aggressive with your debunking. Do you plan on apologizing just as aggressively if uncle Sam declassifies some exotic platform that it turns out lots of people saw and called a "UFO"? Because, uncle Sam has indeed done that before. Tens of thousands of UFO reports from the 50's, 60's, and 70's were the U2 and A12/SR71. History certainly has a way of repeating itself does it not?
Yep. Tens of thousands of unidentified observations were subsequently identified. As terrestrial craft. Why apologize to the people who called them alien craft when it's revealed they weren't? Shouldn't it be the people making money off the gullible by selling the alien story who should be apologizing when they're once again shown to be wrong?

In which way does identifying previously unidentified observations as being of terrestrial origin make other unidentified observations in any way more likely to be aliens?

We don't dismiss the observations, we dismiss the interpretation that they are evidence for alien visitations because every single observation so far, which has turned from unidentified to identified, has been terrestrial and perfectly natural.

I see a continuum of observations of things in the sky ranging from the tens of billions of observations which were immediately recognized through the billions which needed a second look to be recognized to the many thousands of observations where there simply isn't enough information to tell what it is. And so far, for those that have been identified, the score is tens or hundreds of billions to zero against it being aliens. Why would anyone with the power of rational thought consider the unidentified observations to be of anything other than perfectly normal things?

And I see charlatans preying on the gullible and that makes me angry. I think any aggression perceived has adequate cause.

Gillianren
2011-Sep-20, 04:07 PM
I wouldn't say they've all proven to be terrestrial. Some were Venus.

HenrikOlsen
2011-Sep-20, 04:19 PM
Oops, yes.

Should have used "not alien".

Main point still remains, billions upon billions of observations identified as not-aliens vs. zero observations identified as aliens. Plus some unidentifieds where there isn't enough information to determine what it is. I'd say the odds favor non-aliens.

Gillianren
2011-Sep-20, 04:42 PM
Absolutely. I think most sightings can fall under fewer than a dozen categories, all of which can be summed up as "misidentification of mundane phenomena," but of course that makes certain people think I'm saying that all sightings are the same.

Moose
2011-Sep-21, 12:10 AM
I wouldn't say they've all proven to be terrestrial. Some were Venus.

Heh. One was the moon.

tnjrp
2011-Sep-21, 05:12 AM
Even non-skeptic organizations that have actually put some thought into UFO research (such as it is) tend to agree that roughly 95% of the sightings are pap (the percentage given is IIRC from GEPAN/SEPRA) either because the UFO turned into an IFO on closer examination or there just isn't enough data available to make any sort of evaluation as to what was sighted.

In the case of the Phoenix Lights, I would be interested to see the evidence that solidly ties "giant triangle" sightings "all across the state", never mind "over many decades in many different instances" to the said lights. I'm aware that some people claimed to see a flying triangle at Phoenix of course but what is the specific connection to the other triangle sightings - is it supposed to have zipped around the state for example? Or were there more than one in the air that night?

baskerbosse
2011-Sep-21, 05:22 AM
I think most of you bad astronomy guys need to find a middle ground...

We're looking for the truth. Why do you assume it must lie somewhere in the middle? It is quite conceivable that someone could be almost completely wrong.


Well said.

This happens all the time. Probably due to the mindset of politicians and journalists.
Truth needs to be proven. -Not agreed to.


Peter

HenrikOlsen
2011-Sep-21, 06:22 AM
In the case of the Phoenix Lights, I would be interested to see the evidence that solidly ties "giant triangle" sightings "all across the state", never mind "over many decades in many different instances" to the said lights. I'm aware that some people claimed to see a flying triangle at Phoenix of course but what is the specific connection to the other triangle sightings - is it supposed to have zipped around the state for example? Or were there more than one in the air that night?
Any three lights, not in a straight line, will make a triangle and will match any given triangular shape under some perspective transformation, so almost any observation of three lights can be interpreted as matching every other observation.
That's why they talk about people seeing the same thing even though it's entirely possible to be dozens of different types of lights and every observation is of something different.

Three lights in the sky is one of the absolutely weakest observations because there is nothing to tell what's causing it, there's not enough clues to give distance/speed/size and the visual system of the mind happily fills in the triangle even though it's not there.

Paul Beardsley
2011-Sep-21, 10:53 AM
I think most of you bad astronomy guys need to find a middle ground

"I say Simon Jenkins murdered two people."

"I say he never murdered anyone. Heck, you haven't even named his supposed victims, let alone shown any evidence of violent behaviour!"

"Okay, how about we compromise? Simon Jenkins murdered one person."

"Ah, now that's what I call middle ground. Shake?"

astrophotographer
2011-Sep-25, 06:56 PM
It has been some time since I visited. Just in case anyone missed it, SUNlite 2-3 had a major article about the Arizona UFOs.

http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite2_3.pdf

Edit: OOPS this is a double posting. I already put up that link.

Swift
2011-Sep-25, 07:38 PM
Hi astrophotographer, nice to have you back

finland
2011-Sep-27, 08:36 AM
quite a lotta rage on this forum

Strange
2011-Sep-27, 01:58 PM
quite a lotta rage on this forum

Quite ironic, given the immediately preceding post :)

The Milky Way
2011-Sep-27, 04:24 PM
thoughts ?

I think the problem with observetions that are stated as ETs crossing the sky, is that its often the 1st thing that
comes into peoples mind. And eye evidence is the weakest of all kind of evidence.

When a person observes something not ordinary on the sky, they should check every single natural or human reason
for it to appear - instead the go directly to say its an ET, not even as much as speculate in more natural causes.
People whos brains works that way, dont have alot of credibility, do you think?

Garrison
2011-Sep-27, 06:32 PM
quite a lotta rage on this forum

Only if you start a Moon v Mars thread in Space Exploration.:)

Usher
2011-Sep-27, 09:11 PM
quite a lotta rage on this forum

Agreed; this forum is all the rage. Welcome to it!

Luckmeister
2011-Sep-28, 04:27 PM
quite a lotta rage on this forum

Yes, Moon hoax believers and other conspiracy theorists often have a tendency to exhibit rage when asked for proof.

Luckmeister
2011-Sep-28, 04:52 PM
I think the problem with observetions that are stated as ETs crossing the sky, is that its often the 1st thing that
comes into peoples mind. And eye evidence is the weakest of all kind of evidence.

When a person observes something not ordinary on the sky, they should check every single natural or human reason
for it to appear - instead the go directly to say its an ET, not even as much as speculate in more natural causes.
People whos brains works that way, dont have alot of credibility, do you think?

Their desire to believe outweighs their desire to know; a common failing with many people. Credibility is earned when one's statements are backed up with knowledge.

Sam5
2011-Oct-07, 03:01 AM
So many people from all walks of life went on record saying they had seen this huge craft (reported to be over a mile wide). Doctors, lawyers, plumbers , you name it. There are so many accounts from hundreds upon hundreds of eye witnesses.




Show me some photos. If a mile wide craft flew over my community and town, there would be thousands of photos of it, and videos. Cell phone cams, video cams, film cams, etc. Show us hundreds upon hundreds of photos of this thing.

Sam5
2011-Oct-07, 03:13 AM
Trailer for the film can be found here (entire documentary can be viewed on YouTube)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhAQrR8Jhkk



The two or three shots of several lights that appear to be moving through the sky in unison are computer graphics. Computer animation. This is not an object, it is animaiton. I was in the TV video business, and I see animations like this all the time on several cable TV channels.

The lights that appear to be moving in unison at :53 seconds is computer animation. At 1:09 seconds, more computer animation. At 1:59 computer animation. At 2:11 computer animation.

Remember the boy in the runaway balloon story of a couple of years ago? Live video hour after hour, mile after mile. Why? Because that balloon was real.

A mile-wide UFO flies over Phoenix. 10,000 people see it. Yet no actual video or still photos of it. So it has to be illustrated with faked computer graphics. Why? Because no mile-wide craft flew over Phoenix.

HenrikOlsen
2011-Oct-07, 10:10 AM
Remember the boy in the runaway balloon story of a couple of years ago? Live video hour after hour, mile after mile. Why? Because that balloon was real.
That was still a hoax, but the hoax was the the boy was in the balloon, not that the balloon existed.
Lots of evidence for that, lots of good images..
As Sam5 said, that incidence sets a nice precedence for the amount of evidence we should expect to see when it's an actual flying object.

astrophotographer
2011-Oct-09, 12:42 AM
There actually was one video shot of the V-shaped formation of lights. It showed no mile-wide dark object and only showed lights that shifted in formation during the time period the camera was recording them!

Recently, Kansas City MUFON began trumpeting a UFO sighting of a huge "triangle" that was seen by independent witnesses (one claimed it was so low they could touch it). It did not take long for the culprits to be found. A local stunt plane group was the cause. They were flying about near the location described by the witnesses in formation with lights. Hmmm.......Makes one wonder about all those similar reports back in 1997. If these witnesses in Kansas City could be fooled by a formation of aircraft, isn't it possible (might I suggest probable) that a formation of aircraft could have fooled many of the witnesses in Phoneix as well?

Eric12407
2011-Oct-11, 08:44 AM
The two or three shots of several lights that appear to be moving through the sky in unison are computer graphics. Computer animation. This is not an object, it is animaiton. I was in the TV video business, and I see animations like this all the time on several cable TV channels.

The lights that appear to be moving in unison at :53 seconds is computer animation. At 1:09 seconds, more computer animation. At 1:59 computer animation. At 2:11 computer animation.

Remember the boy in the runaway balloon story of a couple of years ago? Live video hour after hour, mile after mile. Why? Because that balloon was real.

A mile-wide UFO flies over Phoenix. 10,000 people see it. Yet no actual video or still photos of it. So it has to be illustrated with faked computer graphics. Why? Because no mile-wide craft flew over Phoenix.

They choose whether or not to be seen and can be experienced by one individual while all others around are unaware .... The ones I've seen don't show up on the camera viewfinder even though I'm looking right at them with my eyes

The issue is not whether or not these phenomena exist ... the real test is to have trust and concern in the observations of your fellow man ... which most of the people on this forum fail on a continuous basis ...

Soon the tests will be over and your choices will live with you forever ... choose wisely and compassionately ...

The world will change and nothing will ever be the same

ERic ...

Van Rijn
2011-Oct-11, 09:03 AM
They choose whether or not to be seen and can be experienced by one individual while all others around are unaware .... The ones I've seen don't show up on the camera viewfinder even though I'm looking right at them with my eyes


So they're . . . invisible? Could they be elves?


The issue is not whether or not these phenomena exist


Actually, that's a big issue. How would we objectively test for these invisible whatevers? It sounds like an unfalsifiable claim.



... the real test is to have trust and concern in the observations of your fellow man ... which most of the people on this forum fail on a continuous basis ...


Why is that? Is it because we don't accept your unsupported claims?

tnjrp
2011-Oct-11, 10:04 AM
They choose whether or not to be seen and can be experienced by one individual while all others around are unaware .... The ones I've seen don't show up on the camera viewfinder even though I'm looking right at them with my eyesI would say this is highly convenient assumption of how the so-called UFOs function. It's extremely close to how things like angels, demons or, indeed, elves are assumed to behave. I take it you are a supporter of supernatural rather than paranormal hypothesis of the UFOs? Do you even think they are aliens from space at all?


The issue is not whether or not these phenomena existIt is very much the issue whether or not these phenomena exist, because there is no end of "phenomena" that only take place completely subjectively. In other words, they are experienced by one person but they have no intersubjective, much less objective, existence. I'm completely happy to let you or anyone else have subjective experiences of, say, massive triangular craft in the sky but I don't expect to be told I'm somehow defective for not expriencing them as you so kindly suggest below:

the real test is to have trust and concern in the observations of your fellow man ... which most of the people on this forum fail on a continuous basis ...

Soon the tests will be over and your choices will live with you forever ... choose wisely and compassionately ... The world will change and nothing will ever be the sameI would like to forward a completely subjective opinion that you are preaching religious beliefs here.

Tedward
2011-Oct-11, 10:07 AM
They choose whether or not to be seen and can be experienced by one individual while all others around are unaware .... The ones I've seen don't show up on the camera viewfinder even though I'm looking right at them with my eyes

This bit intrigues me, light hits the eye and through various processes is rushed to the brain to be processed. The view finder does the same albeit with differing capabilities. So is it a poor viewfinder or the conditions are outside the limits of the viewfinder? I cannot see that there is a mechanism to selectively allow light not to register on devices designed to do so be it biological through evolution or a chip made in where ever unless it it outside the limits of the device (eye or chip)


Edit to add, some viewfinders just reflect the light so no chip involved. How is this bypassed?

Strange
2011-Oct-11, 10:11 AM
This bit intrigues me, light hits the eye and through various processes is rushed to the brain to be processed. The view finder does the same albeit with differing capabilities. So is it a poor viewfinder or the conditions are outside the limits of the viewfinder?

Or is the phenomenon purely in the vision centres of the brain and doesn't involve the eyes at all?

Grashtel
2011-Oct-11, 11:43 AM
the real test is to have trust and concern in the observations of your fellow man ...
Given that the human perceptual system and human memory are demonstrably flawed and unreliable blindly trusting the observations of your fellow man is foolish at best as it is provable that just because someone sincerely believes that they saw, heard or otherwise experienced something doesn't mean that it was what they thought it was or even that it actually took place. This is not saying that the people who claim to have seen UFOs, ghosts, ect are lying or insane, simply that they are human and are suffering from normal human flaws that effect everyone.

CJSF
2011-Oct-11, 01:53 PM
Why do the "Phoenix Lights" keep coming up as a UFO topic? Aren't these the same "Lights" that were shown to be flares that disappeared behind a mountain? I thought I watched a debunking on TV *years* ago, where a man overlayed the "original" video (at night) with one taken from the same vantage point during the day. This showed that the lights moved in a manner consistent with flares and the "vanishing" lights were in fact the flares passing behind the mountain. Does anyone else remember seeing this?

CJSF

NEOWatcher
2011-Oct-11, 02:12 PM
I thought I watched a debunking on TV *years* ago, where a man overlayed the "original" video (at night) with one taken from the same vantage point during the day.
...and the pilot who dropped them for operation snowbird.
This is the segment I remember (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TD6MYZcucQA).

The problem is that it took me a long time to find that among all the garbage that's out there. Even the woo shows on History and NatGeo are very prominent in the search. And; you know that many people think that they are trustworthy sources.

I even ran across a few videos that attempt to debunk the debunking saying the lights were a UFO and it just went behind the mountain, and the military is lying about dropping the flares.

Most seem to say "there's never been an explaination".

So; deception by omission and overall dismissal of the explainations leave thier belief in UFOs alive.

JayUtah
2011-Oct-11, 03:35 PM
They choose whether or not to be seen...

How convenient. Who are "they?" How do you know they have a conscious motivation? How do you know what that motivation is?


...and can be experienced by one individual while all others around are unaware....

Even more convenient. Something that can't even be reproducibly observed has very little chance of being reliably explained. Or debunked, if necessary.


The ones I've seen don't show up on the camera viewfinder even though I'm looking right at them with my eyes...

I'm not sure what we're talking about here. Extraterrestrial beings? Ghosts? Angels?

Have any good ideas for why they can't even be seen through simple optics? It makes sense that some extraordinary claims come from things caught on film but not seen in real life. That's because many turn out to be artifacts of the way a camera works.

You seem to be talking about perceptions that exist only in the mind. Therefore you're drifting close to sensations we regard as signs of disorder or pathology. What would you say if I told you the voices and images in my head instructed me to kill innocent people?


The issue is not whether or not these phenomena exist...

If you're talking about UFOs and encounters, then the concern among the proponents of the ET theory for them is almost exclusively that these phenomena exist. Mantras such as "UFOs are real!" and calls for further investigation not only presuppose but also argue strenuously that UFOs represent real phenomena, and are not just hallucinations or hoaxes, such as they believe skeptics universally claim.

And for us skeptics, there is equal concern whether the phenomena exist as an external cause. It may not matter to you, but it matters to us.


the real test is to have trust and concern in the observations of your fellow man...

No, you're confusing benevolence with truth. I do my fellow man a disservice if I offer him comfort that is not founded upon truth.

Unfortunately we have discovered that human perception is an untrustworthy source of truth. Humans make mistakes, both during the time when they are sensing the environment around them, and later when recalling. These errors are rarely malicious, but compromise the truth nonetheless. Humans are poor judges of distance, of the continuity of objects, of the identity of objects, and of the non-identity of non-objects. We see things that aren't there. We miss things that are there. We cloud our judgment with unconscious wishful thinking. We recall things as semi-fabricated narratives, not as recordings of objective fact.

All those things and more teach us to approach eyewitness testimony with caution. And when the testimony purports to describe something apparently unreal, we have learned that truth compels us to approach with a great deal of skepticism.

This is not to say that we call witnesses liars. This is not to say we don't say they have seen what they have purported to see. What it means for us is that we don't necessarily accept the interpretations offered by others of what was seen, nor do we discount that there may be significant innocent error of the types discussed above. We trust the witness to report honestly and accurate to the best of his ability. But we reserve the right to apply prevailing science in helping to interpret it.


which most of the people on this forum fail on a continuous basis...

With pride. Most of us aspire to the scientific model of investigation, which eschews trust for individuals in favor of reproducibility, peer review, and continuous revision.


choose wisely and compassionately...

Wisdom and compassion are not always compatible. Hence for some questions wisdom is the better choice. For others, compassion. Whether lights in the sky are vehicles flown by space aliens is a question of wisdom over compassion.

You seem to suggest we're being tested without our knowledge by a higher power, and that our actions now will be judged by that higher power later, when the power reveals itself. That seems like an overtly religious belief. Without any objective expression of the criteria, it's just as valid to say that higher power will judge us on our tendency toward reason as toward our tendency for compassion. In other words, within your philosophical framework how do you know that the test won't reward those who reject the subjective impressions of their fellow beings? How do you know that the test isn't intended to see whether we have let go of our primordial superstitions and prejudices?


The world will change and nothing will ever be the same

And if one bases his life on what he can honestly observe, reproduce, and characterize over time, he will have nothing to fear should this occur. Skepticism is not about blindly rejecting the extraordinary. Skepticism is about drawing conclusions based on evidence. If there is a radical change in evidence, there will most likely be a radical change in conclusions.

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-11, 04:25 PM
They choose whether or not to be seen and can be experienced by one individual while all others around are unaware...

So they are magic?


The ones I've seen don't show up on the camera viewfinder even though I'm looking right at them with my eyes

Why should a mirror or lenses make any difference? Please explain.


...the real test is to have trust and concern in the observations of your fellow man ... which most of the people on this forum fail on a continuous basis ...

There is a reason for that...eyewitness "testimony" is notorious for error.


Soon the tests will be over and your choices will live with you forever ... choose wisely and compassionately ...

Admirable, however the only "wise" choice is rationality, and blindly accepting what others say, without any evidence whatsoever, is not rational.

Goldstone
2011-Oct-11, 06:48 PM
Just because there are a lot of first hand accounts that dismiss some notion doesn't necessarily mean that notion is wrong. Think about all those people who said they saw a missile rising up near Los Angeles and simply dismissed the notion that it was an airplane contrail, even though after careful analysis it was very clearly an airplane contrail. Sometimes things in the sky don't look like people expect them to look.

Then maybe you would like to analyze the video evidence yourself of the Pheonix Lights? This is not a matter of a chemtrail, or a group of birds mistaken for something else. This was a very strange, otherworldy incident involving several lights (which appeared to be attached to a boomarang like object) which could be made visible as it travelled the night sky over pheonix - The lights where no known conventional aircraft, they hovered over pheonix for some time, before fading out one by one. The lights had been seen previously to that day as well according to a few other witnesses. It seems that the aircraft (whatever it was) had been in the local airspace of pheomix for some time before they became visible.

Garrison
2011-Oct-11, 07:28 PM
Then maybe you would like to analyze the video evidence yourself of the Pheonix Lights? This is not a matter of a chemtrail, or a group of birds mistaken for something else. This was a very strange, otherworldy incident involving several lights (which appeared to be attached to a boomarang like object) which could be made visible as it travelled the night sky over pheonix - The lights where no known conventional aircraft, they hovered over pheonix for some time, before fading out one by one. The lights had been seen previously to that day as well according to a few other witnesses. It seems that the aircraft (whatever it was) had been in the local airspace of pheomix for some time before they became visible.

The only video evidence I'm aware for the Phoenix lights has been proven to show flares, if you have something else that shows this 'boomerang' please post a link.

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-11, 07:39 PM
Then maybe you would like to analyze the video evidence yourself of the Pheonix Lights?

Done and done...the mundane conclusion?...flares. If you have evidence that explanation is not correct, then present that evidence.


This is not a matter of a chemtrail, or a group of birds mistaken for something else.

You believe in chemtrails also?


This was a very strange, otherworldy incident involving several lights...

How are aircraft flares, "otherworldly"?


(which appeared to be attached to a boomarang like object)

Appearances can be deceiving, don't you agree?


The lights where no known conventional aircraft...

No one said they were...they were flares.


...they hovered over pheonix for some time, before fading out one by one.

...as the flares disappeared behind the mountains.


It seems that the aircraft (whatever it was) had been in the local airspace of pheomix for some time before they became visible.


Don't mistake unfounded supposition, for actual, credible evidence. They are in no way the same...

Goldstone
2011-Oct-11, 08:01 PM
First of all, flares do not move in geometrical patterns. If you have actually seen the pheonic light footage, claims it was ''flares'' is just so easily disrpoven. How long do actual flares stay lit for? It would be interesting to measure how long these lights where viewed for. Also, flares are not attached to ''darkened out bodies''. No.... the flare explanation can be easily discredited. Flares don't move across the sky without dropping, nor do they fly in any geometrical formation.

Abaddon
2011-Oct-11, 08:16 PM
First of all, flares do not move in geometrical patterns.

Yes they do


If you have actually seen the pheonic light footage, claims it was ''flares'' is just so easily disrpoven. How long do actual flares stay lit for?
OK, how long do they stay lit for? Do you know?


It would be interesting to measure how long these lights where viewed for.
So why have you not done so?


Also, flares are not attached to ''darkened out bodies''.

No, but they can mislead the eye to think so.

No.... the flare explanation can be easily discredited. Flares don't move across the sky without dropping, nor do they fly in any geometrical formation.
Parachute flares do.

Van Rijn
2011-Oct-11, 08:35 PM
Then maybe you would like to analyze the video evidence yourself of the Pheonix Lights? This is not a matter of a chemtrail, or a group of birds mistaken for something else. This was a very strange, otherworldy incident involving several lights (which appeared to be attached to a boomarang like object) which could be made visible as it travelled the night sky over pheonix - The lights where no known conventional aircraft, they hovered over pheonix for some time, before fading out one by one. The lights had been seen previously to that day as well according to a few other witnesses.


Those are two events, and the evidence points to different causes. In the earlier case planes, in the later case flares.

We've discussed this one to death. eburacum45 has a good summary in this earlier post:


http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/115276-The-Phoenix-Lights?p=1884719#post1884719

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-11, 08:44 PM
First of all, flares do not move in geometrical patterns.

You have evidence of this "geometric patterns" movement? If so, then present it.


If you have actually seen the pheonic light footage, claims it was ''flares'' is just so easily disrpoven.

Argument from incredulousness is not acceptable. Yes we've seen the footage, and yes, they are flares. If it is so "easily disproven", then do so.


It would be interesting to measure how long these lights where viewed for.

Interesting?...don't you know? Why would you argue from a position of ignorance?


...flares are not attached to ''darkened out bodies''.

...and the evidence for these "darkened out bodies" is???


...the flare explanation can be easily discredited.

Then do so...


Flares don't move across the sky without dropping...

Unless they are supported by parachutes.


...nor do they fly in any geometrical formation.


Once again..there is no credible evidence for this claim. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.

JayUtah
2011-Oct-11, 10:48 PM
First of all, flares do not move in geometrical patterns.

Hogwash. Parachute flares, such as for battlefield illumination, always maintain the same relative position to each other after the last one in a salvo has deployed. They are entrained similarly by the winds aloft and are largely constrained the same flight paths.


How long do actual flares stay lit for?

2-3 minutes, in the case of the M-257 standard illumination flare. These are not ballistic signal flares. These are illumination flares deployed by small rockets launched from aircraft, and suspended beneath parachutes. They descend very slowly.

These flares are manufactured just a short drive from my home, by the same company that built the SRBs for the space shuttle. And I have often observed them while growing up. You very quickly normalize to the notion that while not a common sight, they are nevertheless ordinary human technology.


Also, flares are not attached to ''darkened out bodies''.

No such "bodies" were actually observed, hence the supposition that they "must" have been blacked out.

The propensity of observers to "complete" the shape suggested by points of light against a black sky, or other similarly limited patterns of detail, is well studied. In some cases witnesses reported dark shapes occluding the stars between lights even when the lights were known to be from separate aircraft. This is fully in harmony with other pattern-completion artifacts of human vision.


No.... the flare explanation can be easily discredited.

Only by people who have a very limited experience with flares.

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-11, 10:57 PM
Hogwash. Parachute flares, such as for battlefield illumination, always maintain the same relative position to each other after the last one in a salvo has deployed. They are entrained similarly by the winds aloft and are largely constrained the same flight paths.

DOH! Now I know that, so what was I arguing about?

Thanks, Jay...now where can I get my "corrected by Jay" T shirt?

Goldstone
2011-Oct-11, 11:09 PM
Someone asked me what evidence I had to say they moved in geometrical formation. What better evidence than to view the phenomenon with your own eyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdIdDpJYSOM

These are not flares. I've never worked in the Military, but they certainly don't resemble any flare-like activity I've ever seen.

Goldstone
2011-Oct-11, 11:11 PM
The parachute explanation does not add up either, because there seems to be ''structure'' behind the lights. Not any structure associated to parachutes. This structure is in direct example of the typical black triangle UFO's, like the kind observed during the belgium observations.

Van Rijn
2011-Oct-11, 11:18 PM
The parachute explanation does not add up either, because there seems to be ''structure'' behind the lights.


How did you determine that?




This structure is in direct example of the typical black triangle UFO's, like the kind observed during the belgium observations.

More like an example of misidentification, as is common, when people see three or more lights in a dark sky. And by the way, there was also a hoax involved in the Belgium case:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hiDdeCJQip5bT8D3v-RXeRFK9IJg?docId=CNG.67d603a832d1aa3c07e2360dc76ce 279.961

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-11, 11:20 PM
The parachute explanation does not add up either..

Since you are "back", will you be addressing the outstanding questions on the other thread?...in particular, your mistake?

PetersCreek
2011-Oct-11, 11:28 PM
These are not flares. I've never worked in the Military, but they certainly don't resemble any flare-like activity I've ever seen.

What flare-like activity have you seen? If you lack experience with military (or civilian) aerial flares, on what do you base your determination that they are not flares?

During my USAF career I had a handful of opportunities to see flares in use. The video to which you linked is consistence with flare deployment. In fact, one of the commenters responding to that video said he had seen the same thing used by the military at Fort Benning, Georgia.

Gillianren
2011-Oct-11, 11:42 PM
These are not flares. I've never worked in the Military, but they certainly don't resemble any flare-like activity I've ever seen.

Then how reasonable is your supposition that military flares work in a way you'd expect? Do you automatically assume that everyone who does have experience with military flares is lying?

Goldstone
2011-Oct-11, 11:46 PM
What flare-like activity have you seen? If you lack experience with military (or civilian) aerial flares, on what do you base your determination that they are not flares?

During my USAF career I had a handful of opportunities to see flares in use. The video to which you linked is consistence with flare deployment. In fact, one of the commenters responding to that video said he had seen the same thing used by the military at Fort Benning, Georgia.

Consistent with flares you say? So flares which are suspended in the air, relatively low to the ground as it was, just hover over the region of pheonix with a strange darkened shadow structure which connected all the lights? This is consistent with flares you say?

Goldstone
2011-Oct-11, 11:48 PM
Then how reasonable is your supposition that military flares work in a way you'd expect? Do you automatically assume that everyone who does have experience with military flares is lying?

Reasonable enough that if they had no parachutes, then they defied the natural laws of physics (a subject which I am more attuned with) - not only that, but reports from multiple people stated that there was a darkened structure which connected the lights does not seems appropriate to define as being connected to parachutes.

PetersCreek
2011-Oct-11, 11:52 PM
Let me remind you that you are the one who is supposed to answer questions in this thread. Please do so.

Goldstone
2011-Oct-11, 11:57 PM
Let me remind you that you are the one who is supposed to answer questions in this thread. Please do so.

How can I answer questions when you are refusing to here my contentions? I said that the lights and witness reports do not match to the flare explanation. Surely what I just said to you previously has you a bit stumped?

Van Rijn
2011-Oct-11, 11:57 PM
not only that, but reports from multiple people stated that there was a darkened structure which connected the lights does not seems appropriate to define as being connected to parachutes.

Why not?

One of the tricks of the human perceptual system is that it attempts to make sense from limited information, so there is no surprise that many will assume structure if they see lights in a dark sky.

And by the way, here's a discussion of a New Jersey hoax, with flares on balloons:

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/86709-Morristown-NJ-UFO

People became quite annoyed at the explanation of "flares on balloons" even though the hoaxers later admitted to it. They did it deliberately to show how people react to such cases.

Goldstone
2011-Oct-11, 11:58 PM
I answered your question rhetorically:

Flares which are suspended in the air, relatively low to the ground as it was, just hover over the region of pheonix with a strange darkened shadow structure which connected all the lights?

Goldstone
2011-Oct-11, 11:59 PM
Why not?

One of the tricks of the human perceptual system is that it attempts to make sense from limited information.

That sounds very much like ''caused by the imagination.''

Is mass hallicination really excepted in science today? I know mass histeria exists. But mass hallucination?

Goldstone
2011-Oct-12, 12:00 AM
I know fine well mass hallucinations don't really exist. Individual brains don't act as a collective.

stutefish
2011-Oct-12, 12:00 AM
The parachute explanation does not add up either, because there seems to be ''structure'' behind the lights. Not any structure associated to parachutes.

"Structure", or image artifacts? That video is of such low resolution that there's almost more artifacts than image! The entire background sky might as well be a "structure" of some kind, if that's how you want to interpret it.

PaulLogan
2011-Oct-12, 12:01 AM
here are some facts regarding the flares:

on march 13, 1997 around 8.15pm people started seeing the large triangular shaped object. most sightings happened around 8.30pm.
in a report to senator mckain the airforce said the flares were dropped by the national guard between 9.30pm and 10pm that same evening.
and it was those flares that were shown on national tv.
the "real" sighting happened an hour earlier!

some say the flares were dropped as a coverup, just to have an "explanation" for the gullible...
from what i can see in this thread, it worked!

Goldstone
2011-Oct-12, 12:02 AM
here are some facts regarding the flares:

on march 13, 1997 around 8.15pm people started seeing the large triangular shaped object. most sightings happened around 8.30pm.
in a report to senator mckain the airforce said the flares were dropped by the national guard between 9.30pm and 10pm that same evening.
and it was those flares that were shown on national tv.
the "real" sighting happened an hour earlier!

some say the flares were dropped as a coverup, just to have an "explanation" for the gullible...
from what i can see in this thread, it worked!

Indeed.

Goldstone
2011-Oct-12, 12:04 AM
"Structure", or image artifacts? That video is of such low resolution that there's almost more artifacts than image! The entire background sky might as well be a "structure" of some kind, if that's how you want to interpret it.

No. I don't expect anyone to draw any observational evidence that there was a structure behind the object from the video. That was linked to show that the low altitude lights where stationed at a specific level above the ground and which did not decend.

It is only when you read witness reports that you can conclude the parachute explanation made no sense, due to there being an actual structure which held the lights in position - a triangular structure, not an oval parachute structure.

Van Rijn
2011-Oct-12, 12:09 AM
That sounds very much like ''caused by the imagination.''

Is mass hallicination really excepted in science today? I know mass histeria exists. But mass hallucination?

People reacted to the "flares on balloons" explanation for the New Jersey hoax in much the same way. They got real quiet when it was shown conclusively that it was a hoax with flares on balloons. That's the way our vision works, like it or not.

Goldstone
2011-Oct-12, 12:10 AM
People reacted to the "flares on balloons" explanation for the New Jersey hoax in much the same way. They got real quiet when it was shown conclusively that it was a hoax with flares on balloons. That's the way our vision works, like it or not.

Except the witness reports contradict directly any kind of flare/balloon explanation.

PetersCreek
2011-Oct-12, 12:11 AM
How can I answer questions when you are refusing to here my contentions? I said that the lights and witness reports do not match to the flare explanation. Surely what I just said to you previously has you a bit stumped?


I answered your question rhetorically:

Okay, I see now that I'm not going to be able to participate in this thread due to the moderation required.

Goldstone, our rules require direct answers to pertinent questions. People here are hearing your contentions and those contentions are being questioned. Your rhetoical questions seem to argue against the questions rather than answer them. So, stick to direct answers. If you want argue the premise of the question or some other point related to it, fine. Do so. But answer the question first.

Now, enough metadiscussion. Back to the topic.

Goldstone
2011-Oct-12, 12:13 AM
Our vision works.... perfectly fine in most instances. Star's in the sky faded as this thing passed directly overhead. The structure could be seen and was not a matter of a mass hallucination or a matter of bad eyesight. For that to be the case, pheonix better get to specsavers!

Goldstone
2011-Oct-12, 12:15 AM
Okay, I see now that I'm not going to be able to participate in this thread due to the moderation required.

Goldstone, our rules require direct answers to pertinent questions. People here are hearing your contentions and those contentions are being questioned. Your rhetoical questions seem to argue against the questions rather than answer them. So, stick to direct answers. If you want argue the premise of the question or some other point related to it, fine. Do so. But answer the question first.

Now, enough metadiscussion. Back to the topic.

Your question was answered. You're being a bit odd with me.

I said it cannot simply be a flare if there is a structure behind the lights, and if that structure does not resemble a parachute. My answer was clear enough, rhetorical or not.

Van Rijn
2011-Oct-12, 12:15 AM
here are some facts regarding the flares:

on march 13, 1997 around 8.15pm people started seeing the large triangular shaped object. most sightings happened around 8.30pm.
in a report to senator mckain the airforce said the flares were dropped by the national guard between 9.30pm and 10pm that same evening.
and it was those flares that were shown on national tv.
the "real" sighting happened an hour earlier!

some say the flares were dropped as a coverup, just to have an "explanation" for the gullible...
from what i can see in this thread, it worked!


I will point out - again - Eburacum's earlier summary on this:

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/115276-The-Phoenix-Lights?p=1884719#post1884719

Two events. Planes and flares.

Goldstone
2011-Oct-12, 12:17 AM
I will point out - again - Eburacum's earlier summary on this:

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/115276-The-Phoenix-Lights?p=1884719#post1884719

Two events. Planes and flares.

Again, highly unlikely to be flares if the situation posits things which do not account for the flare-balloon explanation/coverup.

HenrikOlsen
2011-Oct-12, 12:36 AM
Reasonable enough that if they had no parachutes, then they defied the natural laws of physics (a subject which I am more attuned with) - not only that, but reports from multiple people stated that there was a darkened structure which connected the lights does not seems appropriate to define as being connected to parachutes.
Nope, the dark mass is a well-known optical illusion caused by the human visual system attempting to interpret co-moving dots as a single object.
The parachutes were too small to see at that distance and no one's talking about the flares being connected by parachutes.

That sounds very much like ''caused by the imagination.''

Is mass hallicination really excepted in science today? I know mass histeria exists. But mass hallucination?
No, but optical illusion is accepted by science because it's actually very easily confirmed effects of the human visual system.
We're not saying people are crazy, we're saying they're human.

Except the witness reports contradict directly any kind of flare/balloon explanation.
The eye-witness reports and the video recording are perfectly consistent with the lights being flares, if you look at what people actually saw rather than looking at what people interpret they saw.
This is an interesting case because not only are there eye-witnesses but there is also video which makes it perfectly clear what people described and how they got the impression they got.

If you're talking about the unrelated lights in the sky earlier that night those have as far as I remember been identified as aircraft flying in formation.

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-12, 12:37 AM
I said it cannot simply be a flare if there is a structure behind the lights..

Sorry...no structure...


My answer was clear enough, rhetorical or not.

Or simply wrong?

Goldstone
2011-Oct-12, 12:39 AM
Nope, the dark mass is a well-known optical illusion caused by the human visual system attempting to interpret co-moving dots as a single object.
The parachutes were too small to see at that distance and no one's talking about the flares being connected by parachutes.


You have my interest! What would be this optical phenomenon be known as?

Goldstone
2011-Oct-12, 12:39 AM
Sorry...no structure...



Or simply wrong?

Now you're just being sarcastic.

Van Rijn
2011-Oct-12, 01:00 AM
You have my interest! What would be this optical phenomenon be known as?

It's perceptual, not optical. Look up "illusory contours" and "amodal completion". Googling "dots illusory contours" will turn up a fair number of links, for instance.

Goldstone
2011-Oct-12, 01:17 AM
Right.... this phenomenon cannot be easily dismissed with illusory contours. My impression of this phenomenon lies in specific geometrical arrangements which seem to give the impression of what would be a good word ''structures'' when there is none. Tell me how that can account for the lights of pheonix if they where mearly flares?

Goldstone
2011-Oct-12, 01:19 AM
If the light's where distorted as to provide some pattern, I could except this. But they were ''clear lights'' ... orbs if you like, arranged in such a way that whatever was holding them together made the back ground of a much larger object. Note that stars magically disappear as it passed overhead. This surely is not an illusionary phenomenon.

JayUtah
2011-Oct-12, 01:22 AM
These are not flares. I've never worked in the Military, but they certainly don't resemble any flare-like activity I've ever seen.

Fine, I accept that you don't have much experience with flares. Why are you reluctant to accept the judgment of those of us who do have a lot of experience with flares?

Van Rijn
2011-Oct-12, 01:25 AM
Right.... this phenomenon cannot be easily dismissed with illusory contours. My impression of this phenomenon lies in specific geometrical arrangements which seem to give the impression of what would be a good word ''structures'' when there is none. Tell me how that can account for the lights of pheonix if they where mearly flares?

Three moving lights not in a line against a black background will typically be perceived as a triangle.

JayUtah
2011-Oct-12, 01:25 AM
Right.... this phenomenon cannot be easily dismissed with illusory contours.

Explain why not. It sounds to me like a classic case.


My impression of this phenomenon lies in specific geometrical arrangements which seem to give the impression of...

Supposition.


Tell me how that can account for the lights of pheonix if they where mearly flares?

Complex question. I don't agree with your premise that there is something "special" to the geometry of the flares.

Rarely does a real-world explanation so completely satisfy a UFO report than illumination flares do for this one. You're really, really reaching to try to discredit it.

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-12, 01:29 AM
Now you're just being sarcastic.

No...just being accurate.

JayUtah
2011-Oct-12, 01:32 AM
I said it cannot simply be a flare if there is a structure behind the lights

Circular. You use the presumption of structure to discount that they are flares. And you use the arrangement of the flares to establish that there must be structure.

I hate to tell you this, but what I see and what has been described is a very clear cut case of flare deployment. It doesn't really get much more characteristic than this. And do you really expect me to lay aside years of personal observation on the grounds that a bunch of other people who never saw this kind of flare before have let their imaginations run wild?

HenrikOlsen
2011-Oct-12, 01:35 AM
First of all, lets be sure we're talking about the same observation, there were multiple observations of lights in the sky that night and it's important to not confuse them.
One set of lights were the set from the video, which is an irregular near-horizontal line of lights that hung in the sky for perhaps some minutes (I have yet to see a clip of that video lasting more than 30 seconds, but I'll allow that this is likely due to editing by news casters), the other were sets of light moving in formation in the sky.
The former is the flares, the latter has been shown to be consistent with aircraft flying in formation, as I remember as part of the same exercise during which the flares were dropped. Note incidentally that it's well documented that flares were dropped that night at the relevant time.
Which observation are you talking about?

HenrikOlsen
2011-Oct-12, 01:41 AM
If the light's where distorted as to provide some pattern, I could except this. But they were ''clear lights'' ... orbs if you like, arranged in such a way that whatever was holding them together made the back ground of a much larger object. Note that stars magically disappear as it passed overhead. This surely is not an illusionary phenomenon.
Are you talking about the line of lights on the horizon or the formation flying lights from earlier that night?

As for stars disappearing, don't you know anything about stargazing?
The focus point of the eye is also the part with least ability to see faint objects, even without anything else in the sky looking directly at a faint star can make it go away. See averted vision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Averted_vision) for an explanation of the phenomenon.

It's a perception phenomenon caused by the physical properties of the human eye.

Jim
2011-Oct-12, 01:46 AM
Your question was answered. You're being a bit odd with me.

I said it cannot simply be a flare if there is a structure behind the lights, and if that structure does not resemble a parachute. My answer was clear enough, rhetorical or not.

There are two ways to respond to moderation in-thread.

One is, "Oops, sorry, won't happen again."

The other is no response at all.

Got it?

Goldstone
2011-Oct-12, 01:54 AM
Fine, I accept that you don't have much experience with flares. Why are you reluctant to accept the judgment of those of us who do have a lot of experience with flares?

Because when you eliminate the all the variables, you find there is no fitting flare explanation. I understand the dynamics behind flares. I also understand the dynamics behind parachutes. But when this is used as an explanation to the pheonix lights, I am left confused and dazed.

If anything, eye-witness accounts state that there was a structure behind the lights. A traingular-like aircraft which would not fit the parachute explanation. And if there were no parachutes, then these so-called ''flare experts'' here must address the issue why the lights remained suspended at a fixed altitude.

JayUtah
2011-Oct-12, 02:06 AM
Because when you eliminate the all the variables, you find there is no fitting flare explanation.

But you're not "eliminating variables." You're simply denying.


I understand the dynamics behind flares.

Clearly not. You didn't know anything about battlefield illumination flares until a few hours ago.


I also understand the dynamics behind parachutes.

Clearly not. You don't seem to understand how they'd be identically entrained.


But when this is used as an explanation to the pheonix lights, I am left confused and dazed.

You may be as dazed and confused as you want for your own purposes. But others are quite content with the flare explanation. Perhaps you should spend some more time personally observing flares, especially of the type I mentioned. For heaven's sake, I can practically name the exact designation of the flare that was used, simply from the video and the description.


If anything, eye-witness accounts state that there was a structure behind the lights.

Asked and answered. You simply denied the answer.


A traingular-like aircraft which would not fit the parachute explanation.

Explain why three flares each descending on its own parachute cannot form a triangle.


And if there were no parachutes...

You don't typically see the parachutes. As I said, I've seen these flares before. I'm speaking from personal experience. You're just frantically guessing.


...address the issue why the lights remained suspended at a fixed altitude.

Nominal descent rate is 15 fps, which is practically stationary as seen from a distance. They're meant to stay aloft a long time. That's how they illuminate the battlefield.

Goldstone
2011-Oct-12, 02:14 AM
First of all, lets be sure we're talking about the same observation, there were multiple observations of lights in the sky that night and it's important to not confuse them.
One set of lights were the set from the video, which is an irregular near-horizontal line of lights that hung in the sky for perhaps some minutes (I have yet to see a clip of that video lasting more than 30 seconds, but I'll allow that this is likely due to editing by news casters), the other were sets of light moving in formation in the sky.
The former is the flares, the latter has been shown to be consistent with aircraft flying in formation, as I remember as part of the same exercise during which the flares were dropped. Note incidentally that it's well documented that flares were dropped that night at the relevant time.
Which observation are you talking about?

The former.

The video is not consistent with flares. That was the video where witnesses said they saw ''a structure''.

Goldstone
2011-Oct-12, 02:15 AM
Nominal descent rate is 15 fps, which is practically stationary as seen from a distance. They're meant to stay aloft a long time. That's how they illuminate the battlefield.

Calculate it then. Not my area so not quite sure how.

Take into consideration the low altitude already observed in the video. Also note that the event took an hour.

Goldstone
2011-Oct-12, 02:17 AM
Explain why three flares each descending on its own parachute cannot form a triangle.



This kind of triangle?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PhoenixLights1997model.jpg

They be some interesting shaped parachutes where you come from.

Goldstone
2011-Oct-12, 02:23 AM
(correction... 106 minutes it lasted for, even longer than what I thought it was)

JayUtah
2011-Oct-12, 02:43 AM
Calculate it then. Not my area so not quite sure how.

Your claim, your burden of proof. You're the one so sure that they aren't flares, even though you admit you don't know much about military flares.


Also note that the event took an hour.

Only if you assume the two separate events are the same event.

Goldstone
2011-Oct-12, 02:46 AM
Your claim, your burden of proof. You're the one so sure that they aren't flares, even though you admit you don't know much about military flares.



Only if you assume the two separate events are the same event.

Don't worry, I corrected myself. The incident I speak of took longer 106 minutes according to wiki, if I had the right one. And as for proof, what can I offer you but information? I don't have an alien microchip embedded in my skin, or a peice of a UFO or even a biological entity which we can disect tomorrow. I can do only just as good as anyone who writes on these things. I can tell you there is reasonable information suggesting that officials have made clear these objects are real. I even gave one qoute and two snippets of when officials have declared such things just recently.

JayUtah
2011-Oct-12, 02:50 AM
This kind of triangle?

Someone's guess evidence? That's not a photograph of the alleged craft. That's a photograph of a model someone put together as a guess for what the ship might be, based on what people supposed they saw. We know now that optical illusions account for the perception of structure between the flares. We know this would be common if the flares move in unison. Just because I make a model of Tweety Bird with T-rex feet doesn't mean I get to say that's what make T-rex tracks on a petrified lake bed. Do you understand the difference between imagination and fact?


They be some interesting shaped parachutes where you come from.

I feel like I'm talking to a wall.

Each individual flare has its own parachute. The parachute is largely invisible because the illuminator faces downward. It does not illuminate the parachute above it, because the bulk of the flare tube shades it from the illuminator. Thus you can't see the parachutes from more than a very short distance away.

The arrangement that some number of those flares work themselves into during deployment has nothing to do with the shapes of the parachutes.

JayUtah
2011-Oct-12, 02:51 AM
I can tell you there is reasonable information suggesting that officials have made clear these objects are real.

Yes. In one case they were real flares. In another case they were real airplanes.

What do you mean by saying they're "real?"

Goldstone
2011-Oct-12, 02:53 AM
Someone's guess evidence? That's not a photograph of the alleged craft. That's a photograph of a model someone put together as a guess for what the ship might be, based on what people supposed they saw.

Yes. This was the object that was described by eye-witnesses. You have a problem with that?

I am simply stating that this was the object they saw... ok not the ''actual'' object, but it was a near-exact representation, an artists impression. Further my point was that no ''three parachutes'' with ''flares attached'' would make such a stark prominent object.

Goldstone
2011-Oct-12, 02:54 AM
Yes. In one case they were real flares. In another case they were real airplanes.

What do you mean by saying they're "real?"

No. Don't use pheonix lights.

Think of all the UFO's which have been passed off as... a product of the imagination. When I say they are real, I mean these objects are real machines half the time. As has been said, understanding they are real is the first step towards believing they are intelligently controlled.

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-12, 02:57 AM
Yes. This was the object that was described by eye-witnesses. You have a problem with that?

Are you seriously proposing a model as evidence???


...it was a near-exact representation...

How would you know that...by their description?

...and you call us naive??

JayUtah
2011-Oct-12, 02:59 AM
No. Don't use pheonix lights.

This thread is about the Phoenix lights. Please answer my question in that context.


Think of all the UFO's which have been passed off as... a product of the imagination.

Handwaving. Do you agree that we consider the Phoenix lights a real phenomenon?

Although it is common to accuse skeptics of dismissing UFO sightings as "imagination," that is almost never the case. The prevailing explanation is that they are ordinary objects and phenomena seen under extraordinary enough circumstances that they are not readily identified. Misidentification of ordinary phenomena is very common.


When I say they are real, I mean these objects are real machines half the time.

How is it determined that they are machines? Why only half the time? What about the other half?


As has been said, understanding they are real is the first step towards believing they are intelligently controlled.

Why must we believe that they are intelligently controlled? You seem to be shoving the world very vigorously toward your desired conclusion. Have you stopped to consider that maybe you're wrong?

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-12, 03:02 AM
...understanding they are real is the first step towards believing they are intelligently controlled.

What...no evidence??


No wonder you are having such difficulty with this "sciencey" stuff.

JayUtah
2011-Oct-12, 03:04 AM
Yes. This was the object that was described by eye-witnesses. You have a problem with that?

Yes, a huge problem. A model made after the fact includes factual observations mixed with interpretation and interpolation. Presenting that interpretation in physical form wrongly conveys the strength of fact.


I am simply stating that this was the object they saw... ok not the ''actual'' object

The fact that you can't distinguish fact from interpretation makes me very skeptical of your analytical ability.


Further my point was that no ''three parachutes'' with ''flares attached'' would make such a stark prominent object.

That's not my claim.

For the umpteenth time, each flare has its own parachute. The arrangement of flares in the sky suggests a shape, which we know the human eye "completes" into physical form, especially when things like uniform motion convey the illusion of being attached to the same physical object.

The black outline in the model around the lights is not part of the observation. You're asking us to explain the artist's impression along with the actual observation. You don't get to use a fanciful reconstruction as the means to falsify the flare theory.

Goldstone
2011-Oct-12, 03:08 AM
What...no evidence??


No wonder you are having such difficulty with this "sciencey" stuff.

lol

but seriously.... what do you guys want me to do? I can't hack into government systems, I don't have any alien artifacts or relics... All I have done is express my belief that some UFO's are intelligently controlled. I am not bold enough to state they are aliens.

I just don't want some obvious facts of UFO history to go to waste. Things like the California and the Midwest “Airship” Sightings, 1896-97, Washington, DC Sightings, 1952, Phoenix Lights, 1997 are all cases which make brilliant UFO discussion.

Goldstone
2011-Oct-12, 03:10 AM
The fact that you can't distinguish fact from interpretation makes me very skeptical of your analytical ability.


Oh how? I never said the photo was the real deal. Of course it isn't. A kindergarten child would know that.

JayUtah
2011-Oct-12, 03:13 AM
but seriously.... what do you guys want me to do?

Start applying some rigor to your claims instead of begging the question so egregiously.


I can't hack into government systems...

Presumption of coverup.


All I have done is express my belief that some UFO's are intelligently controlled.

And on this board, if you express that belief, providing suitable evidence for that belief is a condition of your future participation.


I just don't want some obvious facts of UFO history to go to waste.

In other words, you desperately want those to mean something. You want the Phoenix lights to be something more momentous and exciting that a bunch of straightforward military flares and a squadron of airplanes.

When you shed that prejudice, you'll be ready to start investigating UFOs.

JayUtah
2011-Oct-12, 03:15 AM
I never said the photo was the real deal. Of course it isn't.

You expected it to have evidentiary value. You put it up as something that would have to be explained by the flare theory, and since in your mind the theory doesn't account for the parts that the artist added, the flare theory is discredited.

If the model isn't really the observation, then it doesn't require explanation.


A kindergarten child would know that.

Please don't be condescending. I agree with the others' advice: if you're not prepared to be dispassionate about this, then take a break.

Goldstone
2011-Oct-12, 03:18 AM
In other words, you desperately want those to mean something. You want the Phoenix lights to be something more momentous and exciting that a bunch of straightforward military flares and a squadron of airplanes.


No... not at all. It's because I have wittenessed UFO's for myself. Myself and seven other people.

Goldstone
2011-Oct-12, 03:19 AM
A good start would be to read the board rules so you will appreciate what is expected of you on this board.

It's a conspiracy board. Exactly how many of the conspiracies mentioned since the forum was created was actually proven correct?

I doubt I will certainly raise any tangible solid evidence for you to evaluate. All I have is information.

JayUtah
2011-Oct-12, 03:20 AM
No... not at all. It's because I have wittenessed UFO's for myself. Myself and seven other people.

Yes, and you want those to mean something. And you want to be important because you saw them and they mean something.

Sometimes science doesn't tell you the answer you wanted to hear. That's why it's science and not religion.

Usher
2011-Oct-12, 03:22 AM
Start applying some rigor to your claims instead of begging the question so egregiously.



Presumption of coverup.



And on this board, if you express that belief, providing suitable evidence for that belief is a condition of your future participation.



In other words, you desperately want those to mean something. You want the Phoenix lights to be something more momentous and exciting that a bunch of straightforward military flares and a squadron of airplanes.

When you shed that prejudice, you'll be ready to start investigating UFOs.

QED.

(wishful thinking)

Van Rijn
2011-Oct-12, 03:22 AM
Oh how? I never said the photo was the real deal. Of course it isn't. A kindergarten child would know that.

So why did you post such an obviously useless item? Are you just trying to see what kinds of reactions you can get?

Goldstone
2011-Oct-12, 03:23 AM
But I knew what I saw and what I saw was .... ... ''unbelievable''. They also maneuvored like nothing I'd seen before.

JayUtah
2011-Oct-12, 03:24 AM
It's a conspiracy board. Exactly how many of the conspiracies mentioned since the forum was created was actually proven correct?

It's a conspiracy theory board. And to date, almost none of them have been confirmed. That's because conspiracy theories are almost always poorly argued using flawed logic, selective quotation of the data, silly rhetorical tricks, and operating from a predetermined conclusion. Those never prevail very long.

You're presenting a line of reasoning that is no different than that presented by every other UFO proponent. You should ask yourself why that line of reasoning fails almost universally to be especially convincing. Hint: it's not because everyone else is closed-minded.


I doubt I will certainly raise any tangible solid evidence for you to evaluate. All I have is information.

We can evaluate the Phoenix lights evidence. It exists in the form of video, and of eyewitness testimony. Those are actionable forms of evidence, if evaluated carefully. And from that evidence we can conclude with a very high level of confidence that the sighting is two unrelated incidents, flares in one case and airplanes in another.

Yes, that means you have to let go of that sighting as something momentous or meaningful. That's science. You want to apply all sorts of sentimentality toward the preservation of "UFO history." That's not a very scientifically defensible position.

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-12, 03:24 AM
It's a conspiracy board.

No...if anything, it is a skeptics board...there is a difference.


Exactly how many of the conspiracies mentioned since the forum was created was actually proven correct?

Relevancy??


I doubt I will certainly raise any tangible solid evidence for you to evaluate.

So you're not even going to "try" to defend your claims???

That is not good news.


All I have is information.

All you have is erroneous information.

Goldstone
2011-Oct-12, 03:26 AM
So why did you post such an obviously useless item? Are you just trying to see what kinds of reactions you can get?

No... because the general idea of the shape is captured in the artists impression. It basically gives us a rough print of how the objects looked, especially the ''darkened out parts'' which shows significant resemblance to sightings in belguim during the wave. I beleive the UFO it most closely represents is the Black Triangle UFO's.

In other words, a sillouette of a parachute in the sky would not make a triangle. Would you even see a parachute in the sky?? I'd assume you would if the flare was to illuminate the parachute it was attached to.

JayUtah
2011-Oct-12, 03:47 AM
No... because the general idea of the shape is captured in the artists impression.

But you're asking us to account for the artist's impression in our theory, specifically the black outline. Our answer for you is that it's an artist's impression. It's not a fact that needs to be accounted for. And your inability to see this is mind-boggling.


It basically gives us a rough print of how the objects looked, especially the ''darkened out parts'' which...

...are completely imaginary. Asked and answered, and denied by you.


In other words, a sillouette of a parachute in the sky would not make a triangle.

No one is saying it would. You're still stuck on trying to make the parachutes in our theory be the "structure" alleged by the witnesses, and then thinking that you can dismiss the explanation because a parachute doesn't match. That is not our claim.


Would you even see a parachute in the sky?

Asked and answered. No.


I'd assume you would if the flare was to illuminate the parachute it was attached to.

Asked and answered. That doesn't happen because the bulk of the flare blocks the line of sight from the illuminator to the parachute.

Goldstone
2011-Oct-12, 03:50 AM
Right.

Well in that case, it couldn't have been a parachute they saw then. The stars where blackened and a triangular object could be seen. You wouldn't even see the parachutes.

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-12, 03:52 AM
It basically gives us a rough print of how the objects looked, especially the ''darkened out parts'' which shows significant resemblance to sightings in belguim during the wave. I beleive the UFO it most closely represents is the Black Triangle UFO's.

Belief is irrelevant. It "looks like" the description, but how do you know the description is accurate?

We're right back to believing eyewitness evidence without question

Sorry, but I'm really "big" on asking and getting answers to my questions...call it a character flaw. :)


I'd assume you would if the flare was to illuminate the parachute it was attached to.

Could you even discern that...from miles away??

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-12, 03:57 AM
The stars where blackened and a triangular object could be seen.

Please do not post supposition as if it were established fact.

JayUtah
2011-Oct-12, 04:17 AM
Well in that case, it couldn't have been a parachute they saw then.

How many times do I have to explain to you that no one claims the witnesses saw a parachute!?


The stars where blackened...

Asked and answered. This is exactly the symptomology of the optical illusion phenomenon to which we referred you, and which you simply denied.


...and a triangular object could be seen.

A triangular object was assumed. Witnesses claim it was "darkened" or "blacked out" because they couldn't actually discern it. They only thought they saw the occlusion of stars between the lights. We know now why they saw this.

For heaven's sake, we know the flares were dropped. We know who dropped them and when, and where. We know the type of flare that was used. We know it produces this effect. We know they "disappeared" over the mountain, just as photographic analysis has shown.

Really, Goldstone, how much longer are you going to kick this? Evidence for a mundane explanation is being handed to us on a silver platter. It really does not get more conclusive than this. This is one of the most soundly debunked UFO claims in history. We have a cornucopia of relevant evidence for what was actually seen.


You wouldn't even see the parachutes.

No one is claiming the parachutes were seen. Please stop misrepresenting our claim.

Gillianren
2011-Oct-12, 04:46 AM
Our vision works.... perfectly fine in most instances.

How much research have you done about this? Because that simply isn't true. There are a ton of examples of how human eyes can be fooled. Is the picture two faces or a vase?


Star's in the sky faded as this thing passed directly overhead.

How does that work with a physical object? They would either be completely occluded or else visible unless the explanation were closer to "the human mind is easily fooled into thinking it sees things it doesn't."

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-12, 05:18 AM
Really, Goldstone, how much longer are you going to kick this?

He seems to like 2 days for some reason. :)

Goldstone
2011-Oct-12, 06:30 AM
If you watch this video through, you get to hear what eye-witnesses say:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdZpRcTBwdA

Tedward
2011-Oct-12, 07:00 AM
Someone asked me what evidence I had to say they moved in geometrical formation. What better evidence than to view the phenomenon with your own eyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdIdDpJYSOM

These are not flares. I've never worked in the Military, but they certainly don't resemble any flare-like activity I've ever seen.

Looks like flares to me. I have worked in the light of flares and been around people using them on exercise. I am not in the military but one or two occasions, I was a cadet. I have seen parachute and non parachute used. I would not hold myself as an expert.

HenrikOlsen
2011-Oct-12, 07:28 AM
How is that video relevant to the Phoenix lights?

Anyway, I'm starting to see what's been happening here:

Goldstone, are you aware that the Phoenix Lights consists of two different sets of lights, observed at different times?

Are you aware that the claim of 100+ minutes is the time you get by assuming that the two unrelated observations are of the same objects?
Are you aware that the line of lights we accept as flares were taped on video and lasted only a short time (minutes)? And that it was an irregular horizontal line of lights and not the triangular shape of your artist?
Are you aware that the group of lights shown in the artists rendition is THE OTHER OBSERVATION? The observation considered to be a group of aircraft flying in formation, a situation in which the geometry is perfect for the visual illusion of a solid object, including perceived darkening of the inside or darkened lines connecting the dots.

Please take a step back and try to separate the two distinct observation, because it looks like part of the problem is that you (or the author of the book you use as source) are attributing eyewitness descriptions of one to the other which naturally makes things seem strange.

One of the things that happens a lot in reports of this case is that the two distinct events are lumped into one and the observations from both are assumed to apply to both, this is manipulation by the reporters to make the mundane explanation for the observations harder to believe because it's two different things that was seen so the behavior observed in one event contradicts the explanation given for the other. As would be expected when holding up an explanation against what eye-witnesses told about a completely different event.

Tedward
2011-Oct-12, 07:30 AM
Our vision works.... perfectly fine in most instances. Star's in the sky faded as this thing passed directly overhead. The structure could be seen and was not a matter of a mass hallucination or a matter of bad eyesight. For that to be the case, pheonix better get to specsavers!

I find this an interesting topic and I am by no means an expert but your vision is not just the mark 1 nature put in the socket in the front of your skull. It is attached (obviously) to the grey matter and this is a system with inbuilt faults or advantages, as I see it, and depending on the situation. Night time is one of the drawbacks. It also has many many years of evolution affecting this so as I see it is prone to errors and in the dark I would say it is degraded.

This is not saying people are wrong and all that, just that the eye brain system is not always the most reliable and needs to be considered. At least in my experience of myself.

HenrikOlsen
2011-Oct-12, 07:43 AM
Someone asked me what evidence I had to say they moved in geometrical formation. What better evidence than to view the phenomenon with your own eyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdIdDpJYSOM
These are not flares. I've never worked in the Military, but they certainly don't resemble any flare-like activity I've ever seen.

The parachute explanation does not add up either, because there seems to be ''structure'' behind the lights. Not any structure associated to parachutes. This structure is in direct example of the typical black triangle UFO's, like the kind observed during the belgium observations.
Are you confusing the compression artifacts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compression_artifact) of that quite poor copy of the video for structure? It's been digitally brightened, contrast enhanced as well as heavily compressed, all operations that introduce artifacts.

The darkened blocky streaks to the right of the lights are an artifact of extreme digital compression of that video, it's not something that's there to start with. it's not there in other copies of that video.
If you're basing your ideas on those being structures I can see where you're coming from, I have to admit I didn't bother looking at that link before because I've seen the video several times before and assumed it was a good copy, but with this over-compressed version I can see where you get the impression.
It's not real though, it's an artifact caused by poor quality copying, one that many of us are used to seeing in such clips and know to ignore when trying to see what's going on.

It's because we know to ignore those compression artifacts that the video becomes a clear example of an aircraft dropping a series of parachute flares, you can clearly see them light up in sequence as they're dropped and you can follow the curve the craft was flying as it was dropping them. They drop in unison because they have nearly the same velocity after deploying the chutes and look nearly stationary because of the distance.

astromark
2011-Oct-12, 08:16 AM
Students from a local technical collage visits the local observatory.. The very next public viewing night is interrupted

by cries of what is that, and ' look a fleet of UFO's... "Calm down folks.. they are chines lanterns.. "

I am Mark Lee.. I know these things. That is what they were..

The lads were back a week later asking if we had seen anything odd last Friday.. Your lamps I said.

and I think your 'Phoenix lights' were more of this sort of rubbish.. because we KNOW what they were not...

HenrikOlsen
2011-Oct-12, 08:35 AM
because we KNOW what they were not...
And there's the closed mind that Goldstone complained about.
That mindset is just as unconstructive as the one automatically seeing any light in the sky as proof the aliens are here.

We do not KNOW what they're not1, what we have instead is a mundane explanation which is consistent with all evidence. Provided you take the time to untangle the intermixed observations of two unrelated incidents from the post-hoc interpretations made by pro-alien reporters.


1) We can't KNOW that they're not aliens because noone knows how aliens would manifest, but that is also the thing that makes the "it was aliens" hypothesis require positive proof, rather that the indirect "I can't think of a mundane explanation so it can't be mundane" argument which would work equally well for the hypothesis that it was a flight of arch-angles with flaming swords.

Mellow
2011-Oct-12, 12:30 PM
I have to just comment on how stunned I am that Goldstone seems to be having such difficulty in taking in everything that is being stated in posts being shared with him/her. Whether or not you think that the Phoenix lights are flares or Intelligently controlled craft (flares for me), it takes a clear sense of purpose to seemingly ignore what's being suggested as a line of reasoning.

astrophotographer
2011-Oct-12, 02:04 PM
I guess it is hard to get everyone's head wrapped around this event. Again, I point everyone towards my web site on the subject:

http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/AZUFO.htm

and an updated version in SUNlite 2-3:

http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite2_3.pdf

For those confusing the two events, you can watch this video:

http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/ufos-over-phoenix-the-v-shaped-object.html

The first part shows the flare videos that were taken at 10PM. However, at time 1:20, you will see Terry Proctor, who was the only person who managed to video record the 8-8:30 PM event, which just shows 5 lights in formation that change position as time advances. This demonstrates they were not attached to any craft but were independent of each other. Those reporting a massive V-shape behind the lights were suffering from the "airship effect". See SUNlite 2-3 for an explanation.

I hope this all helps.

NEOWatcher
2011-Oct-12, 03:31 PM
Goldstone;
You do not seem to be listening to this thread at all. Yes; people (you) may tend to dismiss explainations that don't agree with thier idea, but you seem to be going well past that point.

For example;

Then maybe you would like to analyze the video evidence yourself of the Pheonix Lights?
This analysis was presented only a few posts before you made this comment. Did you bother to look at it? Or even comment on it? No.


The parachute explanation does not add up either, because there seems to be ''structure'' behind the lights. Not any structure associated to parachutes. This structure is in direct example of the typical black triangle UFO's, like the kind observed during the belgium observations.
And you have been going on about this for pages. And people have explained why.

Then you take offense to the explaination treating it as an insult:

That sounds very much like ''caused by the imagination.''
Is mass hallicination really excepted in science today? I know mass histeria exists. But mass hallucination?

But; that's just me airing my frustration at your responses in this thread. What I really want to point out after all that is this:

Have you ever heard the phrase "Optical Illusion"?
Has "Optical Illusion" ever been used to insult anyone as you seem to take it?

And; as far as the structure that "appears" to connect the "dots". I refer you to this page (http://listverse.com/2007/09/16/20-amazing-optical-illusions/).
In particular to this "structure" phenomenon, go to #7, the Hermann grid illusion. This is exactly what is happening to people seeing these lights.

Garrison
2011-Oct-12, 06:01 PM
I was re-reading the first page of this thread and realized that Goldstone has clearly missed out on the eyewitness who had the best view of the 'five lights' sighting:

Mitch Stanley (http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0312ruelas0312.html)

Now of course all the caveats that apply to eyewitnesses apply to this testimony but since Goldstone seems very keen on believing the witnesses will he accept the testimony of the man who looked through a telescope and saw aircraft?

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-12, 06:28 PM
Now of course all the caveats that apply to eyewitnesses apply to this testimony but since Goldstone seems very keen on believing the witnesses will he accept the testimony of the man who looked through a telescope and saw aircraft?


I respectively disagree...at least I think I disagree. :)


Mitch had the "advantage" of (for lack of a better term) superior vision. He easily identified what it was he saw, as opposed to the usual "I saw a light in the sky, it must be an alien spaceship" nonsense.


Haven't completely thought this through, which is why I included the qualifier, "at least I think I disagree". :)

Garrison
2011-Oct-12, 06:41 PM
I respectively disagree...at least I think I disagree. :)


Mitch had the "advantage" of (for lack of a better term) superior vision. He easily identified what it was he saw, as opposed to the usual "I saw a light in the sky, it must be an alien spaceship" nonsense.


Haven't completely thought this through, which is why I included the qualifier, "at least I think I disagree". :)

Oh I certainly think his sighting is superior to the others, I just thought it would be a bit hypocritical of me to promote one particular eyewitness account when I keep questioning their merit in other cases. Personally though, yeah I'm going to believe the guy who actually took a proper look over the ones who stood around squinting into the sky and going; 'OMG Aliens!" :)

moog
2011-Oct-12, 07:35 PM
Goldstone;
And; as far as the structure that "appears" to connect the "dots". I refer you to this page (http://listverse.com/2007/09/16/20-amazing-optical-illusions/).
In particular to this "structure" phenomenon, go to #7, the Hermann grid illusion. This is exactly what is happening to people seeing these lights.

Interesting link, thanks for that one.

Number 12 seems especially relevant as well...

Goldstone
2011-Oct-12, 07:36 PM
How is that video relevant to the Phoenix lights?

Anyway, I'm starting to see what's been happening here:

Goldstone, are you aware that the Phoenix Lights consists of two different sets of lights, observed at different times?

Are you aware that the claim of 100+ minutes is the time you get by assuming that the two unrelated observations are of the same objects?
Are you aware that the line of lights we accept as flares were taped on video and lasted only a short time (minutes)? And that it was an irregular horizontal line of lights and not the triangular shape of your artist?
Are you aware that the group of lights shown in the artists rendition is THE OTHER OBSERVATION? The observation considered to be a group of aircraft flying in formation, a situation in which the geometry is perfect for the visual illusion of a solid object, including perceived darkening of the inside or darkened lines connecting the dots.

Please take a step back and try to separate the two distinct observation, because it looks like part of the problem is that you (or the author of the book you use as source) are attributing eyewitness descriptions of one to the other which naturally makes things seem strange.

One of the things that happens a lot in reports of this case is that the two distinct events are lumped into one and the observations from both are assumed to apply to both, this is manipulation by the reporters to make the mundane explanation for the observations harder to believe because it's two different things that was seen so the behavior observed in one event contradicts the explanation given for the other. As would be expected when holding up an explanation against what eye-witnesses told about a completely different event.

How about you actually watch the video. You will see first hand witnesses to the pheonix lights. Secondly many of them make it clear they resembled no such thing as ''flares''.

Goldstone
2011-Oct-12, 07:37 PM
I find this an interesting topic and I am by no means an expert but your vision is not just the mark 1 nature put in the socket in the front of your skull. It is attached (obviously) to the grey matter and this is a system with inbuilt faults or advantages, as I see it, and depending on the situation. Night time is one of the drawbacks. It also has many many years of evolution affecting this so as I see it is prone to errors and in the dark I would say it is degraded.

This is not saying people are wrong and all that, just that the eye brain system is not always the most reliable and needs to be considered. At least in my experience of myself.

And there is no such thing as a 20-20 vision, but I can still make out the stars at night!

Goldstone
2011-Oct-12, 07:38 PM
Goldstone, are you aware that the Phoenix Lights consists of two different sets of lights, observed at different times?.

Yes.


if people kept track of what is said in threads, you wouldn't have asked me this.

Goldstone
2011-Oct-12, 07:39 PM
Please do not post supposition as if it were established fact.

It is FACT!

Statements from witnesses tell me so! lol

Garrison
2011-Oct-12, 07:42 PM
Goldstone, are you aware that the Phoenix Lights consists of two different sets of lights, observed at different times?.

Yes.


if people kept track of what is said in threads, you wouldn't have asked me this.

Great, now do you accept the account of Mitch Stanley I posted earlier that shows that the one of them was aircraft? If not please explain why? And you can consider those rule #13 questions.

Garrison
2011-Oct-12, 07:43 PM
And there is no such thing as a 20-20 vision, but I can still make out the stars at night!

Vision and perception are two different things, do you understand the difference?

NEOWatcher
2011-Oct-12, 07:45 PM
How about you actually watch the video. You will see first hand witnesses to the pheonix lights. Secondly many of them make it clear they resembled no such thing as ''flares''.
We have seen the actual video of the lights. We know what they look like. Why would someone describing them be different than the actual footage?

Besides, I know that I have heard these witnesses before.

Garrison
2011-Oct-12, 07:45 PM
It is FACT!

Statements from witnesses tell me so! lol
Does the lol mean you are aware this is not true?

Goldstone
2011-Oct-12, 07:46 PM
Does the lol mean you are aware this is not true?

What that witnesses stated they saw the stars blackened out as the object passed overhead. Or that I am simply lying to you all?

Garrison
2011-Oct-12, 07:51 PM
What that witnesses stated they saw the stars blackened out as the object passed overhead. Or that I am simply lying to you all?

What the witnesses think they saw and what was actually there are not necessarily the same, as the invisible gorilla proved. BTW you have two outstanding question from a post of mine prior to the one you responded to, please answer them.

Goldstone
2011-Oct-12, 07:53 PM
What the witnesses think they saw and what was actually there are not necessarily the same, as the invisible gorilla proved. BTW you have two outstanding question from a post of mine prior to the one you responded to, please answer them.

Hundreds of witnesses where fooled then.

Do you realize how improbable that actually sounds!!!

Goldstone
2011-Oct-12, 07:54 PM
And you can hold your horses. There are many people I haven't answered, which is the way these forums go because so many people post so many questions in the time I am not here, so you can just wait like everyone else while I sift through the posts.

Garrison
2011-Oct-12, 08:00 PM
And you can hold your horses. There are many people I haven't answered, which is the way these forums go because so many people post so many questions in the time I am not here, so you can just wait like everyone else while I sift through the posts.

You've responded to my posts made after the one with the questions, so please answer them.

ETA: Whoops Goldstone was suspended as I was writing that, sorry!

NEOWatcher
2011-Oct-12, 08:04 PM
Interesting link, thanks for that one.
Number 12 seems especially relevant as well...
Ohh yes; you are absolutely right.
I remember the one I pointed out which describes the illusion and searched for and found it.
So I withdraw my word "exactly" for number 7 and now apply it to number 12.

BigDon
2011-Oct-12, 11:16 PM
Hundreds of witnesses where fooled then.

Do you realize how improbable that actually sounds!!!

Ever been to a Doug Henning performance? Your reply is pretty much a non-statement in this context.

But I'm not here to be mean to anybody.

I would just like to say that I've spent a lot of time on flightdecks at night (and I worked on IR countermeasure flare systems, as oppossed to the battlefield illumination flares.)

and that ANY bright light at night is going to blacken out the stars behind it. That's just the way the human eye works. A full moon at sea, until it gets at least 20 to 25 degrees off of the horizon, is going to be sitting on a column of inky blackness the exact width of the Moon.


That, by the logic being implied here, would mean the Moon is being launched like a pinball on a nightly basis. (Or at least a monthy one.)

Look at the lights in a night ballgame if you doubt me. You will not see a single star behind them.

astrophotographer
2011-Oct-12, 11:50 PM
What that witnesses stated they saw the stars blackened out as the object passed overhead. Or that I am simply lying to you all?

They thought the stars went out. In fact, the area of the sky, the lights passed through is devoid of many bright stars. If it passed through the area to the west of Ursa Major and between Gemini and Leo, the lights would have passed through star fields where the brightest stars are about magnitude +3 or fainter. The lights were about magnitude -1 by most reports. They would have "overpowered" any faint stars they passed near making it appear they blocked out the star.

astrophotographer
2011-Oct-12, 11:54 PM
Hundreds of witnesses where fooled then.

Do you realize how improbable that actually sounds!!!

Hmmm....can you list these "hundreds of witnesses"??? I think not. The truth of the matter is in my article in SUNlite 2-3 where I documented that only 1/3rd of the eyewitness reports submitted to the National UFO reporting center for that night mention a dark object of any kind behind the lights. So, why did the other 2/3rds report no dark object? Do you recognize how improbable your claim now sounds?

Ohh...I see you have been suspended. No surprise there. If you can read this, I have been trying to give you resources to arrive at a rational conclusion based on the reports state and not based on an emotional appeal from a few isolated witnesses, who are used to promote this case.

Gillianren
2011-Oct-13, 02:26 AM
That, by the logic being implied here, would mean the Moon is being launched like a pinball on a nightly basis. (Or at least a monthy one.)

Which is an interesting mental image, if nothing else.

BigDon
2011-Oct-13, 05:11 AM
A prettier image is doing practice excercises off the coast of California in late fall. About 110 miles offshore.

At night you have these skies with no light pollution and nearly zero humidity so viewing is so good on moonless nights the Milkyway casts visible shadows on the deck. The constellations are nearly impossible to pick out under such skies.

But that's not the special part.

The special part was these vast, very dense fog banks would form off the coast and have a uniform height of approximately 75 feet. And the flightdeck was 85 feet off the water. When the full Moon shines down on THAT the moolight makes the top of the fog layer deep pearly bluegrey. The fog seriously dampens sound waves so you don't hear the water anymore and you have the overwhelming illusion that all five and a half acres of flightdeck is a vast metallic flying carpet. Like S.H.E.I.L.D. headquarters from the old comic books. If you've ever been on a night flight and have seen moonlight on a layer of overcast you have an idea.

All the way out to the horizon, which 85 feet up on flat terrain is 35 miles, is a continous glowing layer with only your ship in sight.

Then, when you think it just can't get special...er (sorry!) you see an enormous ripple begin to form in the top of the fog layer, then behind that comes a huge glow that you didn't see even a ship length behind you. So you wonder if you are about to have a close encounters moments until it comes abreast of you and you see that it's actually the red masthead light of one of the escort frigates taking up position ahead of you so the carrier doesn't hit anything unseen first.

One of the few times we didn't pelt them with raw potatoes and D cell batteries if they got within throwing range. It was just too pretty out to be mean.

On those evenings, even if I was on the "day shift" I would stay up late into the night just to look at it.

NEOWatcher
2011-Oct-13, 05:03 PM
Hmmm....can you list these "hundreds of witnesses"??? I think not. The truth of the matter is in my article in SUNlite 2-3 where I documented that only 1/3rd of the eyewitness reports submitted to the National UFO reporting center for that night mention a dark object of any kind behind the lights.
That made me think of another issue with witness reports.
So; let's say Goldstone can produce the entire list. So what? We can go back and see what they said, but we don't know how much they knew about alternatives. For instance, how many would recant the dark object comment if they were just reminded of some of the illusionary points we brought up.

It's a strategy that I see more and more in the news. Get this story, get the other side of the story, and just report it verbatim with all the conflicting statements intact. Never followup to see what each party's reactions are to the comment's of the other, or use some common sense to report on what holes there are in the story. That way, the story can be presented as controversial, mysterious, and/or shocking because some key information that makes sense of it all is missing.

astrophotographer
2011-Oct-13, 09:25 PM
This goes along with the claim that thousands saw the huge massive triangle. This is a common phrase one hears on the TV "documentaries" and UFO proponents websites. However, they are assuming that all the witnesses saw this dark object. Looking at the actual reports, we discover that a minority of those witnesses reported the massive triangle. This implies (but does not prove) that the same happened for all those "undocumented" observers of the event. A majority just saw a formation of lights and a minority saw the massive object. Even more important is that those who saw a formation of lights were probably less likely to file a UFO report but those seeing a massive object are more likely because of their "experience". Dr. Hartmann, writing in the Condon Report, called this the "excitedness effect". It means that those reports containing the most misperceptions created by what a person wants to see will dominate the total filed for a given event. Add to that the media attention many of them received and you have a recipe for classic UFO case.

tnjrp
2011-Oct-14, 06:01 AM
Hartmann's exictedness effect brought to mind the possibility of "spreading misperception". That is, one person decides something out of the ordinary is going on and the idea spreads in the crowd (I know of at least one case in Finland where ordinary searchlights reflecting off the clouds caused this effect). It probably doesn't explain all "triangle sightings" of course.

Garrison
2011-Oct-14, 09:38 AM
Hartmann's exictedness effect brought to mind the possibility of "spreading misperception". That is, one person decides something out of the ordinary is going on and the idea spreads in the crowd (I know of at least one case in Finland where ordinary searchlights reflecting off the clouds caused this effect). It probably doesn't explain all "triangle sightings" of course.

I think that's a very valid suggestion, a group of people looking up at the sky trying to figure out what they are seeing and when someone announces quite positively that it's some sort of craft everyone else's perception fills in the missing details and you have a whole crowd agreeing.

HenrikOlsen
2011-Oct-14, 09:54 AM
I'll refer you to Gillianren's signature.

astrophotographer
2011-Oct-14, 01:45 PM
Hartmann's exictedness effect brought to mind the possibility of "spreading misperception". That is, one person decides something out of the ordinary is going on and the idea spreads in the crowd (I know of at least one case in Finland where ordinary searchlights reflecting off the clouds caused this effect). It probably doesn't explain all "triangle sightings" of course.

Hartmann pointed out that the popular perception of what a UFO should look like would provide bias in the individuals intepretation of what they were seeing. By 1997, the Beligan triangles had become part of UFO folklore and the F-117/B-2 stealth bomber were common knowledge. It would not be hard for people to take a V-shaped formation of lights and turn them into a triangular or V-shaped UFO. I am sure certain individuals would eventually "tweak" their interpretations of what they saw based on the media reports at the time. If they originally thought they saw a formation of lights, they might change it to a massive V or Triangle behind the lights simply becasue that is what others say they saw.
The fact that the formation was spread out over many degrees of sky (about 10-15 by my estimates for some of the witnesses), made the object appear huge compared to the way people normally see airplanes in the sky (which are usually less than a degree in size). This resulted in the "mile-wide" or "hundreds of yards across" estimates made by various individuals.

tnjrp
2011-Oct-17, 05:26 AM
Yes, undoubtedly trends in UFO folklore also affect the interpretations of people both first hand and especially after some time has elapsed from the sighting. For example Tor Nørretranders deals with the phenomenon of "memory editing" (among others) succintly in his The User Illusion: Cutting Consciousness Down to Size.

Tedward
2011-Oct-20, 05:38 AM
And there is no such thing as a 20-20 vision, but I can still make out the stars at night!

That was not the meaning of my comment. I too can see stars at night, I have also seen things (general everyday stuff not odd things) where I need a double take to get my head around what I am seeing. Or rather get the eye brain combination to pull its finger out and stop getting stuck on the wrong track. Especially at night.

Goldstone
2011-Oct-20, 03:21 PM
That was not the meaning of my comment. I too can see stars at night, I have also seen things (general everyday stuff not odd things) where I need a double take to get my head around what I am seeing. Or rather get the eye brain combination to pull its finger out and stop getting stuck on the wrong track. Especially at night.
Indeed.

This could be the case for maybe one or two people. When you have a group of people who testify that the stars where blocked out as the object moved above and across them, it is harder to simply wash this away as a case of bad eye sight, or some illusion.

NEOWatcher
2011-Oct-20, 03:39 PM
... it is harder to simply wash this away as a case of bad eye sight, or some illusion.
Why?

astrophotographer
2011-Oct-20, 04:42 PM
Indeed.

This could be the case for maybe one or two people. When you have a group of people who testify that the stars where blocked out as the object moved above and across them, it is harder to simply wash this away as a case of bad eye sight, or some illusion.

Can you please tell me how many people claimed the stars were blocked out? For everyone of those, I can present more that state the stars were not blocked out. If this is the case, which is more likely?

Just to prove my point on this, this is a report that was filed with NUFORC

As they passed overhead, I took note of a particularly bright star and noted that the star was never obscured by any solid object as the lights passed it...I know this is at odds with some of the more dramatic reports of a gigantic dark object, but I am certain that I am not mistaken. Being a pilot, I am a trained observer of lighted airborne objects and, while these lights were indeed strange, there is no doubt in my mind that they were individual objects and not the running lights on some single large object.

Additionally, dark object witness Mike Fortson claimed that when the lights passed in front of the moon, the object suddenly became translucent and simply made the moon change color with waves that looked like gas fumes. Once again, the object obscurred nothing.

It is far more likely those that claimed the object blocked out stars perceived this because of a desire to see a dark object, the brightness of the lights themselves made the fainter stars appear dimmer (or even "disappear" - the same way city lights make the fainter stars invisible), or, based on the objects flight path, it did not pass near any bright stars that could be seen in the bright city lights.

Strange
2011-Oct-20, 04:48 PM
When you have a group of people who testify that the stars where blocked out as the object moved above and across them, it is harder to simply wash this away as a case of bad eye sight, or some illusion.

Why? I think, for example, that most people will see a non-existent white triangle in this illusion: http://www.illusionism.org/media/Kanizsa-triangle.png (http://www.illusionism.org/illusory-contours/kanizsa+triangle/)

Goldstone
2011-Oct-20, 05:53 PM
I explained, that cannot be used as an example. What you have is an illusion made from carefully orchestrating a geometrical pattern. The lights seen in pheonix did this how? The illusion isn't that they saw something because the lights where positioned a certain way, a tangible solid object must have passed over-head to cause the stars to vanish under it's structure. You cannot simply make the stars at night fade in a simple illusion.

Goldstone
2011-Oct-20, 05:55 PM
Can you please tell me how many people claimed the stars were blocked out? For everyone of those, I can present more that state the stars were not blocked out. If this is the case, which is more likely?

Just to prove my point on this, this is a report that was filed with NUFORC

As they passed overhead, I took note of a particularly bright star and noted that the star was never obscured by any solid object as the lights passed it...I know this is at odds with some of the more dramatic reports of a gigantic dark object, but I am certain that I am not mistaken. Being a pilot, I am a trained observer of lighted airborne objects and, while these lights were indeed strange, there is no doubt in my mind that they were individual objects and not the running lights on some single large object.

Additionally, dark object witness Mike Fortson claimed that when the lights passed in front of the moon, the object suddenly became translucent and simply made the moon change color with waves that looked like gas fumes. Once again, the object obscurred nothing.

It is far more likely those that claimed the object blocked out stars perceived this because of a desire to see a dark object, the brightness of the lights themselves made the fainter stars appear dimmer (or even "disappear" - the same way city lights make the fainter stars invisible), or, based on the objects flight path, it did not pass near any bright stars that could be seen in the bright city lights.

I know there were hundreds of witnesses. I know four who saw the structure who where interviewed. One boy said the structure looked like ''a heat wave you would see in the distance on the road during a hot day.''

Goldstone
2011-Oct-20, 05:57 PM
Actually make that five. I just recalled a female doctor who reported seeing its structure fly over her house.

NEOWatcher
2011-Oct-20, 05:59 PM
The lights seen in pheonix did this how?
By being similar to the illusion being shown.


The illusion isn't that they saw something because the lights where positioned a certain way, a tangible solid object must have passed over-head to cause the stars to vanish under it's structure. You cannot simply make the stars at night fade in a simple illusion.
Yes you can, and I have experienced it myself.
Just because one illusion is carefully designed, why can't it apply to other similar types of configurations of patterns?

Goldstone
2011-Oct-20, 06:08 PM
By being similar to the illusion being shown.


Yes you can, and I have experienced it myself.
Just because one illusion is carefully designed, why can't it apply to other similar types of configurations of patterns?

Listen to your arguement, it is baseless - you are liking an illusory abstraction to the physical impossibility of making star light simply vanish. How can that happen unless something solid, corporeal and tangible had blocked it overhead? Demonstrate to me in clear words how this illusion effected those parameters?

NEOWatcher
2011-Oct-20, 06:15 PM
Listen to your arguement, it is baseless...
Your opinion.

- you are liking an illusory abstraction to the physical impossibility of making star light simply vanish. How can that happen unless something solid, corporeal and tangible had blocked it overhead? Demonstrate to me in clear words how this illusion effected those parameters?
I never said the star light vanishes. It's an illusion. I can't see stars that are near a full moon either. It's the same effect. And the moon is a natural part of nature that is neither contrived nor carefully designed to hide starlight.
It's a feature of human vision to adjust to lighting conditions, and without studies of how this is done, the contrived illusion examples could not have been designed. Otherwise, the illusions would have to be "discovered" through observations of the natural world, which also means that the illusion is natural.

Goldstone
2011-Oct-20, 06:19 PM
The lights where vastly apart. For your illusion to work, they would need to be closer. This object was recorded to be over a mile long. Maybe larger.

astrophotographer
2011-Oct-20, 06:41 PM
I know there were hundreds of witnesses. I know four who saw the structure who where interviewed. One boy said the structure looked like ''a heat wave you would see in the distance on the road during a hot day.''

"Four or five" out of how many? Doesn't sound like a very big sample. This comment sounds a lot like the Ley family who were all together. They are not independent of each other and influence each others perception/memory of the event. As I pointed out previously, a majority of all the reports I have seen in the databases indicated a formation of lights and NO dark object. That is a sample of 47 reports. Only 17 reported something like a dark object. That is a minority of the total reports. It also ignores the ONLY real evidence (the proctor video), which shows no dark object. It only shows a formation of lights that shift over time. Your witnesses are in a minority, indicating it is more likely a perceptual problem rather than actually seeing a physical object.

I suggest you start explaining these images from the Proctor Video (From the discovery channel's program "UFOs over Phoenix):

15521

Luckmeister
2011-Oct-20, 06:44 PM
This object was recorded to be over a mile long. Maybe larger.

And how was that size determined? By height? How was that known?

By what the "object" was identified as? How was that known?

astrophotographer
2011-Oct-20, 06:46 PM
The lights where vastly apart. For your illusion to work, they would need to be closer. This object was recorded to be over a mile long. Maybe larger.

Really, and how were these estimates of size made? If you look at the early reports made shortly after the event, people made claims of hundreds of feet across and not a thousand or a mile. I have seen one of the sketches made by one of your prize witnesses, Tim Ley. He originally sketched something that was 300 feet long on each leg. This number ballooned to 700 feet when others started reporting larger objects. The last time I saw him describe it, the object was now thousands of feet across. Do you see a problem here?

HenrikOlsen
2011-Oct-20, 07:10 PM
Indeed.

This could be the case for maybe one or two people. When you have a group of people who testify that the stars where blocked out as the object moved above and across them, it is harder to simply wash this away as a case of bad eye sight, or some illusion.
It's not being washed away, it's being explained as a common result of how normal human vision works. Because this is how normal human vision actually works in the real world, having it experienced by many people is the expected result.


I explained, that cannot be used as an example. What you have is an illusion made from carefully orchestrating a geometrical pattern. The lights seen in pheonix did this how? The illusion isn't that they saw something because the lights where positioned a certain way, a tangible solid object must have passed over-head to cause the stars to vanish under it's structure. You cannot simply make the stars at night fade in a simple illusion.
You seem to be under the impression what when we talk about optical illusions, we're talking about stage-magic style tricks that fool people.
We're not, we're talking about the well documented consistent behavior of normal human vision.

There are two phenomena involved here, one is the impression that the triangle of lights in formation defines a filled shape, the other is the drowning out of stars by stronger lights. Both are well documented effects of normal vision and multiple reports only confirm that it was people with normal vision, not that something was there.

Incidentally, you again confuse two different observations of lights in the sky, the wide curved line of stationary lights and the triangular formation of lights. It's the latter that has the "blocking out" and "filling in" and they quite assuredly do have a well-defined geometric structure.



The lights where vastly apart. For your illusion to work, they would need to be closer. This object was recorded to be over a mile long. Maybe larger.
That's the series of flares, it was indeed quite wide given that they're known to have been dropped behind the mountains, since they're obscured by it.

Those lights were more than an hour before the triangular formation flights and so far there's nothing to show that they are part of thew same physical phenomenon. (As far as I understand they were indeed indirectly related since the flare dropping and the formation flying were part of the same exercise, but that doesn't make them the same phenomenon)

Incidentally, I haven't seen you react to my comment about the compression artifacts in the heavily manipulated video you linked to of the flares.

Garrison
2011-Oct-20, 07:40 PM
Goldstone since you are back I'd like you to answer an outstanding question. I'll restate the matter here. This is an account from a witness who looked at the 'five lights' through a telescope:

Mitch Stanley (http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0312ruelas0312.html)

The question is on what basis do you reject this eyewitness, who it is reasonable to say got the best look at the lights/aircraft, and yet accept all the others who simply stared into the night sky unaided?

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-20, 07:52 PM
This object was recorded to be over a mile long. Maybe larger.

How was that determined? How is it possible to know the size/distance of an "unknown object"?



eta....DOH!, I need to start reading past posts more carefully as Luckmeister, and Astrophotographer just posted essentially the same thing as I...except worded better...DOH!

Luckmeister
2011-Oct-20, 08:38 PM
How was that determined? How is it possible to know the size/distance of an "unknown object"?


eta....DOH!, I need to start reading past posts more carefully as Luckmeister, and Astrophotographer just posted essentially the same thing as I...except worded better...DOH!

That's ok. It just means Goldstone now has three times as many people to make happy by answering the question. :)

Abaddon
2011-Oct-20, 08:50 PM
Listen to your arguement, it is baseless - you are liking an illusory abstraction to the physical impossibility of making star light simply vanish. How can that happen unless something solid, corporeal and tangible had blocked it overhead? Demonstrate to me in clear words how this illusion effected those parameters?

Do you know anything about peripheral vision?

Often when looking at the sky, I have to deliberately NOT look directly at an object to get a better view.

Strange
2011-Oct-20, 09:03 PM
Do you know anything about peripheral vision?

Often when looking at the sky, I have to deliberately NOT look directly at an object to get a better view.

Excellent point. So, in addition to the factors already discussed, if someone is following the triangle then any faint stars initially seen peripherally will tend to disappear as they enter the center of their field of view.

Abaddon
2011-Oct-20, 09:09 PM
Excellent point. So, in addition to the factors already discussed, if someone is following the triangle then any faint stars initially seen peripherally will tend to disappear as they enter the center of their field of view.
That is exactly the point.

Often when skygazing, I try to do this and trick perception. Invariably I end up with a blind spot in the focus.

ETA: I don't think anyone believes this until they try it.

Goldstone
2011-Oct-20, 11:23 PM
"Four or five" out of how many? Doesn't sound like a very big sample. This comment sounds a lot like the Ley family who were all together. They are not independent of each other and influence each others perception/memory of the event. As I pointed out previously, a majority of all the reports I have seen in the databases indicated a formation of lights and NO dark object. That is a sample of 47 reports. Only 17 reported something like a dark object. That is a minority of the total reports. It also ignores the ONLY real evidence (the proctor video), which shows no dark object. It only shows a formation of lights that shift over time. Your witnesses are in a minority, indicating it is more likely a perceptual problem rather than actually seeing a physical object.

I suggest you start explaining these images from the Proctor Video (From the discovery channel's program "UFOs over Phoenix):

15521

I think we all agreed here that photo's will not act as evidence. Nor can video's be taken as a true representation of what was really visual.

Goldstone
2011-Oct-20, 11:25 PM
Excellent point. So, in addition to the factors already discussed, if someone is following the triangle then any faint stars initially seen peripherally will tend to disappear as they enter the center of their field of view.

That is if they focus and stare at one spot. But those who claim they saw a structure would obviously needed to brake that focus to study the blackened out area's of where they think they saw the structure of the object.

astrophotographer
2011-Oct-20, 11:31 PM
I think we all agreed here that photo's will not act as evidence. Nor can video's be taken as a true representation of what was really visual.

It is agreed that videos and photos can be considered suspect especially if they present evidence that seems to defy belief. However, the point of the video is that it shows what was actually seen by the witnesses. How can the video show lights changing position if they were fixed to a single object as you claim? Are you claiming this video does not show the object seen by your four or five witnesses or that it is fake?

Garrison
2011-Oct-20, 11:36 PM
I think we all agreed here that photo's will not act as evidence. Nor can video's be taken as a true representation of what was really visual.

Then what would? And you've yet to address the question about Mitch Stanley.

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-21, 12:14 AM
...you've yet to address the question about Mitch Stanley.

...nor the same question asked in posts #213, #214, and #217...please respond...

tnjrp
2011-Oct-21, 04:58 AM
How can the video show lights changing position if they were fixed to a single object as you claim?UFO lore tends to get around the pesky subject of variable form during sighting by blithely assuming that the alien spacecraft observed was made of some sort of morphing material... Hasn't that really not been suggested yet as an explanation for this video?

PaulLogan
2011-Oct-21, 05:27 AM
What the witnesses think they saw and what was actually there are not necessarily the same...



Actually eyewitnesses are terrible in evidentiary terms because of the fallibility of memory and perception.



I was re-reading the first page of this thread and realized that Goldstone has clearly missed out on the eyewitness who had the best view of the 'five lights' sighting:

Mitch Stanley (http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0312ruelas0312.html)

Now of course all the caveats that apply to eyewitnesses apply to this testimony but since Goldstone seems very keen on believing the witnesses will he accept the testimony of the man who looked through a telescope and saw aircraft?
how exactly did you determine that he "had the best view of the 'five lights' sighting"?
and how exactly did you determine that he actually looked at the same objects others have seen that night?
maybe he was drunk or stoned and looked at something entirely different?



Oh I certainly think his sighting is superior to the others, I just thought it would be a bit hypocritical of me to promote one particular eyewitness account when I keep questioning their merit in other cases.

"a bit hypocritical"?
that must be the understatement of the year.

Tensor
2011-Oct-21, 06:12 AM
how exactly did you determine that he "had the best view of the 'five lights' sighting"?

Because he looked through a telescope?


and how exactly did you determine that he actually looked at the same objects others have seen that night?

Are you saying there were more than one set of "five lights" over Phoenix that night?


maybe he was drunk or stoned and looked at something entirely different?

That's not what he claimed.

Goldstone seems to accept the testimony of all the other witnesses without asking those questions, why should those be relevant here? Are you going to ask Goldstone the same type of questions about the other eyewitnesses accounts he has considered? If not, why don't you think those questions are relevant to the accounts of the other Goldstone's eyewitnesses?



"a bit hypocritical"?
that must be the understatement of the year.

Not at all. Garrison admits to the caveats applying to all eyewitness testimony. He said if he promoted another view, it would be, but he's not promoting that view. He's asking if Goldstone will accept that particular eyewitness account, since he accepts the others. How is that hypocritical? If Goldstone doesn't accept those caveats, thus accepting the other eyewitness accounts without the caveats, then why should he not believe someone who's claim is he saw aircraft when he looked through a telescope?

NEOWatcher
2011-Oct-21, 12:14 PM
The lights where vastly apart. For your illusion to work, they would need to be closer.
Or the contrast between the brightness of the light to the brightness of the starts needs to be brighter.


This object was recorded to be over a mile long. Maybe larger.
It was not "recorded" to be over a mile long, it was "said" to be a mile long. There's a big difference in those two words.

For an object to even appear to cover 30 degrees of viewing area (which is huge) at a mile long, it would have to be around 2 miles away. It's very difficult to judge those kinds of distances.

Goldstone
2011-Oct-21, 01:25 PM
Then what would? And you've yet to address the question about Mitch Stanley.


Good question, though on the same hand, a real investigation, one that is accurate is certainly not conducted on an internet forum. Sure you can draw cases, but when physical evidence is called into question and pertaining to real visual life, photo's and whatnot will not cut it.

Goldstone
2011-Oct-21, 01:26 PM
Or the contrast between the brightness of the light to the brightness of the starts needs to be brighter.

The lights would need to be brighter. Considering how spaced apart they were, (and taking into account the luminosity claims from the light ''more like orbs'') then I find it incredible as an explanation.

Goldstone
2011-Oct-21, 01:27 PM
It was not "recorded" to be over a mile long, it was "said" to be a mile long. There's a big difference in those two words.

For an object to even appear to cover 30 degrees of viewing area (which is huge) at a mile long, it would have to be around 2 miles away. It's very difficult to judge those kinds of distances.

Now how many orbs where there? Distance them over a mile wide then tell me that this is a brightness contrast lol

astrophotographer
2011-Oct-21, 01:41 PM
The lights would need to be brighter. Considering how spaced apart they were, (and taking into account the luminosity claims from the light ''more like orbs'') then I find it incredible as an explanation.

How do you know how far apart they were spaced? In the video, they are reasonably closed together. Considering they were recorded by a standard video camera, they must have been pretty bright. Most reports indicated a bright light (one report I read compared them to the brightness of Sirius, which is pretty bright).

astrophotographer
2011-Oct-21, 01:50 PM
Now how many orbs where there? Distance them over a mile wide then tell me that this is a brightness contrast lol

Present evidence that establishes that they were a mile apart. You can not accept the testimonies of the witnesses as I have shown they tend to have inflated their size estimates over time. However, for the sake of argument, let's test your theory of a distance of a mile from, say, 5 miles distance. That makes an angular size of roughly 11 degrees. This means the individual lights were only about 2-3 degrees apart. That is not that significant. If we accept Tim Ley's original estimate of 600 feet (300 feet per leg) in his drawing of April 1997, that distance suddenly decreases dramatically even if seen at only a mile's distance (about 6.5 degrees total angular size). The point of this exercise is to demonstrate any estimates of distance or physical size of an unknown object seen at night should be considered completely unreliable. Only ANGULAR size estimates are acceptable. Most of those estimates in the reports I read ranged from a few degrees to about fifteen degrees.

Goldstone
2011-Oct-21, 02:06 PM
Present evidence that establishes that they were a mile apart. You can not accept the testimonies of the witnesses as I have shown they tend to have inflated their size estimates over time. However, for the sake of argument, let's test your theory of a distance of a mile from, say, 5 miles distance. That makes an angular size of roughly 11 degrees. This means the individual lights were only about 2-3 degrees apart. That is not that significant. If we accept Tim Ley's original estimate of 600 feet (300 feet per leg) in his drawing of April 1997, that distance suddenly decreases dramatically even if seen at only a mile's distance (about 6.5 degrees total angular size). The point of this exercise is to demonstrate any estimates of distance or physical size of an unknown object seen at night should be considered completely unreliable. Only ANGULAR size estimates are acceptable. Most of those estimates in the reports I read ranged from a few degrees to about fifteen degrees.

If it was one person. Sure. I wouldn't even reference it. Two is interesting. Three is even better.... more? I am very entitled to use testimony from a group of witnesses who are completely independant of each other. One of these witnesses is a doctor, so the integrity of the claims are strengthened even more.

JayUtah
2011-Oct-21, 02:06 PM
Good question, though on the same hand, a real investigation, one that is accurate is certainly not conducted on an internet forum.

Agreed, however there are those of us on these here internet forums who have formal professional training in incident investigation and who have conducted or continue to conduct professional activities in that area. While we don't have resources or easy access to evidence on an internet forum, what we can have is a defensible methodology. UFO "research" suffers from a deplorable lack of background and good practice. That's why real investigators almost never take it seriously. Without expenditure of resources or access to witnesses or evidence, I and others can still accomplish things such as noticing how the witness information has been cherry-picked to support a "mysterious" explanation, and how eyewitness information is being grossly mishandled.

So I'm afraid you can only backpedal a little by appealing to our distance from the problem. Determining whether others have followed best practices in an investigation is something that can be conducted effectively on a web forum.

Goldstone
2011-Oct-21, 02:07 PM
How do you know how far apart they were spaced? In the video, they are reasonably closed together. Considering they were recorded by a standard video camera, they must have been pretty bright. Most reports indicated a bright light (one report I read compared them to the brightness of Sirius, which is pretty bright).

I think you'll find that video is at an angle that would make the light look close. If you study some other video's, you get a better picture of how spaced they where.

PaulLogan
2011-Oct-21, 02:07 PM
Are you saying there were more than one set of "five lights" over Phoenix that night?

indeed.
on march 13, 1997 around 8.15pm people started seeing the large triangular shaped object. most sightings happened around 8.30pm.
in a report to senator mckain the airforce said the flares were dropped by the national guard between 9.30pm and 10pm that same evening.
and it was those flares that were shown on national tv. obviously, there were planes involved dropping the flares. maybe that's what mitch stanley saw?
the "real" sighting happened an hour earlier!

so, which sighting is mitch stanley referring to? the article does not clarify that.

Goldstone
2011-Oct-21, 02:07 PM
Also I don't think a flare would even have the luminosity high in the sky to dampen out star light.

JayUtah
2011-Oct-21, 02:09 PM
If it was one person. Sure. I wouldn't even reference it. Two is interesting. Three is even better.... more? I am very entitled to use testimony from a group of witnesses who are completely independant of each other.

You're not entitled to insist that their distance estimates must be accurate. The errors that affect human perception affect them in predictable patterns. That's how the science is able to draw the conclusions it does. This is not a case of "majority wins." This is a case of you being able to show a qualitative basis for the strength of the estimate.


One of these witnesses is a doctor, so the integrity of the claims are strengthened even more.

This is a perfect example of incredibly naive methods of treating eyewitness testimony. What makes you think a doctor is somehow more able than any other human being to estimate distance at night to an unknown object?

JayUtah
2011-Oct-21, 02:10 PM
Also I don't think a flare would even have the luminosity high in the sky to dampen out star light.

Very much so.

JayUtah
2011-Oct-21, 02:11 PM
I think you'll find that video is at an angle that would make the light look close.

Focal length?


If you study some other video's, you get a better picture of how spaced they where.

Focal length?

Goldstone
2011-Oct-21, 02:11 PM
Agreed, however there are those of us on these here internet forums who have formal professional training in incident investigation and who have conducted or continue to conduct professional activities in that area. While we don't have resources or easy access to evidence on an internet forum, what we can have is a defensible methodology. UFO "research" suffers from a deplorable lack of background and good practice. That's why real investigators almost never take it seriously. Without expenditure of resources or access to witnesses or evidence, I and others can still accomplish things such as noticing how the witness information has been cherry-picked to support a "mysterious" explanation, and how eyewitness information is being grossly mishandled.

So I'm afraid you can only backpedal a little by appealing to our distance from the problem. Determining whether others have followed best practices in an investigation is something that can be conducted effectively on a web forum.

Except I've made it clear more than once that the expectancy of me to provide ''irrefutable'' evidence is impossible. I cannot provide you with the holy grail of UFO culture, or any alien physical artifact which you can test. I can only offer the information I have gathered. It is up to the reader to weigh the evidence. Proof I cannot give.

Goldstone
2011-Oct-21, 02:15 PM
You're not entitled to insist that their distance estimates must be accurate. The errors that affect human perception affect them in predictable patterns. That's how the science is able to draw the conclusions it does. This is not a case of "majority wins." This is a case of you being able to show a qualitative basis for the strength of the estimate.



Read what I said. Majority strengthens, and their reputation strengthen their testimony. This allows me to be entitled to take their word for seeing something odd that night over pheonix.

Strange
2011-Oct-21, 02:17 PM
Read what I said. Majority strengthens, and their reputation strengthen their testimony. This allows me to be entitled to take their word for seeing something odd that night over pheonix.

I don't think anyone doubts that they saw something they considered "odd". The debate is about the identification of this sighting. (Or, these sightings).

JayUtah
2011-Oct-21, 02:20 PM
Except I've made it clear more than once that the expectancy of me to provide ''irrefutable'' evidence is impossible.

Straw man. No one is asking you to provide "irrefutable" evidence.

The first problem is that you treat things like speculation and innuendo as if they were any sort of evidence. They are not.

The second problem is that you treat the evidence that does exist with extreme bias, and with almost complete disregard for the sciences that describe it.


It is up to the reader to weigh the evidence. Proof I cannot give.

Exactly. The inability of the UFO community to provide any more proof now for its hypotheses than when they started 60 years ago is why most people rightly dismiss it as pseudoscience. We weigh the evidence and find it insufficient to support your claims. And for some reason this infuriates the UFO proponents who call us all sorts of names because of it.

Goldstone
2011-Oct-21, 02:21 PM
I don't see a debate as such on the identification of the sighing. I see a one-sided debate focused on whether it was a mirage of some type, an illusory by-product of the human perception.

I feel like we might as well all be starting at chapter 1 of blue blook.

JayUtah
2011-Oct-21, 02:32 PM
Read what I said.

No, read what I said. Ranging errors occur in predictable patterns. That means a group of people is more likely to make the same mistake in perception than different mistakes. One of the predictable ranging error patterns is that people tend to grossly overestimate distances beyond a couple hundred meters.


Majority strengthens...

Only if you can prove they're not all making the same mistake. Since our best science to date suggest they were, you don't get to simply lay that aside and cling to what you want to believe.


...and their reputation strengthen their testimony.

No.


This allows me to be entitled to take their word for seeing something odd that night over pheonix.

It does not allow you to be taken seriously for your entirely ignorant approach to evaluating eyewitness testimony. Yes, you are pretty much clueless. When I asked whether you had studied any of the sciences that pertain to UFO sightings, and you went off with a cornucopia of pseudoscience books on speculative physics. You'd have done much better to read just a single book on on eyewitness testimony. There are cognitive science issues that affect memory. There are perceptual science issues that affect the interpretation of visual data. All these sciences in the past 20 years have completely changed the way we approach eyewitness testimony. The NTSB, for example, has completely overhauled the way they train witness interviewers.

If we accept for the sake of argument that ufology at least tries to get it right, why are they so adamantly opposed to studying these sciences? The whole ufology line of reasoning is based on asserting that something must be remarkable because all the ordinary things have been eliminated. That line of reasoning is doomed from the start because of the fallacy of the excluded middle, but even if you grant that people will try to apply that line of reasoning diligently, you still bear the burden to know about all the ordinary things. You have to know about them in order to eliminate them. You can't assert that you've eliminated all the natural causes unless you know what they are. And the willful ignorance of many ufologists in all things ordinary is why no one takes them seriously.

Yes, I can grant that the observers in Arizona saw something that seemed "odd" to them. But that doesn't necessarily make it remarkable or paranormal or significant in any objective sense. Another tenet of ufology is that the natural world can't hand us things that look odd. Or even that the man-made world can't. There are those of us who refuse to subscribe to that belief, because we've seen to many odd things that we know are either natural or man-made, and we've just observed them under circumstances we didn't expect.

Paul Beardsley
2011-Oct-21, 02:38 PM
Except I've made it clear more than once that the expectancy of me to provide ''irrefutable'' evidence is impossible. I cannot provide you with the holy grail of UFO culture, or any alien physical artifact which you can test. I can only offer the information I have gathered. It is up to the reader to weigh the evidence. Proof I cannot give.

I haven't seen any evidence presented that I would consider in the slightest bit compelling. I'm not waiting to see the holy grail presented, or even something that makes me a little bit uncomfortable. I read threads like this to see if there will ever be a UFO proponent who shows the most basic of critical thinking skills or an understanding of what does not count as evidence. So far, it hasn't happened. Not in this thread, and not in any other I have read. Ever.

And I see that once again, a proponent who has claimed repeatedly that a UFO is merely something unidentified is referring to alien artifacts. What a giveaway.