Upcoming 20th anniversary Phoenix Lights - I think Fife Symington lied about seeing craft.

Symington's original witness claims were impossible.

badufos.blogspot.com...
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.""

SO... a few days ago at the UFO CONGRESS, he gave an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT story of what he saw when he saw it. NOW it has become consistent with the 'classic' narrative.

originally posted by: JimOberg
Symington's original witness claims were impossible.

badufos.blogspot.com...
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.""

SO... a few days ago at the UFO CONGRESS, he gave an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT story of what he saw when he saw it. NOW it has become consistent with the 'classic' narrative.

WOW!

Thank you Jim.

I figured Fife would do it for personal gain. I had no difficulty believing that. But it would seem Fox turned a blind eye also. I remember when the press promotions hit for I Know What I Saw, one of the teasers was that there was "new" information in regards to the Phoenix Lights".

Did anyone call him out at the UFO congress?

This just happened this past Saturday! I had no idea!

2017 International UFO Congress, Scottsdale , Az.

Saturday February 18th 2017

James Fox Presents: Lecture: The Phoenix Lights 20 Years Later: Meet the Witnesses and Hear New Information

"In this lecture, James will share his investigation into the Phoenix Lights. He will also bring several of the witnesses on-stage to share their incredible experiences of that night in 1997. James will also share never before seen video of Symington discussing his own Phoenix Lights sighting!"
ufocongress.com...

Unbelievable!

Their on tour!

You can't make this bleep up!

Sheaffer just filed his account of Symington's totally-revised eyewitness timeline at www.badufos.com

a reply to: Paddyofurniture

You also have to consider the overall atmosphere regarding UFO's in the 90's. It was political/career suicide to claim such things. That probably played into his decision to say/do what he did.

Whether or not he made it up? Who knows.

a reply to: JimOberg

These documented cases make it much less 'impossible' that SOME observers in Phoenix would experience the identical misinterpretation.

Thanks Jim I agree, different folks see differently. To be more specific; though many claim to have seen a distinct 'boomerang' or wedge shape, one eyewitness to the Phoenix event clams to have seen a small metallic object hovering right out her back window, earlier in the day, while it was still light out.

Our aircraft fly formation, to hide their number from radar, too. Many other cases include reports of both observations, a 'mother big ship' and little uns.

We have air craft carriers, too. We have scouts, too.

My own sighting gives me pause to consider... at the very end the 'thingy' I witnessed disappeared into a lo lying cumulus cloud and didn't dome out the other side. It was the only cloud in an otherwise perfectly clear sky.

At the time I thought that odd. After seeing Spielberg's Close Encounters, I had to consider that my own 'sighting' included that cloud cover phenomenon.

What was in that cloud?

a reply to: Paddyofurniture

A bit off the exact topic of your OP, but this video I came across is pretty interesting, and if you haven't seen it, will probably think the same.

It Helps debunk the whole "flares on a parachute" explanation.

originally posted by: Paddyofurniture
I agree , as I said before, about James Fox and his documentaries. They are good and Enjoy them. And I own and have read a few times Leslie Keane's book. Her discription of UFO incident JAL flight 1628 is in my opinion the definitive example of almost undisputable UFO existence ( what ever "they" are).

It's best not to allow others (especially those with an agenda) to do your homework for you. Don't buy into fantastical claims so easily without doing thorough research yourself.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8

originally posted by: Paddyofurniture
I agree , as I said before, about James Fox and his documentaries. They are good and Enjoy them. And I own and have read a few times Leslie Keane's book. Her discription of UFO incident JAL flight 1628 is in my opinion the definitive example of almost undisputable UFO existence ( what ever "they" are).

It's best not to allow others (especially those with an agenda) to do your homework for you. Don't buy into fantastical claims so easily without doing thorough research yourself.

Seems like your trolling , but I'll bite Ectoplasm8

What part of Kean's research of the JAL Flight 1628 incident do you think is fantastical? Please be specific.

You seem to imply that I haven't done my home work on that incident, and that Kean's depiction of the incident is not accurate but inaccurate and agenda driven.

Given your Own implied "thorough research" what about Kean's depiction is inaccurate. Again be specific and show proof of your "thorough research" that proves Kean's depiction "fantastical".

originally posted by: Macenroe82
a reply to: Paddyofurniture

A bit off the exact topic of your OP, but this video I came across is pretty interesting, and if you haven't seen it, will probably think the same.

It Helps debunk the whole "flares on a parachute" explanation.

Thanks ,

Interesting for sure. I've seen a few different A/V analysis of the different shots of the 10:00pm "flares" of that night. All Of them seeming to come to different opinions of what that are looking at.

originally posted by: Paddyofurniture

Seems like your trolling , but I'll bite Ectoplasm8

What part of Kean's research of the JAL Flight 1628 incident do you think is fantastical? Please be specific.

You seem to imply that I haven't done my home work on that incident, and that Kean's depiction of the incident is not accurate but inaccurate and agenda driven.

Given your Own implied "thorough research" what about Kean's depiction is inaccurate. Again be specific and show proof of your "thorough research" that proves Kean's depiction "fantastical".

Changing the subject under discussion is a classic gimmick of a party who recognizes they are losing on the current issue but won't admit it. Just making a general observation, not pointing fingers.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8

originally posted by: Paddyofurniture
I agree , as I said before, about James Fox and his documentaries. They are good and Enjoy them. And I own and have read a few times Leslie Keane's book. Her discription of UFO incident JAL flight 1628 is in my opinion the definitive example of almost undisputable UFO existence ( what ever "they" are).

It's best not to allow others (especially those with an agenda) to do your homework for you. Don't buy into fantastical claims so easily without doing thorough research yourself.

Guess I can't help myself but I'll even help direct you towards some homework I've already done and you should do:

1) "The fantastical flight of JAL 1628" by Bruce Maccabee, Ph.D.

2) Interview with Capt. Kenjyu Terauchi published in PEOPLE magazine, January 12, 1987.

3) Interview of Captain Kenjyu Terauchi by Dr. Richard Haines

4) "UFO Mystery Solved," press release by the Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), 1/22/87. (Phil Klass's rush to debunk )

5) John Callahan address to National Press Club Conference, The disclosure project, May 9th, 2001,

That should get you started , bub.

For those posting the flare videos.. they are most certainly flares. There is a day-time overlay video of those lights and the mountain range, and each light disappears as it moves behind the mountain range. 100% proven to be flares (or a super super massive UFO landing behind the mountains.. = P ). I'll go with flares there.

The guy in the video said something that I've said repeatedly though. The military has only once dropped flares in that fashion.. in plain view of Phoenix in a military "exercise." That one night. In a somewhat obvious V-like formation (ok.. more like a U.. but it's probably challenging to drop flares in the shape of letters!) That alone I think proves the military was aware and trying to provide cover in case the actual UFO did fly over Phoenix. It never did it seems (although it was later seen south of Phoenix), but the military was obviously creating a cover story. And it worked.. people are still confused about those flares to this day. Keep in mind the reports started hours earlier north of Phoenix.

These documented cases make it much less 'impossible' that SOME observers in Phoenix would experience the identical misinterpretation.

Sure.. but not all. Or not at all.. perhaps they did see something amazing. The excuse that hundreds of witnesses all saw a formation of planes and mistook it for a huge craft I think is ludicrous. I don't think that large a # of people were all befuddled by a simple formation of planes. For hours. The fact many reported a huge object seen much closer add weight to something that wasn't a flight of planes.

originally posted by: Paddyofurniture

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8

originally posted by: Paddyofurniture
I agree , as I said before, about James Fox and his documentaries. They are good and Enjoy them. And I own and have read a few times Leslie Keane's book. Her discription of UFO incident JAL flight 1628 is in my opinion the definitive example of almost undisputable UFO existence ( what ever "they" are).

It's best not to allow others (especially those with an agenda) to do your homework for you. Don't buy into fantastical claims so easily without doing thorough research yourself.

Guess I can't help myself but I'll even help direct you towards some homework I've already done and you should do:

1) "The fantastical flight of JAL 1628" by Bruce Maccabee, Ph.D.

2) Interview with Capt. Kenjyu Terauchi published in PEOPLE magazine, January 12, 1987.

3) Interview of Captain Kenjyu Terauchi by Dr. Richard Haines

4) "UFO Mystery Solved," press release by the Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), 1/22/87. (Phil Klass's rush to debunk )

5) John Callahan address to National Press Club Conference, The disclosure project, May 9th, 2001,

That should get you started , bub.

"bub," cute. I must have touched a nerve.

How about the freely available 400 page report with interviews with the crew afterwards, transcripts of the calls between the pilot and towers, radar data, FAA information, etc.? There's even a short story written by Terauchi: "Meeting The Future." There's a difference between searching for direct dialog or sources of an incident and one that naively relies on the opinions of others. Think for yourself.

- Are you aware Terauchi had other incidents and claims of seeing "motherships" on other flights?

- Are you aware he was the only person on his crew that saw this enormous mothership the size of two aircraft carriers? Neither his co-pilot nor navigator in the same cockpit saw it. This is even with a 360 degree turn around the "object."

- Are you aware two other flights were redirected to give visual confirmation of this gigantic mothership? Once they were close, they saw nothing.

- Are you aware this radar data was not a consistent signal and spotty the entire time?

- Are you aware that signal was explained as a ghost/echo signal from their own transponder? A common occurrence.

These are some of the things conveniently left out of this case.
Unless you're choosing to be a diehard blind believer, you should be expanding your method of research beyond opinions.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8

originally posted by: Paddyofurniture

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8

originally posted by: Paddyofurniture
I agree , as I said before, about James Fox and his documentaries. They are good and Enjoy them. And I own and have read a few times Leslie Keane's book. Her discription of UFO incident JAL flight 1628 is in my opinion the definitive example of almost undisputable UFO existence ( what ever "they" are).

It's best not to allow others (especially those with an agenda) to do your homework for you. Don't buy into fantastical claims so easily without doing thorough research yourself.

Guess I can't help myself but I'll even help direct you towards some homework I've already done and you should do:

1) "The fantastical flight of JAL 1628" by Bruce Maccabee, Ph.D.

2) Interview with Capt. Kenjyu Terauchi published in PEOPLE magazine, January 12, 1987.

3) Interview of Captain Kenjyu Terauchi by Dr. Richard Haines

4) "UFO Mystery Solved," press release by the Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), 1/22/87. (Phil Klass's rush to debunk )

5) John Callahan address to National Press Club Conference, The disclosure project, May 9th, 2001,

That should get you started , bub.

"bub," cute. I must have touched a nerve.

How about the freely available 400 page report with interviews with the crew afterwards, transcripts of the calls between the pilot and towers, radar data, FAA information, etc.? There's even a short story written by Terauchi: "Meeting The Future." There's a difference between searching for direct dialog or sources of an incident and one that naively relies on the opinions of others. Think for yourself.

- Are you aware Terauchi had other incidents and claims of seeing "motherships" on other flights?

- Are you aware he was the only person on his crew that saw this enormous mothership the size of two aircraft carriers? Neither his co-pilot nor navigator in the same cockpit saw it. This is even with a 360 degree turn around the "object."

- Are you aware two other flights were redirected to give visual confirmation of this gigantic mothership? Once they were close, they saw nothing.

- Are you aware this radar data was not a consistent signal and spotty the entire time?

- Are you aware that signal was explained as a ghost/echo signal from their own transponder? A common occurrence.

These are some of the things conveniently left out of this case.
Unless you're choosing to be a diehard blind believer, you should be expanding your method of research beyond opinions.

With all you thorough research you should start your own thread.

Start with the interviews you personally conducted with terauchi.

Then your analysis on those radar reports of course pulling from your electrical engineering degree with spectalities in aviation radar.

And it's not a "400 page report" Bub. But someone just doing a quick interwebs search wouldn't pick that up.

a reply to: Paddyofurniture

Start with the interviews you personally conducted with terauchi.

Then your analysis on those radar reports of course pulling from your electrical engineering degree with spectalities in aviation radar.

Straight out of first year psychology 101?

I don't have time to go over all of this, but, JAL 1628's radar data was reviewed by FAA experts and determined to be nothing more than what I mentioned above. Here's a screen shot from page 42 of the full FAA report. I've quoted the yellow highlighted portion below it in case it's difficult to read.

As part of the inquiry, Steucke said, radar data of the JAL flight track was reviewed by FAA experts at the agency's Technical Center in Atlantic City, N.J. using identical equipment. They determined that a second radar target near the JAL flight at the time of the reported sighting was not another aircraft but rather a split radar return from the JAL Boeing 747.

Technically, this is known as an "uncorrelated primary and beacon target return." It means that the primary radar signal reflected off the aircraft's surface did not correlate exactly with the pulse emitted by the aircraft's radar beacon transponder. This phenomenon is not unusual and gives the impression of two separate radar targets.

And it's not a "400 page report" Bub. But someone just doing a quick interwebs search wouldn't pick that up.

My mistake. It's only 377 pages, not 400. Search a little harder.

There are plenty of threads on this topic I've posted in. I'll leave it there.

a reply to: Macenroe82

This vid shows you the explanation for the lights, they disappear behind a mountain.

a reply to: Paddyofurniture

Symington definitely lied.

Which lie and which truth is correct..the lie about not seeing craft, meaning he did see them, or did he lie about seeing them, meaning the original claim of not seeing them was the truth?

That's the problem with liars, you never know when they are telling the truth.

Yup Vector.. and by the title of the video, it shows their methods of confusion worked well. There are people to this day that assume the Phoenix Lights is a closed case, because of those flares - which couldn't be further from the truth.