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

a reply to: play4keeps

Have a look at this thread US Air Force pilots struggle to explain mystery UFO seen 'falling from sky

It's obvious it plane contrails and a quick search on Google Images would confirm it.

Bill Kaysing a so called expert claimed we didn't go to the Moon based on his ideas on the photographs taken, he was NOT a photographer and was wrong.

Experts get things wrong.

As for your youtube link



We can see a faint star just below the top object of the 3 that make the triangle videos like that have been shown many times on here.

As for night vision forget IR thats old tech

originally posted by: play4keeps
www.youtube.com... I love this IR video capture, so you guys can compare it to flares and airplanes for reference.

I'm comparing the video you posted to what Jim Oberg asked you and maybe you and Fife Symington are illustrating his point.

First, the description of the video doesn't say "one UFO" it says

"FIRST OF 2019. THREE UFO'S."

And someone who said he has seen a triangular UFO also points out it could be mistaken for a TR3B but it's actually 3 separate lights:

"They are three separate lights, with no hull or "craft" in between the 3 points. I think this capture could otherwise be commonly mistaken as a Tr3B... but from the only Tr3B i've seen up close its not an equilateral triangle that the 3 lights make up... its an isosceles triangle. An elongated triangle shape is more consistent with what a craft intended to fly through the thicker lower atmosphere would be shaped like anyway.
-Rick Dangerous"

"TY, I CONCUR.
-UFO DON AMERICA"

UFO DON AMERICA is the one who posted the video, so he would have the original instead of this degraded quality version on youtube but even an analysis of that suggests both are right that it could be mistaken for one object but it's not, it's an example of the exact illusion we are talking about.

While it's true that Pilots may have skills in identifying known aircraft, they don't have special abilities to avoid the same misperceptions that we all are capable of and Hynek found in a large analysis of UFOs that pilots had one of the higher misperception rates in his study, so Fife Symington's pilot resume doesn't help his UFO witness reliability, on the contrary, his testimony simply doesn't trump the video evidence.

Besides, he is the one who ridiculed sightings of that UFO initially, bringing someone to the stage dressed in an alien costume

Governor Symington UFO press conference

"UFO enthusiasts were not amused, especially since the governor was believed to have seen nothing"

Regardless of what he saw or didn't see, it's hard to take him seriously when he pulls this and says the UFO is not to be taken seriously and later does a 180 and implies the UFO should be taken seriously.

This quote of Symington from your unidentified source is especially amusing:

"I don't know why people would ridicule it"

Isn't that what he did in the news conference? And he's your star witness?

Anyway I'm not ridiculing it, I have no doubt people saw two somethings, planes earlier and flares later. We have videos of the events consistent with planes and flares, yet no video exists that is consistent with what Symington later claimed to have seen, which is understandable why one person might not have a video, but if thousands of people saw it as claimed and it was flying slowly overhead why does the only video show lights that are not connected? The simplest explanation is in the phoenixnewtimes article linked below.

Some people cherry pick the witnesses they want to believe instead of looking at the overall evidence which suggests the witness reports were conflicting, so even if you want to focus on witnesses instead of the video, how can you not take these discrepancies into account?

www.phoenixnewtimes.com...

Some saw that the lights were not connected, others swear they saw a giant triangular craft joining them, some felt it was at high altitude, others claim it was barely over their heads and moving very slowly. All seem to be describing the same lights at the same time

So Symington says they were connected, other people say they weren't, and why would you even have any confidence in a source who ridicules the UFO and then says "I don't know why people would ridicule it"?

I believe other people saw the UFO but I'm not sure I believe Symington when he says he saw it because of his two-faced duplicity so in my opinion you couldn't have picked a more unreliable witness. I have more confidence in the witnesses in the phoenixnewtimes story who looked at the same UFO at the same time where some thought the lights were connected and some thought they were not connected, and had widely varying estimates of height and size.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

My still from the video above your post shows its not one object.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Arbitrageur

My still from the video above your post shows its not one object.

I was still writing my post when you posted that but thanks, I see that now, I starred that post.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
.....
I believe other people saw the UFO but I'm not sure I believe Symington when he says he saw it because of his two-faced duplicity so in my opinion you couldn't have picked a more unreliable witness. I have more confidence in the witnesses in the phoenixnewtimes story who looked at the same UFO at the same time where some thought the lights were connected and some thought they were not connected, and had widely varying estimates of height and size.

Symington's testimony is even worse than that. As Sheaffer has pointed out in detail, his claimed timeline of events is impossible.

badufos.blogspot.com...
Robert Sheaffer:
"I reminded Fox that Symington claimed to have seen news coverage of the lights on TV, then went outside to look. He says he walked down to where the news crews had been filming the lights (the flare drop), and then saw the V-shape fly over, big and mysterious. However, there was no news coverage of the sightings before the planes landed about 8:45, and there could have been nobody filming the "lights" prior to 10:00, because the flares had not yet been dropped. Therefore Symington's claimed sighting occurred after 10:00, probably well after, and hence is an obvious fabrication. "No, he saw it at 8:20. It was 8:20," Fox insisted. "How could he have seen news coverage of this by 8:20?", I asked. "Maybe he heard chatter on the radio or something," Fox said. "How could there have been news crews filming this by 8:20?", I asked? Fox was having no more of this conversation. "Why would Symington have made this up?", another man asked me. "Because of the news coverage it gave him, and feature stories in which he talks about his new business ventures. It would have cost a lot to buy the publicity he got for free by claiming a UFO sighting.""

a reply to: JimOberg
I already had little confidence in what Symington said about his UFO sighting, but it's about zero after reading that. Still, there are plenty of other people who actually did see UFOs, but it sounds like Symington jumped on the "I saw it too" bandwagon for some publicity. That contrasts with the news report that "the governor was believed to have seen nothing" and that sounds even more believable given his timeline problems and the fact he didn't say anything about his sighting at the time, when it would have meant more and perhaps given him some credibility.

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE
Here is ex-Arizona governor Fife Symington on the Phoenix lights incident, and he states he saw the craft:

1. He saw the craft and it was his opinion it was not of human origin (he is an ex air-force officer)

2. His office received hundreds of calls from people who saw something similar

3. He says yes the military did shoot up some flares, but that was much later than the majority of the sightings, and said what he saw definitely wasn't flares (again, ex air force officer)

4. People were panicking thus he did the press conference spoof, just to reduce the panic

5. Any debunking "explanations" that this was some kind of jet "V" formation are ridiculous and pure disinformation. Many witnesses were close to the craft, heard no noise at all before, during and after the craft passed over, and the craft was moving quite slowly, slow enough to stall any jets.

UFO debunkers want proof but always ignore it when it occurs. And ex air force officer and ex governor, you don't get much more credible than that.

The second video contains many more witnesses to this incident.

Arizona lights witness reports are throughout the documentary, but many start at about 1 min 25 secs in:

I guess the OP was unaware of the ex governor statements when the thread was created, because it seems if we gather all the facts this was a genuine unidentified aerial phenomena, and not any of the usual misinformation put out by the military such as flares or jets or missiles.

I agree.
Something very bizarre occurred on that fateful evening in 1997...

a reply to: Iamnotadoctor

"Any debunking "explanations" that this was some kind of jet "V" formation are ridiculous and pure disinformation. Many witnesses were close to the craft, heard no noise at all before, during and after the craft passed over, and the craft was moving quite slowly, slow enough to stall any jets. UFO debunkers want proof but always ignore it when it occurs. And ex air force officer and ex governor, you don't get much more credible than that. "

So how many cases do you want to see of witnesses -- including pilots -- watching a formation of bright fireballs [such as a reentering satellite, but other caustaive mechanisms are equally possible] and interpreting it as a large structured object with lights mounted on it....

The perception of a structured object with a sharp silhouette and glowing windows turns out to be repeatable, common witness reaction to a night-time fireball swarm moving horizontally, like a shallow meteor disintegrating or several aircraft with landing lights. The compelling existence proof of this possible non-ET explanation has been provided by satellite reentries that serendipitously create the same visual stimulus -- and the same witness misinterpretation -- all around the world, as shown here: www.jamesoberg.com...

Here are eyewitmess drawings based on observations of fireball swarms from reentering satellites. Does this 'defy common sense'?

Here's a document from the Center for UFO Studies:
www.cufos.org...

The issue is not, does it always happen?

It's ... can it SOMETIMES happen?

And that's enough to demolish the 'there's-no-earthly-explanation' claim.

a reply to: JimOberg
I know you are a serial skeptic/debunker so it’s just a case of you always scrounging as many points as you can to try and debunk it all.
There’s too much evidence that this was something more than just flares.
Especially the airforce denying anything occurred at first then suddenly change and claim it was only flares...

originally posted by: Iamnotadoctor
a reply to: JimOberg
I know you are a serial skeptic/debunker so it’s just a case of you always scrounging as many points as you can to try and debunk it all.
There’s too much evidence that this was something more than just flares.

Skeptics agree that it was more than just flares. It sounds like you haven't read the thread. People who just watched media coverage have to be hopelessly lost because it's widely recognized the media did a terrible job of reporting the events of this case. That might be part of the reason that Fife Symington has problems with his timeline, something you didn't even comment on when you re-posted his videos. Did you see the post about his timeline problems?

a reply to: Arbitrageur
Why are you bringing up Symington? I didn’t.

originally posted by: Iamnotadoctor
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Why are you bringing up Symington? I didn’t.

seeing as you quoted a whole post about Symington what else is one to assume?

a reply to: InhaleExhale
Oh yeah. But that was a couple of posts ago.

originally posted by: Iamnotadoctor
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Why are you bringing up Symington? I didn’t.

When you quote a whole post about Symington, and then say "I agree", then you are agreeing with those points about Symington is the way I interpret your post, so yes you brought him up.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale

originally posted by: Iamnotadoctor
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Why are you bringing up Symington? I didn’t.

seeing as you quoted a whole post about Symington what else is one to assume?

exactly.

originally posted by: Iamnotadoctor
a reply to: InhaleExhale
Oh yeah. But that was a couple of posts ago.

This case can be a little confusing, partially because of inaccurate or incomplete media reporting as I said, so it takes a little bit of attention span to figure this one out, maybe more than a couple of posts. I do believe witnesses other than Symington reliably reported what they thought they saw, and I'm not dismissing what they say so much as trying to interpret in the context of different witnesses having different estimates of height, size and speed, and other facets of the event, but they all definitely saw something, except I'm not convinced Symington even saw it. There's plenty of reason to doubt anything Symington says about the UFO (which he initially ridiculed), which is what the post you agreed to was talking about.

a reply to: Arbitrageur
So you are saying that you believe that he is a liar?

originally posted by: Iamnotadoctor
a reply to: Arbitrageur
So you are saying that you believe that he is a liar?

What else would explain the noted problems with his timeline?

More importantly, if he's not lying about seeing the UFO, and he really saw it, then why did he publicly ridicule the UFO sightings at the time, instead of saying "I saw it too" at that time? If he had said he saw the UFO when the event happened, then I might believe him. Wouldn't that have been a more reasonable response than what he actually did?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Governor Symington UFO press conference

"UFO enthusiasts were not amused, especially since the governor was believed to have seen nothing"

Regardless of what he saw or didn't see, it's hard to take him seriously when he pulls this and says the UFO is not to be taken seriously and later does a 180 and implies the UFO should be taken seriously.

If he really did see the UFO and pulled that stunt at the press conference the best I can say is that makes him untrustworthy and unreliable as a UFO witness, because a trustworthy and reliable witness would have not done that, they would have instead stated what they saw.

If you think he's not lying, what part of this account, if any, do you dispute?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
"...Symington claimed to have seen news coverage of the lights on TV, then went outside to look. He says he walked down to where the news crews had been filming the lights (the flare drop), and then saw the V-shape fly over, big and mysterious. However, there was no news coverage of the sightings before the planes landed about 8:45, and there could have been nobody filming the "lights" prior to 10:00, because the flares had not yet been dropped. Therefore Symington's claimed sighting occurred after 10:00, probably well after, and hence is an obvious fabrication."

a reply to: Arbitrageur
Well he was in a political position at the time, and he may have felt it inappropriate to comment because the encounter was so bizarre and it would create more chaos.
His press conference was more dismissive than denying anything actually occurred.

a reply to: Iamnotadoctor
"No comment" would have been preferable to what he did. But he didn't say "no comment", did he? He said people were taking it too seriously. Visitors from another world (which he later claimed would explain what he saw) shouldn't be taken seriously?

You didn't answer my question
"If you think he's not lying, what part of this account, if any, do you dispute? "