Phoenix Lights a Hoax

Don't look now but I got the smoking gun on the phoenix lights. Can you guess what it is?

He told KTVK-TV that after the sun went down Monday night, he tied road flares to four large helium-filled balloons using fishing line. Then he released the balloons one-by-one, at one-minute intervals.

I can tell you this much, I smell a cover story. Or perhaps someones attempt to catch the public eye. I did a search and couldn't find anyone who had covered the topic before but I thought I would single this one out and see if anyone had any thoughts on the matter.
I myself think it's crap. Either that he set this thing up, or is claiming to be the man responsible. There are some things about the Phoenix lights that are undeniably strange. The article is for April so I was wandering if anyone had covered it, or why not. But what about this guy who claims to have set the whole thing up? Anyone got anything on this guy who prefers to remain anonymous? He doesn't claim to have set up the 97' incident, which seems to be the most interesting incident of all the reports of the Phoenix lights.
So he says there were only four of them to start. When you watch the video, you can see five lights. And I find it interesting that they make it seem like the stories people told went along with this mans allegations. I can tell you this much, there are already some inconsistancies. Not only that, they attempt to explain that the local air traffic caused the supposed FLARES to organize and move in a mysterious manner. I do find it possible that this story could be true, however I don't believe it explains some of the mysterious circumstances surrounding the Phoenix events. But I don't think his story fits. That includes all but the 97' events. Check it out.

www.wfaa.com...

What about the people that saw a physical triangle..not just a collection of lights. Including fif symington, and other respectable witness's.

Im guessing you dont care though just wanted to start a flame thread eh? LULZ

As reptillianbiode said, a lot of people reported seeing an actual giant triangle. Flares on balloons are one thing but how did someone fake the triangle?

Remember that guy Dr. James R. Bartzen said he knew the truth about the Phoenix Lights? So much for that

its well known the military flares was purely staged to set up an acceptable debunking excuse, and it worked well it fooled you. But there was many many witness's to the huge triangle craft and even a video of it flying around which is quite incredible if you get the chance to view it..

okay.
first one was really an unidentified flying object/lights(no flicking or anything, stable and is fluid with all the other lights as it was connected to one large piece), and the 2nd one was definitely military test flares to try to cover up the original unidentified flying object(wavy lights flickered, some fell faster and wasn't aligned as the original unidentified lights.).



[edit on 4-8-2008 by chinabean]

I just forgot to mention something that crossed my mind. You have to light a flare, especially a road flare. These lights clearly come on in mid-flight. I can't believe I forgot to mention this as well.

Well I was simply hoping to shed some light on the subject. I have yet to see a case which sparks more speculation. Here is another interesting video, watch till the end. The former is an example of how the media blows this stuff out of proportion. Disinformation and the like. What will we know if we don't look at what we have?

Here it is, pay no attention to the date as they clearly state that it was simply the date set on the camera at the time. I think this is understandable.

video.google.com...

I'm with you on this, just offer me a little insight eh?

You're talking about the "Phoenix Lights" that recently happened, not the famous Phoenix Lights back in 1997.

We did several threads on the guy who claimed he hoaxed the latest one...including this one :

www.abovetopsecret.com...

We actually bought the same balloons as the hoaxer claimed he did, and tied flares to them etc...you can read all about it in the above thread.

It has the news footage, our ATS footage where we tried to duplicate the whole thing etc.

[edit on 11-8-2008 by LateApexer313]

Yeah, there are so many claims to these events. I'm not trying to say that the individual sights are the same. However, I did want to shine some light on the subject. I searched for a previous thread as I aforementioned, but to no avail. I was hoping that someone could isolate the events that took place and make verifications. Using this I was wandering if I could find something a little more concrete. I'm not expecting any answers, just want to make some eery connections.

Look at this also, then watch the video from the last post, not the first one.
7:01/20:04
What does Captain Eileen Bienz say again? Keep in mind this is 1997.

"SNOWBIRD" was established as a cover for project REDLIGHT. Several
flying saucer-type craft were built using conventional technology. They
were unveiled to the press and flown in front of the press. The purpose
was to explain accidental sightings or disclosure of REDLIGHT as having
been the SNOWBIRD craft."
OPERATION MAJORITY
Milton William Cooper 1989

www.thewatcherfiles.com...

Was Captain Eileen Bienz staging a cover-up? Needless to say this was not the same thing that William Cooper spoke of specifically. However, she uses the same code name. Anyone curious? Could one speculate that this event contained similar objectives? To distract the public from what was really going on. Can anyone speculate what may have actually happened during the phoenix lights of 97'? I don't think anyone has asked all the necessary questions yet.

Regarding the 97 Phoenix Lights, where are the videos and pictures of the triangle? As far as I know, there are only vids and pics of the "flares" dropped up above the hills.

Makes me think people made up the triangle part after they saw the flares.... otherwise show me the "triangle" footage...

video.google.com...

Watch the end.

Hey with all they hype he created what ever happened with Dr. James R. Bartzen. I hear he is one of those know it all theorists. Get back with me if you have anything. I heard he charged a bunch of people for the secret at a seminar and posted it on bulletin boards everywhere or something of that jazz. Whats up?

18:28/20:04

[edit on 08/11/08 by freakngeckos]

# that guy. he just wants credit for no reason. flame this thread!

The thread wasn't about Dr. James R. Bartzen...

It's really amazing how long one can stay away from ATS and come back here and it's the same topics of conversation.

Originally posted by freakngeckos
"SNOWBIRD" was established as a cover for project REDLIGHT. Several
flying saucer-type craft were built using conventional technology. They
were unveiled to the press and flown in front of the press. The purpose
was to explain accidental sightings or disclosure of REDLIGHT as having
been the SNOWBIRD craft."
OPERATION MAJORITY
Milton William Cooper 1989

I've been keeping tabs on some so-called 'secret' project names over at:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I see 'snowbird' and 'redlight' are there with a good link to another ATS thread on SnowBird.

As for the 97 Phoenix lights, I thought Mitch Stanley was a credible witness to planes:
en.wikipedia.org...

Finally I think someone determined the purpose of this thread. Seems like everyone was providing criticism but no one had a credible point to make and no one seemed to be catching on to what I was getting at.

Those code names provide hints as to what is really going on, and they are important because they reveal the true intentions behind these events. They show that someone is trying to pull you away from the obvious. The simple fact is that we can look at things that have happened in the past and then we start putting things together later on. Then other things happen and maybe we sit back and think, "Hey, what about the phoenix lights."

I'm not trying to broaden awareness of the phoenix lights. I was hoping that wouldn't be your impression. But did you really think about it to begin with. Why DO we think about it to begin with. If we don't ask any questions, we wont get any answers. FACT. I mean, did anyone come to any real conclusions before.

So why criticize if you don't have anything to contribute. Your actually helping people get their minds off of the fact. This goes way beyond the phoenix lights. Like my first post, it was only the beginning. I will continue probing, I have to. It's going to be the same conversation until you add something to it, or point out something that you didn't notice before. I am looking for that element. The missing piece, something we didn't notice. Maybe it wont provide closure, I have my own feelings about that. I've seen enough bits and pieces that I have a good idea of what I believe. I don't lay claims to any of it but it does stir my conscience a lot. But maybe it will take us somewhere else.

It seems the government has a procedure for these things and we have to catch on. You have television and media and they play on that. But it seems like at one point they are going to get backed into a corner just like we are sometimes. How can we expose them at that point.

Now, what about the end of the Phoenix lights x video? Cover that yet? Don't worry, the origin of that portion of the film probably wont be my next interest. But I have many, and it is a particular one. But what about the reasons why those lights were there. Why over Phoenix? Knowing they would see them, why? Try to ask questions, at least try. Who recovered the flares, any proof of that? Can anyone relate anything else in these videos? Any others? You got plenty of questions and you got lots of theories. Do any of them amount to anything. Do any of them lead you anywhere? Trying to discourage me from being interested is all it amounts to, someone trying to discourage me from asking questions about something they don't know the answers to. And yeah, I bet not having answers to questions like these doesn't please you any.

Thanks for the contributions so far, thank you very much.

I would believe the UFO story before going into the hoax. Sounds a little fishy no pun intended. That out of the blue someone would set off road flares hten attach them to balloons. That sounds crazier than the ufo story! Got to admit that its people like this who just want attention and unfortunately they get attention. Though judging from how people actually saw it and know what they swaw they wont be to happy with someone ssetting up everyone. Not to mention if there were military exercises in the area wouldnt this gentleman be in alot of trouble legally so to speak. Someone was once arrested for shining a laser at a plane can you imagine if this was true what would happen to this guy. I eman geez ya cant have civilians running around setting things on fire and setting them adrift. Thats a possible catastrophe.

I'm not terribly familiar with this case, so someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

But after the incident on March 13th, 1997, didn't the military set up a demonstration to debunk these sightings? They claimed that it was a test of theirs, and that it was just flares on the undersides of some military craft.

My question is, why would the military go to all this trouble to debunk it unless they themselves believed it was an extraterrestrial visit? Also, if they are the ones claiming responsibility, then what is this new guy talking about? Something seems fishy to me here...

Personally, I didn't believe the military demonstration when I saw the footage of it. The flares on their aircraft visibly lit up the craft itself, something that didn't happen in the original incident.