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

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I don’t dispute it.

a reply to: wmd_2008


Agree with your assessment. However, I know for a fact the metamaterials on the skin will create a variety of cloaking in visible spectrum. The object (I guess 3 distinct objects is what you are saying) is flying in excess multiple mach and perfect triad, so I don't know what to tell you other than, yes, experts get things wrong. I know what the object is because I worked on it. As Ben Rich said, "there are two types of UFOs, our and theirs."

Lots of skeptical experts here. It's an important job and someone has to do it.

Peace and love to all.

Very similar phenomena as Phoenix UFO was allegedly seen over Sweden (City of Eskilstuna 25 february 2019)


"The pair says they were sitting in their hot tub when at 22, they saw a triangular object traveling straight towards them at high speed. The object was, according to the couple, provided with flashing lights underneath and stopped for a short time above them before it disappeared again.

The couple drew on the object and reported on the incident to UFO-Sweden, which collects all reports on unidentified objects in the country.

...
Last year, 237 sightings were reported to UFO-Sweden, and 140 of them are identified as identified or IFO (identified flying objects).

The Flying Triangle is one of 26 cases that are still under investigation. Representatives of UFO-Sweden have inspected the site and met with the witnesses."


www.msn.com...
fall/ar-BBZAEFO?li=BBqxCu3



My note:
If these crafts are real and piloted, they probably have IR detection to be able to avoid unnecessary contact.
However sitting in a bubble bath would hide the normal IR signature. And the warm bath would of course be very strong IR response.
So, a good tip for UFO spotters i would say is to try to either create unnatural IR response where you are and at the same time hide your IR signature. Or cover yourself.

originally posted by: Histeria
My note:
If these crafts are real and piloted, they probably have IR detection to be able to avoid unnecessary contact.
However sitting in a bubble bath would hide the normal IR signature. And the warm bath would of course be very strong IR response.
So, a good tip for UFO spotters i would say is to try to either create unnatural IR response where you are and at the same time hide your IR signature. Or cover yourself.

You seem to have entirely missed the point of this thread.
The triangular formation over Phoenix was not one large object with lights on it, it was smaller separate objects as the photographic evidence shows here, the triangular formation was not constant:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: _BoneZ_
As you can see, the light at the upper-right of the image is already falling out of formation. By the end of the 43-second video, most of the lights have fallen out of formation, indicating that the lights are all separate vehicles, not one massive, single ship:

What is little-known are the witnesses that saw the "vee" formation, but saw that it was planes and not a solid object. One such witness is Mitch Stanley. A 21-year-old amateur astronomer who spends several nights a week in his backyard looking at the sky with his 10-inch Dobsonian, F 5.5 TELEVUE 32mm Plossl, which produces 43X magnification.

Here's Mitch with his telescope:

I can't say anything about what was seen over Sweden since I know nothing about that, but if it was a single large object, it was unlike the multiple smaller objects flying in a formation over Phoenix. Or could it actually be similar to Phoenix if it was really multiple aircraft flying in a triangle formation that were mistaken for a single large object by some witnesses? I don't know in Sweden either way, but the evidence in Phoenix is pretty clear.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur


I can't say anything about what was seen over Sweden since I know nothing about that, but if it was a single large object, it was unlike the multiple smaller objects flying in a formation over Phoenix. Or could it actually be similar to Phoenix if it was really multiple aircraft flying in a triangle formation that were mistaken for a single large object by some witnesses? I don't know in Sweden either way, but the evidence in Phoenix is pretty clear.

At 16:05 Davenport puts together the path of the 3 or 4 (possible) different ships. It's possible a group of planes even flew through there at some point and there is evidence from a group of pilots, I forgot who they were.
There are a few blocks where all the witnesses speak of the very slow moving object which too 10-15 minutes to get from Camelback mountain to directly above their head. They saw very large orange globe lights facing down and their descriptions are hard to match up with a formation of planes. Totally silent as well.

It's odd that Kurt Douglas saw a very bright light above airport airspace and the tower had no read on it? I don't know what that means?
There was another show where they took the path of one object which flew between the mountain peaks and used that to determine it's height off the ground, length and speed (it took 10-15 minutes to get directly above all the people standing in their yards). It's a very strange case.
Even lighting off flares 2 hours later is weird?
ANd no retired military person has come forth with any insight and like 25 years have gone by??

This lecture is really good anyways. Except for the part where he endorses Lynn Ketai theory about the flares being a ufo.
She has gone off the deep end. In another lecture she was trying to convince people that some flares on balloons (a more recent sighting) was really a ufo by using speculations about the man who did it. Even though a neighbor was talking to a news crew the next night saying he saw a guy releasing flares on a balloon. She was saying stiff like "why won't the guy reproduce the stunt" and his kid didn't even know about it" to try and debunk his story to demonstrate that this was an actual ufo.

While completely ignoring the local news report where the neighbor was pointing to the exact spot the balloons were being released from?
It was a sad day, our main Phoenix Lights advocate went to the dark side.
Anyways, Davenport getting behind that crap is a bummer.



www.youtube.com...

a reply to: _BoneZ_

As someone who was in the desert and clearly saw a really big SINGLE triangle shaped UFO blot out the night stars right over my head I have to disagree with you, 200%.

I watched IT for about 5 minutes.

originally posted by: SpartanStoic
a reply to: _BoneZ_

As someone who was in the desert and clearly saw a really big SINGLE triangle shaped UFO blot out the night stars right over my head I have to disagree with you, 200%.

I watched IT for about 5 minutes.

In March 1996 or another time?

a reply to: joelr

Same night as Phoenix lights but in north Phoenix, near what we now call Sonoran Preserve. Before the flares.

Sonoran Preserve

All those roads and preserve did not exist in 97. That was raw desert with some dirt roads. We were at about the Great Horned Owl trailhead parked in the darkness with no fire.

The object I saw did not have lights. It was a large single black triangle-v shaped wedge. My friends and I were freaked out because it was way to slow to be an airplane.

We saw the flares later and decided we probably needed to get back to Phoenix metro area.

originally posted by: SpartanStoic
The object I saw did not have lights. It was a large single black triangle-v shaped wedge.

It sounds like you saw something different than the folks in Phoenix saw, because they reported lights.

This was an artist's impression from those Phoenix sightings of the V-shaped object (before the flares) which shows the lights:

originally posted by: _BoneZ_

First Event - THE VEE

The videotape of that also shows lights.

So it's an interesting sighting you had, but it doesn't seem to corroborate the "Phoenix lights" story, if the object you saw had no lights.

originally posted by: joelr
This lecture is really good anyways. Except for the part where he endorses Lynn Ketai theory about the flares being a ufo.
She has gone off the deep end. In another lecture she was trying to convince people that some flares on balloons (a more recent sighting) was really a ufo by using speculations about the man who did it. Even though a neighbor was talking to a news crew the next night saying he saw a guy releasing flares on a balloon. She was saying stiff like "why won't the guy reproduce the stunt" and his kid didn't even know about it" to try and debunk his story to demonstrate that this was an actual ufo.

Yes, Davenport had some interesting comments, but you'd think he could recognize Lynn Ketai had gone off the deep end as you say. Or maybe he knows it, but doesn't admit it because it seems the UFO believers can be pretty harsh with people who are skeptical of their cherished "stars", of which Ketai might be one. Now it seems some people want to embrace the claims of Former Governor Symington, too even though his story has huge credibility problems.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

My current theory is that this was same object and turned lights on later,

But that doesn’t hold up to the telescope evidence.

When I do spend time I the desert at night I do look up often hoping to see something...

a reply to: SpartanStoic
You point out the problem with that theory, the telescope evidence, but more importantly the video tape, which you didn't mention, which documents that the Vee of lights wasn't one solid object.

What I wondered about and commented on in this thread, was a different hypothesis, that maybe more than one object was involved, with one being a group of 5-6 separate objects in V formation (as seen in the video and also Kurt Russell reported 6 objects), and perhaps a separate object which was a large triangle with lights on it, as illustrated in the newspaper.

The first problem with that hypothesis was the local news journal reporting that different people were apparently looking at the same part of the sky at the same time and reporting those two different things, so if they really were two separate things, why didn't they see both of them? They should have seen the V-formation of planes, and the V-shaped lights on the large black triangle, and people didn't report two lighted V-shapes at about 8:30-9PM, just one.

So, partly in response to my two object hypothesis, a part 2 was made of this thread to look at that possibility. I don't know if you saw part 2 of this thread or if anything matches up timing/location-wise with your sighting, but I also think exact times are hard to pin down for many UFO sightings without an obvious reference like they remember the sun was just setting when they saw the UFO, that's a helpful clue since we can look up the sunset time. But in looking at UFO reports, it's apparent that people aren't trained to look at their watches when they see a UFO so often the reported times are often guesstimates which are not entirely accurate or reliable. Link to part 2 found in the opening post:

-- Part 2 to this series can be found here: The Phoenix Lights - Laying To Rest The Myth (Part 2 with Map) --

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Arb has put his finger on the issue of interpretation of a formation of lights as a single large lit object, by some witnesses. It defies 'common sense' that so many ordinary people could make such a similar extraordinary misperception.

Except it has happened before under specific fully-documented circumstances. Here's my study on that seminal event:

Such a misperception is far more common than generally realized and for fireball swarms from reentering satellites has sparked extremely similar reports from around the world for decades, including over the Yukon in December 1996 [details at www.jamesoberg.com...].

originally posted by: JimOberg
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Arb has put his finger on the issue of interpretation of a formation of lights as a single large lit object, by some witnesses. It defies 'common sense' that so many ordinary people could make such a similar extraordinary misperception.

Except it has happened before under specific fully-documented circumstances. Here's my study on that seminal event:

Such a misperception is far more common than generally realized and for fireball swarms from reentering satellites has sparked extremely similar reports from around the world for decades, including over the Yukon in December 1996 [details at www.jamesoberg.com...].

Right but they said in the case of re-entering objects ~50% of the witnesses reported individual meteor like objects.
But no one reported seeing meteor like objects with a tail behind them in Phoenix Lights.
Also was Peter Davenport's information from the military dispatcher accurate? How a fighter jet was sent up to investigate which would be interesting but also the report about the pilot being disturbed at what he saw?

I think he plays a recording of the phone call in his lecture. That person has never come forward to confirm the story.
By now there must be some retired military person who was there that night who could say something?

a reply to: joelr

Right, the identity of the alleged fighter squadron -- Canadian 'snowbirds' -- remains undocumented.

As to Phoenix witnesses, there wouldn't be fire trails because the candidate stimulus wasn't a reentry swarm. There WERE witnesses who saw separate lights that shifted position, and one video that did show that.

Still an open case, at least Phase 1.

originally posted by: JimOberg
a reply to: joelr

Right, the identity of the alleged fighter squadron -- Canadian 'snowbirds' -- remains undocumented.

As to Phoenix witnesses, there wouldn't be fire trails because the candidate stimulus wasn't a reentry swarm. There WERE witnesses who saw separate lights that shifted position, and one video that did show that.

Still an open case, at least Phase 1.

Right, the Snowbirds:
badufos.blogspot.com...

but this was not that. Davenport in the lecture I linked to plays a recording of a phone call from the army base near Phoenix - Luke Base. It was the dispatcher for the aircraft (they claimed to be anyways) and said a fighter F16 was sent up to investigate lights or sightings and upon return the pilot was shaken and needed help getting out of his jet.
This was a local jet not the Snowbird group.
The Snowbirds were flying A-10s which do not have gigantic orange lights on the bottom and do not match up with the witness descriptions in one suburban area where several families all reported very low silent and huge lights, close to tree tops moving very slow.

Anyway,
www.youtube.com...

at 55:28 he plays the call from the military dispatcher

it's very interesting. The jet did intercept, the ufo dimmed it's lights, turned them back on and the jet left the scene and had no idea what it was.
There would be video from the lantern pod but the video, the pilot and the dispatcher have never since come forward.

Davenport claims in the video he does know the name of the pilot but he is not interested in speaking on the case.

Hmm.

originally posted by: JimOberg
a reply to: joelr

Right, the identity of the alleged fighter squadron -- Canadian 'snowbirds' -- remains undocumented.

As to Phoenix witnesses, there wouldn't be fire trails because the candidate stimulus wasn't a reentry swarm. There WERE witnesses who saw separate lights that shifted position, and one video that did show that.

Still an open case, at least Phase 1.

Right, the Snowbirds:
badufos.blogspot.com...

but this was not that. Davenport in the lecture I linked to plays a recording of a phone call from the army base near Phoenix - Luke Base. It was the dispatcher for the aircraft (they claimed to be anyways) and said a fighter F16 was sent up to investigate lights or sightings and upon return the pilot was shaken and needed help getting out of his jet.
This was a local jet not the Snowbird group.
The Snowbirds were flying A-10s which do not have gigantic orange lights on the bottom and do not match up with the witness descriptions in one suburban area where several families all reported very low silent and huge lights, close to tree tops moving very slow.

Anyway,
www.youtube.com...

at 55:28 he plays the call from the military dispatcher

it's very interesting. The jet did intercept, the ufo dimmed it's lights, turned them back on and the jet left the scene and had no idea what it was.
There would be video from the lantern pod but the video, the pilot and the dispatcher have never since come forward.

Davenport claims in the video he does know the name of the pilot but he is not interested in speaking on the case.

Hmm.

a reply to: joelr
I've lost confidence in Davenport (he is the "National UFO Reporting Center", it's an operation he runs out of his home). Look at this:

ufoupdateslist.com...

From: National UFO Reporting Center
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 18:16:12 -0800
To: George Fergus
Subject: Re: UFO Events Over Arizona, March 13, l997

Dear George,

Thanks for your message!!

The astronomer I alluded to in my report is not Mitch. I just
looked at the web page you cited, and I found his description
intriguing in some narrow regards, but I am QUITE confident that
the object(s) that went over AZ on that night were not
conventional aircraft.

Mitch is correct that each of the larger lights was, by at least
two good observers, reported to consist of two or three
individual lights.

However,... They apparently traveled from Henderson, NV, to
Paulden, AZ, in approximately 21 minutes--translating to
supersonic speed, probably. The lights were totally silent, with
only one person dissenting with this view.

What is up with this "translating to supersonic speed, probably" nonsense? It's less than 500 miles an hour, not anywhere near supersonic, and other calculations also show the speed maybe in the 400-500 mph range, which is well within the capabilities of conventional aircraft.

So the fact that he uses this made up and inaccurate justification for discounting they were ordinary jets should be of great concern to anybody who wants to cite Davenport as a reliable source.

As for the "completely silent", I have jets flying overhead all the time that I can't hear. I'm sure they're not silent but if they are above a certain altitude I can't hear them over the background noise and it's completely ignorant to use this as a reason to say they weren't conventional aircraft. And he admits one witness did hear their noise, maybe in a location where the background noise was lower?

Also he provides additional support that each light was not a single light but he had several reliable witnesses say the lights resolved into 2 or 3 lights upon closer observation. Witnesses other than the amateur astronomer Mitch mentioned in this thread. So even though he has additional reports confirming they were three lights as Mitch reported, how does he use this to confirm his belief they weren't ordinary aircraft? By making up the supersonic speed nonsense?

This is the drawing Tim Printy made of what Mitch described with the multiple lights, and Davenport apparently has additional witnesses to confirm this type of observation, that for some reason, he mentions as reliable sources yet seems to ignore them for what I can only guess is due to bias on his part:

www.astronomyufo.com...


So Mitch described that's what the lights looked like in his telescope. Davenport says he got additional reliable reports matching that, supporting that they were ordinary aircraft, and yet he dismisses those and makes up a "probably supersonic" claim that's not even true as a means to say they weren't ordinary aircraft? How can you trust him? I can't, this makes no sense if he's unbiased and wants to know the truth.

His e-mail confirms he got a report about a pilot needed help getting out of his aircraft, but there's no way to verify that story. He doesn't elaborate on the reason the pilot needed help getting out in this update:

ufoupdateslist.com...

Also, his statement seems to confirm that there may have been
military aircraft in the vicinity of the lights directly over
Phoenix. We have sources in Luke AFB, who have given us a
second-by-second account of the intercept by F-15c fighters, each
with a LANTIRN II imaging pod on its wing. The lead pilot needed
a bit of help to get out of the cockpit of his fighter, upon
landing...

Well Mitch described "squarish wings" which fits what ATC told the America West pilots, that they were CT-144s which have squarish wings. The F-15c has delta wings, not squarish wings, so again I think Davenport is not looking at this information objectively if he thinks Mitch was looking at F-15c fighters. Anyway I think even Davenport would agree Luke AFB didn't send out five F-15c planes, and Mitch saw 5 planes.

I wonder if anybody ever contacted Davis–Monthan Air Force Base to see if they would acknowledge 5 planes landing there that evening, since that's allegedly where the planes were headed.

Wikipedia and skeptics sites considered as valid sourcers? Despited the fact that they are incredibly biased?
Not good.
a reply to: _BoneZ_

Adding a comparison in design shape from the Horton Brother’s HO-13A to the Arizona “V”

Although the Horten Brother’s flying wing (“V” or Chevron shaped) HO-13A was a research sailplane....it demonstrated proof of concept design that an aircraft with such sharp angles, could fly. The Arizona “V” could have gotten it’s design roots based off of the German’s and we further developed it (size, sharp angles, etc.and no gondola of course) to the state of the art with an exotic propulsion system seen in AZ and maybe elsewhere....

I can imagine how unsettling it would be to see a formation flight at night. The aircraft exterior lights would be brighter than anything in the background and are moving around 300 mph. It sounds reasonable that fixating on the lights is going to create an optical illusion of a solid craft even at low altitudes.

The A-10 A/C is not a jet, it has modified commercial aviation turbofan engines that you won't hear when it's 10-25k feet above ground level.