• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Another take on the phoenix lights

Free episodes:

Good Day MC,

I had heard of these witness's before but never in great detail. After reading this site I think it gives a plausible explanation for what many saw that night, no et's required. What say you?

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

Printy's conclusions are flawed for many reasons and have been debunked shortly after he presented them over 10 years ago.

The key points are that no one denies that there were military aircraft aloft; additionally, reports of said craft do not explain the "huge v-shaped craft" that cruised a couple hundred feet off the deck throughout Arizona.

Finally, the event is erroneously named "The Phoenix Lights"; there were reports of large v-shaped craft throughout the country in '97, particularly in the Spring.

Cheers,
Frank
 
Hi Mr. Warren, coincidentally we share the same last name.:D

reports of said craft do not explain the "huge v-shaped craft" that cruised a couple hundred feet off the deck throughout Arizona.

I would be interested in knowing why you think the aircraft could not be responsible for the "huge v-shaped craft", when said aircraft were witnessed through binocs and a telescope, and were seen in the same v shaped configuration. Also how was the distance of "a couple hundred feet off the deck" measured precisely? Why do we accept the testimony of witness's who only saw the craft with naked eye, but reject accounts made with image enhancing equipment?

Thank you
 
Hey Cousin!

Hi Mr. Warren, coincidentally we share the same last name.:D



I would be interested in knowing why you think the aircraft could not be responsible for the "huge v-shaped craft", when said aircraft were witnessed through binocs and a telescope, and were seen in the same v shaped configuration. Also how was the distance of "a couple hundred feet off the deck" measured precisely? Why do we accept the testimony of witness's who only saw the craft with naked eye, but reject accounts made with image enhancing equipment?

Thank you

First, let me begin with Printy: in my view he does his research in reverse; he establishes his conclusion(s) and then fits the "hand picked evidence" to suit it.

Also Printy erroneously writes "Key witnesses ignored" . . . Mitch Stanley certainly wasn't ignored; in fact he got more press then most did early on.

Now to your question; the witnesses in the "eight o'clock hour" observed an enormous object traversing the Arizona skies moving "low 'n' slow!" The "objects" (yes here was more then one) "were not" at high altitude.

Printy states that "Mike Fortson" saw "lights" at 35,000-40,000, totally disregarding Mike's original report where he states:

. . . coming from the north and heading south was one, single structure that looked like a giant boomerang. (the description of boomerang, chevron (best), and V shaped object all apply). This object stuck out like a sore thumb in the evening sky due to the fact we were looking north towards the Phoenix metro area, and the city lights gave us a grey background in which to view this huge black V shaped object. It was so low to the surface we could not believe it. I remember saying, "what the hell is that?" [my emphasis]
In regards to altitude he writes:

I would like to explain more on this incident. We live app. 23 miles ESE of Sky Harbor in Phoenix. Planes coming in to land (most of the time) will come out by us, bank to the north (left), proceed for app. 10-12 miles, bank left again (west) and land at Sky Harbor. This is normal landing pattern. I have talked to airline pilots, tower operators, and investigators about the altitude of planes coming in to land at Sky Harbor, at the point of the first bank north where we live. The altitude..1200'. The massive V shaped craft we saw was under 1200' altitude! (my emphasis]
In regards to size, in the introduction to I Know What I Saw (to be released in October), he says, "you could put all [B-2 Bombers] on the wing of this craft! [my emphasis]

Printy writes:"Tim Ley states that he saw the objects pass overhead . . .."

Tim wrote in his early report (1998):

My wife Bobbi; my 10 year old son Hal; my 13 year old grandson Damien, and I all saw the same thing and agree completely together in our descriptions of what happened. For us the event began shortly after 8:00 PM on March 13, 1997. . . .

By the time it got about a mile away we had finally decided it was definitely one huge structure, because the lights were so rigidly maintaining their relative positions to each other they had to be locked together.

We also noted that we still had not heard any kind of sounds coming from that direction. . . .

By now it was about a half a mile away, still coming directly at us, and at that point, we could then clearly see the distinct outline of its dark shape as it moved across the background of stars which were above and beyond it. What we saw reminded me of a carpenter's square set at 60 degrees. That was what popped in my head. That's because the outline of the structure of the object, was so perfectly balanced, sharp-edged and geometrical. The leading tip was pointed and the ends of both arms were squared off. The five lights were set perfectly into the structure in balance with each other, with the leading light set in the middle up front right behind the pointed tip. Each of its two arms had two lights set in them evenly spaced from the center front light with the last lights on each arm set in the structure just in front of the squared-off ends.

The structure itself was very dark, just slightly darker than the sky. At a distance it seemed to blend into the sky so well that you could only really see its shape because of the stars behind it showing its outline When we finally saw the shape of the structure against the stars, we were all totally astonished. [my emphasis] Even though we had already suspected there was a structure, we were still not prepared mentally for the reality of what we were seeing and what was happening.. It looked like something out of a science fiction story was about to pass directly over us. It was mind-boggling because it was so huge but at the same time so geometric. You would expect to see more to the shape and perhaps some kind of recognizability design. But all there was was a geometric shape with evenly spaced lights set into it. It was amazing because I had nothing else in my experience to compare it to.

And by now there was no time to do anything but stand there and observe as much as possible. I knew it was important and I had to really pay attention.
Both Fortson and Ley are two "key witnesses" in regards to the Phoenix Lights case, but the main point here is that Printy is not an "objective" researcher; he ignores the facts, and embellishes the remainder to fit into his preset conclusions.

If you spend some time looking into the case you will see two patterns emerge: one, is that there are many commonalities for the eight o'clock witnesses, i.e., super large v-shaped craft, flying low and slow, and two: if you look at the evidence objectively Printy's arguments are "null and void."

Cheers,
Frank
 
What you wrote sounds consistent with aircraft in a v formation to me. You didn't really address what Mitch Stanley and the man who observered the lights through binocluars witnessed, instead you attacked Printy. I don't care about grudges or rivalries between skeptics and believers I care about what happened that night.

I found this on the wiki page for the phoenix lights;
The National UFO Reporting Center received the following report from the Prescott area:
<TABLE class=cquote style="MARGIN: auto; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none"><TBODY><TR><TD style="PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 35px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px; COLOR: #b2b7f2; PADDING-TOP: 10px; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; TEXT-ALIGN: left" vAlign=top width=20>“</TD><TD style="PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4px; PADDING-TOP: 4px" vAlign=top>While doing astrophotography I observed five yellow-white lights in a "V" formation moving slowly from the northwest, across the sky to the northeast, then turn almost due south and continue until out of sight. The point of the "V" was in the direction of movement. The first three lights were in a fairly tight "V" while two of the lights were further back along the lines of the "V"'s legs. During the NW-NE transit one of the trailing lights moved up and joined the three and then dropped back to the trailing position. I estimated the three light "V" to cover about 0.5 degrees of sky and the whole group of five lights to cover about 1 degree of sky.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-7>[8]</SUP></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

More evidence of planes, seen by another amatuer astronomer, he even gave an estimate of apparent size, about the size of a full moon.

I didn't see where the witness's got the estimate of altitude other then just guessing. It's fine to guess if you are gonna say it was apparently at low altitude, or it appeared to be at very high altitude, but it's another thing to assign specific numbers. I think we all know how hard it is to judge true size and altitude of an airborne object, especially if it is an unfamiliar one. That leads me to believe these planes could be at a higher altitude and thats why most of the witness's couldn't see the individual lights on the planes.

I was a fence sitter on this case, but I admit I only looked at the pro exotic explanation for these accounts. I never heard the proponents of the exotic bring up any of the evidence from the winess's who saw this thing through telescopes and such. It reeks of cherry picking to me, and that is not helpfull at all to understanding any of this stuff. I don't see any reason for exotic explanations for this case any more, I am no longer on my fence.
 
Mornin' MC,

What you wrote sounds consistent with aircraft in a v formation to me.

What I wrote were direct quotes taken from the original reports by two key witnesses, and there is "nothing" consistent with their observations and "aircraft in a v formation."

I might reiterate that in Tim's case his whole family saw the same thing, and with Mike, his wife Nann. observed the huge craft as well.

Again he in part wrote:

"The structure itself was very dark, just slightly darker than the sky. At a distance it seemed to blend into the sky so well that you could only really see its shape because of the stars behind it showing its outline When we finally saw the shape of the structure against the stars, we were all totally astonished."
Mike in part wrote:

" . . . the city lights gave us a grey background in which to view this huge black V shaped object. It was so low to the surface we could not believe it. I remember saying, 'what the hell is that?'"
Note the fact that both men (and their families) recount "a huge structured craft!" (Printy conveniently omits these facts). Both Tim and Mike have re-verified their accounts time and time again over the years and the event has had a significant impact on their lives.

You didn't really address what Mitch Stanley and the man who observered the lights through binocluars witnessed, instead you attacked Printy. I don't care about grudges or rivalries between skeptics and believers I care about what happened that night.
Hmmmm . . . perhaps I wasn't being to clear; I'll try this again; first I am not "attacking" Printy the man--I am criticizing his research methodologies and approach, along with his cognitive bias, and I might add--backing it up with facts.

Moreover, I don't have any grudges or rivalries with anyone, much less Printy; in fact I've recently published some of his penscript, and no doubt will do so in the future. Additionally, Printy by dictionary definition is "no skeptic," as the definition is as follows:

"One who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons."
Printy's mind was made up long ago, and as stated before--he works in reverse, attempting to "fit" his "selective" offerings of evidence to meld with his preset ideologies. These are the attributes of a debunker--not a skeptic.

Furthermore: the noun "believer," does not apply to Ufology--the acronym was borne by the Air Force in 1952 to label the unknown craft that had been flying in our space for years; to associate the verb "believe" or the noun, "believer" to a factual thing is nonsensical; it's like referring to "the Mt Rushmore believers," or "he believes in the Empire State Building" . . . all are cockamamie.

Certainly you'd agree that if he is basing his "conclusion" on erroneous data and or a flawed schema, then by default his "result" is suspect (at the very least)!

Printy carefully culls "pieces" of both Mike's and Tim's accounts to fit his mindset; if one reads their entire statements the minutiae quashes Printy's
selective quotes.

As to Mitch Stanley, I believe he saw what he said he saw--PLANES." This has nothing to do with a huge v-shaped craft at very low altitude (below 1200' in Mike's case).

I found this on the wiki page for the phoenix lights;
The National UFO Reporting Center received the following report from the Prescott area:
<table class="cquote" style="border-style: none; margin: auto; border-collapse: collapse; background-color: transparent;"><tbody><tr><td style="padding: 10px; font-weight: bold; font-size: 35px; color: rgb(178, 183, 242); font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; text-align: left;" width="20" valign="top">“</td><td style="padding: 4px 10px;" valign="top">While doing astrophotography I observed five yellow-white lights in a "V" formation moving slowly from the northwest, across the sky to the northeast, then turn almost due south and continue until out of sight. The point of the "V" was in the direction of movement. The first three lights were in a fairly tight "V" while two of the lights were further back along the lines of the "V"'s legs. During the NW-NE transit one of the trailing lights moved up and joined the three and then dropped back to the trailing position. I estimated the three light "V" to cover about 0.5 degrees of sky and the whole group of five lights to cover about 1 degree of sky.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-7">[8]</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

More evidence of planes, seen by another amatuer astronomer, he even gave an estimate of apparent size, about the size of a full moon.
Again. no argument there; anyone who has been through Phoenix immediately becomes aware of all the air-traffic in the area.

I didn't see where the witness's got the estimate of altitude other then just guessing. It's fine to guess if you are gonna say it was apparently at low altitude, or it appeared to be at very high altitude, but it's another thing to assign specific numbers. I think we all know how hard it is to judge true size and altitude of an airborne object, especially if it is an unfamiliar one. That leads me to believe these planes could be at a higher altitude and thats why most of the witness's couldn't see the individual lights on the planes.
In this instance I used two key witnesses; with Mike, I quoted the minutiae in regards to how he ascertained the altitude . . . here it is again:

We live app. 23 miles ESE of Sky Harbor in Phoenix. Planes coming in to land (most of the time) will come out by us, bank to the north (left), proceed for app. 10-12 miles, bank left again (west) and land at Sky Harbor. This is normal landing pattern. I have talked to airline pilots, tower operators, and investigators about the altitude of planes coming in to land at Sky Harbor, at the point of the first bank north where we live. The altitude..1200'. The massive V shaped craft we saw was under 1200' altitude! (my emphasis]
Tim Ley deduced the altitude in this way:

"As to it's altitude above me, it was so close that at first I felt oppressed by its presence because it covered so much total area in our neighborhood and it was impossibly low. My first impression was that it was about 100 feet up in the air. It was so close, it was hard to believe. It was a huge dark shape with immense lights in it. I have thought about its altitude above me many times, and reviewed my first impression. I have to stick by that impression because all my experience tells me to. I grew up in New York City and spent years working in Manhattan and I liked to walk to where I needed to go, because the busses and subways felt so constrictive compared to the freedom of walking. As I walked I would look at all the various buildings and out of habit, would count the stories and calculate the height. I would allow ten feet per floor. After awhile I had a whole bunch of different buildings in my head and would use these images to calculate relative elevations of other things like trees or hills or bridges or whatever. I always thought in "stories" and would convert "stories" to feet whenever I needed to know feet. When I thought about the Alpha structure in my memory and compared its altitude to the heights of buildings I have known, I felt convinced that its altitude was closer to 100 feet above me, than anything else. The relative low altitude of this object over us was verified a few minutes after passing over us as it moved through the gap in the mountain peaks. It passed the peak on the southwest side of the object about halfway up to the top of the peak. The top of the peak is only a couple hundred feet higher than my property."
I was a fence sitter on this case, but I admit I only looked at the pro exotic explanation for these accounts. I never heard the proponents of the exotic bring up any of the evidence from the winess's who saw this thing through telescopes and such. It reeks of cherry picking to me, and that is not helpfull at all to understanding any of this stuff. I don't see any reason for exotic explanations for this case any more, I am no longer on my fence.
Re: "cherry-picking," I couldn't agree with you more, and Printy's hands are stained "red!"

My advice is to "get back on the fence" and research "raw data"; read the unedited accounts from direct eyewitnesses etc.

Here is an early interview of key proponents:

 
We'll just have to disagree Frank. Where you see a need for exotic explanations I see planes. I suppose you think it's just a big coincidence that a formation of airplanes in a V formation were flying around at the same time the reports of a huge V shaped craft hundereds of feet long and wide were reported? I can't make that leap. Thanks for your thoughts.
 
MC,

We'll just have to disagree Frank. Where you see a need for exotic explanations I see planes. I suppose you think it's just a big coincidence that a formation of airplanes in a V formation were flying around at the same time the reports of a huge V shaped craft hundereds of feet long and wide were reported? I can't make that leap. Thanks for your thoughts.

I don't see a "need" for anything other then an objective view of the evidence in toto; accordingly, I have personally been doing extensive research into this case for years, including: interviewing witnesses, interviewing researchers; assessing the work done by the latter, (including work that has culminated into several books) as well as working in concert with a few. I have the original reports to MUFON in my possession, and have studied them diligently. Additionally, I have analyzed 7 of the 8 known videos taken that night, and spent much time reviewing the scientific analysis of said videos, done by Maccabee et al.

Furthermore, I have examined (and collected) the majority of newspaper reports on the matter. Likewise, we (at The UFO Chronicles) have published a multitude of our own reports, Op-Eds, articles etc., by witnesses and researchers alike;that effort precipitated new witnesses, (or more accurately, previously unknown to the public), coming forward.

Suffice it to say, although I'm sure I haven't encompassed everything concerning the so-called Phoenix Lights Incident--I'm awful damn close! In short, my opinions, conclusions etc., are based on an "informed, au courant position."

As I have said, there is no argument that there were indeed planes flying in formation the night in question; we have military witnesses on record to that effect. None of that has any bearing on the huge V-Shaped craft that the eight o'clock witnesses observed cruising low, slow and SILENT through the state of Arizona (and elsewhere).

To that end, although I cannot tell you definitively what the huge V-Shaped Object was, I can assure you the evidence bears out the fact of what is was not, i.e., any conventional craft as we know it!

Cheers,
Frank
 
The problem with the planes flying in a v Formation being the cause for the Pheonix lights. The size. No matter how many planes line up and do that through the sky. How could they ever match the length seen and told in accounts by the witness. You have to imagine our planes flying in your head in that formation. Think about it in your head. Then imagine what the eyewitness saw and the size and length of the craft they siad they saw. Does it match not to me.
 
MC,
As I have said, there is no argument that there were indeed planes flying in formation the night in question; we have military witnesses on record to that effect. None of that has any bearing on the huge V-Shaped craft that the eight o'clock witnesses observed cruising low, slow and SILENT through the state of Arizona (and elsewhere).

Frank, something I've never understood about this case is the lack of radar data. If this was a formation of planes as Stanley suggests, and if the Maryland National Guard dropped flares, and the V was a single solid object, there should be radar data for some of these incidents somewhere.

I know the first reports of the V-object were made in the 7:00pm hour here in Henderson/Las Vegas, but there are is no radar data anywhere for anything across two states.......at least none that I'm aware of. Why is this?
 
Hey Unky,

Frank, something I've never understood about this case is the lack of radar data. If this was a formation of planes as Stanley suggests, and if the Maryland National Guard dropped flares, and the V was a single solid object, there should be radar data for some of these incidents somewhere.

I know the first reports of the V-object were made in the 7:00pm hour here in Henderson/Las Vegas, but there are is no radar data anywhere for anything across two states.......at least none that I'm aware of. Why is this?

To the best of my knowledge nobody did any FOIAs for radar returns at the time; however, I have inquired, and was told nothing existed as it's been to long; nevertheless I'm going to perform the excercise.

Cheers,
Frank
 
Back
Top