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

I could see, possibly, great strides have been made in electric motor ducted fan VTOL propulsion systems and taken to higher stages of development in the black projects world (beyond what the general population would see) and incorporated in non standard aircraft design. And of course most of the earlier disadvantages corrected through further development.

One of the many advantages of this type of motor setup is...its practically silent in operation.

Source Link: en.m.wikipedia.org...

Here’s just a basic example



Imagine larger and more robust electric motor ducted fan’s installed vertically into a disc or triangle or V airframe....and then add the same independent control to each motor with a much more sophisticated ESC (Electronic Speed Controller) type that the quad, sext, and oct Drones use today. Come to think of it, dust off the Ol Avrocar and retrofit with today’s drone electronics and now maybe it will fly a hell of a lot better! Also retrofit drone electronics into the Ol Moller flying car!

Here ...take a look at this and then think of it as being supersized built to carry human’s ...(go to link to play vid)

www.adifoaircraft.com...

Today is the 25th anniversary of the Phoenix Lights.

Perhaps the last major UFO event of the twentieth century in the USA.

originally posted by: mirageman
Today is the 25th anniversary of the Phoenix Lights.

Perhaps the last major UFO event of the twentieth century in the USA.

It was never any kind of UFO event. It was only to gullible people who did not want to accept the official explanation supported by the popular night film superimposed with a daylight version that showed the dropped flares disappearing behind a mountain range. The event is rightly called the Phoenix flares.

The first event showing lights moving across the nigh sky in a triangular pattern cannot be called UFOs as the evidence is lacking.

a reply to: idusmartias

That's pretty much what this thread was all about.

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: idusmartias

That's pretty much what this thread was all about.

So why did you post your reply that leads nowhere? It was best left forgotten as nothing is gained by reviving.

a reply to: idusmartias

It most certainly can be called a ufo event. The fact you choose to ignore hundreds of witnesses because a lack of photographic evidence doesnt change that.

a reply to: idusmartias

Why not?

As you can see from the post above this one, it isn't the best left forgotten. Ufology recycles EVERYTHING, even hoaxes.

It's sometimes good to remind ourselves of its history and how older cases were explained. So far there are no cases proven involving aliens or even magical quantum consciousness creating a new reality bubble in the fabric of space time.

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: idusmartias

Why not?

As you can see from the post above this one, it isn't the best left forgotten. Ufology recycles EVERYTHING, even hoaxes.

It's sometimes good to remind ourselves of its history and how older cases were explained. So far there are no cases proven involving aliens or even magical quantum consciousness creating a new reality bubble in the fabric of space time.

I was the original alien-doubter and I did not accept as true accounts of alien abductions because of no evidence. I never denied the reality of UFOs after I had my excellent 5 or 6 sightings, videotaping one. But I always wondered if there were beings inside the craft. Then I started seeing videos with UFOs connected with our moon. And then, to my disappointment but having to accept the premise, on "Paranormal Caught On Camera" videos were shown taken with cellphones of UFOs with the occupants being visible and they resembled the "classic greys". So perhaps there are no real cases proven involving aliens, as you stated, I have to change my mindset about their reality. Now it's a waiting game.

originally posted by: Etathia
a reply to: idusmartias

It most certainly can be called a ufo event. The fact you choose to ignore hundreds of witnesses because a lack of photographic evidence doesnt change that.

The Phoenix lights consisted of two events in the same evening, one around 10pm and another over an hour earlier.

The second event around 10pm is identified as a flare drop, and there is lots of photographic evidence, but even in that case, there are plenty of eyewitnesses claiming things contrary to what the photographic evidence shows, so that single case and all the video analysis is enough to show us that eyewitness observations of unknown lights in the sky are not reliable.

We of course have many other examples, like the mothership sighting in Yukon. There were some lights in the sky. Some witnesses reported just that, and other witnesses looking at the same thing thought the lights were connected and some even thought they were blocking out the stars, but that was only an understandable optical illusion. All the witnesses thought the lights wer closer than they really were, and not by a little bit, by large amounts. Some even thought it was a "close encounter", but it was not. The lesson we all should learn from these examples is that eyewitness accounts of unknown lights in the sky cannot be taken at face value.

For the first event in Phoenix, there is only one video, but it's enough to show that the lights in a V-formation are not connected, so the witnesses who thought they were connected were just misinterpreting what they were looking at as proven by the video.

Is that case still a UFO case? That depends on how you define UFO. The witness who saw the V-formation through his telescope describes this:

www.astronomyufo.com...

The shape of the aircraft described closely matches A-10s, which happens to be a relatively quiet aircraft, possibly explaining why some people heard the aircraft engine noise and other people didn't, maybe in areas with higher background noise.

Nobody has been able to positively identify the aircraft as A-10s, but given their resemblance to A-10s, even if they were some similar-looking aircraft, I think it's debatable if that really meets the definition of a UFO. I would call them unidentified aircraft, not UFOs. The astronomyufo.com link discusses some other possibilities for the aircraft with squarish wings, besides A-10s.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Etathia
a reply to: idusmartias

It most certainly can be called a ufo event. The fact you choose to ignore hundreds of witnesses because a lack of photographic evidence doesnt change that.

The Phoenix lights consisted of two events in the same evening, one around 10pm and another over an hour earlier.

The second event around 10pm is identified as a flare drop, and there is lots of photographic evidence, but even in that case, there are plenty of eyewitnesses claiming things contrary to what the photographic evidence shows, so that single case and all the video analysis is enough to show us that eyewitness observations of unknown lights in the sky are not reliable.

We of course have many other examples, like the mothership sighting in Yukon. There were some lights in the sky. Some witnesses reported just that, and other witnesses looking at the same thing thought the lights were connected and some even thought they were blocking out the stars, but that was only an understandable optical illusion. All the witnesses thought the lights wer closer than they really were, and not by a little bit, by large amounts. Some even thought it was a "close encounter", but it was not. The lesson we all should learn from these examples is that eyewitness accounts of unknown lights in the sky cannot be taken at face value.

For the first event in Phoenix, there is only one video, but it's enough to show that the lights in a V-formation are not connected, so the witnesses who thought they were connected were just misinterpreting what they were looking at as proven by the video.

Is that case still a UFO case? That depends on how you define UFO. The witness who saw the V-formation through his telescope describes this:

The shape of the aircraft described closely matches A-10s, which happens to be a relatively quiet aircraft, possibly explaining why some people heard the aircraft engine noise and other people didn't, maybe in areas with higher background noise.

Nobody has been able to positively identify the aircraft as A-10s, but given their resemblance to A-10s, even if they were some similar-looking aircraft, I think it's debatable if that really meets the definition of a UFO. I would call them unidentified aircraft, not UFOs. The astronomyufo.com link discusses some other possibilities for the aircraft with squarish wings, besides A-10s.

The first claimed sighting:


The above is a fanciful sighting as the video that was shown a few times does not resemble the drawing. The lights shown in the video are asymetrical and you can see individual light movement. In my opinion, not one alien craft but individual American craft possibly heading to Phoenix.

Wikipedia:
"There were two distinct events involved in the incident: a triangular formation of lights seen to pass over the state, and a series of stationary lights seen in the Phoenix area. The United States Air Force identified the second group of lights as flares dropped by A-10 Warthog aircraft that were on training exercises at the Barry Goldwater Range in southwest Arizona. Witnesses claim to have observed a huge carpenter's square-shaped UFO, containing five spherical lights or possibly light-emitting engines. Fife Symington,[3] the governor of Arizona at the time, years later said he witnessed this incident, describing the object as being "otherworldly."[4]"

It is also my opinion that there NOT hundreds of witnesses to the flare drop because it occurred NOT over Phoenix but in the safe distance.

Wikipedia:
"However, skeptics claim that the video is evidence that mountains not visible at night partially obstructed views from certain angles, thereby bolstering the claim that the lights were more distant than UFO advocates claim.[18]

The U.S. Air Force explained the second event as slow-falling, long-burning LUU-2B/B illumination flares dropped by a flight of four A-10 Warthog aircraft on a training exercise at the Barry M. Goldwater Air Force Range in western Pima County. According to this explanation, the flares would have been visible in Phoenix and appeared to hover due to rising heat from the burning flares creating a "balloon" effect on their parachutes, which slowed the descent.[21] The lights then appeared to wink out as they fell behind the Estrella mountain range to the southwest of Phoenix.

A Maryland Air National Guard pilot, Lt. Col. Ed Jones, responding to a March 2007 media query, confirmed that he had flown one of the aircraft in the formation that dropped flares on the night in question.[21] The squadron to which he belonged was in fact at Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona, on a training exercise at the time and flew training sorties to the Goldwater Range on the night in question, according to the Maryland Air National Guard. A history of the Maryland Air National Guard published in 2000 asserted that the squadron, the 104th Fighter Squadron, was responsible for the incident.[22] The first reports that members of the Maryland Air National Guard were responsible for the incident were published in The Arizona Republic in July 1997.[23]"

The flares are shown to have dropped behind the mountain in the daylight video duplicating the same view as the now famour night video.

It's time this silly topic was put to bed and forgotten.

This was shown on a TV program on the Travel Channel sometime back…...can’t recollect the name of the particular show.



Seems to me, if they were flares, they would leave visible smoke trails in the night sky as seen, as they are slowly descending ….imo.

👽🛸🍺

I’ve screen captured a zoomed portion of the Phoenix Lights…

Then superimposed the night time flares of the adjacent 1997 Army flares demonstration…shown in my previous post.

I show the Army flares in motion with the illumination of the flares slowly descending with their smoke trails, surrounding smoke and the brilliance of the illumination.

I also auto-edited the 1997 Army flares drop to show an un-animated 1997 Army flares drop screenshot without the surrounding smoke and the brilliance of the illumination, re-sized and placed in line with the Phoenix Lights.

Once again, imo, if the Phoenix Lights were flares, you’d have surrounding smoke and brilliance of the illumination around each individual flare.

Or

If they were flares and without those two elements, surrounding smoke and brilliance of the illumination (which is impossible for combusting flares to do imo), the expectation would be to see just the fireball of the flare and the singular brightness of the trail as shown in line with the Phoenix “Lights”

I don’t see any conditions such as that with the Phoenix Lights. IMO

What those “Lights” are, I cannot say…. in my opinion (without definite proof) the “Lights” do not exhibit the characteristics of flares in the night time sky, as I presently understand combustible fiery flares. I don’t know of any smokeless, brightless.. flare technology being developed. For me the Phoenix Lights remain an Unidentified Flying Object(s)….either one huge craft or a squadron of smaller craft in formation in this dimension or popping in from another dimension.

Perhaps the Aliens have their own flare technology which is what they are exhibiting for humans to see…. 🤔



Also, typically, flares are used to illuminate the surface ground area below them as they descend…..were there any reports of this happening by witnesses? In other words, besides the lights in the sky, was the ground lit up below them? Hmmmm



👽🛸🤔

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
This was shown on a TV program on the Travel Channel sometime back…...can’t recollect the name of the particular show.

Seems to me, if they were flares, they would leave visible smoke trails in the night sky as seen, as they are slowly descending ….imo.

👽🛸🍺

Visible from what distance?

I expect if you were close enough to them as in your example, you might be able to see smoke trails.

But post some images of flares with smoke trails at a greater distance, and eventually, the light may be the only thing bright enough to see, meaning you won't see the smoke trails at a great enough distance, even if they are there.

The other thing you should check is what type of flares are shown in your comparison photo?

It seems possible that some types of flares emit more smoke than others, and there are flares of various types, so you should compare apples to apples if you want to make a fair comparison consistent with critical thinking skills. The type of flares around 10pm in the Phoenix lights incident were said to be LUU-2 type illumination flares.

LUU-2 Flare

reply to: Ophiuchus1

Once again, if you compare the same thing at different distances, you can't assume it will look the same at a greater distance. What is the distance to the flares in each example you are comparing?

Here is another example where the analysis is deeply flawed if you disregard the distance in a comparison.
Christopher Mellon claimed that if the pentagon-released UFO videos showed aircraft, we would be able to see the wings.

This is both true or false, depending on the distance, so you can't ignore the distance in these comparisons. Here are some actual images made with the same FLIR camera, showing that you can only see the wings when the aircraft are close, or if the zoom is sufficiently magnified.

www.youtube.com...


Here are the same two aircraft seen with lower zoom:



Claiming you can't see the wings (or smoke) without taking distance and/or zoom into account seems like a claim from a person lacking in any competent analytical skills, which is definitely the case with Chris Mellon, because the linked video does show planes where the wings cannot be seen, in direct contradiction to the flawed claims Chris Mellon has made. The flawed analysis is the result of not taking distance and/or zoom levels into account, so try to learn from Mellon's mistakes.

The aircraft wings also couldn't be seen on the infamous Chile UFO, so that is an example that Chile spent years investigating and they apparently didn't realize that wings can't be seen if the airplane is far enough away on the FLIR video.
Chilean Navy "UFO" video - Aerodynamic Contrails, Flight IB6830

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I see your point of distancing and flare types that may vary from the perspective of where they are being viewed from.


….. “It seems possible that some types of flares emit more smoke than others, and there are flares of various types, so you should compare apples to apples if you want to make a fair comparison consistent with critical thinking skills. The type of flares around 10pm in the Phoenix lights incident were said to be LUU-2 type illumination flares.

LUU-2 Flare ”…….

Finding out the type of flares used are specifics only the technical advisor on the production of the show where the clip was featured from on the Travel Channel may know….as I mentioned, I don’t remember the specific show I screen captured from…to possibly look at the credits and find a technical person by name to possibly contact.

Here’s a wiki

Flare (countermeasure)

I did mention…” were there any reports of this happening by witnesses?”… meaning closer up to the lights.


👽🛸🤓🍺

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
Here’s a wiki

Flare (countermeasure)


👽🛸🤓🍺

You just illustrated my point about comparing apples and oranges.

You posted a wiki about Flare (countermeasure), but the LUU-2 illumination flares in the Phoenix incident are NOT countermeasure flares. You're not the only one doing this, I've seen others trying to compare countermeasure flares to illumination flares and they have different functions, not hidden in their names (countermeasure flares are for countermeasures, and illumination flares are for illumination). The countermeasure flare article doesn't mention the word "parachute" but parachutes are present on the LUU-2 illumination flares, which explains why some people thought flares should have fallen faster than they did.

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
This was shown on a TV program on the Travel Channel sometime back…...can’t recollect the name of the particular show.

Seems to me, if they were flares, they would leave visible smoke trails in the night sky as seen, as they are slowly descending ….imo.

👽🛸🍺

If there is no light source shining on the flares, then the blackness of sky will hide any smoke. Since the daylight video was superimposed on the nighttime video, you cannot question the result which is each individual flare dropping behind a mountain peak. It is what it is.

LOL the only thing dumber than threads like this are the posts where people say "well done, you've done a fine job of research". Research, in their minds, equates to youtube videos and internet articles supporting their preconceived conclusion. There is NEVER an attempt to get at the truth, only an attempt to debunk. Sorry, no respect intended.

I know people, personally, who witnessed both events. They aren't stupid, they aren't so ignorant they'd miss smoke from flares. They could not see, for an incredibly large portion of the sky, stars. No, the OPs "explanation" of that is really laughable to the point where I'm embarrassed that someone actually posted that drivel.

Thousands of people were there. That the military attempted to cover this event almost immediately by dropping a few pathetic flares explains NOTHING about the origin of these objects.

Poor try, OP. Most people can see through your kind of junk.

I’d lean more towards accepting the Phoenix Lights as flares….if someone could show whiteish flares being deployed in the night sky holding somewhat steady in line like the Phoenix Lights, versus the amber colored flares descending at uneven heights together.



👽🛸🧐🍺

originally posted by: Visiting ESB
They aren't stupid, they aren't so ignorant they'd miss smoke from flares.
...
That the military attempted to cover this event almost immediately by dropping a few pathetic flares explains NOTHING about the origin of these objects.

Your post is incoherent in the context of this thread. First you say people wouldn't miss smoke from flares. then you seemingly admit that flares were indeed dropped.

Maybe it would help if you actually read the thread instead of posting such contradictory nonsense. Many of your points were explained in detail in this thread. We know for example that people can misperceive stars being blocked out by apparently large objects, which is what happened in this well-documented case:



In that case we know the perception of stars being blacked out was a misperception (read this thread for how this can happen), so it's not unreasonable to think it can happen in other cases too. It's inappropriate of you to suggest that because a witness has a misperception that makes them "stupid", even very smart people can have such misperceptions.

little Micky, World record holder for mentioning Yukon, only bout the 500,000 time.
Meanwhile, Micky has got everyone's number.
Commanders,real top gun fighter pilots,more, much much more than 5,000 plus service women & men in a cutting edge state of the Art Nuclear Fleet,but don't worry, mickies got his ball of string down pon his garage,and the entire shabang nailed down.He is having a Dandelion Seed Salad today, because no one referenced extensively below, has a Scrooby Doo, eh MickySta!
www.ranker.com...