The Phoenix Lights... We Are Not Alone

[Beerina]

I remember a Discovery Channel program that covered this sighting, and pretty conclusively demonstrated that the "UFO" was a series of flares dropped from aircraft. But people WANT to believe in aliens...

Speaking of "lights in formation"....

It happened just a few days ago in the night skies of Santiago. The UFO fuss and craze started to grow as a snow ball immediatly, but came to a halt when the Air Force promptly explained to the press that it was a military excercise of fourteen planes, IIRC.

So you see, there's nothing unusual in lights in formation, but simple planes.

VIDEO

Notice how excited and amazed the guy with the camera is. I wonder what UFOlogists would've have make out of his account alone, if not for the video and the AF explanation.

It was both. The first was planes in formation, starting the stir, then a few days later the flares dropped behind the mountain.

Both have been explained and documented, with there even being a daytime film of the flare thing being done, with the exact same result of flares "disappearing" one at a time as they go behind the distant mountain.

 

[chuck4842]

"It was both. The first was planes in formation, starting the stir, then a few days later the flares dropped behind the mountain" All of the witnesses were staring straight up, Not towards the mountains. The DOD has never released a statement of being involved. How stupid would the military be to drop flares straight on top of Phoenix? Sounds irresponsible to me. As to Fifes reputation of being convicted of bankfraud(which was overturned), how many politicians aren't caught up in a political scandal? I grew up on military bases and I'm sure there were a few military brats in Phoenix that night that would disagree with the flare explanation whole heartedly. I've never seen a flare sit in one place motionless for over 30 minutes. Like I said before , I'm still trying to be skeptical , but none of these make a bit of sense to me.

 

[Astrophotographer]

All of the witnesses were staring straight up, Not towards the mountains. The DOD has never released a statement of being involved. How stupid would the military be to drop flares straight on top of Phoenix? Sounds irresponsible to me. As to Fifes reputation of being convicted of bankfraud(which was overturned), how many politicians aren't caught up in a political scandal? I grew up on military bases and I'm sure there were a few military brats in Phoenix that night that would disagree with the flare explanation whole heartedly. I've never seen a flare sit in one place motionless for over 30 minutes. Like I said before , I'm still trying to be skeptical , but none of these make a bit of sense to me

Actually, you probably have not gone to my web page:

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

The previous poster is correct. I will summarize for you what happened that night:

1. Between 8 and 8:30 a formation of five lights were seen going from North to South over Arizona between Prescott and south Phoenix. Various individuals reported all sorts of things. A "V" with lights, a triangle with lights, and a formation of lights. The one video of the lights shows the lights shifting formation as they passed over the witness.

2. At 10PM, multiple individuals videotaped some lights to the south of Phoenix.

I am unaware of any incidents where a light was stationary for 30 minutes. Perhaps you can elaborate.

The answer to #1 was the formation of aircraft. This was verified by a few witnesses including Mitch Stanley who observed them with his telescope. Don't think it is possible? Try watching this video:

http://forgetomori.com/2008/ufos/multiple-ufos-in-formation-taped-over-chile/

(edit: Ooops somebody already posted the link - sorry) For a moment there, it certainly looked like a massive triangle with lights didn't it? They were a formation of aircraft performing an exercise.

The answer to #2 was the flares. This was verified by records and triginometry. Anyone who suggests the videos taken at 10PM were anything but flares dropped over the Barry Goldwater range is just ignoring the data.

Hopefully, the explanations NOW make sense.

 

[Hindmost]

I have often wondered why aliens would leave their headlights on. They don't show up on radar keeping very secret, but need headlights after navigating across light-years of space.

glenn

aliens do love a dry heat..or so I've heard.

 

[chuck4842]

"The answer to #1 was the formation of aircraft. This was verified by a few witnesses including Mitch Stanley who observed them with his telescope." ...The key to this explanation is "a few" if not one. Alot of witnesses didn't need or want a telescope, how far away was he?....."The answer to #2 was the flares. This was verified by records and triginometry."- I might go for that except I've never seen flares float in formation, or self-ignite, or go out and self-ignite again. The ones I've seen my whole life floated down haphazardly in no particular order. Also on EXPL:#1 Not a single pilot has come forward as to flying that night. That would put this in the government conspiracy forum wouldn't it?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

"The answer to #1 was the formation of aircraft. This was verified by a few witnesses including Mitch Stanley who observed them with his telescope." ...The key to this explanation is "a few" if not one. Alot of witnesses didn't need or want a telescope, how far away was he?.....

Pardon? What have your comments got to do with Astrophotographer's explanation? People without telescopes see "lights in the sky". Those with telescopes see the lights are attached to airplanes.

"The answer to #2 was the flares. This was verified by records and triginometry."- I might go for that except I've never seen flares float in formation, or self-ignite, or go out and self-ignite again. The ones I've seen my whole life floated down haphazardly in no particular order. Also on EXPL:#1 Not a single pilot has come forward as to flying that night. That would put this in the government conspiracy forum wouldn't it?

So this is an argument by "personal incredulity"?

I see a line of flares falling from a dark sky and disappearing as the fall behind a distant ridge. Superimposing a tape of the flares over a daylight picture taken from the same location and at the same scale shows this to be true.

I imagine that the pilots involved just can't be bothered.

Have you checked:
http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/AZUFO.htm
yet?

 

[Astrophotographer]

...The key to this explanation is "a few" if not one. Alot of witnesses didn't need or want a telescope, how far away was he?

I have numerous witnesses describing the independent motion of the lights as well as the video evidence. I have at least two that saw aircraft and an airline pilot who stated that they were aircraft. They were Tutors according to that report. Now, there was the theory they were Snowbirds but the snowbirds weren't in the area. However, I am also aware that they are not the only ones flying Tutors. The CAF often flew Tutor aircraft on training flights in the southern US because of the inclement weather in the north. They hopped about from base to base practicing whatever they do. If you want to find a source for the aircraft that night, try the CAF and visitors log at Tuscon. Unfortunately, UFO investigators never did this and never bothered to obtain the radar records. As for no pilot coming forward, I can only state that I am aware that flying in such a formation is frowned upon at night and is stretching regulations. The pilots would not want anybody to recognize they were stretching regs by coming forward. Additionally, many probably had no idea that they were the cause of the UFO. The story did not hit the media until many days later and, if they were visiting aircraft, they would have been out of the area by then. The same thing happened to the Maryland ANG and the flare drop. They had no idea that they caused the lights in the 10PM videos until somebody bothered to check. Had not the PAO for Luke AFB looked into the matter, nobody would have known about the unit identification.

...I might go for that except I've never seen flares float in formation, or self-ignite, or go out and self-ignite again. The ones I've seen my whole life floated down haphazardly in no particular order.

Can you show me the videos were the lights do what you state? All of the videos I have seen show each light come on and off only once. As for the "formation", you really have not done your homework and even read the story that was told by the USAF. The aircraft were leaving the Barry Goldwater range and had to drop their remaining flares before heading back to Tuscon (some sort of safety rule I am sure). They just dumped the flares as they flew which means the lights would form a line in the direction they flew. The lights would probably have a slope to them with the ones to the west being lower than the ones to the right. This is exactly what you see in the videos. I believe this link shows the Kryston video:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6Y5RjhOThM


The video is not in the proper sequence until time 0:09. Note how the lights go on from right to left (west to east), which was the direction the aircraft were flying back to Tuscon.

 

[chuck4842]

Your youtubeclip was cut and cropped so many times I'm disgusted. It's so damn obvious. Whatever man!.."I imagine that the pilots involved just can't be bothered"... with WHAT?, a ten year mystery on national tv? I mean I know they are busy,..but wtf?!!

 

[chuck4842]

Pardon? What have your comments got to do with Astrophotographer's explanation? People without telescopes see "lights in the sky". Those with telescopes see the lights are attached to airplanes.

So this is an argument by "personal incredulity"?

I see a line of flares falling from a dark sky and disappearing as the fall behind a distant ridge. Superimposing a tape of the flares over a daylight picture taken from the same location and at the same scale shows this to be true.

I imagine that the pilots involved just can't be bothered.

Have you checked:
http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/AZUFO.htm
yet?

Some people look at something and say wtf is that? Let me get my telescope out and get a closer view. But I trust the ones that were so close, (thousands of close-up witnesses,so close that they didn't need a telescope.)That's what THAT is about. I'm not saying the popular vote wins again. I'm saying if eyewitness doesn't count, we are already in the rabbit hole.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Your youtubeclip was cut and cropped so many times I'm disgusted. It's so damn obvious. Whatever man!.."I imagine that the pilots involved just can't be bothered"... with WHAT?, a ten year mystery on national tv? I mean I know they are busy,..but wtf?!!

Hmm....Feel free to present a clip that demonstrates your claim of lights turning on and off and then turning back on again. This is the video that was most often played in the media.

As for the ten year mystery, I think you overexaggerate the "importance" you place this case. The media frenzy for this was pretty local until June of 1997, where it made headlines for a few days. After that it became a local thing again. There were a few documentaries on TV about it but how many pilots watch UFO shows on a regular basis? The truth is that it is very likely the pilots involved had no idea about the event they produced. Again, I point towards the Maryland ANG, who had no idea they created the 10 PM lights by ejecting their flares.

 

[GT/CS]

Your youtubeclip was cut and cropped so many times I'm disgusted. It's so damn obvious. Whatever man!.."I imagine that the pilots involved just can't be bothered"... with WHAT?, a ten year mystery on national tv? I mean I know they are busy,..but wtf?!!

It's not a mystery. You seem to be the only person who can't put two and two together.

If you are really that interested in the lights (I dont think you are) then instead of whining about it why don't you do some research, find out who the pilots are, and contact them. No reason others should do all your work for you.

 

[kittynh]

UFO hunters is about getting the magazine subscriptions up also.

I try to help people that have seen a UFO.

A point they often haven't thought of was... why the assumption that aliens from another planet are behind the UFO? I mean even if there isn't an explaination...does that mean the answer is alien travellers? It's one thing to argue you haven't a clue what a sighting is, and a whole other level to jump to alien life forms from some extreme distance breaking all the lawsof physics as we know them to travel here and not land on the front lawn of the White House....

Well you get it.

I mean unicorns appear in the historical record...so that means they aren't myths.. and they could have flying saucer technology.

Just because you don't know what something is 100%...doesn't mean it's aliens.

 

[Astrophotographer]

But I trust the ones that were so close, (thousands of close-up witnesses,so close that they didn't need a telescope.)That's what THAT is about. I'm not saying the popular vote wins again. I'm saying if eyewitness doesn't count, we are already in the rabbit hole.

How do you know the witnesses were really close? Do I need to demonstrate how inaccurate eyewitnesses were in estimating distances at night? If you read my web page, you might understand that.

To quote Dr. Tyson:

"...even if in a court of law, eyewitness testimony is a high form of evidence, in the court of science, it is the lowest form of evidence you could possibly put forth" (UFOs: Seeing is believing)

The problem with eyewitness testimony is that it is inaccurate. It is subject to errors that can not be defined or resolved. What estimates by the witnesses are 100% accurate? What observations are accurate? What observations are biased by the witnesses desire to see things that are not there?

You claim thousands have seen the object up close. I state the number of witnesses that state this are much smaller than that. I looked at the NUFORC database. Did you or are you just reciting the claims by UFO proponents? The witnesses who claim it was close and one large object was very small in number compared to the number of witnesses who thought the lights were more distant, independent of each other (not connected to a craft), and were simple lights in formation.

This sort of goes with the conclusions reached by Dr. William Hartmann in the Condon report. Dr. Hartmann writes in his study that there were two factors in effect with this report. The first was the "excitedness effect". He defined this as, "observers with the poorest observations are most likely to submit reports". The second factor was the "airship effect". This is defined as, "observers conceive of moving lights in a dark sky as connected in a single entity".

I could go on about this but I am beginning to think you are not interested in hearing an opposing opinion.

 

[chuck4842]

I got most of my facts from wiki which I know isn't always reliable but it had better resource references than I've seen thus far. I'll quit my "whining" now and leave you intelligent debunkers alone.

 

[chuck4842]

"If you are really that interested in the lights (I dont think you are) then instead of whining about it why don't you do some research, find out who the pilots are, and contact them. No reason others should do all your work for you. " You're obviously the one that didn't do the research, the nearest AF base and airports have denied any scheduled exercises, and to this day NOBODY has found or come forward with ANY knowledge of airplanes except the one telescope guy.

 

[Astrophotographer]

You're obviously the one that didn't do the research, the nearest AF base and airports have denied any scheduled exercises, and to this day NOBODY has found or come forward with ANY knowledge of airplanes except the one telescope guy.

That is completely false. I have Rich Contry, who saw the lights as aircraft in his binoculars when they were flying lower in northern Arizona.

Additionally, this was printed in atricle written by Randy Fitzgerald called "UFOs-A Second Look." (Readers Digest. May 1999). The statements came from an interview he did with an aircrew of an American West airliner that was flying in northern arizona at the time.

"There's a UFO!" co-pilot John Middleton said kiddingly to pilot Larry Campbell. They queried the regional air-traffic-control center in Albuquerque, N.M. A controller radioed back that it was a formation of CT-144s flying at 19,000 feet.

As I stated before, CT-144s are flown by the Canadian Air Force. If they were the source of the lights that night, one would have to look at the visitors log for Tuscon AFB, which nobody did. The USAF had no idea how the formation traveled that night and could not comment. The flight would only be there for a short period of time (probably overnight) and then proceed to it's next destination. By the time it became big news in June, the crews would have been flying in Canada and would not even have thought of their flying being the cause of the UFO reports.

If I gave you names and designations of the aircraft, you would still deny that they could have caused the UFO the same way you deny that flares explain the videos of the 10PM event. So what would be the point of presenting you with information like the air crews names. There is plenty of evidence to suggest the source of the UFO that night. You are just not willing to accept it as probable.

 

[chuck4842]

I honestly didn't realize the US allowed Canadian AF exercises over major American cities without notice. This is news to me , like I said, "What I'm looking for". Thanks alot. I tried your link but was to lazy to fill in my personal info before being allowed to view. Does this mean the Canadian AF has outdone us with airplanes that don't emit sound too? We americans should quit drinking so much and try to focus more! I am open to your offer of supplying the names of the pilots.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Some people look at something and say wtf is that? Let me get my telescope out and get a closer view. But I trust the ones that were so close, (thousands of close-up witnesses,so close that they didn't need a telescope.)That's what THAT is about. I'm not saying the popular vote wins again. I'm saying if eyewitness doesn't count, we are already in the rabbit hole.

What close-up witnesses? Witnesses saw "lights in the sky". Those with telescopes looked at them and, with the greater magnification, saw that they were lights on planes.

 

[chuck4842]

OMFG. I give up. You guys are making me say something against my nature. Your explanation that night was slow moving Canadian AF jets that don't make sound, without pilots , and a few witnesses contrary to thousands. I'm the delusional one!

 

[chuck4842]

Aren't telescopes meant for star observation? I looked through one at (goddam my neighbors wife) and it looked like Giza to me.