Mitch Stanley apparently saw something interesting enough to view thru his high-tech telescope, but not his wal-mart camera.
First of all you can not just point a camera at a telescope eyepiece and hope to get a good photograph. At the time digitial cameras were something of a new idea and very expensive. Therefore, you would be using film. The only kind of camera that would work is a 35mm SLR camera so you could look through the lens of the camera and align it for an afocal shot. But wait....there is more. Depending on the intensity of the lights, you may not be able to record the lights simply because the film speed may have been too low. Even if you could record the lights, it is unlikely that you would have recorded the fainter outlines of the aircraft. It is a matter of the speed of the film, the brightness of the object you are photographing, and F-ratio of the system you are using. These are basic concepts of photography. Now, Mitch could have attempted to perform a direct photograph which would have meant he would have to remove the eyepiece and attach the camera directly to the focusing tube. He then would have to refocus the scope, align the scope with the moving aircraft, and snap the pic. In both scenarios, it would have to assume that Mitch had his camera ready, loaded with film, and near his telescope. Hopefully, you are now just a bit more informed about photography with a telescope. You really make this far too easy.
Personally, I rarely had my camera (After all my screen name is not just for show - that is my picture of Jupiter) handy if I was just going out to look. Sometimes I wish I did but the camera with film was usually inside unless I planned to shoot photographs of the moon or planets. If I were taking deep sky photographs, I would not be in the city. BTW, I used to see military flare drops over the gulf of Mexico from my dark sky site in Florida. They looked like what is seen in the Az videos.
IF THE AF CLAIMS IT WAS FLARES, WHY DON'T THEY DO IT AGAIN AT A TIME WE CAN BE READY TO OBSERVE.... I SAY AGAIN!
This is a tired argument you continue to make to people who have no control over what the USAF does or does not do. We are discussing what is known about the case at this point and not your desire to have the USAF replicate an event. Again, if you want to see such an event, I suggest you go to Arizona and find a point about 50 miles from the Barry Goldwater test range with a flat horizon. You can then have somebody stationed near the range observing the activities of the aircraft operating over the range. When they drop flares from altitude, it can be verified. This does not require any great rocket science and UFOlogists could have done this experiment to satisfy you years ago (my guess is they did but did not like the results because it indicated the flare explanation was correct) but they refuse to for the same reason you are making your argument here. It has to do with intellectual laziness. There is enough analysis to demonstrate the lights were flares. You are just not willing to accept it because you are blinded by your will to believe.
BTW, your characterization of Stanley and his mother is just a bit out of bounds. I don't see anybody in this forum using similar characterizations for the various UFO witnesses. All you are doing is demonstrating that you can't defend your position and resort to this kind of commentary to deflect attention away from this.
Additionally, I have several requests of you regarding the Phoenix lights:
1. Demonstrate to me that the lights in the videos can not be flares. You have claimed previously that they did not act like flares. I previously requested you to provide this evidence and you did not. Maybe you just missed the request. If you can not provide evidence that indicates they were not flares, I think you need to drop your whole argument that they were not flares.
2. Demonstrate that the 8PM event was not a formation of aircraft. The whole idea is for you to provide something for me to address and examine from another point of view. I (as will the rest of this forum) will then see if it has merit and could falsify the present explanation being presented. I previously listed the main arguments against the plane formation hypothesis and they can easily be explained. I was wondering if you have something that is new. If you can point to something that indicates otherwise, I would be more than willing to listen.
The rest of your arguments have been lacking in substance. If you really have something to offer intellectually, feel free to do so but don't keep repeating the same statements. Putting it in ALL CAPS does not make it any more valid an argument than it was before.
