The Phoenix Lights... We Are Not Alone

[chuck4842]

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.

Are you serious? I dare you to join the Canadian AF,.. Gord in Tornto, and try to fly over Phoenix , fly low mind you. Do you reckon there might be a few witnesses? I bet everything including my worthless soul you couldn't do it, nor your worthless canadian AF. "What close-up witnesses?" LOL You lost your Gord!

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

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!

Jets fly over my house every day on approach to Pearson International airport. They cannot usually be heard.

The thousands of witnesses without binoculars or telescopes saw "lights in the sky". The people who saw the lights close up by using binoculars or telescopes saw the planes they were on.

If you want an explanation couched in less kindly words than you have heard here, try:
http://www.pinkraygun.com/2008/06/19/ask-an-amateur-scientist-the-phoenix-lights/

 

[Drudgewire]

Tony Ortega (former writer for the Phoenix New Times) seemed to cover it pretty well for eSkeptic earlier this year:

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-05-21.html#feature

There was at least one person who videotaped both the 8:30 vee and the later event. I saw his tape myself. It clearly showed the five lights of the 8:30 vee moving in relation to each other, exactly as you’d expect in a formation of airplanes.

As for the people who swore they saw a black triangular shape joining the five lights of the vee, that’s a classic contrast effect of the human eye. In a very telling case, a man who swore he saw a black shape joining the lights of the vee saw it pass directly in front of the moon. At that point, he saw not a black shape but wavy lines pass over the undimmed moon. But rather than conclude that he’d seen the contrails of planes, the man, whose perception had already been heavily influenced by the UFO explanation concluded instead that the pilot of the alien craft had turned his spaceship transparent right at that moment so the man could see the moon through it. How convenient!

The thing I've always wondered is why aliens could travel billions of miles using technology clearly exponentially more advanced than we could ever imagine, and could fly this massive craft into our atmosphere completely undetected, but for some reason when they reached Phoenix they suddenly needed to turn their lights on.

 

[chuck4842]

"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"...aaah But the entire city of Phoenix would probably pay you a million dollars if you could do that, along with the pilots names who flew them. But you know you can't, don't you. Despite all the research you've done , a bunch of money, kind of like what Randi offers, isn't enough to make you produce the lie. Why? It would cost more to find a bunch of liars to back you up. I may be wrong, but ten years later I don't think you really got that. You are bluffing sir.

 

[chuck4842]

"but for some reason when they reached Phoenix they suddenly needed to turn their lights on. " Are you asking for an alien translator? I first of all saw nothing "sudden" about it. I also don't believe it to be alien. "What I'm Looking For" is an acceptable explanation , and all I've stated is I still haven't found it.

 

[Patricio Elicer]

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!

I would hope that you give up your UFO nonsense.

And yes, no sound is heard when planes are far away enough. Take a look at this YT video of "lights in formation" in Santiago. They are planes, but the guy with the camera certainly did not hear any sound, that's why he appears to be so mystified with the sighting.



Also, have you seen an airplane approaching a runway heading to your position at night?. All you see is a big light that seems stationary, and no sound at all.

Looks like you don't pay much attention to the real world.

 

[Drudgewire]

And yes, no sound is heard when planes are far away enough. Take a look at this YT video of "lights in formation" in Santiago. They are planes, but the guy with the camera certainly did not hear any sound, that's why he appears to be so mystified with the sighting.

Yeah, people who were closer to the lights of the first event heard engines.

 

[Astrophotographer]

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.

A. I am not sure why you have problems visiting my website since it does not require anybody to fill out information.

B. The CAF was not conducting any exercise. They were just flying from one destination to another. The formation flight with lights is the only issue that might be against regulations. It is my impression that the illumination may have been used because the pilots were traineees or they decided to do it for safety reasons. I am speculating on this but it makes sense.

C. The Tutor is a relatively quiet aircraft and when at cruise altitude, you may not hear it. Look up in the sky during the day and you will see high flying aircraft leaving contrails. Do you hear them? Not often. That doesn't mean they are not making any noise.

D. I see no reason to give you names of pilots I may or may not have talked to simply because you would not believe them anyway. Look at the way you addressed the issue for the aircrews of the Maryland ANG. What is the point? I have given you enough leads for you to do any follow-up you desire.

 

[Astrophotographer]

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!

Not slow moving. You are having problems understanding anything that is being presented. An aircraft flying at 20,000 feet at 400 mph will move at the same apparent angular rate as an aircraft flying 40mph at 2000 feet. This is simple understanding.

Feel free to list the "thousands" of eyewitnesses that have submitted UFO reports that suggest something other than lights in the sky in formation. I can think of less than half a dozen that made reports to NUFORC and MUFON after the event. The rest talked about a formation of lights. This is VERIFIED by the only videotape taken north of Phoenix.

All you keep doing is presenting the same lame arguments that UFO proponents and UFO documentaries keep peddling. I have satisfactorily answered all these questions but you seem intent on ignoring those explanations.

 

[Astrophotographer]

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

Again, you are demonstrating an ignorance of the issue. Mitch Stanley had a 10" dobsonian reflector. It is a very good instrument that is very easy to use for most individuals. The views are very crisp and very bright. It is not some telescope you buy at Walmart.

 

[Astrophotographer]

I may be wrong, but ten years later I don't think you really got that. You are bluffing sir.

Feel free to follow through for yourself. I have given you enough leads to check up on any of the information. If you choose to ignore the data, that is your fault. As for the names of the pilots, I will neither confirm or deny that I have been in contact with any of them. If you think I am bluffing, that is your choice. You can call my bluff anytime by checking up on what I have learned.

 

[Astrophotographer]

"What I'm Looking For" is an acceptable explanation , and all I've stated is I still haven't found it.

I don't think you are looking for an explanation. So far, the following explanations are on the table:

1) The 8PM event was a formation of aircraft flying over phoenix with illumination lights.

2) The 10PM event was produced by flares dropped by aircraft leaving the Barry Goldwater test range south of Phoenix.

3) The 8PM was a super massive triangle/V shaped object with lights that shape shifted in flight and also went invisible as it passed in front of the moon.

4) The 10PM event was an "orb" demonstration of UFOs. They mysteriously turned on and off and on again.

Hmmmm.....I have to choose which is more likely? If I choose 1 and 2, then I am choosing things that are very plausible and there is a good amount of evidence to suggest this was the case. If I choose 3 and 4, I have to assume that these things exist and that there is a grand conspiracy to cover-up the evidence, which seems to be lacking. I think I will side with 1 and 2. If you choose 3 and 4, that is your choice but you are basing your choice more on will to believe than the actual evidence.

I think explanation 1 and 2 are more than satisfactory explanations. Explanation 2 is confirmed with pilots/unit identification and you rejected it out of hand. I am not sure why you would accept #1 even if I gave you flight logs and pilot names for the formation flight.

 

[Astrophotographer]

I think I can summarize the main reasons for why you reject the explanation for the 8PM event is formation of aircraft and then offer you how each can be explained.

1. The lights flew low and close to the observers - Only a few witnesses state this. Judging altitude of lights at night is not that easy. The fact that people over a wide area saw the object flying overhead at the same time indicates the lights were not at treetop level or low altitude but at a much higher altitude.

2. The lights were connected to a massive craft - Again, only a few witnesses state this. Tim Ley and his family are very popular witnesses who got a lot of air time with their story. Mike Fortson is another one. However, Mike saw the object pass in front of the moon! At that instant, the craft became transparent and the moon became wavy. I believe Fortson described this effect as being similar to the fumes of a gas can when you take the lid off. Isn't that the kind of description one might expect when describing the exhaust of a jet engine? What apparently happened was what Dr. Hartmann described as the "airship effect". The few witnesses who reported a massive craft connected the dots and created a dark craft behind the lights out of their imagination. Again, the only video tape of the event clearly shows the lights shifting in formation as they moved through the sky (several witnesses reported this as well). If they were connected to a massive craft, they would have been locked into position.

3. The lights were silent - Aircraft flying at high altitude are not going to be easily heard especially if you are not listening for them. Also, sound travels slowly. I computed that sound from an aircraft traveling at an altitude of about 20,000 feet would take about 20 seconds to reach the observer if it flew directly overhead. This means the observer may not hear the sounds until after the lights passed overhead. At that point, the observer may be chatting about the event with fellow witnesses or noises from the city may mask the noise.

4. The lights were too slow to be aircraft - This is a basic concept of distance and angular speed. The aircraft you see high in the sky (sometimes only contrails are visible) are traveling at over 500mph. However, they appear to the observer to be moving very slowly. As the distance of an object moves farther from the observer, it's angular speed (apparent speed if you wish) decreases but it's actual speed does not change. Again, a good example would be that an airplane traveling at 400mph at 20,000 feet would have the same angular speed as an aircraft moving at 40mph at 2,000 feet.

5. I don't have physical evidence to support my contention that it was a formation of aircraft. This is correct. I don't have any physical evidence to present but my evidence is from witnesses who report what they saw, which included one report from airline pilots who talked an enroute controller at the time. The controller told them it was a formation of CT-144s, a canadian AF training jet at the time(it has since been phased out). This is why I link the formation to the Canadian AF and it makes sense why nobody was able to identify the formation. The idea they could be the Snowbirds has been refuted but that does not eliminate a training flight for a Canadian AF unit, which is common for that time of year.

If you have any other arguments feel free to present them. Additionally, if you have any evidence to present that directly refutes the formation of aircarft explanation, feel free to do so. I will be waiting and willing to listen to what you have to say. However, so far, you have presented very little other than referring to a few anecdotal stories you heard somewhere. You have not even produced a list of witnesses that you have used to base your opinions upon. BTW, nobody has stated any of these witnesses to the 8PM event are lying. I am only stating their imaginations are what created the massive craft behind the lights. They did see something, they just did not accurately report what they saw.

 

[chuck4842]

"I don't have physical evidence to support my contention that it was a formation of aircraft. This is correct. I don't have any physical evidence to present but my evidence is from witnesses"- I appreciate the feel free to comment gesture, I tire of speaking carefully, do you really wish to have a lets see who's got the most witnesses contest? I think you know that and I will not waste time there. How many states would Canadian AF passover unseen before reaching AZ? Also Gov. Fife stated he was a pilot and has never seen such aircraft. At the risk of pissing some skeptics off, I wont mention the nearest "base" I'm suspecting this event originated from, any guesses? A classified exercise has to be in my mind the best explanation so far.

 

[Astrophotographer]

I appreciate the feel free to comment gesture, I tire of speaking carefully, do you really wish to have a lets see who's got the most witnesses contest? I think you know that and I will not waste time there.

It is not a matter of seeing who has the most witness but who is reporting what. If you have witnesses saying they saw a flying dragon, would you believe them? How different is the "flying dragon" sighting from the "huge dark V with lights"? Neither can be shown to exist. However, if I have two dozen witnesses who state they saw a formation of lights that night and they saw no dark V and I add them to the few I have that state the lights were a formation of aircraft, I am pretty certain that I can present a greater number of witnesses and make my case. I also have the video evidence to support that conclusion.

Again, feel free to present the witness list that supports the claim you seem to be making that it could not have been a formation of aircraft that produced the event that evening.

How many states would Canadian AF passover unseen before reaching AZ?

You really do not have any clue about the capabilities of the Tutor do you? It would have to come from a neighboring state because of its limited range. The witness testimony indicates they came from the Las Vegas area (Nellis AFB is located in north Las Vegas) because witnesses started reporting the event in the following sequence: Henderson, NV, Kingman, Az, Prescott, Az, Phoenix. There also was a report north of Tuscon. The trail ends there. Of course that is were Davis-Monthan AFB is located. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out the origin and destination as well as the flight path.

Also Gov. Fife stated he was a pilot and has never seen such aircraft.

Who cares what the governor stated. In 1997,he considered it a joke and mocked the media. UFO proponents hated him. Ten years later he suddenly states he saw the UFO (do we have real proof of this) and he is now considered a reliable witness. Can you present me with a documented witness report made by the Governor in 1997?

At the risk of pissing some skeptics off, I wont mention the nearest "base" I'm suspecting this event originated from, any guesses? A classified exercise has to be in my mind the best explanation so far.

At last we have a theory. Exactly, why would the military conduct a classified exercise over Phoenix AZ from "area 51"? What craft were they testing? Was it a formation of aircraft or some super huge V shaped object (hundreds or thousands of feet across) that there is no evidence for existing? Additionally, for the craft to come from Area 51, we would have had hundreds (if not thousands) of witnesses from Las Vegas since the craft's path would have come over the area based on the reported path in Arizona. If it came from Area 51, why didn't anybody in Nevada, California, or Utah report seeing the object that night. It would have to pass through one of those states to get to Arizona. The only report from Nevada was in Henderson, which is SE of Las Vegas. Why didn't most of Las Vegas report a UFO? Perhaps because the aircraft came from Nellis (just as I determined) and the only section of Las Vegas the saw the formation were those in Henderson.


Your theory is based on speculation and a few wild reports that made headlines. The bulk of the observational data and video evidence indcates the formation of aircraft is the best answer to the sighting. Feel free to demonstrate that it isn't.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

"I don't have physical evidence to support my contention that it was a formation of aircraft. This is correct. I don't have any physical evidence to present but my evidence is from witnesses"-

The witnesses with binoculars and telescopes saw planes. Those without, saw "lights in the sky".

I appreciate the feel free to comment gesture, I tire of speaking carefully, do you really wish to have a lets see who's got the most witnesses contest? I think you know that and I will not waste time there.

The witnesses with binoculars and telescopes saw planes. Those without, saw "lights in the sky"

How many states would Canadian AF passover unseen before reaching AZ?

Why unseen? Who was looking?

Also Gov. Fife stated he was a pilot and has never seen such aircraft.

So what?

At the risk of pissing some skeptics off, I wont mention the nearest "base" I'm suspecting this event originated from, any guesses?

The Moon?

A classified exercise has to be in my mind the best explanation so far.

So they were not "UFOs"?

 

[chuck4842]

If the AF says they were flares , why don't they announce another flare show and reproduce the incident? These "flares" must hover and be white, and not emit smoke. All of which I agree, may not be visible from the original standpoint. Just ask the AF when's your next scheduled flare drop exercise in the same area , so we can set up the same camera and have a look see. This is important to the citizens of Phoenix , why can't they do it? There's a Capt. in the AF claiming this, ask him , please do it again. The AF needs the practice and we as witnesses do too. The response I bet is a stonewall.

 

[Astrophotographer]

If the AF says they were flares , why don't they announce another flare show and reproduce the incident? These "flares" must hover and be white, and not emit smoke. All of which I agree, may not be visible from the original standpoint. Just ask the AF when's your next scheduled flare drop exercise in the same area , so we can set up the same camera and have a look see. This is important to the citizens of Phoenix , why can't they do it? There's a Capt. in the AF claiming this, ask him , please do it again. The AF needs the practice and we as witnesses do too. The response I bet is a stonewall.

I see, I am supposed to conduct an exercise or have the USAF conduct an exercise to satisfy your ignorance of what flares look like from 50 miles away? I am sure the tax payer will be more than happy with wasting fuel, aircraft hours, flares, etc. in order to verify something that is clear to just about everybody that has analyzed the event. I suggest you write your congress person or senator and see if they can accomplish the task for you. I have no control over what the USAF does so why are you asking me to do this?
BTW, on January 14, 1998, the USAF conducted an exercise south of Phoenix with the Michigan ANG. Once again, uninformed individuals videotaped the event with the same results. Dr. Bruce Maccabee has a website devoted to his analysis of these and the March 1997 lights.

http://brumac.8k.com/phoenixlights1.html

Maybe you should read his examination of the lights. Then tell me why his analysis is incorrect. If you can not do this, then you must accept his conclusions that the lights were over the Barry Goldwater test range and are consistent with flares being dropped by aircraft.

If this does not satisfy you then I was correct in stating that you are more interested in your will to believe than the actual evidence that supports the explanations already presented.

 

[chuck4842]

I'm sorry if you think I expect you to order the AF to duplicate the event. I would never place this on your shoulders. I'm saying if the AF explanation were flares , which they went thru the trouble to announce on public tv, why don't they announce there next exercise ahead of time so we can see. Is that anymore trouble or expense than a public announcement? I mean what's the difference other than putting this all to rest. I know you don't have anykind of substantial authority, but the AF is aware of the controversy and could quickly nip it in the bud. Just announce the next exercise. After all, they claim they missed their actual target. They could use the practice.

 

[Drudgewire]

Who cares what the governor stated. In 1997,he considered it a joke and mocked the media. UFO proponents hated him. Ten years later he suddenly states he saw the UFO (do we have real proof of this) and he is now considered a reliable witness. Can you present me with a documented witness report made by the Governor in 1997?

Fife is a creep. He abandoned a second bid for governor when it became very clear he had no chance, ran for a local seat and got trounced, and only then latched on to the one thing that happened in his political career which can keep him in any sort of spotlight.

It also speaks volumes about believers that all is forgiven simply because, even though he's never come forward and said he was forced to cover up anything, he now is pandering to the same people who considered him the anti-Christ when the incident first happened.

He has no more evidence than he did the day after it happened, but now he can assure us the same thing he laughed openly about is real evidence of extraterrestrial life.

In a movement dominated by weirdos, it takes a lot to hurt their credibility. Fife does.