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

originally posted by: niladmirari13
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...

From your source:

Eyewitness Mitch Stanley Watched The Lights Through His Telescope And Saw That They Were Airplanes

Three months after the Phoenix Lights incident, the Arizona New Times ran an article on then 21-year-old Mitch Stanley who was using his telescope for stargazing on the night of March 13 when he saw the lights. Stanley's telescope was reported to be 60 times more powerful than the human eye, and he could clearly see the outline of seven planes that each emitted their own light.

Stanley claimed that his sighting of the planes was passed on to the local media, as well as Frances Barwood, but no one ever followed up with him. Barwood countered that she had passed along the information to Village Labs, a company in Tempe, AZ, that was investigating the possibility of the Phoenix Lights being something extraterrestrial.

True, that. I don't know what Barwood thought she would accomplish by mentioning a witness who saw planes to a biased lab that was using pseudoscience about videotape analysis spectroscopy to try to prove the flares weren't flares. It's not science to do "spectroscopy" on ordinary videotapes, so I never saw anything but nonsense come out of that lab run by Jim Dilettoso.

The ‘Phoenix Lights’: 20 years later, still the same set of planes and flares over Arizona

What they won’t tell you is that Dilettoso employs the language of science to mask that, given the tools he uses, he is incapable of doing what he claims to be doing.

So what? you say. Does anyone really care if a few oddballs gain notoriety from science fiction? Who are they hurting?

Dr. Paul Scowen, a visiting professor of astronomy at Arizona State University, cares.

“I become quite offended when people pull this sort of nonsense,” Scowen says. “We in the science business make our living doing this stuff to the best ability we can, and applying all of the knowledge that humankind has assembled to this point in science to figure out what’s going on. . . .

“Why should people care? Because it’s been so high-profile and they’ve been told lies. That’s why people should care.”

Suggest a closer look,much closer between March 10th 1997 & March 13th 1997
as detailed in link.
Splainned Away no doubt,as ALL misidentified by unreliable witnesses!
try changing that record, why? it's scratched.
www.academia.edu...

a reply to: niladmirari13
If you want to be completely illogical, I can't stop you, it's your right.
Science has shown again and again that eyewitnesses have significant misperceptions (which is why I mention the Yukon case, which was ranked one of the top ten UFO cases), so when we have a videotape showing the 8pm Phoenix lights wasn't a giant solid craft, and eyewitnesses claiming it was, the video evidence wins in that contest, always. Some people refuse to accept that because they apparently think eyewitnesses are more reliable than they are, but it's a completely illogical preference for an unreliable source over a reliable source, and I usually find bias among the people promoting such an illogical viewpoint.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

"Some people refuse to accept that because they apparently think eyewitnesses are more reliable than they are,... "

Especially with documented consistent misperceptions of a swarm of bright lights crossing the night sky, I think the implications of witness misperceptions of satellite reentries makes the point pretty solid.

Witness Reactions to Fireball Swarms from Satellite Reentries.
www.jamesoberg.com...

I'm only jumping in the thread, and it looks like it's mostly devolved into debunking and trolling anyway, but still, the event itself is important.

I vaguely remember the actual Phoenix Lights event itself in the 90's. As seen from TV news reports, on that night, during and after the event happened.

I remember several news reports that the Lights were unidentified. That was the mainstream news report, during the event.





...It was soon after the event, that the military ALSO dropped flares, in a similar formation as the UFO sighting. The military did so, a couple / few hours after the UFO sighting, IIRC.

And so then, since like 2 hours after the UFO sighting, since then we have video of military flares dropped the same night, same place, just shortly after the UFO sighting.

So it's been a confusion ever since the event happened, because within a couple/few hrs, there's military vids of flares, mixed in with the actual real UFO footage, so it's a confusion just to try to sort out the military flares vids, from the earlier real UFO vids.

I do know for sure that they were 2 distinct events, although only separated by a few hours, there was a real UFO event in Phoenix, witnessed by thousands of people, and reported as mysterious & unexplained, during the event.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
I'm only jumping in the thread, and it looks like it's mostly devolved into debunking and trolling anyway, but still, the event itself is important.

Typical of you to jump in without reading the subject matter. I see you're doing it again.

I do know for sure that they were 2 distinct events, although only separated by a few hours, there was a real UFO event in Phoenix, witnessed by thousands of people, and reported as mysterious & unexplained, during the event.

It might help if you actually read the opening posts of the thread before replying, which clearly cover the two events.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: _BoneZ_

First Event - THE VEE

...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Second Event - FLARES

I'm going to start with the second event because it's the most recognizable. When someone mentions "Phoenix Lights', the above image is the first thing to come to mind as images and videos of the second event were plastered all over newspapers, television, and websites.

The point made in the OP is true, that most documentaries seemed to post the videos of the flares in the second event. It was much less common for documentaries to mention or show the video of the first event. If the media confused or didn't clarify the two different events, this thread certainly did and you don't seem to have read the thread since it makes crystal clear which is which, in addition to providing analysis of the videos which takes most of the mystery out of the events, though perhaps not all. The main mystery that remains is the identity of the planes with squarish wings that Mitch Stanley saw through his telescope during the first event.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Typical of you to jump in without reading the subject matter. I see you're doing it again.

Because I actually experienced the live media event in the 90's, via the TV news stations of the time. It was being reported on live, to the whole country, and it was memorable.

There's no reason I'd need to read through 23 pages before I can mention my experience of the actual event itself. LOL!!

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: JamesChessman
I'm only jumping in the thread, and it looks like it's mostly devolved into debunking and trolling anyway, but still, the event itself is important.

Typical of you to jump in without reading the subject matter. I see you're doing it again.

I do know for sure that they were 2 distinct events, although only separated by a few hours, there was a real UFO event in Phoenix, witnessed by thousands of people, and reported as mysterious & unexplained, during the event.

It might help if you actually read the opening posts of the thread before replying, which clearly cover the two events.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: _BoneZ_

First Event - THE VEE

...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Second Event - FLARES

I'm going to start with the second event because it's the most recognizable. When someone mentions "Phoenix Lights', the above image is the first thing to come to mind as images and videos of the second event were plastered all over newspapers, television, and websites.

The point made in the OP is true, that most documentaries seemed to post the videos of the flares in the second event. It was much less common for documentaries to mention or show the video of the first event. If the media confused or didn't clarify the two different events, this thread certainly did and you don't seem to have read the thread since it makes crystal clear which is which, in addition to providing analysis of the videos which takes most of the mystery out of the events, though perhaps not all. The main mystery that remains is the identity of the planes with squarish wings that Mitch Stanley saw through his telescope during the first event.

Well I'm glad you're acknowledging the two separate events that both happened that night, a couple or few hours apart, in the same place.

That's absolutely the basic timeline of events and you're basically validating my 90's memory of the events. Even though you were just criticizing me for jumping in with my memory of the event, you also validated my recollection of the event.

Well so fine, you're just acknowledging that it's still unknown what the original sighting was. i.e. it's still an UFO, so thanks for validating that too.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
That's absolutely the basic timeline of events and you're basically validating my 90's memory of the events. Even though you were just criticizing me for jumping in with my memory of the event, you also validated my recollection of the event.

Well so fine, you're just acknowledging that it's still unknown what the original sighting was. i.e. it's still an UFO, so thanks for validating that too.

Yes I wasn't criticizing your recollection, just your lack of paying any attention to the opening post of a thread which is generally needed to post a reply which makes a worthwhile contribution to the thread.

Regarding Mitch Stanley's report of looking through his high magnification telescope and seeing planes with squarish wings, and the video of the first event showing the lights were independent objects and not one large solid object, I don't think "planes with squarish wings" meets the most common definitions of UFO, so you either have poor reading comprehension or else a very odd definition of "UFO" if it considers planes with squarish wings as UFOs. I would call them unidentified planes, not "UFOs". Here is a sketch of what Mitch Stanley described seeing through his telescope:

www.astronomyufo.com...

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: JamesChessman
That's absolutely the basic timeline of events and you're basically validating my 90's memory of the events. Even though you were just criticizing me for jumping in with my memory of the event, you also validated my recollection of the event.

Well so fine, you're just acknowledging that it's still unknown what the original sighting was. i.e. it's still an UFO, so thanks for validating that too.

Yes I wasn't criticizing your recollection, just your lack of paying any attention to the opening post of a thread which is generally needed to post a reply which makes a worthwhile contribution to the thread.

Regarding Mitch Stanley's report of looking through his high magnification telescope and seeing planes with squarish wings, and the video of the first event showing the lights were independent objects and not one large solid object, I don't think "planes with squarish wings" meets the most common definitions of UFO, so you either have poor reading comprehension or else a very odd definition of "UFO" if it considers planes with squarish wings as UFOs. I would call them unidentified planes, not "UFOs". Here is a sketch of what Mitch Stanley described seeing through his telescope:

www.astronomyufo.com...

Well you're just obnoxious. For your first point, it's just meaningless. The topic is a historical event, which I experienced via the live media of that time.

So just the fact that it's an important historical event, and that I experienced it in a way, that alone should be enough to contribute my experience of the event.

It's really meaningless to complain that I didn't read the thread before I related my memory of an important historical event.








For your second point, it's also lame and meaningless. You said yourself that the craft was unknown what exactly it was, and then you're criticizing me for calling it UFO, which just means Unidentified. It's literally a UFO because you just said it was Unidentified lol.

a reply to: JamesChessman

Ignore him, you can't tell him anything- even the things he himself has blurted. This forum is just a vehicle for his ego and nothing more. /rant


To the OP, very well presented. Personally I haven't read an explanation over the years that I find bulletproof and satisfactory, but all are interesting. For many of the rational and seemingly irrational explanations outside of literal little green men most are conceivably credible with very little grasping into flying saucer, black projects, or cover ups. Beyond that line obviously a great deal is possible, but perhaps I just don't find it necessary. The issue in my mind remains concretely a UFO case, by the literal definition, all the same.

I'm not going to act like I read all 22 pages and throw out my questions, they've probably already been asked and if I cared enough I would find the responses. Knowledge tends to find the worthy in that way, and I will have to reserve myself to simply interested but impartial until I can find more time for this thread. Good posts throughout from what I did manage to catch, though. Almost reminds me of the old ATS.

a reply to: AstroDog

^Thanks haha. I know that there are several forum members who are devoted to arguing and negativity / trolling / fighting etc. So it's just a fact of life, it shouldn't really bother us, lol.

Anyway one problem with the mundane explanation of airplanes...

I definitely remember reports that the stars were blacked out by some huge blackness when the UFO flew overhead, I believe it was silent as well IIRC.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Anyway one problem with the mundane explanation of airplanes...

I definitely remember reports that the stars were blacked out by some huge blackness when the UFO flew overhead, I believe it was silent as well IIRC.

This is an example of why it helps to read the thread, because this has already been discussed in great detail.

Don't forget the other lights in the sky case where the same thing was reported about stars blacked out by some huge UFO, it's a known optical illusion that can happen when people see lights in the sky:

"Top Ten" UFO Case - Yukon, Canada, 1996

Report: "stars blocked out" by huge UFO.

Reality: the observers were viewing a long train of debris from the disintegrating rocket booster. It was not a solid object, and thus could not have "blocked out" stars. However, the light from the reentry may have made nearby stars difficult to see.

Se we have documented reports of stars being blocked where we know there was no object actually blocking them, and therefore it's wrong to assume reports of an object blocking stars means that an object was blocking the stars.

In addition to the comment at that source, there is also discussion in this thread about how human vision functions, which can contribute to this illusion of stars appearing to be blocked when there is actually no object blocking them.

Regarding the noise, that varies by witness. Some witnesses heard the planes, others did not. I suspect that's due to the amount of background noise masking the plane noise in the noisier areas of the city, and the fact they were at perhaps 15000 feet altitude or so which is not going to make them loud for any aircraft but if they were A-10s they might be even more quiet since those are not noisy aircraft. A-10s are one of the candidate aircraft which do have the squarish wings described.

By the way I've seen thousands of planes flying overhead. Sometimes I can hear them, sometimes I can't, depending on the plane, the altitude, the wind, background noise, etc), so I don't understand why some people say they couldn't hear planes so it couldn't have been planes. It seems like a nonsensical thing to say unless the planes are very close, but the planes in this case were estimated by some sources to be over 2 miles high. More importantly, some witnesses did in fact hear the planes, so maybe they were in areas of lower background noise.

a reply to: _BoneZ_

Those witnesses who thought they saw a solid craft were mistaken, and likely only imagined an outline of a single large craft where none existed.

The UFO was imagined?! Oh c'mon lol

I don't recall it being V shaped with lights although that image looks familiar from a documentary. I thought eye witnesses described a massive football field sized black craft silently flying overhead slowly. Then the flares were released on the mountains as a distraction/cover up to the UFO. Then all the cover ups by the local government.

Fife's account must be scrapped from the record (littlemicky's rules n regs)
Unreliable witness, blah blah blah
ex airforce, ex pilot, ex guvnor, a personal witness account.
But, as we all know, a ball of string in the garage, and Yukon Yukon Yukon, littlemicky's favorite tune!
youtu.be...

originally posted by: niladmirari13
Fife's account must be scrapped from the record (littlemicky's rules n regs)
Unreliable witness, blah blah blah
ex airforce, ex pilot, ex guvnor, a personal witness account.
But, as we all know, a ball of string in the garage, and Yukon Yukon Yukon, littlemicky's favorite tune!
youtu.be...

Fife was convicted of being a liar, and you believe what he says?
I know a guy with some bridges for sale, do you believe him too?
Symington is probably one of the most unreliable eyewitnesses in the history of UFOlogy!
Not only did he lie on financial statements to commit bank fraud, and had to resign from his office as a result, even in the UFO case he completely contradicted himself doing a 180 from "you guys are taking this too seriously" to claiming he was a star witness of some serious and significant event.
Well, he was pardoned by the president, so maybe you think that undoes his bank fraud somehow, but it really doesn't mean he told the truth on his bank fraud case, it only got him off the hook from a potential prison sentence, and the president didn't pardon him for contradicting himself on his UFO claims.

Symingon's claims about the UFO didn't even hold up to scrutiny as one of the comments on that youtube video mentions:

"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.""

Eyewitnesses accounts of things they can't identify are generally unreliable, but in most cases I don't think they are lying, maybe some eyewitnesses were having misperceptions. That's probably the case for many of the Phoenix lights eyewitnesses, though remember that some witnesses recognized the planes as planes and didn't misperceive them as a giant craft.

In Symingon's case, it's one of the rare exceptions where I think he's lying. Most UFO witnesses I don't think are lying when describing what they saw, at least not right after their sighting, though there does seem to be a tendency in general for UFO stories to become confabulated and conflated over time even with otherwise reliable witnesses, so the most reliable accounts are those which occur closest in time to the actual event. The long delay in Syminton's UFO report is is yet another strike against Symington's UFO claims, even if you don't think he's a liar in spite of his conviction for being a liar.

This topic is such a convoluted mess, literally since day 1, with the govt. dropping flares to mimic the UFO sighting, the very same night.

Someday I'll try to sort through what's real and what's not re: this UFO sighting, but even at the end of this thread, everything still seems a confusion and a mess, re: what's real or not.




Re: The sound of the UFO: I think I remember some witnesses described some sound, and others did not. I think that's legitimate of the actual UFO sighting IIRC.



I do think there is more than enough evidence that the UFO sighting was more mysterious than planes though, and Idk what square-winged planes are either...

I thought multiple witnesses also described the craft/lights simultaneously accelerate at incredible speed?

originally posted by: kangawoo
I thought multiple witnesses also described the craft/lights simultaneously accelerate at incredible speed?

Maybe you're thinking of a different case? If not, it would be better to post a source than what appears to be just a brain fart.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: kangawoo
I thought multiple witnesses also described the craft/lights simultaneously accelerate at incredible speed?

Maybe you're thinking of a different case? If not, it would be better to post a source than what appears to be just a brain fart.

True. I will try and find what I recall, has been awhile.