UFO: footages, disclosure, archaeological anomalies

[ArthurWilborn]

The Barry Goldwater Range has been in operation since 1941. If they dropped flares in 1997 on the day of the Phoenix Lights, that was not the first time they did it. The people were more or less familiar with what flares would look like. They could more or less tell the difference. Was there any mass sighting like this prior to 1997? No. The 1997 incident was special. The people thought it was so unusual that they had to call the police at the very moment of the sighting.

"The flares are typically dropped at lower altitudes, where they are not visible from Phoenix, due to the intervening Sierra Estrella mountain range."
...
"As has been thoroughly documented, including by a Fox television special, the moment that each light disappeared on the evidential videotapes corresponded exactly with the horizon line of the Sierra Estrella mountains, proving that the lights were behind the mountains, and not over Phoenix."

Most of the residents of Phoenix wouldn't have seen other flare drops.

Note also that, in the documentary, an anonymous military pilot with more than 40 years of experience witnessed the lights and doubts the flare hypothesis.

An anonymous source? Beyond worthless.

In the first two minutes, the flares would have fallen about 1000 feet; and as established, most viewers were about 70 miles, or about 370000 feet away. According to my calculations, the apparent motion would be about 0.25 degrees; or effectively stationary. The rest of the fall would be even slower.

I'll take that calculations for granted, thanks.

Working on the back the envelope a bit more, that two minute drop would be like standing on one side of the room and watching a small insect on the opposite wall move a total of 4 cm at a regular pace over the course of two minutes. That would barely register as motion even with the horizon lines of ceiling and baseboard. In the night sky? It would look stationary.

Another problem is that some of the lights moved horizontally across Arizona, not vertically.

Now here's where you really need a video link. Got something that shows that? The videos I saw in your links were all far too shaky to make out lateral motion. In case you haven't taken the hint, I'm not going to accept eyewitness testimony on this.

Smoke probably wouldn't be visible at night, at a great distance, from cameras that weren't set up to take pictures at night.

That's a possibility, yes. But not a certainty:

The cameras weren't the only eyes. At closer distances too people didn't see any smoke:



You discredit these witnesses as follows:

Oh, come on, now you're doing all the work for me. Another thought; at a distance of seventy miles the flare, smoke, and parachute would probably all register as a single indistinct blur.

"Over the next couple of weeks, corroborating reports flooded in, of triangle-shaped craft from as far away as Henderson, Nevada cruising over the southwest, to Prescott, over Phoenix, and off toward Tucson. UFO's are reported nearly every day in most areas by someone, so it's to be expected that the normal background noise of typical reports would be given special attention during a large-scale episode like the Phoenix Lights. And, obviously, such a furor offers an easy opportunity for any clown to go on the news to say that a triangle-shaped craft passed over his house on its way to Phoenix. What would have been truly unusual and shocking is if there had been no other reports from nearby areas. Too bad none of these people owned cameras."

Note emphasis.

What about the hundreds of reports that flooded at the time of the incident? A veteran 911 police operator recounts:

Ahem:

"Too bad none of these people owned cameras."

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Here's the best video I could find with minimal effort:



The real video starts about 40 seconds in. We can see the flares lighting up one by one in a straight line with a descending curve; exactly what I would expect flares being dropped off a moving airplane would look like. Comparing the lights to the city lights below and assuming the cameraman was relatively stationary, they don't seem to have any significant lateral motion.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

So why do you insist in statments like "hey I don't want to believe in aliens, but if we didn't done that, then WHO (wink wink, nudge nudge, know what I mean? know what I mean?) did?

"I don't want to believe in aliens"... what are you talking about? I never said that.

The existence of aliens and the alien visitation are different subjects. This thread is concerned with the latter.

I currently don't believe either that this planet has been visited by aliens or that it hasn't.

So you think you are being visited by things that don't exist? Right... :| *calls lunatic asilum*

 

[mirandansa]

The Barry Goldwater Range has been in operation since 1941. If they dropped flares in 1997 on the day of the Phoenix Lights, that was not the first time they did it. The people were more or less familiar with what flares would look like. They could more or less tell the difference. Was there any mass sighting like this prior to 1997? No. The 1997 incident was special. The people thought it was so unusual that they had to call the police at the very moment of the sighting.

"The flares are typically dropped at lower altitudes, where they are not visible from Phoenix, due to the intervening Sierra Estrella mountain range."
...
"As has been thoroughly documented, including by a Fox television special, the moment that each light disappeared on the evidential videotapes corresponded exactly with the horizon line of the Sierra Estrella mountains, proving that the lights were behind the mountains, and not over Phoenix."

Most of the residents of Phoenix wouldn't have seen other flare drops.

"The flares are typically dropped at lower altitudes"... Are these "lower altitudes":

Show More Hide

{TEXT}

I'm not saying decoy flares couldn't be dropped at lower altitudes; i'm just pointing out that there are many exceptions to his generalisation.

The analysis that the lights could be behind the mountains is based on this particular appearance from a particular viewpoint:

Show More Hide

{TEXT}

But the aligned stationary lights appeared more than one time as you can see in the raw footage. Analyse that, and you would find the lights are lower than the purported horizon line:

This is from the same viewpoint as the first video footage, but at a different moment than the one selectively examined in the flare hypothesis.

As far as the entire footage is concerned, either 1) flares were dropped in front of the mountains i.e. above Phoenix, or 2) other than flares appeared above Phoenix.

Note also that, in the documentary, an anonymous military pilot with more than 40 years of experience witnessed the lights and doubts the flare hypothesis.

An anonymous source? Beyond worthless.

Anonymity may have saved his job. "I saw a UFO" can be as risky a statement as "I am an atheist" (in the U.S.), especially if the person's occupation concerns aviation. If you were an airplane pilot and reported a UFO case, you could be considered "mentally unfit" and lose your job.

You fail to assess the significance of anonymity in making an otherwise dangerous report:
http://www.google.com/search?&q=anonymous+report

Another problem is that some of the lights moved horizontally across Arizona, not vertically.

Now here's where you really need a video link. Got something that shows that? The videos I saw in your links were all far too shaky to make out lateral motion. In case you haven't taken the hint, I'm not going to accept eyewitness testimony on this.

Here:



And you would be perfectly justified to not take this footage as conclusive. But it at least shows the V-shaped lights that is consistent with the reports made across Arizona at the very night of the incident before this footage was broadcast.

What about the hundreds of reports that flooded at the time of the incident? A veteran 911 police operator recounts:

Ahem:

"Too bad none of these people owned cameras."

Many of them probably did. But we are talking about 1997: the cameras were more chunky to bring around, and the mobile phones didn't have a camera.

It's not like there are no photos taken by different people at the night:

Show More Hide

{TEXT}

These are probably the ones reported to be in horizontal motion as seen from below.

More from other cameras:

Show More Hide

{TEXT}

In the last one, the lights quite appear to be above the city rather than "behind the mountains".

Yet another video footage from that day:



Also, if the Air Force was aware of their own flare-dropping, why did they avoid addressing the inquiry:

They could at least say "it might have been our flare drops, we're investigating it" to spare the people from unnecessary speculations and confusion.

 

[mirandansa]

We can see the flares lighting up one by one in a straight line with a descending curve; exactly what I would expect flares being dropped off a moving airplane would look like.

(I can see "lights", not "flares".)

Yes, one possibility is that an A-10 were consecutively dropping flares as it ascended, followed by their consecutive visual disappearance as they each became out of charge.

As regards the "one by one" appearance, though, we can observe the same pattern occurring in the outerspace, as in the STS-75 and STS-80 incidents. (This is why i have been suggesting we have to examine different cases for an inductive purpose.)

 

[mirandansa]

"I don't want to believe in aliens"... what are you talking about? I never said that.

The existence of aliens and the alien visitation are different subjects. This thread is concerned with the latter.

I currently don't believe either that this planet has been visited by aliens or that it hasn't.

So you think you are being visited by things that don't exist? Right... :| *calls lunatic asilum*

Why do you insist in assuming that i assume this planet is being visited by aliens? Couldn't i have an interest in a further public investigation into the matter without the assumption that "the Earth is being visited by aliens"? I mean, if a non-Christian had an interest in examining the veracity of the New Testament, would that mean he/she assumes the scripture is true? Of course not.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

"The flares are typically dropped at lower altitudes"... Are these "lower altitudes":

... Random pictures of planes? What? At least put in some effort.

This is from the same viewpoint as the first video footage, but at a different moment than the one selectively examined in the flare hypothesis.

As far as the entire footage is concerned, either 1) flares were dropped in front of the mountains i.e. above Phoenix, or 2) other than flares appeared above Phoenix.

This photo is completely contradicted by the video evidence, so I'm going to go ahead and say it's a fake.

Anonymity may have saved his job. "I saw a UFO" can be as risky a statement as "I am an atheist" (in the U.S.), especially if the person's occupation concerns aviation. If you were an airplane pilot and reported a UFO case, you could be considered "mentally unfit" and lose your job.

You fail to assess the significance of anonymity in making an otherwise dangerous report:
http://www.google.com/search?&q=anonymous+report

... What? You haven't addressed my point. An anonymous report is worthless as evidence unless it's confirmed by substantial good evidence. Even if I grant that he honestly reported what he believed he saw, it's still anecdotal.

Now here's where you really need a video link. Got something that shows that? The videos I saw in your links were all far too shaky to make out lateral motion. In case you haven't taken the hint, I'm not going to accept eyewitness testimony on this.

Here:



And you would be perfectly justified to not take this footage as conclusive. But it at least shows the V-shaped lights that is consistent with the reports made across Arizona at the very night of the incident before this footage was broadcast.

Not really. The reports of a V-shaped object described the lights as being on a single, fixed-wing, low altitude craft. The video looks like it's recording separate objects moving in rough formation at high altitude.

It's not like there are no photos taken by different people at the night:

These are probably the ones reported to be in horizontal motion as seen from below.

More from other cameras:

In the last one, the lights quite appear to be above the city rather than "behind the mountains".

Ok, these ones are interesting in that they're much different then the video evidence of the line of lights we saw. Can you produce sources on these pictures to demonstrate that they aren't fake?

Yet another video footage from that day:

That video seems to show the same thing mine does, just a lot jumpier.

Also, if the Air Force was aware of their own flare-dropping, why did they avoid addressing the inquiry:

They could at least say "it might have been our flare drops, we're investigating it" to spare the people from unnecessary speculations and confusion.

Non-point. That an officer was reluctant to talk about it proves exactly nothing.

Yes, one possibility is that an A-10 were consecutively dropping flares as it ascended, followed by their consecutive visual disappearance as they each became out of charge.

Or as the flares descended and disappeared behind the mountains while the plane flew level.

As regards the "one by one" appearance, though, we can observe the same pattern occurring in the outerspace, as in the STS-75 and STS-80 incidents. (This is why i have been suggesting we have to examine different cases for an inductive purpose.)

Miranda, remember, you promised you would focus on this one incident, please don't slip.

 

[mirandansa]

"The flares are typically dropped at lower altitudes"... Are these "lower altitudes":

... Random pictures of planes? What? At least put in some effort.

Pictures of planes dropping flares at higher altitudes. I was responding to the statement "the flares are typically dropped at lower altitudes".

This photo is completely contradicted by the video evidence, so I'm going to go ahead and say it's a fake.

I found the image here. The page doesn't look particularly trustworthy. So i won't claim it's genuine.

But i don't know how it's "completely contradicted by the video evidence" either. It's hard for me to tell.

Anonymity may have saved his job. "I saw a UFO" can be as risky a statement as "I am an atheist" (in the U.S.), especially if the person's occupation concerns aviation. If you were an airplane pilot and reported a UFO case, you could be considered "mentally unfit" and lose your job.

You fail to assess the significance of anonymity in making an otherwise dangerous report:
http://www.google.com/search?&q=anonymous+report

... What? You haven't addressed my point. An anonymous report is worthless as evidence unless it's confirmed by substantial good evidence. Even if I grant that he honestly reported what he believed he saw, it's still anecdotal.

Point taken.

The reports of a V-shaped object described the lights as being on a single, fixed-wing, low altitude craft. The video looks like it's recording separate objects moving in rough formation at high altitude.

Point taken.

It's not like there are no photos taken by different people at the night:

These are probably the ones reported to be in horizontal motion as seen from below.

More from other cameras:

In the last one, the lights quite appear to be above the city rather than "behind the mountains".

Ok, these ones are interesting in that they're much different then the video evidence of the line of lights we saw. Can you produce sources on these pictures to demonstrate that they aren't fake?

http://www.dipity.com/timeline/Phoenix-Lights/list

The first one with three red lights is titled "Phoenix Lights Discussed In D.C." posted in November 2007.

The second one is titled "Phoenix Lights UFOs p1" posted in May 2009.

The first one is said to be from KPHO. There, i searched for "phoenix lights", but i couldn't find any related article in the first 5 suggested pages.

The second one is said to be from http://www.avimoas.com. I tried to search around, but the search function didn't work.

That an officer was reluctant to talk about it proves exactly nothing.

Isn't the Air Force supposed to assure civilians of aerial security? Why the reluctance?

 

[ArthurWilborn]

You know, I want to apologize, my last couple posts have been a bit harsher then was warranted.

Pictures of planes dropping flares at higher altitudes. I was responding to the statement "the flares are typically dropped at lower altitudes".

Well, your basic argument was "Phoenix residents would have seen flares often enough to know what they looked like". My counterargument was that, due to the local mountains, they wouldn't. You could counter that by demonstrating that flares were routinely dropped at high altitude at that location; not by demonstrating that they might have been by showing pictures of random planes.

I found the image here. The page doesn't look particularly trustworthy. So i won't claim it's genuine.

But i don't know how it's "completely contradicted by the video evidence" either. It's hard for me to tell.

Well, since we both agree it's questionable let's dismiss it.

The reports of a V-shaped object described the lights as being on a single, fixed-wing, low altitude craft. The video looks like it's recording separate objects moving in rough formation at high altitude.

Point taken.

That leaves us with zero video evidence of this triangular formation.

http://www.dipity.com/timeline/Phoenix-Lights/list

The first one with three red lights is titled "Phoenix Lights Discussed In D.C." posted in November 2007.

The second one is titled "Phoenix Lights UFOs p1" posted in May 2009.

The first one is said to be from KPHO. There, i searched for "phoenix lights", but i couldn't find any related article in the first 5 suggested pages.

The second one is said to be from http://www.avimoas.com. I tried to search around, but the search function didn't work.

You know, I'm sorry about this. You're clearly being a good sport here and doing the best you can. However, a picture you found on the internet posted ten years after the fact with no attribution isn't sufficient for evidence. I'm going to have to dismiss them as fakes unless you can find either a) a substantial number of photos taken from different angles showing the same thing, at least some with a reliable source or b) video (hopefully much clearer then the other you posted) showing a triangular formation of lights consistent with the various reports of such.

That an officer was reluctant to talk about it proves exactly nothing.

Isn't the Air Force supposed to assure civilians of aerial security? Why the reluctance?

Any of a hundred reasons; the reporter simply made it up, the officer the reporter reached wasn't authorized to talk to the press, the officer didn't know all the details himself; that the officer was certain there was a UFO and was clumsily trying to hide it is right at the bottom.

 

[mirandansa]

Pictures of planes dropping flares at higher altitudes. I was responding to the statement "the flares are typically dropped at lower altitudes".

Well, your basic argument was "Phoenix residents would have seen flares often enough to know what they looked like". My counterargument was that, due to the local mountains, they wouldn't. You could counter that by demonstrating that flares were routinely dropped at high altitude at that location; not by demonstrating that they might have been by showing pictures of random planes.

So, are these high-altitude flares to be ignored? If they aren't to be ignored, why the generalisation?

Point taken.

That leaves us with zero video evidence of this triangular formation.

I was responding to your assertion that "the video looks like it's recording separate objects moving in rough formation at high altitude". That's a fair point. And that doesn't exclude the possibility that the lights might represent a triangular object. I distinguish evidence and proof. The video can't prove that the lights are of a triangular object; however, if it turned out that there actually was such an object flying over the cameraman, then the video would have been the actual footage of the object, been that which demonstrates the existence of the object.

Evidence is not necessarily self-evident. People were familiar with evidences for evolution (phylogenetic resemblance, selective breeding & hybridisation, etc.) long before Darwin's theory came out, but they didn't realise those were such evidences. Evidence is subject to our own epistemological background.

You know, I'm sorry about this. You're clearly being a good sport here and doing the best you can. However, a picture you found on the internet posted ten years after the fact with no attribution isn't sufficient for evidence. I'm going to have to dismiss them as fakes unless you can find either a) a substantial number of photos taken from different angles showing the same thing, at least some with a reliable source or b) video (hopefully much clearer then the other you posted) showing a triangular formation of lights consistent with the various reports of such.

As i said, i have a limited amount of knowledge, and one of the reasons i started this thread was to learn more about the cases with possible aids from other people. And if you don't know more about the pictures, that's fine. I don't, either.

So long as no attribution is available, i cannot take the pictures seriously. But i'm not going to dismiss them as fakes either. The bottom line is: we don't know what they represent.

Isn't the Air Force supposed to assure civilians of aerial security? Why the reluctance?

Any of a hundred reasons; the reporter simply made it up, the officer the reporter reached wasn't authorized to talk to the press, the officer didn't know all the details himself; that the officer was certain there was a UFO and was clumsily trying to hide it is right at the bottom.

Ok.

Clarification (please consider the two :?: s):

The Phoenix Lights occured in the skies over Arizona and Nevada in the U.S., and Sonora in Mexico (a space of about 300 miles / 482 km) in 1997 March 13, between 19:30 and 22:30 MST. Two distinct events:
1) a triangular formation of lights seen to pass over the state (witnesses include then-governor Fife Symington, who at the time denied and ridiculed the incident);
2) a series of stationary lights seen in the Phoenix area.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Lights

According to the Arizona Republic (a daily newspaper published in Phoenix), Lt. Col. Ed Jones says he piloted one of the four A-10 jet fighters of the Maryland Air National Guard and dropped leftover flares during night-time exercises at the Barry M. Goldwater Range (70 miles / 112 km southwest of Phoenix).
http://www.rense.com/general75/flares.htm

According to sceptic Brian Dunning, the A-10 drops two different kinds of flares: a countermeasure flare & an illumination flare. The latter, specifically LUU-2 flares, were dropped at the night.
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4041
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/luu2.htm

According to sceptic and non-sceptic sources, the official explanation is that:
the A-10s left David-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson at 20:15 MST for a special training mission;
in the Goldwater range, they released the flares at about 6,000 ft / 1.830 km, which ignited at around 3,000 ft / 0.91 km and completely burnt out at around 500 ft / 0.15 km, which could be seen from 150 miles / 240 km away;
after the flare exercise, they were heading back when they realised they had more flares on board, and base regulations forbid planes from landing with flares, so they dropped the leftovers;
they returned at 22:00.
http://www.biblelife.org/ufo.htm
http://www.spartechsoftware.com/dimensions/aliens/PhoenixLights.htm

From the viewpoint of Phoenix, the Goldwater is located behind the Sierra Estrella mountain range. The range's highest point is 4,354 ft / 1.327 km.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_Estrella

:?: If the lights were flares and if the A-10s did not depart the base until 20:15, how could people see the flares at 19:30?

Then-governor Symington, upon witnessing the travelling triangular lights, requested information from the commander of Luke Air Force Base, the general of the National Guard, and the head of the Department of Public Safety. But none of the officials he contacted had an answer for what had happened. Frances Barwood, the 1997 Phoenix city councilwoman who launched an investigation into the event, said that of the over 700 witnesses she interviewed, "The government never interviewed even one".
http://www.prescottdailycourier.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=43304&SectionID=1&SubSectionID=&S=1

Later, as to the flare hypothesis, Symington responded: ""As a pilot and a former Air Force Officer, I can definitively say that this craft did not resemble any man made object I'd ever seen. And it was certainly not high-altitude flares because flares don't fly in formation".
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/11/09/simington.ufocommentary/index.html

Also:

One witness, who lives under the customary A-10 flight path, noted that no A-10s landed or took off around 10:00PM that night. He knew this because he was in the habit of going outside whenever he heard the A-10s (to watch them land). He states that he definitely heard no A-10s landing during the time of the sightings. UFO researchers have filed FOIA requests with the US Air Force, requesting logs of departures and arrivals of A-10s during the night of March 13 - the USAF has yet to comply with their requests.

[...]

Furthermore, the flare explanation does not coincide with the calculated speed of the moving object. The National UFO Reporting Centers notes that:

"The object apparently was capable of very rapid flight, probably even supersonic flight, although few witnesses reported any sound emanating from it. The object was reported heading generally to the southeast over Henderson, NV, at 1855 hrs. (Pacific), and was next reported heading to the south in the vicinity of Paulden, AZ, approximately 22 minutes later at 2017 hrs. (Mountain). Within approximately one minute of the sighting in Paulden, the object was reported from the vicinity of Prescott Valley, AZ, roughly 30 miles to the south. The object then appeared over Phoenix, where it is reported to have hovered for 4-5 minutes in the vicinity of the intersection of Indian School Road and 7th Avenue."

http://www.spartechsoftware.com/dimensions/aliens/PhoenixLights.htm

:?: Why did the three military entities ignore the governor's request for an explanation? Why does the USAF refuse to provie researchers with departure/arrival logs of A-10s during the night?

 

[ArthurWilborn]

I was responding to your assertion that "the video looks like it's recording separate objects moving in rough formation at high altitude". That's a fair point. And that doesn't exclude the possibility that the lights might represent a triangular object. I distinguish evidence and proof. The video can't prove that the lights are of a triangular object; however, if it turned out that there actually was such an object flying over the cameraman, then the video would have been the actual footage of the object, been that which demonstrates the existence of the object.

You're assuming your conclusion, a logical fallacy. Your logic is similar to this:

All horses exist.
Some horses are unicorns.
Therefore, unicorns exist.

The conclusion (the video shows a triangular object) is assumed in your argument (there was a triangular object).

Also, proof is technically something that can only be achieved in math and logic, where things can be determined to be true by definition. When working in the messier reality of the perceived universe, the standard is "likely based on available evidence", for a greater or lesser strictness of "likely".

Evidence is not necessarily self-evident. People were familiar with evidences for evolution (phylogenetic resemblance, selective breeding & hybridisation, etc.) long before Darwin's theory came out, but they didn't realise those were such evidences. Evidence is subject to our own epistemological background.

Well, I could lecture you here on how you shouldn't begin with a conclusion that you want to prove, but you've proved resistant to that idea so I won't push it.

As i said, i have a limited amount of knowledge, and one of the reasons i started this thread was to learn more about the cases with possible aids from other people. And if you don't know more about the pictures, that's fine. I don't, either.

You're in the wrong place if you want uncritical confabulation. First you have to convince me that there's actually something interesting here to investigate, which you haven't done.

So long as no attribution is available, i cannot take the pictures seriously. But i'm not going to dismiss them as fakes either. The bottom line is: we don't know what they represent.

I'm not completely sure either. Therefore, as a good scientist, I start with the null hypothesis and say that they don't represent anything of interest.

Clarification (please consider the two :?: s):

The Phoenix Lights occured in the skies over Arizona and Nevada in the U.S., and Sonora in Mexico (a space of about 300 miles / 482 km) in 1997 March 13, between 19:30 and 22:30 MST. Two distinct events:
1) a triangular formation of lights seen to pass over the state (witnesses include then-governor Fife Symington, who at the time denied and ridiculed the incident);
2) a series of stationary lights seen in the Phoenix area.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Lights

This is something I was going to bring up. One of the key differences is, the "stationary" line of lights has an entire pile of video and photographic evidence, whereas the evidence of this triangular formation is incredibly minimal.

According to the Arizona Republic (a daily newspaper published in Phoenix), Lt. Col. Ed Jones says he piloted one of the four A-10 jet fighters of the Maryland Air National Guard and dropped leftover flares during night-time exercises at the Barry M. Goldwater Range (70 miles / 112 km southwest of Phoenix).
http://www.rense.com/general75/flares.htm

According to sceptic Brian Dunning, the A-10 drops two different kinds of flares: a countermeasure flare & an illumination flare. The latter, specifically LUU-2 flares, were dropped at the night.
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4041
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/luu2.htm

According to sceptic and non-sceptic sources, the official explanation is that:
the A-10s left David-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson at 20:15 MST for a special training mission;
in the Goldwater range, they released the flares at about 6,000 ft / 1.830 km, which ignited at around 3,000 ft / 0.91 km and completely burnt out at around 500 ft / 0.15 km, which could be seen from 150 miles / 240 km away;
after the flare exercise, they were heading back when they realised they had more flares on board, and base regulations forbid planes from landing with flares, so they dropped the leftovers;
they returned at 22:00.
http://www.biblelife.org/ufo.htm
http://www.spartechsoftware.com/dimensions/aliens/PhoenixLights.htm

From the viewpoint of Phoenix, the Goldwater is located behind the Sierra Estrella mountain range. The range's highest point is 4,354 ft / 1.327 km.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_Estrella

You saw my video of the line of lights, and even you admit it certainly looks consistent with an aircraft dropping flares.

:?: If the lights were flares and if the A-10s did not depart the base until 20:15, how could people see the flares at 19:30?

My claim is, the line of lights (that we have lots of good evidence of) were flares and the triangular formation (of which we have practically no evidence) was pure invention. This question is trying to conflate the two events.

Then-governor Symington, upon witnessing the travelling triangular lights, requested information from the commander of Luke Air Force Base, the general of the National Guard, and the head of the Department of Public Safety. But none of the officials he contacted had an answer for what had happened. Frances Barwood, the 1997 Phoenix city councilwoman who launched an investigation into the event, said that of the over 700 witnesses she interviewed, "The government never interviewed even one".
http://www.prescottdailycourier.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=43304&SectionID=1&SubSectionID=&S=1

This is a mixture of anecdote and ad populum, neither of which is evidence.

Later, as to the flare hypothesis, Symington responded: ""As a pilot and a former Air Force Officer, I can definitively say that this craft did not resemble any man made object I'd ever seen. And it was certainly not high-altitude flares because flares don't fly in formation".
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/11/09/simington.ufocommentary/index.html

Again, conflating the two events.

One witness, who lives under the customary A-10 flight path, noted that no A-10s landed or took off around 10:00PM that night. He knew this because he was in the habit of going outside whenever he heard the A-10s (to watch them land). He states that he definitely heard no A-10s landing during the time of the sightings. UFO researchers have filed FOIA requests with the US Air Force, requesting logs of departures and arrivals of A-10s during the night of March 13 - the USAF has yet to comply with their requests.

Anecdote.

:?: Why did the three military entities ignore the governor's request for an explanation? Why does the USAF refuse to provie researchers with departure/arrival logs of A-10s during the night?

Why would they comply with them? The military does not answer to the governor or to random cranks. It's not like any documents provided would be trusted, either. Even if we assume the reasons for not disclosing that information were malicious, it does not in any way demonstrate that the triangular formation was a UFO.

Here's a likely explanation that's consistent with the available data: the military was testing a B2-like airplane (notable for its triangular shape) that made low passes over some sparsely populated areas. The more unusual reports of its speed are due to the observers being unable to determine at night how large the plane was and how far away it was. Or perhaps it was a triangular formation of experimental fighters traveling at higher altitudes and invention explains all reports of unusual activity. Even if I acknowledge that people saw something vaguely triangle-shaped in the sky, there are plenty of human sources for such.

 

[mirandansa]

One witness, who lives under the customary A-10 flight path, noted that no A-10s landed or took off around 10:00PM that night. He knew this because he was in the habit of going outside whenever he heard the A-10s (to watch them land). He states that he definitely heard no A-10s landing during the time of the sightings. UFO researchers have filed FOIA requests with the US Air Force, requesting logs of departures and arrivals of A-10s during the night of March 13 - the USAF has yet to comply with their requests.

Anecdote.

The "official explanation" itself is anecdotal. The Air Force claims they were training with flares at the time, with no proof (e.g. departure/arrival logs). And sceptics have bought into that.

Why did the three military entities ignore the governor's request for an explanation? Why does the USAF refuse to provie researchers with departure/arrival logs of A-10s during the night?

Why would they comply with them?

Because that could settle all these speculations once and for all.

The military does not answer to the governor or to random cranks.

Why not to the governor? Didn't he have the right to be informed of what was going on above the state he was in charge of?

It's not like any documents provided would be trusted, either.

The flare hypothesis was initiated by the Air Force too.

Even if we assume the reasons for not disclosing that information were malicious, it does not in any way demonstrate that the triangular formation was a UFO.

So you doubt the formation was due to Unidentified Flying Objects, be it artificial or natural, terrestrial or extraterrestrial?

The Phoenix Lights occured in the skies over Arizona and Nevada in the U.S., and Sonora in Mexico (a space of about 300 miles / 482 km) in 1997 March 13, between 19:30 and 22:30 MST. Two distinct events:
1) a triangular formation of lights seen to pass over the state (witnesses include then-governor Fife Symington, who at the time denied and ridiculed the incident);
2) a series of stationary lights seen in the Phoenix area.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Lights

This is something I was going to bring up. One of the key differences is, the "stationary" line of lights has an entire pile of video and photographic evidence, whereas the evidence of this triangular formation is incredibly minimal.

In the case of the stationary lights, people had more time to go back into their house, look for their camera, bring it to the outside, direct the lens at the lights and shoot them. The V lights, on the other hand, were moving across. And, as Symington recounts, it looked "unworldly"; it's conceivable that people couldn't even think about taking a photograph of this captivating phenomenon at a closer distance.

It travelled across Arizona. Note that many of the reports were made at the night, before the video footage was aired. Something may have actually flown above the area. Some sceptics, just like you did, say it was this:

... "that made low passes over some sparsely populated areas", according to you. But this thing makes sound. The witnessed phenomenon made no sound, according to the reports.

Later, as to the flare hypothesis, Symington responded: ""As a pilot and a former Air Force Officer, I can definitively say that this craft did not resemble any man made object I'd ever seen. And it was certainly not high-altitude flares because flares don't fly in formation".
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/11/09/simington.ufocommentary/index.html

Again, conflating the two events.

He was responding to the suggested possibility of the V lights being flares too.

You saw my video of the line of lights, and even you admit it certainly looks consistent with an aircraft dropping flares.

Yes.

It's also consistent with the outerspace objects in the STS-75 and STS-80 incidents (popping up, popping out). You asked me not to bring up these cases. But we at least have to keep the similarity in mind.

I was responding to your assertion that "the video looks like it's recording separate objects moving in rough formation at high altitude". That's a fair point. And that doesn't exclude the possibility that the lights might represent a triangular object. I distinguish evidence and proof. The video can't prove that the lights are of a triangular object; however, if it turned out that there actually was such an object flying over the cameraman, then the video would have been the actual footage of the object, been that which demonstrates the existence of the object.

You're assuming your conclusion, a logical fallacy. Your logic is similar to this:

All horses exist.
Some horses are unicorns.
Therefore, unicorns exist.

The conclusion (the video shows a triangular object) is assumed in your argument (there was a triangular object).

I said "if". I don't argue that the video is the evidence for a triangular object. I also don't argue that it is not the evidence for a triangular object. What the video shows might or might not be a triangular object.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

The "official explanation" itself is anecdotal. The Air Force claims they were training with flares at the time, with no proof (e.g. departure/arrival logs). And sceptics have bought into that.

Hmmm... interesting, yes, a point well taken. So how do we weigh one anecdote against another? Let's bring in the famous tool of Occam here; the Air Force's anecdote is consistent with the existing evidence (the videos and such) while requiring no other entity. It is, therefore, most probably correct.

Because that could settle all these speculations once and for all.

You want the military to produce its internal documents to satisfy curiosity? I'm not all that strongly pro-military but I have to say that's foolish.

Why not to the governor? Didn't he have the right to be informed of what was going on above the state he was in charge of?

Technically, no.

It's not like any documents provided would be trusted, either.

The flare hypothesis was initiated by the Air Force too.

... Thus demonstrating my point? See above for why I believe them.

In the case of the stationary lights, people had more time to go back into their house, look for their camera, bring it to the outside, direct the lens at the lights and shoot them. The V lights, on the other hand, were moving across. And, as Symington recounts, it looked "unworldly"; it's conceivable that people couldn't even think about taking a photograph of this captivating phenomenon at a closer distance.

Excuses are not evidence.

It travelled across Arizona. Note that many of the reports were made at the night, before the video footage was aired. Something may have actually flown above the area. Some sceptics, just like you did, say it was this:

... "that made low passes over some sparsely populated areas", according to you. But this thing makes sound. The witnessed phenomenon made no sound, according to the reports.

B2 bombers are, for obvious reasons, designed to disguise their own engine noise. You'd see it well before you heard it, and if you weren't on the right vector you wouldn't hear it at all. Anyway, the B2 is idle speculation and I'll happily wave it away. A formation of terrestrial aircraft is well within my "nothing very interesting" null hypothesis.

He was responding to the suggested possibility of the V lights being flares too.

Very well; if they existed (which I don't grant), they were probably aircraft traveling in formation.

You saw my video of the line of lights, and even you admit it certainly looks consistent with an aircraft dropping flares.

Yes.

And... we're done. You admit the event that you actually have evidence for has a perfectly reasonable mundane explanation, and that you have effectively no evidence for the second event, which you're also willing to admit has a perfectly reasonable mundane explanation.

 

[mirandansa]

The "official explanation" itself is anecdotal. The Air Force claims they were training with flares at the time, with no proof (e.g. departure/arrival logs). And sceptics have bought into that.

Hmmm... interesting, yes, a point well taken. So how do we weigh one anecdote against another? Let's bring in the famous tool of Occam here; the Air Force's anecdote is consistent with the existing evidence (the videos and such) while requiring no other entity. It is, therefore, most probably correct.

Four A-10's and leftover flares are entities. The Air Force's explanation requires that A-10's were flying above the Goldwater range, that there were leftover parachute flares on board, and that these flares were dropped behind the mountains at a particular altitude, at a particular moment, and at a particular distance from Phoenix so that the smokes wouldn't be visible and the falling would appear stationary, and disappeared as they crossed the horizon line.
(And this is consistent only with one video footage taken from a particular viewpoint.)

Another explanation is that some unknown flying machines appeared and disappeared above Phoenix.
(And this is consistent with all the reports made at the night as well as with other recorded outerspace phenomena.)

Because that could settle all these speculations once and for all.

You want the military to produce its internal documents to satisfy curiosity? I'm not all that strongly pro-military but I have to say that's foolish.

Not just curiosity. The witnesses thought, based on what they saw, the lights were aircraft of an unknown kind; many phone reports (including the ones for the V lights) were made in a frightened manner -- they had concerns about security. If the military can't even get the record straight and clear up the confusion by way of assuring civilians of what the Air Force is supposed to maintain (i.e. aerial security), that's dereliction of duty.

Why not to the governor? Didn't he have the right to be informed of what was going on above the state he was in charge of?

Technically, no.

That reminds me of this:

No pay, no spray: Firefighters let home burn
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life

The U.S. has many bizarre standards.

The flare hypothesis was initiated by the Air Force too.

... Thus demonstrating my point? See above for why I believe them.

Believing them with no proof? You even ignore the possibility of a cover-up.

And i'm not even saying that i would right away trust all documents provided by the military. I'm questioning why they didn't respond to the governor. If they were so certain about what they were doing, they could have just said "we were training with flares". As to the researchers' request, why should the military keep the departure/arrival logs secret? If such secrecy was necessary, they wouldn't have built the runways in such a public space:



(Note also that this video shows an actual A-10 training with low-altitude flares.)

In the case of the stationary lights, people had more time to go back into their house, look for their camera, bring it to the outside, direct the lens at the lights and shoot them. The V lights, on the other hand, were moving across. And, as Symington recounts, it looked "unworldly"; it's conceivable that people couldn't even think about taking a photograph of this captivating phenomenon at a closer distance.

Excuses are not evidence.

You said the evidence for the V lights is "incredibly minimal"; i explained how it's not incredible that people couldn't take good footages of it.

A formation of terrestrial aircraft is well within my "nothing very interesting" null hypothesis.

That already applies to the people of Phoenix themselves. They live next to an Air Force base. They are familiar with military aircraft. But the sighting on March 13 1997 was so unusual for them that hundreds of them got frightened and called the police.

He was responding to the suggested possibility of the V lights being flares too.

Very well; if they existed (which I don't grant), they were probably aircraft traveling in formation.

Symington served in the Air Force during the Vietnam War. He knows what he is talking about. And he called the phenomenon "unworldly".

"You saw my video of the line of lights, and even you admit it certainly looks consistent with an aircraft dropping flares."

Yes.

And... we're done. You admit the event that you actually have evidence for has a perfectly reasonable mundane explanation,

As far as a particular part of one video footage is concerned, yes.

The problem is the reports made at the night, in which the lights are described to be in front of the mountains, above Phoenix. We cannot say either that it was definitely just flares or that is was definitely not flares.

and that you have effectively no evidence for the second event, which you're also willing to admit has a perfectly reasonable mundane explanation.

"reasonable" and "mundane" aren't the same. The flare hypothesis and the B-2 hypothesis are mundane but not reasonable in light of the actual reports. If mundanity is what you are looking for, then you aren't really looking for a real reasonable explanation; you're just avoiding what you personally consider to be "far-fetched" and "stupid", just like those who dismissed Faraday and Alfven within the scientific community. Where i say it's undecided, you insist that the lights are decidedly flares or known aircraft.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Why do you insist in assuming that i assume this planet is being visited by aliens? Couldn't i have an interest in a further public investigation into the matter without the assumption that "the Earth is being visited by aliens"? I mean, if a non-Christian had an interest in examining the veracity of the New Testament, would that mean he/she assumes the scripture is true? Of course not.

You are atributing allot of phenomena to alien visitation, and you can't have alien phenomena without aliens. Before assuming anything new about a poorly know phenomena make sure that it isn't actualy expected resulted from a well known phenomena. And you severely fail at this point consistently, and like an undecided Alzheimer's patient with split personality you change your mindevery 2 posts from "hey what about this? You can't explaint this tough! IT'S ALIENS!" to "No I'm not saying tha we are being visited by aliens, that would be crazy".

In the case of the stationary lights, people had more time to go back into their house, look for their camera, bring it to the outside, direct the lens at the lights and shoot them. The V lights, on the other hand, were moving across. And, as Symington recounts, it looked "unworldly"; it's conceivable that people couldn't even think about taking a photograph of this captivating phenomenon at a closer distance.

It travelled across Arizona. Note that many of the reports were made at the night, before the video footage was aired. Something may have actually flown above the area. Some sceptics, just like you did, say it was this:

... "that made low passes over some sparsely populated areas", according to you. But this thing makes sound. The witnessed phenomenon made no sound, according to the reports.

If the claims were in fact real I don't think it coul have been that at all. To notice such a patern the B2 would have to posses a envenly spaced set of white lights across the fuselage (which I don't think it has, coloured near the tips most likely) and the plane must also be very close in order to see it detailed enough (and planes to close move to fast for you to actualy realise what is going on). However this explenation is generaly a mistake made by trying to look for paterns, because the lights where triangular then the object must be triangular in shape right? WRONG!! In fact there is no reason to sugest that it was th B2 nor that it was a single plane (or aplane at all). But given that there is an active Airforce field nearby, there are a couple of things that are expected to form that patern quite often in fact, and surprisingly enough it explains not only every objection you raised but alos other points such that in a city with so many people, why only few saw the UFO's.
Here is a clue:

THADA!!!!!!!

 

[mirandansa]

Why do you insist in assuming that i assume this planet is being visited by aliens? Couldn't i have an interest in a further public investigation into the matter without the assumption that "the Earth is being visited by aliens"? I mean, if a non-Christian had an interest in examining the veracity of the New Testament, would that mean he/she assumes the scripture is true? Of course not.

You are atributing allot of phenomena to alien visitation,

For the sake of argument, on this forum. If i were on another forum full of alien conspiracy theorists, i would take the reverse position, questioning the validity of such positive attributions (without denying the possibility of alien visitation, that is).

and you can't have alien phenomena without aliens.

Right, and you can think about aliens with no alien visitation.

Before assuming anything new about a poorly know phenomena make sure that it isn't actualy expected resulted from a well known phenomena. And you severely fail at this point consistently, and like an undecided Alzheimer's patient with split personality you change your mindevery 2 posts from "hey what about this? You can't explaint this tough! IT'S ALIENS!" to "No I'm not saying tha we are being visited by aliens, that would be crazy".

Right, i'm interested more in "this thought, that thought" than in "I claim this, you claim that".

If the claims were in fact real I don't think it coul have been that at all. To notice such a patern the B2 would have to posses a envenly spaced set of white lights across the fuselage (which I don't think it has, coloured near the tips most likely) and the plane must also be very close in order to see it detailed enough (and planes to close move to fast for you to actualy realise what is going on). However this explenation is generaly a mistake made by trying to look for paterns, because the lights where triangular then the object must be triangular in shape right? WRONG!! In fact there is no reason to sugest that it was th B2 nor that it was a single plane (or aplane at all). But given that there is an active Airforce field nearby, there are a couple of things that are expected to form that patern quite often in fact, and surprisingly enough it explains not only every objection you raised but alos other points such that in a city with so many people, why only few saw the UFO's.
Here is a clue:

THADA!!!!!!!

Jet aircraft make noises. And some reports also have it that the space between the lights weren't transparent, blocking out the sight of stars in the background.


I feel we've talked enough about this case. Shall we leave it at that?

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Right, and you can think about aliens with no alien visitation.

Actualy you can, there isn't any implication between existing aliens and they visiting us. I can concieve of an alien without the suficient space traveling technology to get out of their local system like us.

Jet aircraft make noises.

And? And how do you know it is a jet (turbo jet, ramjet, scramjet) and not a turbofan ( or turboprop)?
Let's forget about the fact that even if they were in perfect conditions to hear the engine that they would simply forget that detail when the story is retold to become something completly different. You are forgeting that military aircrafts (those that usualy tend to fly in formation) have a special interest to be build muffled to atract less attention as possible, besides given the relative speeds I would estimate that the crafts would have been to far for you to hear it.

And some reports also have it that the space between the lights weren't transparent, blocking out the sight of stars in the background.

Even tough planes have a wingspan that would partialy obscure the space between, and even tough the fact the the lights would obfuscate any reference in a particularly dark background, I don't think that is the proper justifications. They have never seen anything blocking out the path of stars in the spaces in between even tough they have reported it. They have reported it to be so despite the fact despite the fact that it never happen, they are just convicted that it was so when they try to recal the experience which in itself was aready biased by the ilusion that it was single entity when they tryed to recognise the form (and the mind plays a trick on you, specialy on a black background and the object isn't visible).
Even your own picture betray you, most of them are to black for anyone to see anything in between, but some, like this one (poor quality but noticeable):

Notice the peak between 3rd and 4th light, and the pale blue sky between them all:

Notice that the light gradient is untouched on the background:

Are clear enough to show that there is nothing in between, each light come from different individual object as it would requier to be by my hypotesis.


Now given that this was previously convicing enough of something that I now clearly showed that it is not. Given that most of the phenomena can be explained (and actualy expected) without using unwordly explenations. And that your judgement has continualy failed to grasp a know explenation before leaping into into crazy ones. Could it be that alien visitation is only in your head?

 

[borrofburi]

If you read my post, you'll notice that i'm actually trying to look for non-alien explanations. If you can offer some, please do.

This is the same failure of logic the theists fall into, namely that of some crazy false dichotomy. In this case it's: either we can explain it or aliens are real and have come to earth and did it... Err... no.

 

[mirandansa]

Right, and you can think about aliens with no alien visitation.

Actualy you can, there isn't any implication between existing aliens and they visiting us. I can concieve of an alien without the suficient space traveling technology to get out of their local system like us.

Yes.

Jet aircraft make noises.

And?

And the witnesses heard no sound.

And how do you know it is a jet (turbo jet, ramjet, scramjet) and not a turbofan ( or turboprop)?

A turbofan is a type of jet engine. And i was talking about the 7 aircraft in the "THADA" picture.

Let's forget about the fact that even if they were in perfect conditions to hear the engine that they would simply forget that detail when the story is retold to become something completly different.

The reports i'm talking about were made at the very night.

You are forgeting that military aircrafts (those that usualy tend to fly in formation) have a special interest to be build muffled to atract less attention as possible, besides given the relative speeds I would estimate that the crafts would have been to far for you to hear it.

I'm not forgetting that.

I'm also not forgetting that the nearby military base had been existent for 50+ years. For all those years of military aircraft passing by, why would hundreds of the people suddenly react to what you think is the case, in the way they did, specially on that day? For them, the phenomenon was extremely unusual.

Notice the peak between 3rd and 4th light, and the pale blue sky between them all:

Notice that the light gradient is untouched on the background:

Are clear enough to show that there is nothing in between, each light come from different individual object as it would requier to be by my hypotesis.

Ghost Knight, these aren't the V lights in the first place. The video footage of the V lights is here.

And that your judgement has continualy failed to grasp a know explenation before leaping into into crazy ones. Could it be that alien visitation is only in your head?

I don't know if aliens have visited this planet.

 

[mirandansa]

If you read my post, you'll notice that i'm actually trying to look for non-alien explanations. If you can offer some, please do.

This is the same failure of logic the theists fall into, namely that of some crazy false dichotomy. In this case it's: either we can explain it or aliens are real and have come to earth and did it... Err... no.

Putting words in my mouth.