Phoenix Lights - UFO witness summary (11/3/2015)

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: network dude

You've been here long enough to remember when this site was about denying ignorance.

You aren't doing that yourself though. Not if you feel your opinion is better than eyewitnesses who know the difference between the things you claim, and what they actually saw. And the planes that were up went up more than a half hour later than the first craft sightings. The idea that you, or anyone for that matter, feels they can step in, in the very place of credible witnesses who actually saw all of the things you claim, plus something else, and then try to tell those witnesses that you, an outsider, are more credible by just your opinion alone, than they are, having actually seen a craft of unknown design.
I don't care how popular you are Gortex, you just can't usurp things you weren't witness to, and step in here like a proverbial McGaha, and corner the market on all known intel on the subject. which isn't working anyways, and it never worked for McGaha either.

To come in here and act like you can do that is embarrassing for all to see.

There are a number of people on ATS who do that, but it isn't working. And it doesn't have to be tolerated just so a niche clique can feel proud and pompous.

I was there in Phoenix during that event and I have heard it all before.

a reply to: Baddogma

When you speak to enough folks (about fifty for myself) who tell you the same darn thing, and one even admitted soiling their jeans as the black behemoth glided silently over, covering the entire sky over their valley, and a pilot remarked they could've landed their private plane on one "wing" of the thing, then one has to admit the possibility ...at the least.

Did you ever come across someone who said they saw a formation of planes?

Didn't the mayor admit he saw it too, after making fun of it?

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
in the very place of credible witnesses

I stopped reading right there. Witnesses are never credible. EVER. Unless they have corroborating evidence to support their claims.

There's zero evidence that a large, solid object floated across Arizona that night. None. But there is quite a bit of evidence that the large triangle of lights was a group of military planes flying in formation.

On this map, the green circles represent the people who saw the triangle of lights, and said that it was either planes, or separate light formations. The black circles represent some witnesses who claim they saw a solid object:


Of note, the two circles just south of Phoenix that overlap each other are two separate witnesses on the same highway viewing the triangle at the same time. One of the witnesses said the lights were not a solid object, the other witness claims it was a solid object.

Their statements can be read below the map in my OP HERE.

Two totally different accounts of the same triangle of lights at the same time. Which is more believable? The lights were a group of military planes heading back to their base in southern Arizona, or a massive craft of unknown origin that there is no video of and no pictures of?


It is Scientifically Proven that witness testimony is unreliable without other corroborating evidence.

Every single witness that viewed the triangle of lights through binoculars or telescope saw separate lights that were aircraft lights. Not a single one claimed there was a solid object.

Every other witness claiming there was a solid object is mistaken, period. Anyone who believes the witnesses claims of a solid object are basing their beliefs off of faith alone. Faith does not work and is not accepted in the scientific/research community.

All this banging of the drums that "uncorroborated witnesses claiming a solid object are all correct and everyone else is wrong" is very suspicious of some other sort of agenda trying to be played out. Or people just want to believe in aliens, etc. so much so that they will just ignore any other evidence. It's getting rather ridiculous, to be honest.

a reply to: _BoneZ_

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, it's really kinda embarrassing.

Maybe you should take a break from this case..

originally posted by: Poppcocked
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, it's really kinda embarrassing.

Which part? Spell it out for others to see. Show some corroboration that the witnesses saw a solid craft. Don't just do a drive-by.

originally posted by: Poppcocked
Maybe you should take a break from this case..

That's not going to happen.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

Nope... that was my one of my lead questions, actually, as I was aware of my friend's uncle and merry cohorts in New York and that was my working explanation at the time... until I actually heard more and tracked down witnesses, that is.

Although many (even most) admitted that they couldn't see the area between the lights well, the ones who DID see it early enough to have some ambient light all said it was a solid, black chevron.

The pilot saw it with enough light in the sky to see some details on the upper part... lines and sections.. .said he thought it was military because it reminded him of a huge, huge stealth fighter.. .same basic shape and color, is what he meant.

The kid who messed his pants said it had immense "heft" to it and he could feel the air movement on his face... and was close enough to see portions of structure reflecting street lights and it was like a few city blocks " got up and glided into the sky."

Then later that year I saw that large, white cylinder hanging in the sky... so someone was busy back then.

eta: and I'd like to add that revisionism can paint any testimony as suspect, and folks are usually terrible witnesses, so taking some time and really grilling folks and listening to them can give a decent indication of their skill and make up... some of the folks I spoke to in my "investigation" (in quotes because it was a hobby for personal curiosity, with no thought of publishing) came across as veeeery credible and aware folks ...very careful not to overstate things. Anyway, they impressed the heck outta me... and, of course, some were yahoos that I wouldn't trust to drive, let alone describe exotic tech!

a reply to: JimOberg

Daytime? In a city with a million cellphone cameras?

My understanding, the first sighting it was still daylight, about 7 pm(?). The flares were hours later. Thats when the cell phones were "all out". The close observations earlier weren't in the heart of Phoenix, either. The flares were.

Come on, we're wa-a-a-ay past the point of playing 'false dilemma' games. There are several additional possible explanations.

With all due respect Jim,, you're past that point. Ive seen a thingy. To me anythings possible. Except something that big being "earth tech".

People can surmise it was a "blimp" because it was totally silent. Even a low flying modern day blimp has engines you can hear.

a reply to: _BoneZ_

Two totally different accounts of the same triangle of lights at the same time. Which is more believable? The lights were a group of military planes heading back to their base in southern Arizona, or a massive craft of unknown origin that there is no video of and no pictures of?

Military aircraft have loud engines. As a witness I can attest that when one sees these things there is this dumbfounded, slack jawed amazement as the gears in the mind turn, mostly one thought over and over,… What is that?

You tell me how to break that immobility while staring at it and I will remind you to get our your camera, next time.

Or people just want to believe in aliens

a reply to: _BoneZ_

who said anything about aliens?

this is the breakaway civ astr0 was on about!

a reply to: Benicealways

I had forgotten to come back and thank you for the YouTube compilation of witness testimony. Theres another show with even more testimony somewhere, I can't remember?

As a one time witness to something myself, I completely identified with aspects of testimony by the witnesses earlier in the evening. Primarily the guy that said, 'he was reminding himself not to blink', i.e., transfixed or spellbound, like a deer in the headlights, because there is no realm of experience for what is being witnessed, and it is that compelling , the mind is so locked on the anomaly. Who knows if there s something else underlying that.

One of the reasons also related and I had the same difficulty the time I saw something is that it was impossibly, totally silent. Another was the light(S). They are out of the norm for nighttime beacons, spots, landing lights, color, as well.

Thanks again, bookmarked your YouTube for future reference.

originally posted by: wildb
Didn't the mayor admit he saw it too, after making fun of it?

He made that claim somewhat later, but an examination of the timeline of events suggests it was impossible, and probably a publicity stunt for political value.

originally posted by: Baddogma.....

Although many (even most) admitted that they couldn't see the area between the lights well, the ones who DID see it early enough to have some ambient light all said it was a solid, black chevron....

And they were being truthful in what they saw. But accurate?

Your description sounds EXACTLY like a similar phenomenon that may have lessons to teach us.

See www.jamesoberg.com...

a reply to: JimOberg

Well, the things that really made me consider the AZ mass sightings valid ( as something not explainable as natural or of known tech) were the varied, numerous (and occasionally high quality) witnesses who saw it over a few hours... so it wasn't some quick, natural event or space junk reentry seen by some as one ship... a couple folks watched it for several minutes as it traveled along I-10.

Some saw just the lights, but they all said those lights were wide and uniform, and they were synced so it at least seemed attached. The speed varied from almost still to several hundred mph... all reported its silence, though a couple folks said it generated a small breeze.

Anyway, if these folks were telling the truth as they saw it, and it sure seemed that way to me, then the facts don't fit with anything we know of... thus my bewilderment and attention.

Some of the folks I spoke to were "professionals," and a couple were actual academics and scientists ... and if we discount that many people who have jumped through the standard societal hoops of respectability and credibility, then we get into the invalidity of second-hand information itself and we might as well be heads in vats and pack it in.

IMHO, of course.

eta: oh, and for those that weren't here and think it was only seen by a few and then some folks saw the TV shows and lied for publicity, or something, know the state was buzzing over this for years.. .everyone knew someone who had seen it, and most of the talk was hushed and serious... it was just known and accepted and a topic of conversation for half a decade.. .a really, really big deal.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: network dude

but the craft that lots of people saw, has not been explained, just brushed away as insignificant.

Here's a giff taken from the only video footage of the triangular ship.

Here's a video from a similar sighting that didn't get everybody excited.

I met another person a few years ago that what they saw was a huge boomerang shaped thing with very large opaque lights. They are not part of the witness testimony due to privacy. What they described, matched up to what other witnesse's experienced.

a reply to: Baddogma

Thanks for the detailed, level-headed account.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

You aren't doing that yourself though.Not if you feel your opinion is better than eyewitnesses

My opinion is not better than the eyewitnesses but it is different to theirs , it's also based on years of interest in the case where as theirs is based on a short sighting and the recollections of .
I was once a Phoenix Lights supporter , looking at all of the available evidence changed that position.
Most people now accept the actual Phoenix Lights were flares so the mystery has shifted to the first incident , the one that wasn't well documented with video although a largely ignored video does exist of it.

To come in here and act like you can do that is embarrassing for all to see.

I'm as entitled to my opinion as any of you are yours , embarrassing or not I believe it to be true.

I don't care how popular you are Gortex

I think you'll find I'm not popular but I speak my mind and search for the truth , that's what is important to me , if ET are or have been here the truth is the only way we'll find them.

originally posted by: Baddogma
Gads, I'm tired of feeling obligated to remind folks of the real nature of that sighting in AZ in 1997... I live in AZ and have spoken to enough folks to convince me that a huge, black chevron was seen by thousands, starting from the NW corner of the state all the way to the Mexican border from early evening (before the sun had completely set- around 7, but not really daytime) until around 10:00 p.m.... the track went NW to SE with some detours.

When you speak to enough folks (about fifty for myself) who tell you the same darn thing, and one even admitted soiling their jeans as the black behemoth glided silently over, covering the entire sky over their valley, and a pilot remarked they could've landed their private plane on one "wing" of the thing, then one has to admit the possibility ...at the least.

So nope, the flares WERE dropped and filmed ... but they are NOT to be conflated with the huge chevron seen earlier (and later at other parts of AZ). Some have posited the flares were dropped as a response to cover the sighting.

As I was inside that night, I cannot add my own testimony... but several thousand people DID see it ...and true, no images, except the one grainy shot, were taken, that we know about, but it was '97 and cellphones didn't all have high quality cameras in them... so all we have is testimony from fallible humans, but at least there are a few thousand of them for that sighting... so while I don't know what it was (or where it is kept), I'm pretty certain it was seen as described.

I saw a DVD made by a lady doctor that witnessed the event along with a few before the famous sighting.Many witnesses said they saw a huge silent craft with amber orbs of light fly directly overhead.How could they not see that they were planes if it was overhead, and what plane has amber lights?

I

a reply to: JimOberg

Jim, do you think it is possible to reconcile the reports of an object a city block wide with a fairly close knit group of planes at 17,000 ft, as portrayed in the Proctor video (which can hardly be described as a "startling" view) ?

I understand the issue with witness misinterpretation and linking individual lights to a solid object but there seems to be a massive discrepancy in reported size.

Personally even the Proctor video is inconclusive anyway, what may give the initial impression of stars being shown between the lights is just very grainy film and the relative movement of the lights to each other could be a perspective or other issue.

In all likelihood it is a formation of planes but according to some accounts authorities received over 700 calls regarding the earlier 7 - 8pm sightings (as opposed to the flares), surely the lights shown in that video would not generate that response ?

originally posted by: chunder
a reply to: JimOberg



Jim, do you think it is possible to reconcile the reports of an object a city block wide with a fairly close knit group of planes at 17,000 ft, as portrayed in the Proctor video (which can hardly be described as a "startling" view) ?



I understand the issue with witness misinterpretation and linking individual lights to a solid object but there seems to be a massive discrepancy in reported size.



Personally even the Proctor video is inconclusive anyway, what may give the initial impression of stars being shown between the lights is just very grainy film and the relative movement of the lights to each other could be a perspective or other issue.



In all likelihood it is a formation of planes but according to some accounts authorities received over 700 calls regarding the earlier 7 - 8pm sightings (as opposed to the flares), surely the lights shown in that video would not generate that response ?

The notion that large numbers of people can subconsciously misinterpret a slow-moving collection of lights in the night sky as a single large vehicle is absolutely contrary to common sense and anything we can imagine.

But strangely, that perceptual phenomenon HAS occurred again and again and again across decades, across continents, across all professions and nationalities, as documented in my study of the 1963 Kiev fireball swarm and its subsequent analogs.

The unique feature in the report is that one particular stimulus for such a raw sighting -- a large satellite fiery breakup on reentry -- is unequivocally well documented as having occurred during the same period, moving in the same direction, passing through the same section of the sky, that large numbers of witnesses reported seeing a structured object with lights mounted on it, moving. And while they remember seeing the craft, they did not remember seeing the fireball swarm -- suggesting they substituted one image for the other.

Without that repeated pattern appearing, it would be impossible for rational people -- me included -- to conceive of such a thing being possible.

The data is trying to tell us something about human perception that we didn't know, and for many, don't WANT to know -- worse, that many of us seem to want NOT to know.