1997 Phoenix Lights UFO - Solved - Day & Night Videos Superimposed - Ergo: FLARES!

Has anyone considered that this could have been a "show of power" by an extraterrestrial race? Perhaps our government doubted their capability and they called our bluff by flying not only over several states in plain sight but several military bases as well.

Food for thought.

a reply to: Still Naive?
Why would the aliens be flying A-10s?

They aren't even capable of interstellar travel.

I can't think of any reason why it wouldn't, and don't forget, some people reported that it was planes, so not everyone thought it was a V-shaped UFO.

Very few claimed they were planes. People act as if formations of planes is incredibly rare or something. How often has a formation of planes caused thousands of sightings of a UFO? Never? Huh.. I wonder why. Probably because most people even after a few moments, can discern a plane. Things like.. blinking lights, the sound, the shape, etc. Also there were plenty of reports of this object flying 150 feet overhead a neighborhood. So.. unless those people were just abhorrently stupid, it was clearly not a flight of planes. Apparently these planes were flying in a perfect non-wavering pattern for hours.. at the perfect height where they would only seem to be glowing lights, people couldn't see the blinking lights planes would have, apparently too high to produce sound, and the people who saw it close were clearly just lunatics.

Also a couple of other terribly curious things - such as the military bases having no idea there was a flight of planes flying south. And that they just happened to miraculously schedule a V-shaped drop of flares in sight of Phoenix on ONLY that ONE NIGHT in a supposed pre-planned drill. And of course the ridiculous alien press conference to utterly make the thing seem ludicrous, per standard debunking protocol. Why during THAT meeting, instead of bringing out an alien costume, couldn't they just say "Oh.. that was a flight of planes."

Clearly they could have figured that out by that point. How long exactly did it take for the "flight of planes" story to come out? It's also funny how stuff keeps emerging. Like how Kurt Russell actually saw those lights while flying that night, called it in, and the tower told him.. there were no planes. I guess those were super secret silent planes with no transmitters that couldn't be picked up by flight towers at airports.

Well, sorry I have nothing to add, just wanted to say it feels refreshing to read that most understand the 2 phases of this sighting, with the footage of the "flares" being the lesser & later part of the event. Hopefully the same thing is as known with Rendlesham and its 2 phases nowadays and no doubt numerous other events where something has proceeded the real event, be it for cover-up, decoy, whatnot (though there's nothing to say that's what happened at Rendlesham, but seems to be a favourite for the Phoenix flares). Honestly, I think it should be called The Phoenix Triangle or sth. That way it's a direct referral to the earlier part of the event.

originally posted by: fleabit
Probably because most people even after a few moments, can discern a plane.

People report planes as UFOs all the time, have been doing so for decades, and saying silly things like they said in this case such as "It couldn't have been planes because it was completely silent". A number of factors determine whether you can hear the plane's engines or not such as altitude, distance, wind direction and background noise and many people seem to be completely unaware of this and think if they can't hear plane engines it can't be planes.

This type of incident even happened recently with more UFOs reported and they were planes too, so you seem to ignore these facts. Many witnesses not being able to identify planes as such were documented in Allan Hendry's 1979 book "The UFO Handbook". Here are some excerpts from pages 38-39:

"One of the leading causes of surprise is the inability of the witness to hear any noise from the aircraft"

This was the case with the man (pilot) who made the only known video of the "flying triangle" Phoenix lights. He said there was no sound that he could hear.

"An aircraft explanation was ruled out by the witness simply because no noise was heard" but that sighting was confirmed to be a plane. Planes aren't completely silent, but you can't always hear them and I'm endlessly amazed that so many people don't seem to realize this.

"Does it seem shocking that so many people could be surprised by the sight of conventional aircraft flying at night? Here is an example of a case I investigated: The Air National Guard in Grand Rapids Michigan decided to fly three Cessna skymasters in formation around the suburbs. The planes, outfitted with bright white lights in the front and red and green lights in the back, flew at 2500 feet altitude at 160 mph. I got three "UFO" calls based on these planes, which represented a mere fraction of the ones received by the Grand Rapids airport...

Ten miles away and 15 minutes later, other witnesses caught sight of the planes and provided these descriptions:
***One large round object with lights
***Three lights that whipped across the road almost instantly--"much too fast for aircraft".
***Three white lights followed by red lights that moves all over very quickly, converged, and hovered over a woods.

What does it mean when independent witnesses can be equally excited over these Cessna planes and offer inconsistent accounts of their appearance and behavior?"

Brian Cox knows exactly what it means but why are scientists the only ones who usually seem to understand this, plus maybe a few others like Jim Oberg and Allan Hendry, etc?

"Our visual systems are prone to errors" says Brian Cox, and in the case of not recognizing aircraft I would add auditory since many of us expect to hear aircraft making noise and when we don't hear that we may incorrectly rule out aircraft as Allan Hendry noted. There are several very well known perceptual flaws specifically involved in the Phoenix Lights case, but you would apparently rather infer that people are insane instead of just accepting our normal common shortcomings as observers, or worse yet infer that people don't have flawed perceptions when it's well documented that we do.

Things like.. blinking lights, the sound, the shape, etc. Also there were plenty of reports of this object flying 150 feet overhead a neighborhood. So.. unless those people were just abhorrently stupid, it was clearly not a flight of planes.

Again you're ignoring facts which have been stated over and over. These were not commercial airplanes so they didn't have typical commercial airplane lighting, they were military planes using their formation lights which don't blink. So people aren't stupid, but they do make false assumptions like you just did about blinking lights and incorrectly rule out things they shouldn't, and we are all subject to similar illusions such as illusory contours.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

"The A-10 jets were flying VFR (visual flight rules), so there was no need for them to check in with airports along the route. They were following the main air corridor for air traffic traveling that route, the “highway in the sky.”

Because they were flying in formation mode they did not have on their familiar blinking collision lights, but instead their formation lights. In any case, FAA rules concerning aircraft lights and flight altitudes, etc. do not apply to military aircraft. The A-10s flew over the Phoenix area, flew on to Tucson, and landed at Davis-Monthan."

Apparently these planes were flying in a perfect non-wavering pattern for hours.. at the perfect height where they would only seem to be glowing lights, people couldn't see the blinking lights planes would have, apparently too high to produce sound, and the people who saw it close were clearly just lunatics.

The most important piece of evidence for this event is a single video tape showing the triangle formation is not rigid, and the lights move with respect to each other, something that a camera can pick up that eyewitnesses might not notice. This is covered in the OP video.


Just because we are mostly terrible data taking devices with severe perceptual flaws that we won't even admit doesn't mean that we're lunatics, that's an unfair characterization. Maybe we are all somewhat irrational for thinking our observational skills are much better than they really are, and this is well documented, both our lack of observational ability and our over-inflated opinion of our capabilities. Well except for scientists, who seem to understand what inadequate data-taking devices we humans are, but most other people don't seem to understand that. You could stand to do some research in this area.

Kurt Russell actually saw those lights while flying that night, called it in, and the tower told him.. there were no planes. I guess those were super secret silent planes with no transmitters that couldn't be picked up by flight towers at airports.

See above, you can't always hear planes and the airport controller has no need to know about planes flying overhead at high altitudes, maybe above the range of their radar. The airport controllers are concerned with takeoffs and landings and there were no planes that could interfere with Russell's landing. The man who made the only known video of the event video estimated an altitude of 15,000 feet and the speed was a normal speed for planes according to him, though he couldn't hear any noise at all.

a reply to: Arbitrageur


Great post Arbitrageur, and good to see you are still around.

It has always mystified me why most people can't accept that they have limitations. Whilst they will happily connect random dots all day long, yet they can't (or won't) see the elephant in the room or the answers staring them in the face. That is the REAL UFO mystery!

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks for that extended and informative reply, I appreciate your contribution to the thread. And while we're at it, let's remember how people were also fooled by the Hudson Valley UFO sightings in 1983/84. There is a lot on Google about it but I grabbed the first source:

skeptoid.com...
The Hudson Valley UFO Mystery
Hundreds of people watched this UFO over the Hudson River Valley many times between 1983 and 1984.
by Brian Dunning

Today we're going to travel up the Hudson River Valley in New York, and back in time to the summers of 1983 and 1984. On many occasions, on clear summer nights, something terrifying and unexpected appeared in the sky. It was a gigantic craft, black as the sky, rimmed with bright lights in white, red, or green. It would drift over towns with a steady hum, witnessed by many. Police phone lines lit up every time it appeared, and the newspapers were choked with reports. It's called the Hudson Valley UFO, and it's one of the mainstays of evidence for those who believe we are not alone.

The article is worth reading for first timers and to refresh the memories of old timers.

a reply to: FireballStorm
a reply to: Lathroper

Thanks for the feedback. I can understand why some people who aren't into UFOlogy too much might still place too much faith in eyewitness testimony, but what surprises me about fleabit is he/she has been here longer than I have, since 2008 and should be able to calibrate expectations on other cases where multiple witnesses have had the same illusions.

They aren't crazy, and they aren't lying, they are just ordinary human beings like all the rest of us including you and me who have flawed perceptions.

One such case I was thinking of was what some called one of the 10 best UFO cases of all time where at least 30 different witnesses in Yukon saw this, which involves the same kind of illusory contour perception defect we all have as the Phoenix lights triangle:

Yukon UFO "Mothership" Incident: December 11th, 1996
[pressimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/47497427bbd9.jpg[/pressimg]

Jim Oberg has documented a similar case on his website, so we see these same perception flaws over and over which are completely confirmed, so how can fleabit and others continue to deny them and pretend they don't exist and suggest people must be crazy just for having normal human perception flaws? I don't get it. They're not crazy, just normal humans doing what normal humans do, misperceive things, and especially so with lights at night.

In all honesty this is likely one of the top cases I have ever researched. The shear number of witnesses and the description of the massive UFO makes it hard to believe this was a misidentification of a prosaic event or hoax. Also the numerous other sightings in this region give credence to truly unknown activity going on. Another important thing to note is the commonality between witnesses spread out over 134 miles in their description of this UFO. Given that I think it is beyond highly unlikely that this is a hoax. Also the common dual nature of physical description(ie; shape and overall material look) and light pattern description of the UFO over 20 plus confirmed witnesses gives this case attributes that few have.

I think it's over 30 confirmed witnesses but anyway these are the same arguments used in the Phoenix lights triangle, "so many different multiple witnesses can't all have similar misperceptions", when in fact they can and often do, because we can almost all look at the same optical illusion book and see the same illusions on cleverly drawn figures. Therefore it shouldn't be surprising when large numbers of witnesses experience similar misperceptions. We are pre-wired with certain types of well-documented flaws in our perception.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Except the early event in Phoenix people saw a very humongous craft that was very low in altitude but filled most of the sky as it passed over, and they said it made no sound. I was in Phoenix then and heard it directly from witnesses as such. I didn't see it myself though.

Saw the flares later, and people laughed for days about it. Everyone in Phoenix knew immediately what the Air Force was trying to do just like they have always done.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Except the early event in Phoenix people saw a very humongous craft that was very low in altitude but filled most of the sky as it passed over, and they said it made no sound.

As did the 30 plus witnesses in Yukon, saw a very humongous craft that filled most of the sky as it passed over, and they said it made no sound, except that's not what they really saw in either event. It's what they think they saw, but they don't understand human perception, and neither do the people arguing that we can trust everything these witnesses say to be indisputable fact.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Except the early event in Phoenix people saw a very humongous craft that was very low in altitude but filled most of the sky as it passed over, and they said it made no sound.

As did the 30 plus witnesses in Yukon, saw a very humongous craft that filled most of the sky as it passed over, and they said it made no sound, except that's not what they really saw in either event. It's what they think they saw, but they don't understand human perception, and neither do the people arguing that we can trust everything these witnesses say to be indisputable fact.

That's hilarious. You aren't the first wannabe debunker who actually thinks he knows better than witnesses who had a mass sighting, when you didn't see anything yourself, saying that you know better than they do without seeing, than those who saw it close up.

I have heard James McGaha use that exact explanation before and couldn't believe the blatant arrogance of those words.
Only you and other esteemed citizens in that special circle understand human perception, so everyone else is essentially blind and uneducated.
It's only your opinion not based on anything credible, as opposed to actual real witnesses who all saw something inexplicable that night early on.

You say there are people arguing that we can trust everything these witnesses say to be indisputable fact, but I have never even once heard anyone make that demand about a single case. I had the opportunity to personally investigate the phoenix case since I lived there at the time, and ask lots of questions of all kinds of witnesses, and because of that, know they weren't lying, and I know they saw what they say they saw because their testimony matched.

That has nothing at all to do with little grey guys, only that there was an event where people saw something real, and nobody knows for sure where it came from or why it was there. That's all.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Except the early event in Phoenix people saw a very humongous craft that was very low in altitude but filled most of the sky as it passed over, and they said it made no sound.

As did the 30 plus witnesses in Yukon, saw a very humongous craft that filled most of the sky as it passed over, and they said it made no sound, except that's not what they really saw in either event. It's what they think they saw, but they don't understand human perception, and neither do the people arguing that we can trust everything these witnesses say to be indisputable fact.

That's hilarious. You aren't the first wannabe debunker who actually thinks he knows better than witnesses who had a mass sighting, when you didn't see anything yourself, saying that you know better than they do without seeing, than those who saw it close up.

I have heard James McGaha use that exact explanation before and couldn't believe the blatant arrogance of those words.
Only you and other esteemed citizens in that special circle understand human perception, so everyone else is essentially blind and uneducated.
It's only your opinion not based on anything credible, as opposed to actual real witnesses who all saw something inexplicable that night early on.

You say there are people arguing that we can trust everything these witnesses say to be indisputable fact, but I have never even once heard anyone make that demand about a single case. I had the opportunity to personally investigate the phoenix case since I lived there at the time, and ask lots of questions of all kinds of witnesses, and because of that, know they weren't lying, and I know they saw what they say they saw because their testimony matched.

That has nothing at all to do with little grey guys, only that there was an event where people saw something real, and nobody knows for sure where it came from or why it was there. That's all.

In your criticism include yourself for you did not say that you witnessed whatever was alleged to have been seen, or you would have stated it and would, by default, have some credence as a bona fide witness. So that makes you a believer. You accept without proof. You trust. You don't know they weren't lying 'cause you nor they can prove what was claimed.

This situation about unconfirmed reports matches the christian religion. Billions believe in the reality of Jesus Christ, there is no evidence for his reality, there were no scribes tagging along and yet Jesus is quoted left and right by believers. It is superior being a skeptic or just a questioner to being a blind believer.

Evidence is superior to hearsay. Or so the courts demand.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Except the early event in Phoenix people saw a very humongous craft that was very low in altitude but filled most of the sky as it passed over, and they said it made no sound.

As did the 30 plus witnesses in Yukon, saw a very humongous craft that filled most of the sky as it passed over, and they said it made no sound, except that's not what they really saw in either event. It's what they think they saw, but they don't understand human perception, and neither do the people arguing that we can trust everything these witnesses say to be indisputable fact.

That's hilarious. You aren't the first wannabe debunker who actually thinks he knows better than witnesses who had a mass sighting, when you didn't see anything yourself, saying that you know better than they do without seeing, than those who saw it close up.

I have heard James McGaha use that exact explanation before and couldn't believe the blatant arrogance of those words.
Only you and other esteemed citizens in that special circle understand human perception, so everyone else is essentially blind and uneducated.
It's only your opinion not based on anything credible, as opposed to actual real witnesses who all saw something inexplicable that night early on.

You say there are people arguing that we can trust everything these witnesses say to be indisputable fact, but I have never even once heard anyone make that demand about a single case. I had the opportunity to personally investigate the phoenix case since I lived there at the time, and ask lots of questions of all kinds of witnesses, and because of that, know they weren't lying, and I know they saw what they say they saw because their testimony matched.

That has nothing at all to do with little grey guys, only that there was an event where people saw something real, and nobody knows for sure where it came from or why it was there. That's all.

In your criticism include yourself for you did not say that you witnessed whatever was alleged to have been seen, or you would have stated it and would, by default, have some credence as a bona fide witness. So that makes you a believer. You accept without proof. You trust. You don't know they weren't lying 'cause you nor they can prove what was claimed.

This situation about unconfirmed reports matches the christian religion. Billions believe in the reality of Jesus Christ, there is no evidence for his reality, there were no scribes tagging along and yet Jesus is quoted left and right by believers. It is superior being a skeptic or just a questioner to being a blind believer.

Evidence is superior to hearsay. Or so the courts demand.

...and as always, be it the Pheonix Lights or ANY other sighting...technically it only takes ONE outta the 10's, 100's or countless thousands (collectively speaking ofc) to be 'correct'. As has been said many a time...they can't ALL be lying, scheming, hallucinating, mistaken, etc. Be it the Phx Lights or the many thousands of others...the sheer volume dictates, imo, that there ARE unexplained craft of unknown origin, usually displaying advanced, if not mysterious, technology/flight characteristics appearing in the Earth's skies. However broad and generalized and non-specific...IT IS HAPPENING. I don't know all the answers but IMO the Phx Lights eyewitnesses can not ALL be completely mistaken. Just my take ofc...and some may agree.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
That has nothing at all to do with little grey guys, only that there was an event where people saw something real, and nobody knows for sure where it came from or why it was there. That's all.

That's false. We know exactly what the Yukon witnesses saw and where it came from, and that they saw the same kind of illusions such as "it blocked out the stars" when we know it didn't do that. So yes I know far better than the Yukon witnesses what they saw because we now know what they saw and they only know what they think they saw or perceived, or more accurately misperceived.

Don't you know what they saw in the 1996 Yukon UFO event, and if not why not? It's well documented by now, but people prefer to wallow in ignorance and pretend these same misperceptions aren't common. They are common.

In the Phoenix lights case I've seen the video of the triangle object, and that video is less prone to errors than the eyewitnesses, don't you get that? If the eyewitness says the light formation was rigid and the video shows some variation in the light formation that maybe the witness didn't notice, isn't the video more reliable? If I was there and saw it for myself I might have my own perception problems like the other witnesses, so you're rating being there far too highly when we have videos and other lines of evidence like witnesses who saw the object better through magnification, than the people who just saw it with their naked eyes.

originally posted by: KenTodd
I don't know all the answers but IMO the Phx Lights eyewitnesses can not ALL be completely mistaken. Just my take ofc...and some may agree.

If you don't know the answers in the Yukon case it's your own fault for not researching it, and yes they all saw the same thing, a giant craft flying across the sky which blocked the stars.

But we now know that it wasn't a giant craft and it didn't block the stars, so every single witness who said it was a giant craft was wrong, and if we know that they were wrong in that case why not other cases? There's a pattern alright, one of misperception of unexplained lights in the sky.

In the Phoenix lights case we even have video to show how mistaken the witnesses were when they claim the lights in the V-formation were rigid. The formation of lights in the video is not rigid, and people who dismiss video evidence in favor of flawed human perception are usually making a mistake, since videos while not perfect are more reliable data taking devices than humans.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
That has nothing at all to do with little grey guys, only that there was an event where people saw something real, and nobody knows for sure where it came from or why it was there. That's all.

That's false. We know exactly what the Yukon witnesses saw and where it came from, and that they saw the same kind of illusions such as "it blocked out the stars" when we know it didn't do that. So yes I know far better than the Yukon witnesses what they saw because we now know what they saw and they only know what they think they saw or perceived, or more accurately misperceived.

Don't you know what they saw in the 1996 Yukon UFO event, and if not why not? It's well documented by now, but people prefer to wallow in ignorance and pretend these same misperceptions aren't common. They are common.

In the Phoenix lights case I've seen the video of the triangle object, and that video is less prone to errors than the eyewitnesses, don't you get that? If the eyewitness says the light formation was rigid and the video shows some variation in the light formation that maybe the witness didn't notice, isn't the video more reliable? If I was there and saw it for myself I might have my own perception problems like the other witnesses, so you're rating being there far too highly when we have videos and other lines of evidence like witnesses who saw the object better through magnification, than the people who just saw it with their naked eyes.

originally posted by: KenTodd
I don't know all the answers but IMO the Phx Lights eyewitnesses can not ALL be completely mistaken. Just my take ofc...and some may agree.

If you don't know the answers in the Yukon case it's your own fault for not researching it, and yes they all saw the same thing, a giant craft flying across the sky which blocked the stars.

But we now know that it wasn't a giant craft and it didn't block the stars, so every single witness who said it was a giant craft was wrong, and if we know that they were wrong in that case why not other cases? There's a pattern alright, one of misperception of unexplained lights in the sky.

In the Phoenix lights case we even have video to show how mistaken the witnesses were when they claim the lights in the V-formation were rigid. The formation of lights in the video is not rigid, and people who dismiss video evidence in favor of flawed human perception are usually making a mistake, since videos while not perfect are more reliable data taking devices than humans.

I've seen a higher quality video of the popular Phoenix flares video with enough definition to show the navigation lights of some human aircraft below the circle of flares, from one of the fighters or an accompanying "reference" plane. And regarding the so-called "triangle", as soon as I saw the video years ago I said in other UFO forums that I would bet my farm on it being a slightly loose formation of military jets.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
Only you and other esteemed citizens in that special circle understand human perception

You could too, if you were even slightly motivated to sort fact from fiction.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
so everyone else is essentially blind and uneducated.

To put it bluntly, yes, in some respects.. at least until such time as they take the time to educate themselves about a certain subject. Are you arguing that everyone should (by your standards) automatically understand *everything* there is to understand? Do you understand the ins and outs of quantum physics for example? Do you know what your own appendix (assuming you still have one) does? No? Well you should, apparently..

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
It's only your opinion not based on anything credible, as opposed to actual real witnesses who all saw something inexplicable that night early on.

OK then, how would YOU explain the fact that all humans are susceptible to illusions? Or are you denying that illusions are "real"? This I have to hear!

Ever heard of an illusionist named "Dynamo"? If not then how about "Penn and Teller"? Do you think they use real magic, or do you think they are exploiting the failings in perception that all of us have?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: wtbengineer
a reply to: Lysergic

So Kurt saw the military flares that were dropped after the huge triangle that blocked out the stars in the night sky was seen by so many people that night?

No Kurt Russell saw what this guy got a better look at than Kurt Russell and other witnesses, because he saw the triangle through a telescope, maybe 8:30-ish PM

Here's a few frames of a video taken from the ground of the "triangle" or "V-formation" as Russell describes it:

The flares were later, closer to 10PM.

Both events are covered in Bonez thread:

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

This just does not make any logical sense at all. The witnesses said it was a huge craft travelling slow and low. These jets would have been fast. If they were high up, the formation would have been small. If they were low, the noise would be loud and they would fly by quickly.

Goes completely against what the witnesess saw. I do not believe the witnesses are talking about the same thing this guy saw. Just does not make sense.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Except the early event in Phoenix people saw a very humongous craft that was very low in altitude but filled most of the sky as it passed over, and they said it made no sound.

As did the 30 plus witnesses in Yukon, saw a very humongous craft that filled most of the sky as it passed over, and they said it made no sound, except that's not what they really saw in either event. It's what they think they saw, but they don't understand human perception, and neither do the people arguing that we can trust everything these witnesses say to be indisputable fact.

That's hilarious. You aren't the first wannabe debunker who actually thinks he knows better than witnesses who had a mass sighting, when you didn't see anything yourself, saying that you know better than they do without seeing, than those who saw it close up.

I have heard James McGaha use that exact explanation before and couldn't believe the blatant arrogance of those words.
Only you and other esteemed citizens in that special circle understand human perception, so everyone else is essentially blind and uneducated.
It's only your opinion not based on anything credible, as opposed to actual real witnesses who all saw something inexplicable that night early on.

You say there are people arguing that we can trust everything these witnesses say to be indisputable fact, but I have never even once heard anyone make that demand about a single case. I had the opportunity to personally investigate the phoenix case since I lived there at the time, and ask lots of questions of all kinds of witnesses, and because of that, know they weren't lying, and I know they saw what they say they saw because their testimony matched.

That has nothing at all to do with little grey guys, only that there was an event where people saw something real, and nobody knows for sure where it came from or why it was there. That's all.

Great post NoCorruption.

Just had to go on the record as saying that.

Any additional info from your investigation, witness statements?

originally posted by: Jay-morris
This just does not make any logical sense at all. The witnesses said it was a huge craft travelling slow and low. These jets would have been fast. If they were high up, the formation would have been small. If they were low, the noise would be loud and they would fly by quickly.

Goes completely against what the witnesess saw. I do not believe the witnesses are talking about the same thing this guy saw. Just does not make sense.

It's perfectly logical.


If each one of those lights is a single airplane, each light is small at that altitude, but look how far apart the lights are in the formation. The lights are tiny given the relatively huge size of the formation relative to the small size of the lights, giving the illusion of a large craft, many many many times larger than any one individual plane. This is not a blue eagles air show where the planes are flying a tight formation wingtip to wingtip, there is a fair amount of space between the aircraft.

I don't see why you don't think this is logical but it makes perfect sense to me.