Destroying the 1997 Phoenix Lights UFO case

exo_doc · Apr 17, 2011

Wickerman, I didn't know that video existed. Thanks for pointing it out.

So where does that leave this?
Either 1. He filmed the object and it was flares........2. he filmed the object but perspective just makes it look like the lights are moving independantly ...... 3.He filmed a completely different object(s) than the "structured craft" witnesses claim to have seen.

Even with the video, and it is a compelling piece of evidence, I'm not willing to discount the eyewitness accounts of a structured craft, silent, with lights attached, that flew directly over them, ...and here are my reasons why;
1. They were seen in multiple towns.
2. The times that they were seen fairly matched a moving object in sequence from place to place.
3. The sincerity and quality of the witnesses, including at least one military pilot.
4. The similarities of the descriptions.

Here is a senario that I see as a plausible possibility............AT 7:30, a large craft of unknown origen with lights on it overflew the Phoenix area, and proceeded to overfly some other towns before disappearing.
At 10:00 the military, being well aware of the event, scrambled some jets to drop flares to confuse the situation, and (if true) that ended up being a mission accomplished!!!!

Yes? No? Utterly stupid?

Sean Elifritz · Apr 17, 2011

The Pair of Cats said:
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.

Zen master? What's zen about you have a video of something, look at it? You don't need eyewitnesses to something if you can look at it yourself. We have a video of the triangle. I fail to see what is zen by saying "Look at the damned video!" and providing analogies to try to explain why it makes sense to look at evidence when you have it right in front of your face rather than closing your eyes, plugging your fingers in your ears, and saying, "I don't want to see it, I don't want to see it!" If anything is zen it's attempting to divine what might have been in the sky that night when all you have to do is look at it yourself. And wait a minute, you're not even conceding that the 10:00 PM sightings and videos were of flares? If that's the case then this truly is pointless.

exo_doc · Apr 17, 2011

Wickerman1972 said:
Zen master? What's zen about you have a video of something, look at it? You don't need eyewitnesses to something if you can look at it yourself. We have a video of the triangle. I fail to see what is zen by saying "Look at the damned video!" and providing analogies to try to explain why it makes sense to look at evidence when you have it right in front of your face rather than closing your eyes, plugging your fingers in your ears, and saying, "I don't want to see it, I don't want to see it!" If anything is zen it's attempting to divine what might have been in the sky that night when all you have to do is look at it yourself. And wait a minute, you're not even conceding that the 10:00 PM sightings and videos were of flares? If that's the case then this truly is pointless.

Wickerman, if you would please, check out my last post (#42). I think theres some misunderstanding.

Sean Elifritz · Apr 17, 2011

exo_doc said:
Wickerman, if you would please, check out my last post (#42). I think theres some misunderstanding.

No misunderstanding. That response was to someone else, hence the quote. Don't know what you expect me to respond with to your comment. You appeared to be saying something like: Maybe we've got various giant triangles in the sky at the same time, some piloted by extraterrestrials, others by the military to fool civilians about the aliens. Seems like a stretch, don't ya' think? Don't know why the much simpler explanation, that there were no aliens, the triangle was merely military jets flying in formation (And by the way, there are witnesses who have said exactly that. Some claim to have been looking through telescopes or binoculars and saw jets plain as day), and the lights at 10 PM were flares dropped by the jets, is so difficult to accept for some people, especially considering that we've got videos of both events to look at which in a way makes us witnesses as well. Sure, some of the witnesses have made some pretty fantastic claims but Linda Cortile has witnesses, Stan Romanek has witnesses, so does George Adamski, Ed Walters, Roswell, and a kzillion other UFO cases and personalties without much in the way of a scrap of reality to them.

exo_doc · Apr 18, 2011

Wickerman1972 said:
No misunderstanding. That response was to someone else, hence the quote. Don't know what you expect me to respond with to your comment. You appeared to be saying something like: Maybe we've got various giant triangles in the sky at the same time, some piloted by extraterrestrials, others by the military to fool civilians about the aliens. Seems like a stretch, don't ya' think? Don't know why the much simpler explanation, that there were no aliens, the triangle was merely military jets flying in formation (And by the way, there are witnesses who have said exactly that. Some claim to have been looking through telescopes or binoculars and saw jets plain as day), and the lights at 10 PM were flares dropped by the jets, is so difficult to accept for some people, especially considering that we've got videos of both events to look at which in a way makes us witnesses as well. Sure, some of the witnesses have made some pretty fantastic claims but Linda Cortile has witnesses, Stan Romanek has witnesses, so does George Adamski, Ed Walters, Roswell, and a kzillion other UFO cases and personalties without much in the way of a scrap of reality to them.

I guess the misunderstanding was mine.
I don't understand, though, how two people.....any two people, not just you and me..........can come to radically different conclusions from the same data.
Is this from pre-conceived notions?
Are we starting off from different conclusions, one or both of us, and looking for the data that will fit that mental picture , ignoring the rest,....and standing back and saying "There! See! I told you."?

I'm not really interested in what anyone else beleives, I want to draw my own conclusions, but I do want feedback to keep me honest. I guess that's why I keep posting on here.
Thanks again Wickerman.

Oh almost forgot. The reply above about "giant triangles piloted by extraterrestrials" being kind of a stretch .......well, yes I do think that's a stretch......BUT I also think it's a possibility. Or it could have been a man made object,....or an interdimensional traveler....it could have been something entirely beyond our understanding.
The thing is, I think there was something to those lights,........ maybe not ET, maybe not human.....but I'm just not willing to throw out any possibility.

If you can't see that, why on earth do you waste your time posting on this site Wickerman?

The Pair of Cats · Apr 18, 2011

Wickerman1972 said:
Zen master? What's zen about you have a video of something, look at it? You don't need eyewitnesses to something if you can look at it yourself. We have a video of the triangle. I fail to see what is zen by saying "Look at the damned video!" and providing analogies to try to explain why it makes sense to look at evidence when you have it right in front of your face rather than closing your eyes, plugging your fingers in your ears, and saying, "I don't want to see it, I don't want to see it!" If anything is zen it's attempting to divine what might have been in the sky that night when all you have to do is look at it yourself. And wait a minute, you're not even conceding that the 10:00 PM sightings and videos were of flares? If that's the case then this truly is pointless.

Zen Master. I just do want to see any more clumsy attempts at analogies, thanks

Who are you, the "master" and i'm "grasshopper?" I'd try to snatch the pebble from your hand but there is already some thing else there that i don't wish to grab if it's all the same

Seriously mate, get over yourself. Your righteous indignation over the fact that myself, or anyone else doesn't automatically and totally accept the video that you have presented is as childish as it is pathetic. You may have come to some bowel shattering conclusion about the case but myself and others still have it in our gray baskets.

You don't need eyewitnesses to something if you can look at it yourself. We have a video of the triangle.

WTF? What kind of bullshit statement is that? Correct me if i am wrong but ALL evidence, especially coorroborating evidence, must be examined and assessed when investigating a case. Just because YOU can dismiss eyewitness accounts because it doesn't fit your preconceived concept of what occurred, is irrelevant. The "triangle" video doesn't show what Fortson and others saw. Again you may think the video of the triangle is easily explained away, but myself and others do not agree. Again, GET OVER IT!!!

I've already watched and commented on your precious video way back in January if you can be bothered re-reading the entire thread. I didn't agree with you then and i don't agree with you now.
SO WHAT?

The Pair of Cats said:
1st clip: That many jets would make a hell of a noise. I can't recall witnesses saying that they heard the sound of jets or engines in that area. In fact I think that some or most of them were surprised at there being no noise at all. I maybe wrong on that though.

2nd clip: The lights still don't look like flares to me. Those who have seen the type of flares, purportedly used, say that the lights don't look like those same flares.
The lights also look like they just blink out. Now whether or not that's due to them falling behind the mountain range or not is still not clearly defined. One of the lights seems as if it is still hovering in place whilst the others have disappeared.]

And wait a minute, you're not even conceding that the 10:00 PM sightings and videos were of flares? If that's the case then this truly is pointless.

Do you even read my posts? I said that i agree that there was military craft in the area on that night and that flares were dropped.

exo_doc said:
I don't understand, though, how two people.....any two people, not just you and me..........can come to radically different conclusions from the same data.
Is this from pre-conceived notions?
Are we starting off from different conclusions, one or both of us, and looking for the data that will fit that mental picture , ignoring the rest,....and standing back and saying "There! See! I told you."?

Probably because a definitive explanation has not been found despite Eddies profound belief in the so called debunking of the triangle. I agree with you that we cannot and should not dismiss the eyewitness testimony out of hand.

Another take on the phoenix lights
exo_doc. This is a link to a thread and some posts by Frank Warren from 2009 on these forums where he discusses some aspects of the eyewitness reports. You can also link through to his UFO Chronicles site for more discussion.

Sean Elifritz · Apr 18, 2011

exo_doc said:
If you can't see that, why on earth do you waste your time posting on this site Wickerman?

I always get a kick out of statements like that. Because I dismiss one particular case because there is proof that it is something else suddenly I'm a scoffer with a closed mind, a guy who has predetermined that all UFO events must be nothing. I had an open mind about the 8-8:30 Phoenix triangle sightings. I listened to the witness descriptions, ALL OF THEM, the ones describing a giant triangle and the ones of jets flying in formation. I put the case in my gray basket, unable to decide what it might have been. Then one day I got to see the thing myself because a video I hadn't been aware of emerged. The video clearly shows that the lights move independently of each other. Unless I want to exercise blind belief in the face of what I can see with my own eyes it's case closed. There are still cases I consider to be good ones, such as Kelly Cahill, Iran 1976, Betty and Barney Hill, Belgium 1989-1990, and Allagash. At this time I believe the good points outweigh the bad ones with those incidents. But if tomorrow someone comes along and provides me with a video of what was flying over Iran on that day and I can plainly see a helicopter or a meteor or Santa Claus on his sleigh or whatever I'm not going to say, "To hell with my lying eyes. ET has been my conclusion for years and that's what I'm sticking with!"

Angel of Ioren · Apr 18, 2011

This thread is a great example of what's wrong with the whole UFO field. A UFO in a highly regarded case gets identified and people do their best to keep the case alive.

And both sides of the argument are welcomed on the Paracast, as was evidenced by this week's episode. Otherwise this whole forum becomes a waste of time.

Pair of Cats, with all due respect, you are doing some sore of weird reverse debunking in this case.

The Pair of Cats · Apr 18, 2011

Angel of Ioren said:
Pair of Cats, with all due respect, you are doing some sore of weird reverse debunking in this case.

I'm not sore i no wot you meen their Angleo!

I just don't find Eddie's video to be as definitive as he does. Pretty simple really.
The earlier video (@ the 8-8.30pm timeslot) and which Eddie is presenting, shows lights in the sky,nothing more. What these lights are are pure conjecture. They might be flares, they might be aircraft or they might be a giant UFO.
I don't know what the Phoenix lights were. I agree that there was military aircraft in the area and flares may or may not have been used. What i do know is that the video does not show what eyewitnesses have reported seeing.
These light were also seen all over the state not just in Phoenix. This from Wiki:

Lights of varying descriptions were seen by thousands of people between 19:30 and 22:30 MST, in a space of about 300 miles, from the Nevada line, through Phoenix, to the edge of Tucson.

You, Angelo, Eddie the wickerman and Lance the no-saucersman may want to dismiss the witnesses but i do not.

lancemoody said:
n general I would say that the eyewitness testimony ought to have a lower value. It can be shown conclusively that witnesses seeing lights in the sky are not good at relating their experience precisely.

A lower value than what? Your opinion? Considering you weren't there? You're only guessing at this point. As you or I weren't there we could only assume that they saw flares, lights or a UFO. It's a big leap to say that the witnesses would suddenly turn A-10's dropping flares into mile long structured craft moving silently over their heads. Especially if A-10s and flares were a common occurrence in the area.

lancemoody said:
It seems to me that dismissing Wicker's original point while holding onto (specific and cherry picked!) witness testimony cannot be done fairly.

But according to you it's more than fair to dismiss eyewitness testimony because YOU place a lower value on it. Convenient since you don't believe that UFOs exist.

The Pair of Cats · Apr 18, 2011

lancemoody said:
And yet I showed you evidence of how witnesses do exactly that. To my mind this makes it a much smaller leap

It sure does if you want to project your own opinion onto THIS case i suppose.
If it was one or two people you may have a case. But for thousands to have seen the lights over a 300 mile track makes this less likely that ALL of them are wrong. It's okay if you want to disregard their reports, that is your right. I place a higher value on witness testimony than you do.

lancemoody said:
Can you respond to my basic points about witness testimony?

Not all witnesses are unreliable. Some maybe but not all. Some witness testimony is first class. To say that every person who witnessed something out of the ordinary that night was delusional, lying, on drugs, attention seeking or any other excuse is just ignorant. The justice system would be virtually non existent if your opinion of witness testimony were adopted by law enforcement and the courts. It's a poor argument Lance. More in line with the type of argument a debunker would use.
Just ignore the witnesses because ALL of them are delusional.

I'll say it again. I don't know what the Phoenix lights were. I don't know what the witnesses saw. I don't believe that anything DEFINITIVE has been produced by either side to prove or disprove their specific arguments. Many people saw what they describe as huge mile+ long structured craft moving somewhat silently above their heads. Some people are using the video of the earlier sighting as definitive proof of a UFO. Some people are using the same video to prove that it could not be. It could be said that those lights are indeed flares and maybe they are. But maybe they aren't.
The video looks NOTHING like the description given by some of the witnesses. The accounts of which i posted and which you conveniently sloughed off as "cherry Picking" as though they must be lying to have described something like that.
All you have given me are maybes, could bes and perhaps. Maybe they are unreliable witnesses. How do you know that with any certainty? It could have been a flares or military jets. Or it could be a UFO. Perhaps the witness testimony was cherry picked by me. Perhaps the ignoring of that same testimony and sheer scale of the sighting have been conveniently cherry picked out of the equation by you.
To me that still leave us in a kind of no-mans land area with this case and deservedly still in my grey(sic) basket.

Sean Elifritz · Apr 18, 2011

lancemoody said:
It's like a writer telling you that he is better than Shakespeare and then tossing you a paperback dictionary saying, "All the words are in there."

Lance

Oh boy, don't start using analogies, unless ya' think you're some kind of zen master.

exo_doc · Apr 19, 2011

For those who might be interested, here are a couple links about the Phoenix lights.
Here's one Pro-Paranormal;
http://www.ufocasebook.com/phoenixlights.html

Here's one Skeptical;
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-05-21/

News reports;
http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/offbeat/the-phoenix-lights-ufo-investigation-continues

http://articles.cnn.com/1997-06-19/...fo-crash-ufo-movement-flying-objects?_s=PM:US

BTW, does anyone remember a story or something about how the Texas ligts a couple of years ago were somehow related to the Phoenix lights?............I remember seeing it, but I just can't find it. Anyone?

The Pair of Cats · Apr 19, 2011

lancemoody said:
I never said any of those things. I just said that they COULD have been wrong. Not delusional (or any of the other straw men you inequitably conjured up) just mistaken.

Yes they could have been wrong. But they also COULD have been right! Still nothing definitive!
The point is, even if it is 40-50 witnesses that makes it a significant sighting. You and Mr Analogy may want to ignore and minimalize them, i do not.

lancemoody said:
Why go to the visiting craft explanation when prosaic ones are available

Yes but you can't discount the visiting craft theory either.

(other than the fact that chicks dig it)?

You been trying impress the ladies with your large cigar shaped object again Lance? Shame on you.

Hopefully they don't ask you about ball lightning!!

It appears you don't really read my posts. You and Eddie should maybe put the bong away for a while and read through them properly. I actually agree that there is a case for what the witnesses saw as being flares, jets or something mundane. Did i mention gray basket? Only several times. I don't know about you Lance but my gray basket means i'm not convinced about EITHER side of the argument. Did i mention that before as well? Well stuff me dead if i'm wrong, i think i did!!!

So you should really try to STOP assigning a true believer tag to me and my posts. You and the head may be boning up over the video that head boy provided but it does not give me the same warm fuzzy feeling.
Yes it provides ONE perspective of the argument but to my mind it does not provide definitive proof.
So we have a case of you me and the head agree on most aspects of the case but we disagree on the vid part. In the words of Metallica, SO FUCKING WHAT!!! GET OVER IT!!!

The thing is Eddie got all hysterical because i didn't believe in his pet theory, the life changing video presentation that swayed him from his gray basket to definitvely debunked basket. Instead of just saying "yeah no worries" he fell off his hobby horse, banging his head on his gray basket on the way down and woke up, transformed from Dr Eddie into Mr Snide. And now enter Lance who believes he sniffed some saucer worship and deployed himself (late to the party as usual) into the fray telling me i should disregard witness testimony because HE believes a lesser value should be placed on them.

Wickerman1972 said:
Oh boy, don't start using analogies, unless ya' think you're some kind of zen master.

Especially if you are a 3 eyed zen master holding a cube.

dendraw · Apr 19, 2011

Hi!! exo_doc, The Pair of Cats (aka Phillip) and the rest! exo_doc. I was just checking my e-mail and saw your response to my post. I was wondering how my post came across, ....I'll try to clarify. How the documentary on the "Discovery Channel" (I always like to put that title in quotes, for the sake of irony...ha ha) presented this case was compelling. When I first heard of the Phoenix Lights case, I thought COOL, then I saw the doc. and thought...aaaww man!!! THEN I saw the documentary The Phoenix Lights and now I'm back to COOL!!!! The points you and Phil bring up was what I was trying to say in a condensed version, apparently not very clear.YES I am with you and Phil on this one......CALL OUT THE TORCH WIELDING VILLAGERS!!! GET THEM!!!!! AAAHHHHHH!!! LOL Cheers guys!! D.

Sean Elifritz · Apr 19, 2011

The Pair of Cats said:
Especially if you are a 3 eyed zen master holding a cube.

When you are trying to get across an extremely simple concept like "You don't need to rely on others when you can look at something yourself" and the person is carrying on like they don't get it you can find yourself groping for ways of wording it that will make them get it. Perhaps the analogies were condescending but really I can't think of a way not to be when somebody keeps telling me what others said about a particular triangle in the sky when both he and I can look at the thing for ourselves and make our own determination.

The Pair of Cats · Apr 19, 2011

Wickerman1972 said:
When you are trying to get across an extremely simple concept like "You don't need to rely on others when you can look at something yourself" and the person is carrying on like they don't get it you can find yourself groping for ways of wording it that will make them get it. Perhaps the analogies were condescending but really I can't think of a way not to be when somebody keeps telling me what others said about a particular triangle in the sky when both he and I can look at the thing for ourselves and make our own determination.

Then don't get all bent out of shape when others disagree with your assessment of the video. I have looked at your vid and i simply don't come to the same conclusion as you, sorry. C'est la difference!!!
The vid may go some way towards explaining what the vision presented may or may not be but some of the descriptions provided by the witness were totally different than those lights analyzed in the video. I know that doesn't change your mind and that was never my intention. I only wanted to point it out. You are more than entitled to your assessment and opinion. As am I.
I can't dismiss the witnesses of the Phoenix lights any more than i can dismiss the witnesses to the Rendlesham case or the Kelly Cahill case. All reliant on multiple witness accounts.

Sean Elifritz · Aug 26, 2011

Couple of articles related to this:

THE V-FORMATION OF LIGHTS AND MY ANALYSIS

http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite2_3.pdf (Starting on page 8, or 7 if you don't count the cover)

Btw, I find it pretty telling that in Leslie's Kean's documentary that aired last night a completely anonymous call basically alleging that the Air Force was caught up in a conspiracy was presented as "evidence" yet there wasn't a peep about Terry Proctor's video. But everyone in the UFO field has done a pretty good job pretending it doesn't exist because if you do a google search for "terry proctor phoenix ufo" there is next to nothing to be found. Kinda' odd considering that it's the only video footage of the 8-9 triangle that exists.

The so-called "solid" V:

exo_doc · Aug 26, 2011

I have to thank you Wickerman. I had no idea there was a magazine that could mis-represent the entire UAP area and UAP witnesses more than the Skeptical Enquirer. Thanks for sharing.

dendraw · Aug 29, 2011

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w

unctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w

oNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w

ontVertAlignCellWithSp/> <w

ontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/> <w

ontVertAlignInTxbx/> <w:Word11KerningPairs/> <w:CachedColBalance/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--> Hey Wickerman, I saw this vid. last night and thought of this post from awhile back and see that you guys picked it up again. I LOVED it! I thought they picked all of the cases that had the best evidence. Btw Wickerman, I like that you’re presenting some interesting counter points…..say for example, NOT mentioning this guys video of the 8 to 9 V-Shaped craft, BUT what did you say pertaining to the many eyewitnesses who saw the craft hovering right over them and describing what sounds like a HUGE V-Shaped craft gliding “silently” overhead? Not just one or two, but many. What on earth are THESE people witnessing in your opinion? Just curious……..going back to watch the rest of the documentary! Cheers, bros! D

Sean Elifritz · Aug 29, 2011

dendraw said:
 <m:smallfrac m:val="off"> <m:dispdef> <m:lmargin m:val="0"> <m:rmargin m:val="0"> <m:defjc m:val="centerGroup"> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440"> <m:intlim m:val="subSup"> <m:narylim m:val="undOvr"> </m:narylim></m:intlim> </m:wrapindent> Hey Wickerman, I saw this vid. last night and thought of this post from awhile back and see that you guys picked it up again. I LOVED it! I thought they picked all of the cases that had the best evidence. Btw Wickerman, I like that you’re presenting some interesting counter points…..say for example, NOT mentioning this guys video of the 8 to 9 V-Shaped craft, BUT what did you say pertaining to the many eyewitnesses who saw the craft hovering right over them and describing what sounds like a HUGE V-Shaped craft gliding “silently” overhead? Not just one or two, but many. What on earth are THESE people witnessing in your opinion? Just curious……..going back to watch the rest of the documentary! Cheers, bros! D

</m:defjc></m:rmargin></m:lmargin></m:dispdef></m:smallfrac>

For one thing I've heard that many of the early reports didn't involve descriptions like that. I've read articles that say that early on there was only 25 or so reports of the 8-9 PM V and that only 1/3rd of them described a solid V. Many of the more sensational descriptions came later, after the incident had made national news. That implies a "me-too" thing going on to me. There was diversity to the reports. Some talked about it being high, some low, some spoke of airplanes, some of extraterrestrial craft, etc. But researchers enthusiastic for a saucer explanation have ignored the reports they don't like and zealously promote those they do. They don't even talk about the Terry Proctor video, negatively or positively. Instead they've swept it under the rug and never make a peep about it.

And I provided a few examples in another thread (Leslie Kean) of how people exaggerate things. I could provide dozens more if I wanted to spend the time typing it out.

But anyway, look at the circumstances, the similarities. Terry Proctor took that video on the same day, at the same time, and at the location where these sightings happened. What's in his video is remarkably similar to what the witnesses with the more sensational descriptions described, minus the big black body the lights were allegedly attached to. As I've asked over and over isn't it a stretch and a half to assume that there were multiple triangles in the sky that night? I get the impression from some that they believe it is perfectly logical to suppose that sharing the same patch of sky at the same time on the same night were two different triangles: One made up of planes in formation, another a solid object originating from another star system. To me that is a ridiculous thing to hang your head on, doesn't seem like a rational explanation at all, but rather like hope, faith, a last-ditch effort to hold onto something you desperately want to believe. Reminds me of someone telling a cop they were robbed by a toothless, bald, 7 foot tall man with cowboy boots, red suspenders and a tiger tattoo and the cop returns with just that in handcuffs and the person says, "No, I meant the toothless, bald, 7 foot tall man with cowboy boots, red suspenders and a tiger tattoo...from space!"

And my mind was totally open to the 8-9 PM sightings being something extraordinary. I've defended that part of the story right here on this very forum in the past (I also have defended Rendlesham at this forum. I recall in particular a pretty lengthy debate with Lance a while back. But as with Phoenix my opinion on it has changed-I still don't buy the lighthouse thing though. If anyone can be persuaded to change their mind about something it is me). But when I saw that video that was it for me. Case closed. I don't care if it was a saucer or not. Does nothing for me either way. I place more value on being right than I do a belief in anything.

I'm not someone that just tosses aside witness testimony as a matter of routine. When that's all you have then that's all you have. But this video forced me to make a choice. I either had to reject SOME of the witness claims (Again, not all of the witnesses say it was a solid V. But those that do tend to get all the airtime) or the video. So far I've seen no reason to reject the video. No evidence of it being a hoax has come forward that I know of. I can't accept both otherwise I put myself in the ludicrous position of populating the Phoenix skies with an assortment of giant triangles at the same time and/or needing to invent baseless conspiracy theories to account for each.

Destroying the 1997 Phoenix Lights UFO case

Foolish Earthling

Administrator

Foolish Earthling

Administrator

Foolish Earthling

a.k.a Philip Deane

Administrator

Friendly Skeptic

a.k.a Philip Deane

a.k.a Philip Deane

Administrator

Foolish Earthling

a.k.a Philip Deane

Paranormal Novice

Administrator

a.k.a Philip Deane

Administrator

Foolish Earthling

Paranormal Novice

Administrator