It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: aniapi
I know what I saw that night and they definitely were not flares. These lights were huge, each rectangular shaped, amber in color, and in a L formation (or vee shaped depending on your location). There is just no way these lights where flares or lights on a aircraft because the lights alone were much larger that any aircraft I have ever seen in the sky.
originally posted by: draknoir2
I seem to recall accounts of the flying "V" blocking out the stars while reflecting the city lights from more than just the witnesses mentioned in the O.P.... one being a retired U.S. Marshal.
I think this thread could have been a bit more objective in its presentation of the evidence. A lot more, in fact. The obvious intent is to debunk.
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".
originally posted by: jaffo
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".
So ditch them all and go with the rest of the evidence. At that point, the UFO disappears and the explanation is clear.
originally posted by: aniapi
I know what I saw that night and they definitely were not flares. These lights were huge, each rectangular shaped, amber in color, and in a L formation (or vee shaped depending on your location). There is just no way these lights where flares or lights on a aircraft because the lights alone were much larger that any aircraft I have ever seen in the sky.
originally posted by: draknoir2
originally posted by: jaffo
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".
So ditch them all and go with the rest of the evidence. At that point, the UFO disappears and the explanation is clear.
Whatever it takes to achieve your desired conclusion, I guess.
I agree with your comments about 1 and 2, but not 3, because the video evidence supports 3. As I said when I have a choice between witness testimony and a video, if they don't agree, I prefer to trust the video unless there's some compelling reason not to. In this case, the video at least strongly suggests at least some of the planes witnesses were correct...and you can definitely see stars so it's not blocking any stars.
originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: draknoir2
I've read other skeptical arguments online in addition to the OP's. To my thinking, those making efforts to conclude the Phoenix Lights story is something simple and ordinary, must make three huge assumptions:
1) the people in the third category are all either lying or mistaken,
2) everyone is looking at the exact same thing (i.e. was the boy with the telescope who saw planes looking at exactly the same thing at the same time as the witnesses who saw a low flying, massive silent object??)
3) none of the people who saw something mundane (i.e. planes) were mistaken.
originally posted by: Vaedur
The reason I don't think it was a "UFO" is because we didn't blow it out of the sky. This is the good ol' USA. We would shoot first and try to make "contact" later. LOL. I'm half sarcastic.
originally posted by: draknoir2
I seem to recall accounts of the flying "V" blocking out the stars while reflecting the city lights from more than just the witnesses mentioned in the O.P.... one being a retired U.S. Marshal.
I think this thread could have been a bit more objective in its presentation of the evidence. A lot more, in fact. The obvious intent is to debunk.