(Part 1) The Phoenix Lights - Laying To Rest The Myth

I saw the Phoenix lights. They flew right over my house. I'm talking about the V and not the lights hanging out. I believe that the lights hanging out were flares. I've seen that video with the day/night overlay and it was pretty convincing. I believe that they were dropped by the govt to create confusion about the whole event. As for the V.... I've seen many things in the sky. I've seen choppers, fighter jets, even a stealth once. This was nothing I'd ever seen. I have seen the A-10 fly. It's not THAT quiet. I do not think it was otherworldly, I believe I was able to see something we have being kept a secret. No matter what.... it will always be one of the coolest things I have ever seen.

originally posted by: universalbri
a reply to: MissMars

Thanks, Miss. I had someone else flame me for lack of credibility. I've lurked on ATS for years, and admittedly should have been participating with what I know LONG before now.

I'm like many others coming out of government service. I was afraid for my life and my family's life.

I know that's not a problem any longer. And there's SO MUCH MORE going on than what you're all reading about here.

Some bad. Some good. I try not to judge.

But my advice is. Go outside. Pop a blanket on the ground with your loved one.

And look to the skies more often.

The stars deserve more attention.

Because they have something incredible coming our way.

Thank you for your very interesting posts! Don't leave us hanging, though, please tell us more about what you know. It sounds like you have some information you could share, and I'm all ears.

a reply to: hockeyd44

Great. Just more cooberation that people that know they saw something extraordinary are important. I would like every one of you in a room, to be interrogated by those that think you saw a formation of aircraft, and let's see what the public reaction is to what you have to say. On the record like this, your testimony can not be twisted around to conform to their agenda.

originally posted by: charlyv

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: charlyv
The analysis is good. No question. However, it flies in the face of the testimony of some of the witnesses.

Eyewitness testimony is the lowest standard of evidence. The other evidence Bonez presented (the videos) trumps it.

I think in this day and age, Eyewitness testimony trumps photographic evidence, because we cannot even authenticate them anymore due to our technology, it made that switch rather fast.

I have seen some of the interviews that were done on people who describe a huge solid object. Sure, there are liars and fakes , but if you have enough of them that cooberate a story well, then there is something else afoot. That testimony, again, flies in the face of the data presented, so you have to put a nail in that testimony that explains it.

This is a great post, thank you. Frankly, these people who decry eyewitness testimony as worthless are clearly not really interested in understanding the UFO situation, for so much of what we know about aliens and abductions come primarily from witnesses and whistleblowers.

To deny or ignore the eyewitness evidence is counter-productive, unless the intent is to weaken the body of evidence supporting alien contact. It should come as no surprise that the OP is ignoring the great body of witness testimony, his obvious bias is evident simply in the title of this thread.

Thanks for your post.

Seeing an intelligently controlled object from another world is up there with seeing actual magic. It's a mind blowing thing if real. That said... Take the best magician or illusionist on the planet... As soon as he says I'm going to show you a real UFO... First... Let's dim all the lights please.... Sorry, I no longer buy it as real. That's right, as much as I would love to think beings from another world are visiting us... This night time sighting BS has to stop.

Night time sighting of something enormous sounds sketchy. Why the need for night? In magic, it's to hide all the wires and fakery.

There are other better accounts out there.

originally posted by: draknoir2
a reply to: jaffo


The OP was cherry picking testimony which, in my book, is not objective.

Witnesses who saw stars through the "formation" were cited as reliable while those who saw a solid mass were either not listed or labeled "mistaken".

Indeed, glad somebody else noticed how the OP is framing this. The bias is evident.

a reply to: debonkers

To deny or ignore the eyewitness evidence is counter-productive, unless the intent is to weaken the body of evidence supporting alien contact. It should come as no surprise that the OP is ignoring the great body of witness testimony, his obvious bias is evident simply in the title of this thread.

Or is it that witness testimony is known to be inherently unreliable for reasons of how our brains work and record events.

Many people believe that memory works something like a videotape. Storing information is like recording and remembering is like playing back what was recorded. With information being retrieved in much the same form as it was encoded. However, memory does not work in this way. It is a feature of human memory that we do not store information exactly as it is presented to us. Rather, people extract from information the gist, or underlying meaning.

In other words, people store information in the way that makes the most sense to them. We make sense of information by trying to fit it into schemas, which are a way of organizing information.

Schemas are mental 'units' of knowledge that correspond to frequently encountered people, objects or situations. They allow us to make sense of what we encounter in order that we can predict what is going to happen and what we should do in any given situation. These schemas may, in part, be determined by social values and therefore prejudice.
www.simplypsychology.org...

originally posted by: Staroth
a reply to: _BoneZ_

This thread will show that the first event was a formation of planes, and that the second event was flares dropped by the military during a training exercise.

I guess thousands of testimony's along with video and pictures mean nothing??? Furthermore, flares do not fly around a state(s) for 300 miles. I'm calling BS on this thread. You obviously do NOT know all the facts about this event.

It's not that he doesn't know all the facts, it's that he's choosing to ignore the facts that don't support his argument. It's like a criminal case. You leave out the details that you don't have an explanation for. Then you say the evidence you've presented is the only evidence that matters, ignore any contradictory information or flaws in my argument.

originally posted by: _BoneZ_

Again with the "hundreds" or "thousands of people". There were only a dozen or so that claimed the lights were a solid object. If you know of a witness list that includes more than two dozen witnesses claiming the lights were a solid object, please post it here.

In the mean time, facts prove silly exaggerations are silly.

If you know a witness list that supports it wasn't a solid object that's greater than the witnesses that say it was, please post it here. It goes both ways. You seem real sure of yourself there were only a dozen or so, what's your evidence to come to that conclusion?

He doesn't have a list to prove his contention and neither do you. There's probably no such list either way, there are no official documents listing people who've come forward and what they claimed, it's all anecdotal, so don't play that game.

At best, one can get a reasonable approximation of the people that called about SOMETHING. Judging by 911 calls, calls and letters to local officials, media, etc. I think we can at least all agree that was significant.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: _BoneZ_

Very good information here, you almost have me totally convinced. The one thing which prevents me from completely believing this event comprised of totally natural phenomena is the way the Governor reacted at that infamous press conference where they brought out a guy in the alien suit, and then he later changed his story to say he thought it was actually an alien craft. It seems to me that if the version of events described in this thread are correct then the local government should have had an explanation very quickly, but it has taken a very long time for the supposed facts to arise.

At first the local government wasn't interested, then they were forced to care about this, then they got stonewalled or just weren't given any useful explanation. Then it went up the ladder to the state government, and then to the state senators. None of them got anywhere. If the explanation were as benign as the OP suggests, there literally would be no reason to not just say it upfront and be done with it. The whole thing literally could've been resolved the next day.

The Governor didn't even offer an answer at that press conference, if I recall. And his comments in the years since carry a lot of weight, IMO. Unless people are claiming he was delusional too.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: debonkers

To deny or ignore the eyewitness evidence is counter-productive, unless the intent is to weaken the body of evidence supporting alien contact. It should come as no surprise that the OP is ignoring the great body of witness testimony, his obvious bias is evident simply in the title of this thread.

Or is it that witness testimony is known to be inherently unreliable for reasons of how our brains work and record events.

And yet our jails and prisons are full of people convicted on witness testimony. It's not without flaws, but its reliable enough to be admissible in our court systems, so it obviously has great value.

originally posted by: _BoneZ_

originally posted by: Urantia1111
Um, no. Hundreds reported seeing a physical craft at close range.

Sorry, but that's not correct. Hundreds of people reported seeing the lights. There were only a handful of people that reported seeing a "craft".

There were just as many that saw the lights, and that they were all separate and not of a singular craft. Post #3 shows why people thought they saw a single large craft where there was none.

Post #3 does nothing to show why people looking up over their house saw a low flying solid object block out the sky. Nothing. Illusory contour is not going to convince somebody an enormous craft is over their house. That's as implausible as anything else.

originally posted by: _BoneZ_
a reply to: gortex

I think some people are just skimming over the evidence, instead of actually reading and taking in everything that is available.

There's more out there, but this was sort of compressed to give the facts in a nutshell.

I think the whole lesson is you can't nutshell this. The other left out facts and details are intensely relevant.

a reply to: _BoneZ_

I've found the original footage of the first event posted by a chap who says he is Richard F Motzer lead MUFON investigator for Arizona in 1997 , the video shows it wasn't a solid craft.
Mr Motzer's belief is it was Military.



Further investigation shows Mr Motzer passed away in 2012 , RiP Sir.

I came to admire his work as a diligent researcher, and to follow the evidence no matter where it lead, even if it wasn't popular amongst his peers.
Richard, your memory will live on not only as a loving husband, father and friend, but also as a valued asset and truthseeker into the conundrum of Ufology.
www.theufochronicles.com...

originally posted by: jordan77
Post #3 does nothing to show why people looking up over their house saw a low flying solid object block out the sky. Nothing. Illusory contour is not going to convince somebody an enormous craft is over their house. That's as implausible as anything else.

I haven't seen any rebuttal to the post by timbolarian at the top of page 8 explaining why it's plausible. Saying it's implausible isn't an effective rebuttal, it only shows people haven't reviewed the science.


a reply to: gortex
Thanks, I learned something. I thought it was five objects but he says there were six and I think he might be right. I don't know why he's talking about project blue beam though, that doesn't seem relevant. If that video shows blue beam then it's a total failure but I'm pretty sure it's not blue beam.

Here's a link I had to a version of the earlier sighting on Discovery.
www.discovery.com...

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: jordan77
Post #3 does nothing to show why people looking up over their house saw a low flying solid object block out the sky. Nothing. Illusory contour is not going to convince somebody an enormous craft is over their house. That's as implausible as anything else.

I haven't seen any rebuttal to the post by timbolarian at the top of page 8 explaining why it's plausible. Saying it's implausible isn't an effective rebuttal, it only shows people haven't reviewed the science.

How about saying that some witnesses not only reported the blocking out of the stars, but also described the actual appearance of the surface of the craft's underside? Does the science in that post explain this, or should we also discard those accounts as "mistaken"?

a reply to: draknoir2

or should we also discard those accounts as "mistaken"?

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Yes.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: draknoir2

or should we also discard those accounts as "mistaken"?

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Yes.

Sorry, but you linked a video of distant planes in a V formation. The accounts to which I'm referring involved a slow, low pass where the surface was in clear view for quite some time.


As I've said before I'm inclined to believe that the event was a composite. Flares dropped by aircraft, planes flying in formation, and...

Just saying the first two do not seem to cover all the accounts. Never said anything about Alien craft.

a reply to: draknoir2

I think you are right. Witness testimony is witness testimony. You can't apply one standard to one group and another standard to another group.

I am all for the planes in formation causing illusory contours. Its a plausible explanation. What about a giant craft with lights that look like planes in formation?

I was all set to think this was case closed. Good work drak.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: draknoir2

I think you are right. Witness testimony is witness testimony. You can't apply one standard to one group and another standard to another group.

In this case though, isn't there photo evidence to support the group that saw individual craft but none for those saying it was a single large craft?

I am all for the planes in formation causing illusory contours. Its a plausible explanation. What about a giant craft with lights that look like planes in formation?

Wouldn't the lights have to at least move relative to each other? I thought the lights have been shown to change formation somewhat. I'm not certain about anything regarding this.