The Phoenix Lights... We Are Not Alone

[chuck4842]

I'm sorry, let me state this a little clearer. I'd like to know how you confused the unannounced captured video of 1-14-98 by Mike Krzyston. With an announced by the guard video on 1-14-98 that Village labs sat ready to film , did, and still claimed it a ufo.

 

[chuck4842]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg6cGCAB2Ck

Watch the clip starting at 2:00. This was his investigation in 1997. I don't care what story he tells now. The actual investigation in 1997 was nothing more than a joke he used to divert attention away from his failed adminstration.

If there were an actual investigation, where is the report? Where are the mountains of data they would have gathered to analyze everything? The truth is there was no investigation.

The truth is there was an investigation. But they couldn't find anything to report. On the Discovery Channel video Peter Davenport Dir. National UFO reporting center, shows his phone log proving he called Luke AFB. several times and exchanged info. with the AF for hours, on the show he states one official told him their switchboard was paralyzed by the many calls. Is he a liar? Or should I just listen to you?

Also 43 days according to the show(they're lying too right) City council chair Barwood asked for an investigation, AZ. GOV. Fife Symington announced on Fox 15 he was going to "spearhead an investigation" and June 19 said the results of that investigation was it was ET. That's because of what police told him they knew, thats what he says, oh hes lying too, dang.

 

[Astrophotographer]

I'm sorry, let me state this a little clearer. I'd like to know how you confused the unannounced captured video of 1-14-98 by Mike Krzyston. With an announced by the guard video on 1-14-98 that Village labs sat ready to film , did, and still claimed it a ufo.

Gee...I could have sworn that I admitted the 1-14-98 event was unannounced. I am not sure how you keep getting this all mixed up. I had stated that Village labs thought the 1-14-98 event was the same as the 3-13-97 event on my website. I then posted the entire link of Village labs claiming the videos looked like the 3-13-97 event and were not flares. Therefore, Village labs claimed they were the same type of lights (aka UFOs).

http://www.ufologie.net/htm/phoewit1.htm

By comparing the overlapping of the individual videos (and their differing perspectives), we can conclusively demonstrate that the mysterious 'Phoenix Lights' are, in fact, back and the favored locations for their displays are the same as for March 10 through 14, 1997, that is, both sides of the Estrella Mountains and the Gila River and Rainbow Valley and far from the Barry Goldwater gunnery range more than forty miles away, the site of occasional flare drops and other military exercises.

I also stated I think the source of the confusion was the fact that the 1-14-98 event was rapidly identified by the media that same evening as being from a Michigan ANG exercise. I must have assumed (again, I speaking from 10 years ago when I originally wrote the one paragraph) they had some warning of the event. Since I can not provide a direct quote that states they had a pre-announcement, I alterred the webpage by striking out what I originally wrote (so people can see that I just did not delete the section) and then adding the addendum.


This is all old stuff now. I am still not sure what your point continues to be so you are not being any clearer. Is it so you can point out that you discovered I made the same mistake about there not being a preannouncement over and over? Good for you then.

 

[Astrophotographer]

The truth is there was an investigation. But they couldn't find anything to report. On the Discovery Channel video Peter Davenport Dir. National UFO reporting center, shows his phone log proving he called Luke AFB. several times and exchanged info. with the AF for hours, on the show he states one official told him their switchboard was paralyzed by the many calls. Is he a liar? Or should I just listen to you?

It must have been some investigation if they could report nothing. Who was investigating? Inspector Clouseau?

As far as Davenport's statement, Luke AFB also stated they received calls but directed them elsewhere (probably to various UFO networks including NUFORC). My guess is they did receive a lot of calls but I would not characterize them as "paralyzing their switchboard" since the operator probably told them the standard blurb about not investigating UFOs and directed them to the UFO organizations.

 

[chuck4842]

Why do you constantly send me to reading material biased to your oppinion. I read the damn macabee report, 6 pages and the last sentence said no vid which I claimed in the 1st place. Your above link again has no vid. Do you enjoy sending me on wild goose chases? So you summed it up by that article , who wrote it? It doesn't say. Is it just a page posted?

 

[chuck4842]

"Luke AFB also stated they received calls but directed them elsewhere (probably to various UFO networks including NUFORC)." I'm curious as to what the callers reported. Do you believe they called and said "hey theres spaceships flying around" or maybe "can you tell me what that object is flying around Phoenix , heres my description", if the latter sounds more plausible, why would Luke AFB immediately direct them to "various UFO networks"? Isn't the AF job in fact to identify and detect possible threats? Especially the flying type. Weren't they the slightest concerned?Have you seen the witness on the Discovery show who saw jets scrambling to the V with their afterburners on?

 

[Astrophotographer]

Why do you constantly send me to reading material biased to your oppinion. I read the damn macabee report, 6 pages and the last sentence said no vid which I claimed in the 1st place.

Because you keep showing clips from the 10PM event. That is why I keep sending you back to the Maccabee report which says these videos are flares. It is plain and simple. Stop posting clips of the 10PM event!

Your above link again has no vid. Do you enjoy sending me on wild goose chases? So you summed it up by that article , who wrote it? It doesn't say. Is it just a page posted?

I am not sure which link you are talking about. The one link is for the discovery channel show, which worked for me. Additionally, the link for Dr. LK's image also works as does the Dilettoso link. So feel free to identify the link that is bad. As for the rest of your diatribe, I am not sure what the heck you are talking about. Are you discussing the statement by Dilettoso and doubting it? If so, I wish your skepticism would extend towards the exotic claims about alien spaceships flying over Phoenix. We would not be having this discussion right now if that were the case. It appears your skepticism is highly selective.

I'm curious as to what the callers reported. Do you believe they called and said "hey theres spaceships flying around" or maybe "can you tell me what that object is flying around Phoenix , heres my description", if the latter sounds more plausible, why would Luke AFB immediately direct them to "various UFO networks"?

Becasue they are not in the UFO business. If there were a threat, they would have identified it long before people looking up in the sky would have since their radar (as well as NORAD's radar) extends well beyond what people can see.

Isn't the AF job in fact to identify and detect possible threats? Especially the flying type. Weren't they the slightest concerned?

I would think the FAA would be most concerned since it would interfere with air traffic. Exactly what threat did the v-formation present? It simply flew over the state of Arizona. It did not interfere with restricted airspace. As I stated, NORAD has far more sophisticated radar, where they track all sorts of things in the sky and in space. If there were a threat, NORAD would have seen it long before somebody in Phoenix looked up. Therefore, Luke AFB simply referred everyone to the UFO groups.

What makes you think there was a "threat" involved? The fact that there was no confirmed response by the military indicates it was a formation of aircraft and not something out of "Independence day".

Have you seen the witness on the Discovery show who saw jets scrambling to the V with their afterburners on?

I think you are talking about Bill Greiner. Luke AFB is a training base and there is no evidence they sent up interceptors on full afterburner that night. Nobody other than Greiner reports the story. Just a few bits that I find odd about Greiner is that he did not start telling his story until Bill Hamilton was on a radio show on 1 April 1997 discussing the events. On that radio show, Greiner called in and told his story for the first time. One important point to note is that Greiner's story takes place long after the V had left the Phoenix area. He talks about the jets chasing some pulsating lights around 9-10PM that night. Isn't it odd that nobody managed to record this event even though many recorded the 10PM flare drop? Due to it's exotic nature and the inability to confirm the story, I don't put much weight in Greiner's testimony. Believe him all you wish but without further evidence the story is true, I am more apt to believe his story is an exaggeration of something he thinks he saw one night and not necessarily on the 13th of March, 1997.

 

[chuck4842]

"Becasue they are not in the UFO business. If there were a threat, they would have identified it long before people looking up in the sky would have since their radar (as well as NORAD's radar) extends well beyond what people can see.".....I didn't know our AF wasn't in the unidentifed flying objects around Phoenix business. That kind of explains 911 don't it.

 

[chuck4842]

"One important point to note is that Greiner's story takes place long after the V had left the Phoenix area. He talks about the jets chasing some pulsating lights around 9-10PM that night. Isn't it odd that nobody managed to record this event even though many recorded the 10PM flare drop? Due to it's exotic nature and the inability to confirm the story, I don't put much weight in Greiner's testimony" That's strange, since his story is doccumented on the same website you gave me as a reference for how you got the unannounced replay vid confused...LOL.. I'll never let you forget that one. Yeah I'm proud of it. I ain't hardly found nuthin' on you yet , but then again I'm just doing this while raising teenagers and got a real job. Yep Greiner's a liar too , just say it. He's a damn liar. He didn't understand what he was seeing, makes perfect sense to me, to go on Discovery and make a fool of yourself.

 

[chuck4842]

BTW could you help me with the multiple quote thing 'cause I can't figure it out. I click it and it waits on me.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Yep Greiner's a liar too , just say it. He's a damn liar. He didn't understand what he was seeing, makes perfect sense to me, to go on Discovery and make a fool of yourself.

Carl Sagan wrote the following about UFO eyewitnesses and the evidence they present:

On so important a question, the evidence must be airtight. The more we want it to be true, the more careful we have to be. No witness’s say-so is good enough. People make mistakes. People play practical jokes. People stretch the truth for money or attention or fame. People occasionally misunderstand what they are seeing. People sometimes even see things that aren’t there. (The Demon Haunted World - btw, it is a good book and you should read it)

Another eminent scientist (who was involved with the manhattan project), Dr. Philip Morrison, reflects my attitude towards this kind of story:

I would say that NO witness is credible who bears a sufficiently strange story...I want to emphasizes that the singleness of a witness necessarily puts his case into some sort of doubt. All of us know how people have been mistaken with the best will in the world. (UFOs: A scientific debate)

Just for the record, I never stated he was lying. I had stated:

I am more apt to believe his story is an exaggeration of something he thinks he saw one night and not necessarily on the 13th of March, 1997.

Who knows what Greiner saw and when? Nobody can confirm the story. There is no record of any jets up at the time of his event and nobody reports seeing an interception attempt that night EXCEPT Greiner. It is a matter of how credible the story is. Is it likely that Greiner's story is true or is it more likely that he might have seen something but not exactly as he described? Considering that he told his story almost three weeks later, could he have confused the night in question? Could it be possible he saw a military training exercise involving flares or other objects in the sky (stars or planets)? Which is more likely?

Before you state Greiner knew what he saw and could never mistake planets,stars, or flares for UFOs, I suggest you read Allan Hendry's UFO Investigators Handbook if you can get copy (check out your local library). Hendry was an investigator for the Center for UFO studies (CUFOS) back in the 1970s. His book is full of UFO stories a lot like Greiner's. Most have reasonable explanations and the witnesses believed they were seeing something extraordinary. Based on what is known about UFO stories to date, it is likely that Greiner's story is simple misperception where he exaggerated on certain aspects that made it sound exotic. We are also left with the possibility that he may be lying, which could be the case but is hard to prove. The lowest possibility is that he is telling the story accurately. In order for the possibility of this to improve, confirming evidence needs to be presented (i.e. multiple and independent witnesses reporting the same thing). There is none, which means it is just another unconfirmable UFO story and has little to do with the two major events of March 13, 1997.

As for your issue with posting, I am sorry that I can't help you on that one because I am not there to look over your shoulder. I just hit quote and then edit as necessary.

 

[chuck4842]

Now can we substitute the name Stanley in the above explanation? Or not , because he he had a telescope. Isn't it possible Stanley didn't want to see what he was seeing because he like you, finds it impossible? The only vid of the V you posted, I still can't say 100 % solid evidence Stanley kept the V in his telescope and was able to identify the object. Also, aren't there plenty of testimonies of ret. military, stating the government doesn't release info. on ufos, which may explain your "the government has no evidence of this" reasoning?

 

[Astrophotographer]

Now can we substitute the name Stanley in the above explanation? Or not , because he he had a telescope. Isn't it possible Stanley didn't want to see what he was seeing because he like you, finds it impossible? The only vid of the V you posted, I still can't say 100 % solid evidence Stanley kept the V in his telescope and was able to identify the object.

No, we can not. Because there ARE witnesses who confirm his story. His mother, who was present when he was looking through the telescope, confirmed to the media that he identified them as planes. We also have the various independent testimonies of people seeing a formation of lights (and no black V behind them), the shifting lights in the video, the witnesses who identified them as aircraft, and the pilots who heard the ATC tell them they were aircraft as well as them listening to the pilots. Lastly, there is nothing extraordinary about what he reports. Planes do exist and they can fly in formation at night. Nothing unusual or exotic about that. Remember Morrison stated "I would say that NO witness is credible who bears a sufficiently strange story." There is nothing strange about Stanley's observations.

As for Stanley keeping the object in his field of view, I can only state that people are tracking the ISS by hand these days with their telescopes. If people can track an object at that angular rate with a telescope by hand, I see no reason that Stanley could track some aircraft with his telescope using the magnification he stated in the article. Any experienced amateur astronomer probably could have duplicated the effort with that type of telescope. This is the same lame argument I heard some UFOlogists utter. The next thing your going to mention is the image was flipped upside down and it would have made it impossible for Stanley to identify them.

Also, aren't there plenty of testimonies of ret. military, stating the government doesn't release info. on ufos, which may explain your "the government has no evidence of this" reasoning?

If you want to discuss the disclosure project, feel free to start another thread on the subject. I can only state that not one of the claims so far has been shown to be true regarding exotic craft violating the earths air space. They are all just UFO stories that can not be confirmed and some of them can be explained.

 

[chuck4842]

When you explain something, you really don't hold back do you. OK,.. give me some time and ,...well I'll see if I can find something else you can't deny. Did the military say we can reproduce the event or not, thats all I'm asking. They took 3 mos. to give the flares explanation, I'm not sure how long it took for the "V" was tutors explanation but I do feel there aint know way they could drop those flares even with todays technology and make'em line up so. It's regular doings to them right? Do you not see why it is important for me to see something similar to the 03/1997 video to understand that it's familiar? What is so hard to comprehend about this? Is it because they don't feel like it ten years later? Somebody please answer this goddamned question 'cause I'm tired of askin'!

 

[TjW]

Explain to me again why the military should have the least bit of interest in exactly duplicating this scenario?

 

[Patricio Elicer]

BTW could you help me with the multiple quote thing 'cause I can't figure it out. I click it and it waits on me.

Chuck, for multi-quoting press the '' button of the first post(s) you want to quote, and the QUOTE button on the last post you want to quote. This last action will open the response window with the several quotes you chose.

 

[Astrophotographer]

I'm not sure how long it took for the "V" was tutors explanation but I do feel there aint know way they could drop those flares even with todays technology and make'em line up so. It's regular doings to them right? Do you not see why it is important for me to see something similar to the 03/1997 video to understand that it's familiar? What is so hard to comprehend about this? Is it because they don't feel like it ten years later? Somebody please answer this goddamned question 'cause I'm tired of askin'!

Let me see if I can answer it:

1. The "V" explanation was first offerred in June of 1997 by Tony Ortega in his article for the Phoenix Newstimes (The great UFO Coverup). I did not start suggesting they were Tutors until I found the article in Readers Digest about five years ago. BTW, Mitch Stanley appeared in the Discovery Channel show briefly at a town meeting (this was probably before Ortega's story) where he states they were airplanes. He was dismissed flippantly by UFO believers the same way you seem to dismiss him in this forum.

2. I am sure what your problem with the flares explanation is. At one point you state they were flares and then you state it would be practically impossible for them to line up that way. The problem is, you are looking at a two dimensional image in the videos. Again, I will redirect you to the Maccabee analysis figure 18, which shows through triangulation they were not "lined up" but scattered. The "lining up" is an illusion.

http://brumac.8k.com/images/pl_images/REPORTfig18.jpg

3. You keep asking the same questions and I keep directing you to the same sources for the answers. You apparently can not grasp what these sources state or choose not to read them carefully. If you want the USAF to reproduce the event you are wasting your time. It isn't going to happen as you very well know. Since you appear to live near Fayetteville, feel free to request Fort Bragg to drop some luu-2 flares one night for you so you can videotape them from 50 miles away. I am curious as to what their response might be. If they do not respond favorably, you then can protest to your congressperson and senators. Tell them as a taxpayer you DEMAND that they conduct this exercise for your personal interest. I am also curious as to what their response will be. Let us know how it works out.

However, UFOlogists or anyone else can conduct an experiment with video cameras near a military exercise area where flare drops do occur. I described how it could be done earlier. Maybe you can conduct this exercise while monitoring the local military operating areas in your area. We look forward to seeing the results. Make sure one video camera is at least 30-50 miles distant. Here are the MOAs in the southern part of your state near Fayetteville:

Seymour Johnson MOA - centered over Smithfield - Goldsboro - Clinton
Gamecock A MOA around Blandenboro
Fort Bragg MOA A NW of Fort Bragg
Fort Bragg MOA B NW of Fort Bragg


Personally, I see no reason to do so because I am perfectly willing to accept all the analysis to date that shows the lights were flares. To me recreating the whole event or conducting the experiment would be a waste of time. The lights look and act like flares, they were dropped in an area where flares normally are dropped, and there were aircraft claiming to have dropped flares. What is so hard to accept about this?

 

[Astrophotographer]

Explain to me again why the military should have the least bit of interest in exactly duplicating this scenario?

It does not matter. Even if they did perform his demonstration and it looked like the videos, he would declare they were using special flares designed to look like the ones in the videos and used a special demonstration team to line up the flares precisely to make it look like the videos. It is a no-win situation for the military, which is one of the reasons (besides wasting time, resources, and money) they won't do it.

 

[chuck4842]

I guess what I'm saying is after 10 years nothing similar, has appeared, to what's supposed to be "regular exercises". I 'll stop badgering you now and see if I can find something more substantial to chew on.

 

[Astrophotographer]

I guess what I'm saying is after 10 years nothing similar, has appeared, to what's supposed to be "regular exercises". I 'll stop badgering you now and see if I can find something more substantial to chew on.

????Gee I thought we also agreed that the January 14, 1998 event were flares. So "nothing similiar" is not being accurate. The idea that "nothing similiar" has occurred is also false because I have read astronomers accounts of these flare drops. Feel free to think "nothing similar" has happened but that is not the case.