Destroying the 1997 Phoenix Lights UFO case

[dyingsun]

The F-16 fighter squadron appeared way after the initial sighting, as far as I know.

 

[Spike]

I'm pretty sure that this website has been infiltrated by government agents now.

 

[dyingsun]

See you in hell, whistleblower

 

[vonmazur]

Nah, I've already let it go. The case still remains in my gray basket. The presentation you provided does nothing to change my mind either way.



Funny how they don't seem to be moving. And how do you explain the ones in the full version that appear and then disappear going from 4 to 7 then eventually gone. Do flares ignite, burn out and then reignite whilst in the air? Yes they can seem like that, the fuse is set and they burn for a specific period, but not always as intended. At a long distance they can appear to be stationary...IF they were dropping them in several passes, they can appear as described....This combined with lack of experience in watching them can lead to all kinds of descriptions.....Dale

---------- Post added at 07:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:11 PM ----------



There didn't seem to be any aircraft noise associated with the reports of the lights. I think there were reports of jet noise heard after the lights had gone.

Yes, that is possible, one has to examine the "noise cone" that is what we are actually hearing, and keep in mind the noise reduction of high bypass fan engines like the A 10 uses...

Dale

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Yes, that is possible, one has to examine the "noise cone" that is what we are actually hearing, and keep in mind the noise reduction of high bypass fan engines like the A 10 uses...

Dale

Thanks for your reply Dale. I was wondering if you could answer these few questions i have re: the flares.

Is there a general height at which an A-10 would set flares or does it vary?
How long would the flares be visible before blinking out?
Would they all stay visible for 4 minutes?
If the flares were set low, wouldn't there be a good deal of noise produced by the A-10 even if a few seconds after the setting of the flares?

Thanks mate.

 

[vonmazur]

Phillip: I think the flares might have been dropped from another aircraft, like a C 130...IIRC; the flares we used in the U S Army were 4 min or a little longer, the only option was altitude above ground, and timing the ignition, which was related to altitude...ie: If one was really high up, then the delay was longer. There was a chart and all kinds of calculations for this mission, wind direction, target area, etc etc.....I do not think the A 10 were actually dropping flares, most likely it was an AC-130, the A 10's were headed for the range, and the flares were usually provided by the hosting base unit. Keep in mind, this is just my educated opinion, based on actually doing this in the Army, proceedures and policies change all the time with the Military, so I could be wrong in some aspects of this case....

IF the A 10's were landing to arm, for example, then they would have throttled back as a group, only after they get closer to the field, then they would break up the formation and land individually or if the runway was wide enough, in pairs, staggered formation, never side by side!! This is for sure an actual policy, I know that for a fact...Humans fly like geese information for the same reasons....visibility and avoiding collisions...

Hope this helps with this case...

And good luck with the big cats...they eat a lot and poop a lot!!!

Dale

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Thanks for the reply Dale. It's good to talk someone who has had experience with the setting of flares!

I have included two vids re: flares.


Also Frank Warren had done some reasonable research on the Phoenix lights.

Another take on the phoenix lights

 

[dendraw]

This is such an old case, but I do remember seeing this doc. and thought "Oh! Debunked"! A couple years later I remember seeing the documentary called "The Phoenix Lights" ( produced I think by one of the witnesses, Dr. Lynne Kitei). In this doc. there were more interviews of many witnesses that apparently SAW this object first hand. These witnesses ranged from single individuals,to couples, to entire families. I believe even the (now former) Gov. of AZ, Fife Simington, who at first held a city counsel meeting in which this event was basically dismissed, came around to admitting HE too saw this craft. Of course this admission happened AFTER he left office!
I too think the points brought forth on the "Discovery Channels" doc. were quite compelling and difficult to counter. However, the previously mentioned witnesses describe something quite different than what was explained away as "jets". There were witnesses that had a much closer view of what they describe as a huge craft gliding very low which when it flew overhead, blocked out the sky and stars!
I'll leave that there because there is something else I noticed as far as HOW information on certain networks is skewed and mind you without having to "lie" lets say. I noticed awhile back that when it comes to the subject of the "paranormal", the History Channel and the Discovery Channel take different approaches. Coming from a Christian background (and I may be TOTALLY off here) I can sense that point of view a mile away. For example,on the Discovery channel, if there is a program on ghosts lets say and are they real, the examples chosen and the individuals chosen to speak FOR the validity of the paranormal are the WORST in the field. When I started doing my own research, it starts to become obvious which individuals do more harm to a given field because of "lack" of credibility! And so the presentation as a whole (if you're not in the know) can easily influence people to say "See! What a bunch of boloney!" and dismiss the whole field in total. AND I noticed on this same channel when it comes to a presentation on say a subject on "Jesus", the bending over backwards to show the "real truth" is so glaringly obvious.......aye aye aye!!! Anyway, just an observation!!! Cheers!

 

[exo_doc]

So, according to some documentaries, the Phoenix Lights are debunked? They were nothing more than jets and flares?
So we should just discount the eyewitness testimonies about seeing a huge "structured" craft at an earlier time than the video of the lights in a row over some mountains that have been shown to be flares?
The guy who said we could land all 30 of our B2 bombers on the wing of what he claims he saw.......he was just,...what? Delusional? Attention seeking? Jumping on the bandwagon?
I guess the other witnesses that I have seen interviewed and read about, all describing a silent, slow moving, chevron shaped structured craft were on the same wagon?...."HEY WOW! Everyone else is doing it, I want in!!!"

All of these witnesses mistook fast moving, noisy, relatively small A10's - flying directly overhead - not connected together to form one solid craft-.....for a gigantic, slow moving , silent, star-blotting-out, boomerang shaped UAP?

I'm just trying to be clear about this.

We should completely discount those eyewitness testimonies? Is that what some of you guys are saying?
Is that the basis for the debunking? Mistaken observations and getting caught up in the thrill of the story?

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Yeah. Debunking everything with the "flares" explanation has become the "swamp gas" debunking tool of the new millenium.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

This is such an old case, but I do remember seeing this doc. and thought "Oh! Debunked"! A couple years later I remember seeing the documentary called "The Phoenix Lights" ( produced I think by one of the witnesses, Dr. Lynne Kitei). In this doc. there were more interviews of many witnesses that apparently SAW this object first hand. These witnesses ranged from single individuals,to couples, to entire families. I believe even the (now former) Gov. of AZ, Fife Simington, who at first held a city counsel meeting in which this event was basically dismissed, came around to admitting HE too saw this craft. Of course this admission happened AFTER he left office!
I too think the points brought forth on the "Discovery Channels" doc. were quite compelling and difficult to counter. However, the previously mentioned witnesses describe something quite different than what was explained away as "jets". There were witnesses that had a much closer view of what they describe as a huge craft gliding very low which when it flew overhead, blocked out the sky and stars!
I'll leave that there because there is something else I noticed as far as HOW information on certain networks is skewed and mind you without having to "lie" lets say. I noticed awhile back that when it comes to the subject of the "paranormal", the History Channel and the Discovery Channel take different approaches. Coming from a Christian background (and I may be TOTALLY off here) I can sense that point of view a mile away. For example,on the Discovery channel, if there is a program on ghosts lets say and are they real, the examples chosen and the individuals chosen to speak FOR the validity of the paranormal are the WORST in the field. When I started doing my own research, it starts to become obvious which individuals do more harm to a given field because of "lack" of credibility! And so the presentation as a whole (if you're not in the know) can easily influence people to say "See! What a bunch of boloney!" and dismiss the whole field in total. AND I noticed on this same channel when it comes to a presentation on say a subject on "Jesus", the bending over backwards to show the "real truth" is so glaringly obvious.......aye aye aye!!! Anyway, just an observation!!! Cheers!

I know the witnesses say they think the lights were attached to something, that they were all moving in unison. But we have the video! We have a video of the earlier sightings and when ran through a computer to measure the distance between the lights the distances change. In other words, the lights are moving independently of each other. When I look at that clip I can't tell with the naked eye that the lights are moving independently either, and I have the benefit of watching it over and over, zooming in, etc. So it makes perfect sense that the witnesses thought they saw a single object with several lights. But the analysis shows us that the eye can be fooled.

 

[exo_doc]

There were two incidents, one around 8:00pm and another one at around 10:00pm.
All of the videos or pictures I could find, or have seen, are from the 10:00 episode, which are most certainly flares.
I haven't seen any vids/pics from 8:00. Could you post a link to that please? I'd be very interested to see it.

The "structured craft" was seen at 8:00. The chevron shape with 6-8 lights were seen in at least 4 other towns as those lights moved to the south. Kind of odd for flares don't you think?

And those ground eyewitnesses include one retired airline pilot, and one retired VietNam pilot.

http://www.ufocasebook.com/phoenixlights.html

Like I asked earlier, should we discount those eyewitness accounts that describe a strutured craft at around 8:00pm, when there were no flares around?
Were the witnesses just confused about the time?
Were the witnesses in the other towns seeing flares from 10's of miles away, even though they described a structured craft too?
Or was it still the "Bandwagon" syndrome?

 

[Sean Elifritz]

There were two incidents, one around 8:00pm and another one at around 10:00pm.
All of the videos or pictures I could find, or have seen, are from the 10:00 episode, which are most certainly flares.
I haven't seen any vids/pics from 8:00. Could you post a link to that please? I'd be very interested to see it.

The "structured craft" was seen at 8:00. The chevron shape with 6-8 lights were seen in at least 4 other towns as those lights moved to the south. Kind of odd for flares don't you think?

And those ground eyewitnesses include one retired airline pilot, and one retired VietNam pilot.

http://www.ufocasebook.com/phoenixlights.html

Like I asked earlier, should we discount those eyewitness accounts that describe a strutured craft at around 8:00pm, when there were no flares around?
Were the witnesses just confused about the time?
Were the witnesses in the other towns seeing flares from 10's of miles away, even though they described a structured craft too?
Or was it still the "Bandwagon" syndrome?

You're already posting in a thread that has the link you're asking for. The clip I provided at the beginning of this thread has video of the earlier triangle sightings (Only 1 video of it exists) and also the later sightings of the flares. The first part of the clip is about the 8-8:30 triangle sightings and it clearly shows that the lights moved independently of one another. Why is this clip not well known or talked about? I don't know. I was very surprised when I saw it because this documentary was made a long time ago so it isn't like there hasn't been time for the information to get around. You'd think that everybody would know and acknowledge that video exists showing that the 8-8:30 triangle could very well have been jets flying in formation but it's been buried and/or ignored for whatever reason.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

It still doesn't account for the multilple witness sightings.

This is a description from Mike Fortson (kindly supplied by Frank Warren)

. . . 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?".

In regards to altitude Fortson 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!

This was a report by Tim Ley (another witness)

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.

Thanks to Frank warren for these quotes.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

It still doesn't account for the multilple witness sightings.

This is a description from Mike Fortson (kindly supplied by Frank Warren)



In regards to altitude Fortson writes:



This was a report by Tim Ley (another witness)



Thanks to Frank warren for these quotes.

Who cares what they say when you can watch video of the event yourself?!!! That's like saying you'd rather take the word of somebody who "saw" a germ rather than listen to a scientist who can provide you with pictures of it or even let you look through the microscope yourself. This video CLEARLY shows that the lights moved independently of one another. It's not something you can see just by watching it but the filmmakers provide you with diagrams of exactly how the lights moved and when they moved. It doesn't get any more clear cut than that. It's a slam dunk. These witnesses were simply mistaken, some probably exaggerating, and a few others others might even be flat-out lying. Ain't the first time and won't be the last time.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

I care, head. I'm not dismissing these testimonies just because you get all hard over a video explanation. If that's all you are basing your debunking on then good luck to you.

If these were aircraft lights then where are the radar data that backs that up?

 

[Sean Elifritz]

I care, head. I'm not dismissing these testimonies just because you get all hard over a video explanation. If that's all you are basing your debunking on then good luck to you.

I'm in absolute awe of what you're saying. Suppose you've got somebody right in front of you. Then you've got a dozen people telling you, swearing to you, that the person has three eyes. But you're looking at her/him and you see only two eyes. Are you going to ignore what you're seeing and believe he/she has three eyes just because a dozen witnesses are saying so? The video is what it is. It's right there for anybody to look at anytime. The lights flipping move!!!!!!!!! You can wish it away till the cows come home but the lights are going to continue moving independently of each other in the video (The only video of this event that exists) regardless.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

I'm in absolute awe of what you're saying. Suppose you've got somebody right in front of you. Then you've got a dozen people telling you, swearing to you, that the person has three eyes. But you're looking at her/him and you see only two eyes. Are you going to ignore what you're seeing and believe he/she has three eyes just because a dozen witnesses are saying so? The video is what it is. It's right there for anybody to look at anytime. The lights flipping move!!!!!!!!! You can wish it away till the cows come home but the lights are going to continue moving independently of each other in the video (The only video of this event that exists) regardless.

I don't give a rats tossbag what you think. You're entitled to your opinion but i could give a fuck.
Your video doesn't impress me one bit. So what if the lights flipping move. Does that disprove what Mike Fortson saw. The video itself does not look anything like what he or many of the other witnesses describe seeing. You may want to dismiss out of hand his and others witness accounts but i do not.
I don't know what the Phoenix lights were. But i am surely not impressed with the attempts of explanation that have been presented by you so far. Get over yourself. Just because i don't immediately jump on the flare bandwagon or swallow the moving lights thing doesn't mean i am wrong. You can believe or disbelieve what you want. Just don't try and shove your opinion down my throat because you think you have had some epiphany telling you that the whole thing is bunk.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

I don't give a rats tossbag what you think. You're entitled to your opinion but i could give a fuck.
Your video doesn't impress me one bit. So what if the lights flipping move. Does that disprove what Mike Fortson saw. The video itself does not look anything like what he or many of the other witnesses describe seeing. You may want to dismiss out of hand his and others witness accounts but i do not.
I don't know what the Phoenix lights were. But i am surely not impressed with the attempts of explanation that have been presented by you so far. Get over yourself. Just because i don't immediately jump on the flare bandwagon or swallow the moving lights thing doesn't mean i am wrong. You can believe or disbelieve what you want. Just don't try and shove your opinion down my throat because you think you have had some epiphany telling you that the whole thing is bunk.

Whatever, dude. Who cares what "Mike Fortson" or whomever else claims they saw when you can see it yourself. The video is a snapshot in time, allows anyone to look at the Phoenix triangle whenever they want to. You say you don't care what I think. I never asked you to. I didn't think the video into being. But if your way of looking at things, a way that says that if you're holding a globe in your hand and someone tells you, especially if it's Mike Fortson, that you're really holding a cube, then it MUST be true because direct evidence means nothing, only eyewitness testimony does, is the only kind of perspective that's acceptable to you then knock yourself out with it.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Whatever, dude. Who cares what "Mike Fortson" or whomever else claims they saw when you can see it yourself. The video is a snapshot in time, allows anyone to look at the Phoenix triangle whenever they want to. You say you don't care what I think. I never asked you to. I didn't think the video into being. But if your way of looking at things, a way that says that if you're holding a globe in your hand and someone tells you, especially if it's Mike Fortson, that you're really holding a cube, then it MUST be true because direct evidence means nothing, only eyewitness testimony does, is the only kind of perspective that's acceptable to you then knock yourself out with it.

And that's the problem isn't it? I think that it is possible that they saw what they say they saw. You cannot handle the fact that they maybe right.
Of course eyewitness testimony is not infallable. Again trying to put words in my mouth.
And don't bother with any more of the "you're really holding a cube" and the "three eyes" analogies they just make you sound like a wannabe zen master. Best leave that to the real zen masters.
There is no dispute from me that there were military aircraft and the dropping of flares in the area on that night. No dispute. But the attempt at rationalising the lights as aircraft or flares doesn't work for me as i explained in a previous post. I am glad it does for you though.
It does not, however, explain away the witness sightings as much as you might think that they are irrelevant.
To totally dismiss ALL of their testimony as lies, lunacy or delusions is highly disingenuous and petty. All that just to maintain your argument. Very poor form. Frank Warren, for one, seems to disagree with your assessment of the witnesses.
I think that the main reason that this case won't disappear, like you wish it would, is because of the witness reports and sightings.