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

originally posted by: Jay-morris
Witnesses say the object was large (covered the sky) and moved slow, blocking out the stars.

First, a formation of planes or other lights can appear to block out the stars, that's another well known illusion in addition to other well known illusions such as distance perceptions tending to be way off with unknown lights at night.

Part of the reason the distance perceptions are way off is that when there are no reference points it's difficult to judge anything accurately, and this includes angular perceptions such as "covered the sky", so what exactly does that mean in angular measurement? The witnesses saying that should describe the angular measurements they made and how they made them if they made any but I haven't seen that so again they perceived a huge object, and "covered the sky" is relative, which is consistent with their perception of a huge object, but it's not reasonable to presume that means 180 degrees horizon to horizon, I don't think that's what they meant.

I am not saying there was not a fighter jet plane formation in the sky that night

Well if you admit both events involved aircraft, the first flying a V formation around 8:30 and the second dropping flares around 10pm, then you have a problem with claiming there was another object in addition to the planes flying the V-formation, the ones Mitch Stanley saw through his telescope.

The problem was that it was apparent that the witnesses talking about the V formation were all describing the same object at the same time in the same areas, and they didn't all describe it as so low, so what we have here is what any investigator knows that people seeing the same event will describe it differently, some described it lower than others did, but that doesn't mean it was two different events:

www.phoenixnewtimes.com...

The witnesses included New Times writers. David Holthouse and Michael Kiefer both saw the pattern of five lights move slowly overhead. Holthouse says he perceived that something connected the lights in a boomerang shape; Kiefer disagrees, saying they didn't seem connected. Like other witnesses, both reported that the vee made no sound, and each saw slightly different colors in the lights. Both watched as the lights gradually made their way south and faded from view.

The many eyewitnesses have elaborated on this basic model: Some saw that the lights were not connected, others swear they saw a giant triangular craft joining them, some felt it was at high altitude, others claim it was barely over their heads and moving very slowly. All seem to be describing the same lights at the same time: About 8:15 the lights passed over the Prescott area, about 15 minutes later the vee moved over Phoenix, and at 8:45 it passed south of Tucson.

That's about 200 miles in 30 minutes, which indicates that the lights were traveling about 400 miles per hour.

So when "some felt it was at high altitude, others claim it was barely over their heads and moving very slowly. All seem to be describing the same lights at the same time" what we have is a case of variability in witness reports, again this is normal and shouldn't be too surprising. If it's surprising to you, just ask any police investigators who have interviewed many different witnesses after an event and they will tell you they get many variations on what happened from the different witnesses. This is why some reported the object higher and some lower, but there's no frame of reference for any accuracy in either case and "covered the sky" is completely undefined, plus other witnesses looking at the same time didn't say it "covered the sky".

www.agd.sa.gov.au...

When people remember an event – whether the purpose is to offer testimony in court or simply to tell a story to a friend – their errors are not necessarily signs of deliberate exaggeration, outright fabrication or intention to deceive. A person’s account can be inaccurate even when he or she believes the account to be correct. Indeed, scientific research shows that people can confidently remember false details from genuine events, and even, at times, remember wholly false events. Many processes conspire to shape memories over time. These processes need to be considered by the court, especially in cases where there is no decisive corroborative evidence to support or contradict what the witness says.

In that context the only corroborative evidence we have is the video tape, and deviations from that have not been corroborated and it appears unlikely they could be since it appears the various witnesses were looking at the same lights at the same time.

If you think they were describing two different events at 8:30 pm, a formation of planes and a huge UFO with the same general V-shape of lights that wasn't the planes, then you should read this thread which explores that possibility:

(Part 2 with Map) The Phoenix Lights - Laying To Rest The Myth

If there was really a V-shaped formation of planes, and a huge V-shaped formation of lights on a huge UFO at 8:30 or so, then what we should have are witnesses who saw both, in the same part of the sky at the same time, but we don't have any such witnesses, so from that it appears that there were not two different V-shaped events around 8:30 PM.

originally posted by: Jay-morris
a reply to: FireballStorm
snip
I am not saying there was not a fighter jet plane formation in the sky that night, but we had flares dropped, which could have been a diversion, so why not have fighter jets up there to confuse the matter worse.
snip
This is what annoys me. It is not science here, it is belief hidden behind science.

And your comments annoy me. You are saying, in effect, that because of the alleged triangle's appearance that flares were dropped to divert attention from your mysterious triangle that no one filmed. If that triangle was a real object and, as you intimate, there were multiple witnesses, how come there are no films or photos? Surely, somebody was carrying a camera and since the alleged triangle was traveling slow someone with a camera would have been able to shoot it. Look at the black and white and grainy footage of the jet formation included in this thread. They were moving fast yet someone was able to whip out a camera and shoot footage.

And, in case you had not given it thought the flare exercise had to have been planned weeks, months or... ahead. It could not have been a diversion based on someone making a call saying you got get those jets up in the sky to make a semi-circular flare pattern. That is just not logical. Give it a rest!

originally posted by: Lathroper

originally posted by: Jay-morris
a reply to: FireballStorm
snip
I am not saying there was not a fighter jet plane formation in the sky that night, but we had flares dropped, which could have been a diversion, so why not have fighter jets up there to confuse the matter worse.
snip
This is what annoys me. It is not science here, it is belief hidden behind science.

And your comments annoy me. You are saying, in effect, that because of the alleged triangle's appearance that flares were dropped to divert attention from your mysterious triangle that no one filmed. If that triangle was a real object and, as you intimate, there were multiple witnesses, how come there are no films or photos? Surely, somebody was carrying a camera and since the alleged triangle was traveling slow someone with a camera would have been able to shoot it. Look at the black and white and grainy footage of the jet formation included in this thread. They were moving fast yet someone was able to whip out a camera and shoot footage.

And, in case you had not given it thought the flare exercise had to have been planned weeks, months or... ahead. It could not have been a diversion based on someone making a call saying you got get those jets up in the sky to make a semi-circular flare pattern. That is just not logical. Give it a rest!

Don’t try to bully people by telling them to “ give it a rest” and that they “ annoy” you when you provide no facts or research to prove your point.
- what background do you have that lends you to knowing military aerial training exercise protocol?
- what research did you do to be an authority on military aerial training exercise scheduling lead times?
- what base did this exercise fly out of?
-What was the name of the officer that you spoke to?

I’m all for heated articulate debate on the topic but trying to slap someone down with no research or data isn’t a good look.

I personally have read every book, article , and seen every video and documentary I could get my hands on on this incident and even posted a OP on my theory on Fife Symington. Through all that I still don’t know what happened and would never definitively state I did.

I don’t mean to pick you out of a line up here, because a lot people have been doing the same thing. Just the proverbial straw that breaks the back I guess. I’d just like to see more intelligent fact based discussion in ufology in general.

Thanks,

originally posted by: Paddyofurniture

originally posted by: Lathroper

originally posted by: Jay-morris
a reply to: FireballStorm
snip
I am not saying there was not a fighter jet plane formation in the sky that night, but we had flares dropped, which could have been a diversion, so why not have fighter jets up there to confuse the matter worse.
snip
This is what annoys me. It is not science here, it is belief hidden behind science.

And your comments annoy me. You are saying, in effect, that because of the alleged triangle's appearance that flares were dropped to divert attention from your mysterious triangle that no one filmed. If that triangle was a real object and, as you intimate, there were multiple witnesses, how come there are no films or photos? Surely, somebody was carrying a camera and since the alleged triangle was traveling slow someone with a camera would have been able to shoot it. Look at the black and white and grainy footage of the jet formation included in this thread. They were moving fast yet someone was able to whip out a camera and shoot footage.

And, in case you had not given it thought the flare exercise had to have been planned weeks, months or... ahead. It could not have been a diversion based on someone making a call saying you got get those jets up in the sky to make a semi-circular flare pattern. That is just not logical. Give it a rest!

Don’t try to bully people by telling them to “ give it a rest” and that they “ annoy” you when you provide no facts or research to prove your point.
- what background do you have that lends you to knowing military aerial training exercise protocol?
- what research did you do to be an authority on military aerial training exercise scheduling lead times?
- what base did this exercise fly out of?
-What was the name of the officer that you spoke to?

I’m all for heated articulate debate on the topic but trying to slap someone down with no research or data isn’t a good look.

I personally have read every book, article , and seen every video and documentary I could get my hands on on this incident and even posted a OP on my theory on Fife Symington. Through all that I still don’t know what happened and would never definitively state I did.

I don’t mean to pick you out of a line up here, because a lot people have been doing the same thing. Just the proverbial straw that breaks the back I guess. I’d just like to see more intelligent fact based discussion in ufology in general.

Thanks,

He is the worst type of debunker. Not worth replying too.

I still stick to what I have been saying though. Planes in formation just does not make sense to me. Like i said before. If the formation was very high, then it would not have looked as large as the witnesses were saying, and they still would have flown by very quick.

If they were low, and in formation, the noise would have made you look up to the sky, but you would have to be quick because they would fly by in an instant.

Planes just do not hold up for me. Not saying it is Alien, more inclined to believe that it was a military project.

Here is the funny thing. If they did turn around and say that it was a secret craft they were working on, how many people in here would instantly forget the plane formation, and quickly say "told you it was not alien"

Lathroper im glad to see that your so passionate about the topic and your stance.

I’m not on anyones side here. Like I said, I’ve looked at a lot of info on the Lights and I still don’t know what happened.

But you did start an OP saying The Phoenix Lights as “SOLVED”

All you provided was a YouTube clip from the discover channel show that everyone on planet Earth has seen 10+ Times. I think I can lip sync some the parts Ive seen it so many times.

Phoenix Councilwoman Francais Barwood personally replied to over 700 UFO reports made by her constituents from that night alone. She over saw only one of 8 districts. Extrapolate those numbers and you have almost 6000 people seeing something in the night sky so strange they were compelled to call local authorities to officially report it.

You can stick with your YouTube theory. I’ll stick with the 6k residents of Phoenix who were actually there that night.

originally posted by: Paddyofurniture
Lathroper im glad to see that your so passionate about the topic and your stance.

I’m not on anyones side here. Like I said, I’ve looked at a lot of info on the Lights and I still don’t know what happened.

But you did start an OP saying The Phoenix Lights as “SOLVED”

All you provided was a YouTube clip from the discover channel show that everyone on planet Earth has seen 10+ Times. I think I can lip sync some the parts Ive seen it so many times.

Phoenix Councilwoman Francais Barwood personally replied to over 700 UFO reports made by her constituents from that night alone. She over saw only one of 8 districts. Extrapolate those numbers and you have almost 6000 people seeing something in the night sky so strange they were compelled to call local authorities to officially report it.

You can stick with your YouTube theory. I’ll stick with the 6k residents of Phoenix who were actually there that night.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. As I've said, Arbitrageur in his replies to Jay-norris has made a great case in explaining why witness testimony, especially in cases such as this (Phoenix) is not 100% reliable. Unfortunately, because it happened at night, of course, without any pre-event publicity no one was ready to deal logically with the situation. And night sightings are the weakest to explain and if the jets had done a day fly-by to prepare for the night flare dropping we would not be discussing it in the fashion we are.

I don't accept that there were 2 separate events that night. Jets were all over the place and it culminated in the flares. I'm also of the opinion that looking at maps of the Phoenix area with the Sierra Estrella mountain range located southwest of Phoenix, I would venture a guess that no one living in Phoenix looked up that night and saw the flares, they saw only a star-filled sky. Those living on the hills on the east of Phoenix were the ones that could have seen the flares as proved by the popular video which I included.

If anyone feels I'm wrong in that assumption, please correct. I'd like to hear particularly from members who live in Phoenix central. Standing in a Phoenix street, could you have seen the flares?

The Phoenix flares case IS solved same as Roswell as there is no evidence to the contrary, just wishful thinking by gullible believers.

a reply to: Lathroper

I don't accept that there were 2 separate events that night. Jets were all over the place and it culminated in the flares. I'm also of the opinion that looking at maps of the Phoenix area with the Sierra Estrella mountain range located southwest of Phoenix, I would venture a guess that no one living in Phoenix looked up that night and saw the flares, they saw only a star-filled sky. Those living on the hills on the east of Phoenix were the ones that could have seen the flares as proved by the popular video which I included. 

Sorry, but confused here. So you are going against what people are saying on this thread that this was a formation of planes, just like the formation the guy filmed?

I think you know very little about this case. I am not talking about the flares incident. That happend after the first sighting.

I have stated why i believe the formation of planes does not make sense, the only answer back I got was how we cannot judge distance, so something far away can look near. I understand that, but no one has explained speed, and sound about this case.

Can you be the first?

The Phoenix flares case IS solved same as Roswell as there is no evidence to the contrary, just wishful thinking by gullible believers.

Supposedly, the Roswell incident was solved after the first explanation, that explanation, as we all know now was a lie.

Also, so if anyone disagrees with you, then they are " gullible believers"

So, what do I believe? You seem to know!

originally posted by: Jay-morris
I have stated why i believe the formation of planes does not make sense, the only answer back I got was how we cannot judge distance, so something far away can look near. I understand that, but no one has explained speed, and sound about this case.

Can you be the first?

It's already been explained because it's all connected. Observers of unknown lights at night don't know the distance, size or speed. As already explained in excruciating detail by fireball storm distance perceptions can be way, way off. In his case even though he knew it was much further, he still had the same illusion it was much closer than it really was, as most people do with lights at night.

The no sound is simply because the planes weren't as low as some people thought, and they were as high as other witnesses described them.

The other fact that hasn't been mentioned yet in this thread is that every single person who viewed the V-formation through magnification saw planes, whether it be a telescope or binoculars. No person who looked through magnification saw a giant triangle, so this fact which you'll probably dismiss completely because of your overwhelming bias in this case is extremely significant.

There's no logic in saying the witnesses who didn't use magnification had a better view but that seems to be your position.

The video confirms the V-shape is not a giant object, do you at least admit that?

Also you keep bringing up other unrelated cases like Coyne and Roswell because the facts are stacked up against your beliefs in this case so you're diverting to other cases since you can't deal with the facts in this case. I think your problem is you don't want to believe that eyewitnesses can be so shockingly inaccurate, but it's been clearly demonstrated that their distance estimates can be off by a factor of 1000 yet you still seem unwilling to admit this, and think if someone said it was low that means it was low. They don't know the altitude, that's the fact, and that's why they didn't hear any sound from the planes, which they thought were lights on a low object, but they weren't. Also the illusion of seeing larger objects which do not exist has been clearly demonstrated, with the Yukon and Kiev cases. If you are doubting the science in those events do some more research and state your objections to the science but it's solid and very relevant to the Phoenix case because it's the same type of illusion...connecting dots in our mind is what we do as humans, check the science yourself.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Jay-morris
I have stated why i believe the formation of planes does not make sense, the only answer back I got was how we cannot judge distance, so something far away can look near. I understand that, but no one has explained speed, and sound about this case.

Can you be the first?

It's already been explained because it's all connected. Observers of unknown lights at night don't know the distance, size or speed. As already explained in excruciating detail by fireball storm distance perceptions can be way, way off. In his case even though he knew it was much further, he still had the same illusion it was much closer than it really was, as most people do with lights at night.

The no sound is simply because the planes weren't as low as some people thought, and they were as high as other witnesses described them.

The other fact that hasn't been mentioned yet in this thread is that every single person who viewed the V-formation through magnification saw planes, whether it be a telescope or binoculars. No person who looked through magnification saw a giant triangle, so this fact which you'll probably dismiss completely because of your overwhelming bias in this case is extremely significant.

There's no logic in saying the witnesses who didn't use magnification had a better view but that seems to be your position.

The video confirms the V-shape is not a giant object, do you at least admit that?

Also you keep bringing up other unrelated cases like Coyne and Roswell because the facts are stacked up against your beliefs in this case so you're diverting to other cases since you can't deal with the facts in this case. I think your problem is you don't want to believe that eyewitnesses can be so shockingly inaccurate, but it's been clearly demonstrated that their distance estimates can be off by a factor of 1000 yet you still seem unwilling to admit this, and think if someone said it was low that means it was low. They don't know the altitude, that's the fact, and that's why they didn't hear any sound from the planes, which they thought were lights on a low object, but they weren't. Also the illusion of seeing larger objects which do not exist has been clearly demonstrated, with the Yukon and Kiev cases. If you are doubting the science in those events do some more research and state your objections to the science but it's solid and very relevant to the Phoenix case because it's the same type of illusion...connecting dots in our mind is what we do as humans, check the science yourself.

If the formation was high, then to cover the sky, like witnesses say it did, then the planes would have to be so far apart, it would not even be a formation. And for there to be no sound, no sound at all, then they would have to be high.

But even if they were really high, it would not have taken long for the formation to go by. So, if the formation was high, and the lights far apart as they needed to be, there would be no reason for the "formation" to give the illusion of blocking out the stars. If it was a close formation, then I can understand, but going by what witnesses said, the object looked huge in the sky, and did block out stars, and moved slowly. The planes would have to have been very far from eachother to give of that illusion.

Going by the video the dude posted, that formation, the planes did not look far apart at all, and if that was high up, then it would not have looked big at all, weird of course, not nothing like the witnesses said.

Oh, and by the way, I did not bring up Roswell, it was a reply to the armchair debunker who brought up Roswell.

originally posted by: Jay-morris
If it was a close formation, then I can understand, but going by what witnesses said, the object looked huge in the sky, and did block out stars, and moved slowly. The planes would have to have been very far from eachother to give of that illusion.

Going by the video the dude posted, that formation, the planes did not look far apart at all, and if that was high up, then it would not have looked big at all, weird of course, not nothing like the witnesses said.

The only way to make sense out of all the conflicting reports and the lack of reports of people seeing both large low triangle and a high plane formation is to conclude some of the witness reports are inaccurate. To determine which are accurate, we refer to the corroborating evidence, the video tape, and we can also determine the approximate speed from the sightings which spanned about 200 miles in 30 minutes, or about 400 miles per hour.

You just refuse to accept that the witnesses who say it was low and slow and filled up the sky can have faulty perception, but the facts in the case point to that being what happened. Most people have accepted that but you can't seem to accept it, even though there is lots of science documenting shockingly flawed perceptions by humans.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Jay-morris
If it was a close formation, then I can understand, but going by what witnesses said, the object looked huge in the sky, and did block out stars, and moved slowly. The planes would have to have been very far from eachother to give of that illusion.

Going by the video the dude posted, that formation, the planes did not look far apart at all, and if that was high up, then it would not have looked big at all, weird of course, not nothing like the witnesses said.

The only way to make sense out of all the conflicting reports and the lack of reports of people seeing both large low triangle and a high plane formation is to conclude some of the witness reports are inaccurate. To determine which are accurate, we refer to the corroborating evidence, the video tape, and we can also determine the approximate speed from the sightings which spanned about 200 miles in 30 minutes, or about 400 miles per hour.

You just refuse to accept that the witnesses who say it was low and slow and filled up the sky can have faulty perception, but the facts in the case point to that being what happened. Most people have accepted that but you can't seem to accept it, even though there is lots of science documenting shockingly flawed perceptions by humans.

How can people confuse a plane formation, which is obviously tight and high up confuse people into thinking it was a huge, low object moving slow?

Even if the plane formation was high, it would have gone by pretty quick and disappeared. This is not me refusing to believe this explanation, this is me believing that the explanation does not make sense at all.

"shockingly flawed perceptions by humans." Has been the gateway for certain debunkers to come up with the most stupid explanations. Hence the reason I brought up the coyne case because it is valid, and an example of certain people using the same argument that we are terrible witnesses.

I have seen a few formations of fighter planes in the UK, and not once did I think I high formation, looked like a low slow move, huge craft.

a reply to: Jay-morris

Been keeping an eye on this thread as i stopped posting due to lathroper and his sidekick getting in my face and using personal comments against me also.
Totaly agree with you lathroper and another guy on here need to learn to talk to people with differing views to theirs with some more respect, iether they are a*#holes or they are trolling you guys.

Dont waste your time on them.

originally posted by: Rhombus101
a reply to: Jay-morris

Been keeping an eye on this thread as i stopped posting due to lathroper and his sidekick getting in my face and using personal comments against me also.
Totaly agree with you lathroper and another guy on here need to learn to talk to people with differing views to theirs with some more respect, iether they are a*#holes or they are trolling you guys.

Dont waste your time on them.

Good riddance, this thread is for thinkers. Not pseudo-thinkers. You are not missed.

originally posted by: Jay-morris
How can people confuse a plane formation, which is obviously tight and high up confuse people into thinking it was a huge, low object moving slow?

Look at all the evidence of other objects such as bolides where we know the distance to the object, and people think it's much closer than it is.

Even if the plane formation was high, it would have gone by pretty quick and disappeared. This is not me refusing to believe this explanation, this is me believing that the explanation does not make sense at all.

The higher the planes, the longer they are visible so I don't understand your argument here. If it buzzes your house at 200 feet at 400 mph you will see it for only a few seconds before its blocked by your neighbors houses etc. If they are higher they will be visible for longer.

"shockingly flawed perceptions by humans." Has been the gateway for certain debunkers to come up with the most stupid explanations. Hence the reason I brought up the coyne case because it is valid, and an example of certain people using the same argument that we are terrible witnesses.

Just because people bring this up in some cases where their explanation otherwise might be wrong doesn't mean it's not both true and backed up by scientific research, some of which you've been presented with here but it doesn't seem to sink in.

I have seen a few formations of fighter planes in the UK, and not once did I think I high formation, looked like a low slow move, huge craft.

Look at this map of the sightings. The green circles show people who had perceptions similar to yours, they saw airplanes or individual lights with stars between them, just like you did. The black circles show where people saw low triangles in the same place at the same time which blocked out the stars, so not everybody sees every event the same way but it does appear that everybody was looking at the same lights at the same time and getting different perceptions of them. If there was both high planes and a low triangle in the same place at the same time as this map suggests then witnesses should have seen just that, but not a single one did, therefore that's not what happened.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


So we are left with trying to reconcile how these can be sightings of the same object, and the science which you deny because some person mentioned it in a Coyne explanation you didn't think was correct must be considered. Maybe someone got the Coyne case wrong, but that doesn't mean the science of human perception is wrong, it's been studied quite a bit, but you seem more interested in denying that science than learning about it.

originally posted by: Lathroper

originally posted by: Rhombus101
a reply to: Jay-morris

Been keeping an eye on this thread as i stopped posting due to lathroper and his sidekick getting in my face and using personal comments against me also.
Totaly agree with you lathroper and another guy on here need to learn to talk to people with differing views to theirs with some more respect, iether they are a*#holes or they are trolling you guys.

Dont waste your time on them.

Good riddance, this thread is for thinkers. Not pseudo-thinkers. You are not missed.

Well, you should not be here too. Nothing worse than a debunker who just loves to debunk, or try and debunk things he knows nothing about!

originally posted by: Jay-morris
a reply to: FireballStorm
Witnesses say the object was large (covered the sky) and moved slow, blocking out the stars.

Arbitrageur has already done a great job in pointing out many of the reasons why those of us who are skeptical about this event being anything truly unusual don't have much faith in the witness reports. However, there still are a few more reasons that I don't think have been fully covered.

Firstly, "the devil is in the detail":

Looking at your quote above, can you confirm that these were the *exact* words the witness used?

If so, saying it was "large" and/or that it "covered the sky" is very ambiguous. If they had said "covered most of the sky" or "covered nearly all of the sky", then that leaves a lot less wiggle room (if we ignore the fact that witness perception of such events is often far from the reality of what happened).

I would describe the Sun as "large", but it doesn't "cover the sky", and saying it "blocked out stars" is neither here nor there. The Sun and Moon both block out stars, but they don't cover a significant amount of sky unless you happen to observe from somewhere with an already highly restricted view of the sky.

Secondly, how reports are collected makes a big difference:

If you are not aware of how to correctly interview a witness, then there is a high probability that answers recorded during that interview will be worthless. There are very strict guidelines for interviewing witnesses, and while I have not looked into many UFO cases in which witness testimony is a large part of the case, in those that I have, the way witnesses are interviewed leaves a lot to be desired, to put it in the kindest terms possible.

It is obvious, once you research the subject properly, that organizations like "MUFON" don't have the first clue when it comes to proper technique. Their "investigators" are obviously biased, and their questions (that are put to witnesses) are "leading questions". So, even if we had unambiguous witness statements, and perfect perception as humans, if interview technique does not come up to scratch, the former two become irrelevant.

Hypothetical example - Which is the better question to ask of a witness?

A. How big was the object?

B. What size did the object appear to be?

Can you see why "A" might not be such a good choice?

It might not seem like a "big" issue at first, but little things like this can have a large influence on the answer of the witness. This has been shown to be true time and time again, yet UFO "investigators" fail to acknowledge there is any problem. This is yet another reason why many can not take the subject seriously.

It is great to hear you acknowledge that witness perception can play a part. I applaud you for that. Most on this forum don't seem to be able to grasp haw large a part of the UFO puzzle that nugget is. I know many here will read this post and write it off as another "blanket method to debunk many UFO cases all at once", but the truth is that to get close to the answer, any evidence that can't be trusted 100%, has to be ignored.

Yes, it means lots of seemingly "good" cases go out of the window, but then if the truth really is that "we are being visited", it will mean what ever cases are left will definitively prove that proposition - it works both ways. Of course, so far that is not the case. Instead, all the *real* evidence we have that can be proven to be true, suggests that human perception is the cause of UFOs. In case, after case, after case, this turns out to be the most likely explanation, so can you really blame skeptics for continually being skeptical? Throw in the hard time that many skeptics get on here for simply pointing out facts, and the continued refusal of many to even acknowledge well known and pertinent facts, it's a wonder that any even bother with this forum any more. Speaking for myself, I can only take small doses of being on this forum now!


IMHO the question that people here need to spend some time thinking about is:

Why is it so implausible that we are not being visited, and that we do not have "reverse engineered alien tech", knowing what we do about human failings?

Perhaps a new thread here with that question as a title? I would.. but I really don't have the time to devote to it at the moment.

This must be one of the best recorded UFO case in history, still people believe this didn't happen. People do some research.

originally posted by: Intrepidmind
This must be one of the best recorded UFO case in history, still people believe this didn't happen. People do some research.

You should follow your own advice. Because people that don't start new threads celebrating bull dung.