The Phoenix Lights... We Are Not Alone

[beachnut]

I was flying at Edwards in a KC-135 and an F-16 requested to test a searchlight on us. He had to warn us at night due to vision problems, just like you have driving. I have no idea what the light is for, but it would be handy to check out things during tests at night, or problems with other planes at night, or even in the day peering into bays on other aircraft.

I thought the lights were helicopters with lights attached. Why didn’t anyone request the RADAR tape from all the RADAR sights for that night? Looks like no one really wanted to figure out who did the prank.

For real cheap, you could take a search light and attach to a surplus balloon and launch your own UFO scare. But do not do it, flying balloons manned and unmanned in most airspace is a violation unless you are following the rules for the airspace involved.

How did all the UFO guys rule out flares? Or landing lights?

 

[Astrophotographer]

I thought the lights were helicopters with lights attached. Why didn’t anyone request the RADAR tape from all the RADAR sights for that night? Looks like no one really wanted to figure out who did the prank.

Many UFO "investigators" are not really interested in discovering the source of UFO reports. It is more about perpetuating a mystery. They know that if they solve a case, it does not appear in the media. If it remains unsolved, they can appear on TV, write books, sell videos. They become celebrities. As a result, nobody went out and gathered real data. They chose not to get the radar tapes from the FAA(which were erased after a few weeks if I recall as a matter of routine) and they did not get much in the way of flight logs from various military bases in the area. They also ignored getting azimuth and elevation data from witnesses that could have resolved issues associated with altitude. Of course, they would not want that data because it would reveal all the altitude and size estimates provided by witnesses were worthless and incorrect!

The best solution to the 8PM event was a formation of five aircraft (probably canadian Tutors) flying from Las Vegas to Tuscon that night. For some reason (my guess is because they were in formation and felt it made things safer for them), they had taxi or landing lights illuminated.

How did all the UFO guys rule out flares? Or landing lights?

They chose to rule them out because they did not fit the ET scenario. They did not even perform triangulation of the videos because it would indicate the lights (flares) were over the Goldwater test range. It took UFOlogist Bruce Maccabee a year and half to figure that one out. Then the UFO proponents claiming they were "orbs" ignored the data. Science is not something UFOlogists are interested in unless it supports their case.

 

[beachnut]

That saved me a post save:

This is the big UFO? Some lights that sit in the sky, what is the big deal? Everyone was too lazy to figure it out then, and if it were balloons with lights or flares, they would not be found based on the lack of interest. If the UFO guys who you see on the History channel were interested in solving each UFO, they would have the RADAR tapes on this; maybe they do; I doubt it, it takes work and most UFO guys do not research beyond their own opinions.
If I were a UFO commander I would hit the bars, or scare the crap out of people looking at my lights.

 

[makaya325]

Whatever the heck it wants? They could cure cancer? Travel faster than light? Teleport? Make your posts consistent, well-thought, articulate, and persuasive?

Mak attack:

Makaya posted at 11:38pm:



And at 12:48am:

Your a stalker.

 

[chuck4842]

beechnut, there were 2 sightings that night , the 8pm event was a V formation in which only one plane had its transponder on , and some unverifiable witnesses say it flew over phoenix and was a "mile wide" formation. This V-formation wasn't flares, I was wondering can ATC safely navigate a V formation through other air traffic with only one transponder.

 

[TjW]

beechnut, there were 2 sightings that night , the 8pm event was a V formation in which only one plane had its transponder on , and some unverifiable witnesses say it flew over phoenix and was a "mile wide" formation. This V-formation wasn't flares, I was wondering can ATC safely navigate a V formation through other air traffic with only one transponder.

They were at 19000 feet. You can't legally be above 18000 feet without a transponder and an IFR clearance. (There are some minor exceptions to this: there are 'wave windows' in various places that, when active, allow gliders access to the flight levels. But when they're active, other traffic is routed around the box.)

The whole point of having a transponder and an IFR clearance is so that you don't have to navigate through other traffic.

No other traffic would have been at their assigned altitude, so there's nothing for them to be navigated through.

 

[Astrophotographer]

They were at 19000 feet. You can't legally be above 18000 feet without a transponder and an IFR clearance. (There are some minor exceptions to this: there are 'wave windows' in various places that, when active, allow gliders access to the flight levels. But when they're active, other traffic is routed around the box.)

Nobody says they did not have a transponder active. However, it is ok for a formation of aircraft to have only one transponder active.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Many UFO "investigators" are not really interested in discovering the source of UFO reports. It is more about perpetuating a mystery.

Just like believers in psychics, ghosts, and the like, then. They sit there pretending to be skeptical and ask for an explanation to something they've experienced, and when I provide one, they get angry, sometimes invoking the "why can't you let people have their beliefs!?" nonsense so many of them use to keep their opponents silent. Has happened to me more than once.

 

[TjW]

Nobody says they did not have a transponder active. However, it is ok for a formation of aircraft to have only one transponder active.

Sure. My point was not that they shouldn't have been there, it was that there wouldn't be other traffic for them to navigate around because they were there with a transponder. Chuck apparently thinks that ATC is run something like the traffic in the Futurama title sequence.

 

[chuck4842]

I thought we were at the point where we agreed there was a witness AF atc who said they were C114's with just one transponder on, apparently Astro is ADD. So I was trying to find info as to whether this is normal practice for a CAF formation . I've never seen Futurama because I find reality stranger and more entertaining. There's also an ATC who claims he saw the formation and nothing on his radar. There aren't any claims of any ATC's or military officials stating they all or more than one had their transponders on. I do put more weight into the ufo witnesses than most members of jref, but I hope I'm just balancing things a bit and not caausing any aneurisms.

 

[Astrophotographer]

I thought we were at the point where we agreed there was a witness AF atc who said they were C114's with just one transponder on, apparently Astro is ADD. So I was trying to find info as to whether this is normal practice for a CAF formation . I've never seen Futurama because I find reality stranger and more entertaining. There's also an ATC who claims he saw the formation and nothing on his radar. There aren't any claims of any ATC's or military officials stating they all or more than one had their transponders on. I do put more weight into the ufo witnesses than most members of jref, but I hope I'm just balancing things a bit and not caausing any aneurisms.

Actually, you seem to have problems getting it right AGAIN! The ATC was not AF but just the enroute controller for the FAA. He did not state they had only one transponder. He only stated that the lights were a formation of Tutors at 19,000 feet when asked by a pilot of an airliner. The single transponder is the normal operating procedure for a formation of aircraft.

As for the ATC making the claim, you still have not produced the name. As I pointed out, the only name I ever read was Grava and he was interviewed by Ortega and agreed that the scenario I am describing would have not drawn his attention. BTW, I do not think it is possible for an ATC to look up at the sky and his radar scope in the same time period. I don't think they are located outside or in a room with windows.

 

[Ragnarok]

Many UFO "investigators" are not really interested in discovering the source of UFO reports. It is more about perpetuating a mystery. They know that if they solve a case, it does not appear in the media. If it remains unsolved, they can appear on TV, write books, sell videos. They become celebrities.

If this is being stated as fact, and not just your personal opinion, would you like to list the UFO 'investigators' you don't believe are in it for the reasons you list above, and whose opinions or research you actually have any respect for? Surprise the crap out of me and tell me there is at least one person who you don't think is in it purely for financial reasons.

 

[Astrophotographer]

If this is being stated as fact, and not just your personal opinion, would you like to list the UFO 'investigators' you don't believe are in it for the reasons you list above, and whose opinions or research you actually have any respect for? Surprise the crap out of me and tell me there is at least one person who you don't think is in it purely for financial reasons.

Actually, it is my opinion based on observations over the years. In this case in particular, I can demonstrate the lack of effort by many of the principle investigators to the case. Bill Hamilton is good example. He wrote a book, appeared on TV, etc. He ignored much of the data and chose not to even gather specific information. In his report with Tom King, he either lied about the data or was just plain incompetent. Tom King's early work on the Phoenix lights was also highly flawed. He pretty much mirrored Hamilton for many years and, as I recall, he attempted to sell some of his videos of the "orbs". Jim Dilettoso and Tanner of Village labs were just as poor in investigating the case. Then there is the recent revelations by the Govenor, which have been discussed at length. Which story do you want to believe, the Governor of 1997 or the Governor of 2009? Dr. Lynne Kitei is another one. She keeps peddling the 10PM videos as UFOs. The only person I felt that actually attempted an investigation was Richard Motzer. When he suggested flares for the 10PM event as early as April 1997, he was vilified by Hamilton and King. I recall King accusing him to be in league with CSICOP and a "debunker" on the UFO Updates mailing list.

As for other UFO cases, I have seen my share of UFO investigators who have ignored pertinent data and information to support one point of view. Try Gulf Breeze, Roswell, and Kecksburg for starters. I could go on but I think that pretty much explains how I arrived at my opinion.

 

[Ragnarok]

Actually, it is my opinion based on observations over the years. In this case in particular, I can demonstrate the lack of effort by many of the principle investigators to the case. Bill Hamilton is good example. He wrote a book, appeared on TV, etc. He ignored much of the data and chose not to even gather specific information. In his report with Tom King, he either lied about the data or was just plain incompetent. Tom King's early work on the Phoenix lights was also highly flawed. He pretty much mirrored Hamilton for many years and, as I recall, he attempted to sell some of his videos of the "orbs". Jim Dilettoso and Tanner of Village labs were just as poor in investigating the case. Then there is the recent revelations by the Govenor, which have been discussed at length. Which story do you want to believe, the Governor of 1997 or the Governor of 2009? Dr. Lynne Kitei is another one. She keeps peddling the 10PM videos as UFOs. The only person I felt that actually attempted an investigation was Richard Motzer. When he suggested flares for the 10PM event as early as April 1997, he was vilified by Hamilton and King. I recall King accusing him to be in league with CSICOP and a "debunker" on the UFO Updates mailing list.

As for other UFO cases, I have seen my share of UFO investigators who have ignored pertinent data and information to support one point of view. Try Gulf Breeze, Roswell, and Kecksburg for starters. I could go on but I think that pretty much explains how I arrived at my opinion.

So, I take it there are no respected UFO investigators then, in your opinion?

Is there no-one who is regarded as respectable looking into the subject from a psychological pov, either?

 

[Astrophotographer]

So, I take it there are no respected UFO investigators then, in your opinion?

Is there no-one who is regarded as respectable looking into the subject from a psychological pov, either?

None that are presently active. I do have respect for some UFOlogists. Much of the Magonia crowd in England seem very respectable and thoughtful researchers. I even have some respect for Jenny Randles even though she seemed to go ET quite often. At least she had the courage to reverse course on Rendlesham (See the UFOs that never were). As for the US UFOlogists, I have little respect. Some do good work in one area and then fall down when they are involved in their own little pet projects (i.e. Kevin Randle and Roswell). They are often blinded by their beliefs and can't admit when they goofed or their research was flawed. I had some respect for Dr. Maccabee but his work on Gulf Breeze tainted his reputation IMO. Richard Hall has invested over fifty years trying to make conspiracy claims and imply that aliens are behind the saucers. He isn't going to open any new ideas. The same could be said for Jerome Clark.

On the plus side, I always liked Dennis Stacey's writings over the years. Allan Hendry was very good from what I have read and his book was an excellent study about UFOs and misperception. He did not exaggerate his studies and the cases he considered very good UFO cases. Unfortunately, Hendry left the field. I had a lot of respect for Robert Todd. He passed away but his efforts via FOIA were exemplary. He was cast in the "Debunker" role with Roswell and was vilified for it. Robert and I had some interesting discussions over the years about Roswell before he passed away. Rod Brock was a very good researcher and wrote some excellent articles on the subject. His website went down some time ago. Additionally, I have had some good interactions with Joel Carpenter. I have freely exchanged information and he seems to be interested in getting all the facts together in looking at cases. Most important he is open to any possibility, including the idea that an unexplained case can be explained.

Again this is all my opinion based on what I have observed and read.

 

[TjW]

I thought we were at the point where we agreed there was a witness AF atc who said they were C114's with just one transponder on, apparently Astro is ADD. So I was trying to find info as to whether this is normal practice for a CAF formation . I've never seen Futurama because I find reality stranger and more entertaining. There's also an ATC who claims he saw the formation and nothing on his radar. There aren't any claims of any ATC's or military officials stating they all or more than one had their transponders on. I do put more weight into the ufo witnesses than most members of jref, but I hope I'm just balancing things a bit and not caausing any aneurisms.

The FAA en-route controller for the area is the one who said they were a formation of Tutors. Since they were at 19000 feet and overflying the area, this does not surprise me in the least. The en route controller (as opposed to the approach controller) is the one who would be responsible for this bit of airspace.

I don't know of my own knowledge that a single transponder per formation is standard procedure, but it wouldn't surprise me. The radar system puts up a data block for each transponder it sees. Having multiple nearly identical data blocks close together would clutter the screen. Since the controller will only be communicating with flight lead, it makes a certain amount of sense to only show his data block. Whether that's done by actually turning off the transponder or by filtering in the computer system I don't know.
You might drop a PM to Reheat. He flew fighters, though I believe not for Canada. He'd probably be familiar with common practices during that time frame.

ETA: I'd expect Canadian pilots in U.S. airspace to be following U.S. rules.

I doubt you're causing any aneurysms, since dead horses don't have much blood flow no matter how much you beat them.

 

[Ragnarok]

Well Astrophotographer, Jacques F. Vallee has probably read and observed far more than you, yet he seems far less convinced of the worthlessness of such research.

Is he not on your list of respected ufo investigators?

 

[Astrophotographer]

Well Astrophotographer, Jacques F. Vallee has probably read and observed far more than you, yet he seems far less convinced of the worthlessness of such research.

Is he not on your list of respected ufo investigators?

I happened to miss him. However, he has been in the field for how long? Over 40 years, I think. What has he accomplished? What has been achieved? A true measure of how worthless research is, is how much progress is made. There is zero progress in UFO research. All that is done is to collect more "unknown" cases (which are defined as "unknowns" by the collector of the reports) and learn that people misperceive all sorts of things as UFOs. I am sure he is not convinced that his research is worthless but that is his opinion and it is biased by committing 40+ years of his life to this one topic. He might as well be chasing the loch ness monster or bigfoot. But those are completely different threads and we are getting off topic for this one. Feel free to start another thread if you want to discuss this further.

 

[Astrophotographer]

I don't know of my own knowledge that a single transponder per formation is standard procedure, but it wouldn't surprise me. The radar system puts up a data block for each transponder it sees. Having multiple nearly identical data blocks close together would clutter the screen. Since the controller will only be communicating with flight lead, it makes a certain amount of sense to only show his data block. Whether that's done by actually turning off the transponder or by filtering in the computer system I don't know.

I had seen that a single transponder was used in many places. The Stephenville UFO report discusses it. However, this website seems to be somewhat official in regards to the rules of MARSA (Military Assumes Responsibility for Separation)

http://www.xavius.com/080198.htm

This has to do with a software program but it is consistent with what a pilot told me about such flights and what I read elsewhere. Specifically:

If a military aircraft wants to join in formation with another in your sector, you first vector them and/or assign an altitude next to their target at the minimum separation amount (5 miles/1000 feet). Once they get each other in sight, they will say they are "MARSA", which means they are taking over separation and will join up. So, for instance, you may have TOPGUN1 at FL230, and TOPGUN2 you would assign FL220. When TOPGUN2 gets #1 in sight, he would say "TOPGUN2 is MARSA with TOPGUN1", then you would say "TOPGUN1 flight, maintain FL230." They join up, and you treat them as one aircraft (the second turns off his transponder).

This would be standard procedure for a flight of five aircraft in formation as discussed.

 

[TjW]

Seems definitive to me.