Destroying the 1997 Phoenix Lights UFO case

manxman · Aug 29, 2011

Wickerman1972 said:
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.

He is not wishing the video away, he simply requests a radar confirmation, any basic debunk would and could only be claimed with radar evidence, and it is you who keeps conveniently over-looking the noise factor i lve half a mile away from a small airfield, and i hear aircraft all day long, lots of it over the telly, thats small commercial aircraft, not earsplitting military jets.
The very fact there is no radar evidence after all this time through a minimum FOIA request speaks volumes as to lack of airforce involvement.

You have failed miserably with your thread title.

Sean Elifritz · Aug 29, 2011

manxman said:
He is not wishing the video away, he simply requests a radar confirmation, any basic debunk would and could only be claimed with radar evidence, and it is you who keeps conveniently over-looking the noise factor i lve half a mile away from a small airfield, and i hear aircraft all day long, lots of it over the telly, thats small commercial aircraft, not earsplitting military jets.
The very fact there is no radar evidence after all this time through a minimum FOIA request speaks volumes as to lack of airforce involvement.

You have failed miserably with your thread title.

Hmm, you went and quoted something I wrote a long time ago so I don't even remember specifically what I was commenting on.

But anyway, radar evidence of what? There isn't radar evidence for jets or alien spacecraft or anything else because nobody bothered filing requests until after that kind of evidence would have been routinely erased. Christopher O'Brien, however, recently said that he is in contact with someone that does have radar recordings for events that night. Interested to see what, if anything, happens with that.

As far as "failing with my thread title" goes it isn't my documentary or discovery in the first place. That documentary had this thing nailed a long time ago. Additionally, I've now located articles over a decade old that were saying the same things I am now. But I had been totally unaware of those arguments because UFO proponents went and issued an unofficial blackout on the Terry Proctor video. They don't bother trying to argue against it (I looked and didn't find anything), they just ignore it completely, act as though it doesn't exist. The clip may not have destroyed this case as a mysterious event for you but it certainty did for me. And the way the video has been swept under the rug by the UFO community speaks volumes.

Additionally, it didn't necessarily have to be a group of military jets flying in formation. It could just have easily been civilian aircraft (But even if it was military hearing them depends on the altitude). One of the articles I linked to above (Which I'm guessing you didn't bother to read because -gasp- they were written by someone skeptical of the case. I was like that at one time. Had I read some skeptical articles in those days I would have known about Proctor's video long ago. Eventually I figured out the only way to get a good take on any UFO event is to look at both sides) speculated about the latter.

And here's an interesting video clip from one of those articles (Some aircraft in formation that was mistaken by some to be an ET mothership):

Translation:

# SANTIAGO, Dec 10 .- The strange "formation of lights" that was seen a couple of days ago in the skies of Santiago, was finally Pillan 14 aircraft from the School of Aviation Fach practicing the graduation ceremony of officers, attended last night by President Michelle Bachelet. According to the Air Force said Terra.cl, over the weekend the group of aircraft flying over a route from the El Bosque air base to San Bernardo. And though the flight is quite noisy, distance is not possible to capture it, which joined the lamps used in the opportunity for fixed and non-intermittent could have caused the confusion of the people. In fact at the base say that every time you perform this kind of night flights, receiving more than a phone call warning of the presence of foreign objects in the sky or UFOs. The alignment observed by dozens of people and caught on video, was due to the maneuvers performed for the Pillan landing.

Aircraft don't often fly in formation above large urban areas at night. If they did we'd end up with a lot more erroneous Phoenix-like spaceship claims.

manxman · Aug 29, 2011

Wickerman1972 said:
Hmm, you went and quoted something I wrote a long time ago so I don't even remember specifically what I was commenting on.

I quoted you from page 4, how long ago is that.
Also the reason for avoiding urban over-flight is noise, and also the danger of mechanical failure, but mainly the noise pollution, but ofcourse that goes against your silent jet assertion.

................................................................

But anyway, radar evidence of what? There isn't radar evidence for jets or alien spacecraft or anything else because nobody bothered filing requests until after that kind of evidence would have been routinely erased. Christopher O'Brien, however, recently said that he is in contact with someone that does have radar recordings for events that night. Interested to see what, if anything, happens with that.

No radar because no-one bothered to ask, another bare assertion to add to the many you have already spoken in this thread already.
Then in the same paragraph, someone actually does have radar data you say.

This was a big event right from the getgo, it is absurd f you to say no-one made foia requests for radar data, absolutely absurd.

.............................................................

As far as "failing with my thread title" goes it isn't my documentary or discovery in the first place. That documentary had this thing nailed a long time ago. Additionally, I've now located articles over a decade old that were saying the same things I am now. But I had been totally unaware of those arguments because UFO proponents went and issued an unofficial blackout on the Terry Proctor video. They don't bother trying to argue against it (I looked and didn't find anything), they just ignore it completely, act as though it doesn't exist. The clip may not have destroyed this case as a mysterious event for you but it certainty did for me. And the way the video has been swept under the rug by the UFO community speaks volumes.

Your thread title is a fail, you nor anyone else as far as i can see has destroyed anything.
Who are "they" please, or are these just more of your grand baseless assertions.
Who was involved in the "unofficial blackout" please, or just more handwaving rhetoric from you, your posts are just one long personal opinion, dressed up as factual.

"The clip may not have destroyed this case as a mysterious event for you but it certainty did for me."

Please do not be so arrogant again as to assume what does or does not represent a mysterious event to me,
My interest is not in proving UFOs are alien space craft, my interest is in quality debunking, well researched no arguments left debunking, your pantomine debunking style of sweeping generalisation, and ad homien belittlement of the opposition in general is piss weak imo.
Hence my first post reminding you about the request for radar data.

........................................................

Additionally, it didn't necessarily have to be a group of military jets flying in formation. It could just have easily been civilian aircraft (But even if it was military hearing them depends on the altitude). One of the articles I linked to above (Which I'm guessing you didn't bother to read because -gasp- they were written by someone skeptical of the case. I was like that at one time. Had I read some skeptical articles in those days I would have known about Proctor's video long ago. Eventually I figured out the only way to get a good take on any UFO event is to look at both sides) speculated about the latter.

Again with the arrogant assumption, wrapped up in more baseless handwaving, nothing whatsoever of take-away value in the paragraph, just more of the same klass apprenticed bluster.

..................................................

And here's an interesting video clip from one of those articles (Some aircraft in formation that was mistaken by some to be an ET mothership):

Translation:

# SANTIAGO, Dec 10 .- The strange "formation of lights" that was seen a couple of days ago in the skies of Santiago, was finally Pillan 14 aircraft from the School of Aviation Fach practicing the graduation ceremony of officers, attended last night by President Michelle Bachelet. According to the Air Force said Terra.cl, over the weekend the group of aircraft flying over a route from the El Bosque air base to San Bernardo. And though the flight is quite noisy, distance is not possible to capture it, which joined the lamps used in the opportunity for fixed and non-intermittent could have caused the confusion of the people. In fact at the base say that every time you perform this kind of night flights, receiving more than a phone call warning of the presence of foreign objects in the sky or UFOs. The alignment observed by dozens of people and caught on video, was due to the maneuvers performed for the Pillan landing.

Again with the obfuscation, you started a thread about the pheonix lights, typical tim pinty style of debunk by loose connection, stick to pheonix please.

........................................................................

Aircraft don't often fly in formation above large urban areas at night. If they did we'd end up with a lot more erroneous Phoenix-like spaceship claims.

2 more bold bare statements, nothing of substance again to be gleaned from it.

Truth is your someone who has watched a video or 2, and now are prepared to invest your full ego into your conclusion, despite the fact you do not even have the basic datas to debunk it.

Sean Elifritz · Aug 29, 2011

The quote was from roughly 4 months ago.

As far as Chris talking about someone possibly having radar data notice where I said "if anything." I said that because it remains to be seen if anything will actually come from that. I've been around this subject long enough to know that only about 1 in 10 times when someone tantalizes you with the possibility of new evidence does it actually emerge.

As far as the radar goes the military denied seeing anything on their scopes. And then MUFON failed to take it further with timely requests to see the data for themselves. Don't believe it? Look it up.

I'll let the rest of your comments speak for themselves.

Speaking of page 4 I looked at a few of my replies and I really let loose with a lot of cornball analogies.

Don't know what got into me that day.

manxman · Aug 29, 2011

The 2 basic tools you needed to debunk the pheonix lights, an event i know very little of, are , any radar data, and i dont believe for one second no-one made foia requests on such a big news worthy event, and the weather/atmospheric conditions of that evening, you could get that data yourself, that would either strengthen your case or weaken it, as far as jet engine roar is concerned.
And thanks for taking my initial frustration very well, i see from your last considered reply, that you have dropped the hyperbole, i fully accept you may not even know you bias is as strong as it comes over, and i also fully hope you will see my interest is in solid factual debunking, i dispise the hyperbole, because it just cheapens any debunk, but all the phil klass apprentices seem to thrive on it, heavy on adhom and light on "evidence".

I realise i can seem blunt on occasion wickerman, but thats just because i view a post critically, no matter what side of the fence the posters are on, for me it is about self-education, and have no patience for handwaving generalisations.

Sean Elifritz · Aug 29, 2011

manxman said:
The 2 basic tools you needed to debunk the pheonix lights, an event i know very little of, are , any radar data, and i dont believe for one second no-one made foia requests on such a big news worthy event, and the weather/atmospheric conditions of that evening, you could get that data yourself, that would either strengthen your case or weaken it, as far as jet engine roar is concerned.
And thanks for taking my initial frustration very well, i see from your last considered reply, that you have dropped the hyperbole, i fully accept you may not even know you bias is as strong as it comes over, and i also fully hope you will see my interest is in solid factual debunking, i dispise the hyperbole, because it just cheapens any debunk, but all the phil klass apprentices seem to thrive on it, heavy on adhom and light on "evidence".

I realise i can seem blunt on occasion wickerman, but thats just because i view a post critically, no matter what side of the fence the posters are on, for me it is about self-education, and have no patience for handwaving generalisations.

First of all, there is no requirement for me to debunk the Phoenix lights as an ET event, it is for its proponents to prove. But anyway, I have no idea why you would suggest that I need weather data since we're talking about triangles. It CLEARLY wasn't atmospheric phenomena. That came across like you plucked it off of a generic checklist. And why is radar data a necessity to say one thing or another? Some of the witnesses say the lights were attached to a single rigid object. The only existing video of the event shows otherwise. In my book that spells c.h.e.c.k.m.a.t.e.

manxman · Aug 29, 2011

sThe weather makes a big difference in the direction sound will or will not travel.
please stop with the pretense that radar data as to the jets presence is not important, and stop being vague in your replies about requests for such data.

Before making the claim you should have been able to tell me the time scale in which the data is destroyed as you put it, how long after the event.

It is the simplest way to show that jets were right over the sighting zone for the period of the sighting, a big news event, governor talking it down, a right fuss, yet no-one thought to ask the airforce did you have jets up there, and if so can we see the radar data to kill this fuss.

Check-mate is a victorious move in chess i believe, the inescapable fact so far as your or anyone elses claims go, is you cannot mitigate the lack of jet engine roar, and as someone new to the case, thats what i need to see.
You cannot even prove the jets were there at that time from what i have read so far, is there proof they were over the spot at that time ?.

Angel of Ioren · Aug 30, 2011

manxman said:
sThe weather makes a big difference in the direction sound will or will not travel.
please stop with the pretense that radar data as to the jets presence is not important, and stop being vague in your replies about requests for such data.

Before making the claim you should have been able to tell me the time scale in which the data is destroyed as you put it, how long after the event.

It is the simplest way to show that jets were right over the sighting zone for the period of the sighting, a big news event, governor talking it down, a right fuss, yet no-one thought to ask the airforce did you have jets up there, and if so can we see the radar data to kill this fuss.

Check-mate is a victorious move in chess i believe, the inescapable fact so far as your or anyone elses claims go, is you cannot mitigate the lack of jet engine roar, and as someone new to the case, thats what i need to see.
You cannot even prove the jets were there at that time from what i have read so far, is there proof they were over the spot at that time ?.

Wow, you're trying to start another argument in another thread with a different moderator? 10 posts and you're already making a bad impression.

The Pair of Cats · Aug 30, 2011

If this video is supposed to show a formation of jets, where is the flight plan to back it up?
Has the Airforce admitted or indicated that there was a jet flyover that extended from Henderson to the Mexican border?
And if so does it correlate with the witness reports from the ENTIRE viewing area mentioned?
Are there any corroborating videos of the same taken from different angles or positions?
Is there any radar evidence that shows jets in those areas at those times?
Furthermore are we supposed to dismiss all eyewitness testimony on the basis that you read a couple of studies that say that people simply make stuff up? Are you just making stuff up?

Wickerman you conveniently toss in that crap to further your debunker's argument. If we take your reasoning as sound (which it is a long way from) then the people who say it was jets also should have their testimony thrown out because they have probably made it up also. If you are going to discard witnesses for the giant UFO theory then you also have to discard witnesses for the Jets in formation theory also, if we employ your less than well considered line of reasoning.
Your video does not get as much recognition as YOU would like because it is only a THEORY. It does not definitively show anything. It shows could be, might be and possibly not certainty.
Besides, video evidence, these days, should only be taken with a grain of salt. You can see anything you want to in video evidence. Especially a low res, grainy, poor quality one that shows lights in the sky that could be ANYTHING including, but not DEFINITELY jets. You are as bad as the people who say it is DEFINITELY an alien spacecraft. You should know better.

dendraw · Aug 30, 2011

I <!--[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:narylim></m:intlim> </m:wrapindent> Hey Wickerman (is it Eddie?), I admire your veracity on this topic! For me I can only consider whatever “evidence” there is as an objective observer unless I were to actually go and do any kind of first hand research and investigating myself. My nature is to take what a person says to be that of honesty, but I also know that this is far from how the world really operates so it’s difficult for me to understand what “is in it” for those who lie or create hoaxes in this arena. But just a quick story, I remember when I was a kid (this was back in the 70’s, I was 11 or 12) I was with my family (also, my uncle, aunt & two cousins). We were up at our local County Park, Mt. Modanna on the outskirts of Gilroy. We had a picnic in the late afternoon and as always after we ate, we would take a walk around the park grounds. This was the time of year when really no tourists were around and the grounds were pretty quite. We started our walk around dusk and were following the paved roadway that wound around all the campsites. I remember my mother, uncle and aunt were behind us (all the kids) having their own conversation as we chased, prodded and played as kids do. It was getting dark and I remember at one point ALL of us suddenly stopped and noticed this “Light” up in the sky. It seemed like it was just above the tree line and it was bright! I remember one of my cousins saying in an innocent excited voice…”Look it’s Jesus…Jesus is coming!” I remember laughing inside and I also remember how absolutely quiet it was. This thing, whatever it was, glided overhead and made no sound whatsoever! And continued til out of sight! My uncle, mother and aunt made comments like..what the heck was that? And then, nothing! They then picked up their conversation like nothing happened and I remember being perplexed about this. I thought how could you not be more excited and inquisitive about what we just saw, but if you knew my family…not the best communicators. ANYWAY, again this was back at a time when UFO’s and the like were not the hot topic they are today and I for one as a kid knew nothing of the nature of the phenomena. When I picked up the interest a few years back as an adult and started to notice little things like this pattern of witnesses saying “this craft made no noise”…and so on, it always brings me back to that evening! I just think it’s too strange of a coincidence for there not to be something more to this. Okay..enough babbling! Thanks for your comments AND indulging me! Cheers, D
:cool:

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

Sean Elifritz · Aug 30, 2011

dendraw said:
I  <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 (is it Eddie?), I admire your veracity on this topic! For me I can only consider whatever “evidence” there is as an objective observer unless I were to actually go and do any kind of first hand research and investigating myself. My nature is to take what a person says to be that of honesty, but I also know that this is far from how the world really operates so it’s difficult for me to understand what “is in it” for those who lie or create hoaxes in this arena. But just a quick story, I remember when I was a kid (this was back in the 70’s, I was 11 or 12) I was with my family (also, my uncle, aunt & two cousins). We were up at our local County Park, Mt. Modanna on the outskirts of Gilroy. We had a picnic in the late afternoon and as always after we ate, we would take a walk around the park grounds. This was the time of year when really no tourists were around and the grounds were pretty quite. We started our walk around dusk and were following the paved roadway that wound around all the campsites. I remember my mother, uncle and aunt were behind us (all the kids) having their own conversation as we chased, prodded and played as kids do. It was getting dark and I remember at one point ALL of us suddenly stopped and noticed this “Light” up in the sky. It seemed like it was just above the tree line and it was bright! I remember one of my cousins saying in an innocent excited voice…”Look it’s Jesus…Jesus is coming!” I remember laughing inside and I also remember how absolutely quiet it was. This thing, whatever it was, glided overhead and made no sound whatsoever! And continued til out of sight! My uncle, mother and aunt made comments like..what the heck was that? And then, nothing! They then picked up their conversation like nothing happened and I remember being perplexed about this. I thought how could you not be more excited and inquisitive about what we just saw, but if you knew my family…not the best communicators. ANYWAY, again this was back at a time when UFO’s and the like were not the hot topic they are today and I for one as a kid knew nothing of the nature of the phenomena. When I picked up the interest a few years back as an adult and started to notice little things like this pattern of witnesses saying “this craft made no noise”…and so on, it always brings me back to that evening! I just think it’s too strange of a coincidence for there not to be something more to this. Okay..enough babbling! Thanks for your comments AND indulging me! Cheers, D
</m:defjc></m:rmargin></m:lmargin></m:dispdef></m:smallfrac>

Look, despite the Pair of Cats calling me one in every other post he makes in here I am not a debunker. While I am now doubtful of UFOs as alien spacecraft I am still open to the possibility for some of the reports. At one time I was totally convinced: believed aliens were in our skies, were being clandestine, were abducting people, that science and the media were being assholes for ignoring it, the complete package.

But since then I've discovered a lot of holes in stories I previously believed and have discovered that a lot of UFO researchers, even the prominent ones, often don't tell the full story. It's not uncommon for them to omit, exaggerate, or even lie. The other thing is that much of the time investigations aren't carried out nearly as thoroughly as you are led to believe. For example, manxman seems to find it impossible to believe that MUFON might have failed https://www.theparacast.com/../members/5924-manxmanto ask for radar tapes. Some might have a rather romanticized viewpoint of MUFON but I know better now. Most of them are not scientists and they are operating on 0 funding. They do a good job sometimes, but plenty of cases are bungled. The personal belief systems of the investigators gets in the way of things a lot of the time too.

Some of the reports I remain interested in are the zaniest of all, abductions. While hypnosis has been quite effectively debunked by critics a few of the multi-witness cases like Allagash, Kelly Cahill, Betty and Barney Hill (I've read quite a few skeptical treatments of the Hill case and so far have found them lacking), and Pascagoula remain unsolved to me and while I no longer feel sure of it I think there is still at least a small possibility that something extraordinary happened there. Now, if I find out tomorrow that all 4 of those claims are bullshit I won't be shocked (A few years ago I would have been) but imo they really do possess possibility, at the moment anyway.

Debunkers are 100% sure there have never been alien spacecraft visiting here. I feel more like 95% sure of it.

dendraw · Aug 30, 2011

Hey Wickerman, I gotcha bro! I wish ALL researchers would be as forthright as you and some others on here. I think the true scientific "mind" should ALWAYS be open to "the possibilities".....otherwise, one lives in a box. Life can never be contained....so much beauty,intrigue and infinite possibilities out there to ever be bored! :question:

boomerang · Aug 30, 2011

The documentary sounds interesting. The 10:00 p.m. video always did look like individual light sources falling. The other video behaves like jets in formation.

And the mystery is now put to rest? We have eliminated two sources of 'noise' in search of a possible 'signal'. The signal is hundreds of (here we go again) highly sane and credible people screaming over telephone lines to local authorities about huge structures FLOATING at low altitude overhead.

Video evidence never did match the high strangeness "craft" that apparently triggered this event. BTW, This wouldn't be the first time the military--or whoever--started tap dancing on stage to shift attention away from the main act.

trainedobserver · Aug 30, 2011

Wickerman1972 said:
But since then I've discovered a lot of holes in stories I previously believed and have discovered that a lot of UFO researchers, even the prominent ones, often don't tell the full story. It's not uncommon for them to omit, exaggerate, or even lie. The other thing is that much of the time investigations aren't carried out nearly as thoroughly as you are led to believe.
...
While hypnosis has been quite effectively debunked by critics a few of the multi-witness cases like Allagash, Kelly Cahill, Betty and Barney Hill (I've read quite a few skeptical treatments of the Hill case and so far have found them lacking), and Pascagoula remain unsolved to me and while I no longer feel sure of it I think there is still at least a small possibility that something extraordinary happened there.

I feel your pain my friend. Join the ranks of the disillusioned and disappointed.

One of the better cases that contains real physical evidence is the Cash Landrum case. That something very bizarre and as yet unexplained happened in that case is difficult to deny.

Steve Blonder · Mar 18, 2012

As the great Yogi Berra once said, "It ain't over till it's over."

Triangulation

CitizenK · Mar 18, 2012

Hmmm I'm still on the fence about the Phoenix lights event...don't really know where to plave it in my "files".

I'd like to give a shout out to Wickerman!!! What's up , long time no see. And hey, go easy on those who don't know Mufon people like we do . :cool:

Good to know you're still out there looking for answers.
Peace

Steve Blonder · Mar 18, 2012

The fence is not a bad vantage point actually Isaiah's Vision

CitizenK · Mar 18, 2012

I agree and have also looked at your link...very interesting theory you have there. Might just be on to something. I was immediately familiar with the book of Isaiah and it's contents but coupled with your translation and those weirdly cool images...well, not too shabby.

I'm okay with being "on" the fence it gives you a better view.

expo15 · Jun 17, 2012

Sean Elifritz said:
The first part concerns the sightings and a videotape of the 8-8:30 triangle that many people claim could not have been jets in formation because the lights were allegedly too steady in relation to one another. But this clip shows that in fact the lights did display variations in position and therefor jets flying in a V-formation is a perfectly logical conclusion to arrive at.

Here's my preface to this post: first, Sean, great topic -- thanks for posting the link. Second, sorry for bumping this year-old thread, but Google brought me to it... sorry if replying to this isn't kosher.

The Phoenix Lights case has always fascinated me. I remember seeing documentaries on it over a decade ago when I was a young pre-teen. I gobbled it up as fact, only to recant my views years later, after I saw the flare theory. However, my interest in it was again rekindled when I realized there were two incidents that night: the 8:00 PM mega-craft during which people saw a craft flying over their heads, and then the 10:00 PM imaginary craft that was clearly flares. The first was was truly unexplainable (until now) and was downright fascinating.

The Terry Proctor video appears to definitely prove that the lights were not only solid structure; if you accept what you see in his footage, the logical explanation is that it's planes flying in formation. I sort of skimmed through this thread (in fairness, there was a lot of mud-slinging going on), but I don't remember what I'm about to say being mentioned a single time. Lost in the debate about the validity of the eyewitness testimony is this: a young kid that night -- Mitch Stanley -- claimed to get a close-up look at the 8 PM structure through his telescope. Guess what he said he saw? Airplanes!

But darn the luck. Stanley, an amateur astronomer, had a telescope that magnified objects to 60 times what could be seen with the naked eye. And although he was just as creeped out as anybody about the five objects flying in a V-shape over the city, the mystery ended when he trained his telescope on them.

"They were airplanes," he said during a phone interview last week. "You see airplanes fly overhead all the time."

Truth is out there but not believed

Thanks for the video link in the original post... can't believe that, after all these years of reading up on the case, I've never seen the footage of the 8 PM incident.

How about that? Eyewitness testimony that corroborates the plane theory! The best of both worlds.

Sean Elifritz · Jun 17, 2012

expo15 said:
Here's my preface to this post: first, Sean, great topic -- thanks for posting the link. Second, sorry for bumping this year-old thread, but Google brought me to it... sorry if replying to this isn't kosher.

The Phoenix Lights case has always fascinated me. I remember seeing documentaries on it over a decade ago when I was a young pre-teen. I gobbled it up as fact, only to recant my views years later, after I saw the flare theory. However, my interest in it was again rekindled when I realized there were two incidents that night: the 8:00 PM mega-craft during which people saw a craft flying over their heads, and then the 10:00 PM imaginary craft that was clearly flares. The first was was truly unexplainable (until now) and was downright fascinating.

The Terry Proctor video appears to definitely prove that the lights were not only solid structure; if you accept what you see in his footage, the logical explanation is that it's planes flying in formation. I sort of skimmed through this thread (in fairness, there was a lot of mud-slinging going on), but I don't remember what I'm about to say being mentioned a single time. Lost in the debate about the validity of the eyewitness testimony is this: a young kid that night -- Mitch Stanley -- claimed to get a close-up look at the 8 PM structure through his telescope. Guess what he said he saw? Airplanes!

Truth is out there but not believed

Thanks for the video link in the original post... can't believe that, after all these years of reading up on the case, I've never seen the footage of the 8 PM incident.

How about that? Eyewitness testimony that corroborates the plane theory! The best of both worlds.

Yep, I mentioned him too, although not by name. Actually there were several witnesses that said it was airplanes flying in formation but they have been ignored in favor of those talking about solid triangles the size of football stadiums. My view remains that the Terry Proctor video proves there was nothing to this so-called event: it was planes flying in formation at 8:30, flares at 10.

Destroying the 1997 Phoenix Lights UFO case

Paranormal Adept

Administrator

Paranormal Adept

Administrator

Paranormal Adept

Administrator

Paranormal Adept

Friendly Skeptic

a.k.a Philip Deane

Paranormal Novice

Administrator

Paranormal Novice

Paranormal Adept

Paranormally Disenchanted

Paranormal Novice

Skilled Investigator

Paranormal Novice

Skilled Investigator

Paranormal Novice

Administrator