(Links are messed up, been fixed in a post below)

This was brought up in a thread concerning myself and Phlogistician.

Concerning the pheonix lights:

So many cases don't match up, such as the Pheonix Lights; why would the military shoot flares (at a remarkably low altitude) right above the town of Pheonix?

The pheonix lights could not have been flares. Study the video evidence for yourself through this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5KtsZ5rIjo

The lights do not decend on the horizon. Flares are subject to falling due to gravity. This would be noticable as well considering how low the altitude was. The medical doctor also caught a picture of orbs two years preceeding the Pheonix light case with remarkable overtones.

The experts in their feild contained in the link show quite clearly that flares will fall and not only fall, they leave visible trails behind them. The pheonix lights where over an hour long phenomenon. You would obviously eventually begin to see trails no matter which way you try and dodge the evidence.

Arioch also made a mention in that thread that he had basically went to wiki (I presume) and he replied to me ''dude, they were flares''.

Why do people just take the Military's word for it? What makes them so special? If anything, history has proven them to be complete liars?

I am quite sure the evidence will speak for itself -- now let's see who comes to the Military's rescue.

Just going to save Phlog some time. I have concluded he will follow down the line he started in the other thread, so going to include it here.


A documentary made by the woman that wrote (and profited) from a book?

Quote:

"it seemed an intelligent presence was staring back"

when eye witnesses come out with crap like that, you know they are delusional.

Sounds to me like she saw a formation of chinese lanterns. Here's a vid I took of chinese lanterns:

http://youtu.be/h_Djd8kJ6n8

Please, you need some discernment.

Can I also state that the objects in your video do not remain equally equidistant from each other. The space between them changes drastically in the matter of seconds.

The distance of the lights in the Pheonix case remain properly even throughout the entire hour and a half. Of course, if you had actually watched the video, this was actually a point made by the professionals in the video. That it could not have been flares (and in your case as you have demonstrated) chinese lanterns because the space between the lights never vary. I gave your video 20 seconds and I could see them vary almost immediately.

I don't need discernment. You need proper scientific measure.

(Also, attack the evidence, not the people folks!!)

The governor of Arizona originally washed the claims away with his team as being a load of hoolah and made a mockery of the UFO nuts concerning what happened in Pheonix. The Governor actually witnessed the event first hand and became quite ashamed of his actions. He then started to admit there was something otherworldly about the lights, and even states at the end of this documentary http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08Nud...eature=related that the lights could not have flares. I have shown they couldn't have been chinese lantern.

The only nuts I really see are the skeptics, who believe in such childish explanations. They should all be stuck in a play pen, with sand and rattles.

The governor of Arizona originally washed the claims away with his team as being a load of hoolah and made a mockery of the UFO nuts concerning what happened in Pheonix. The Governor actually witnessed the event first hand and became quite ashamed of his actions. He then started to admit there was something otherworldly about the lights, and even states at the end of this documentary http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08Nud...eature=related that the lights could not have flares. I have shown they couldn't have been chinese lantern.

The only nuts I really see are the skeptics, who believe in such childish explanations. They should all be stuck in a play pen, with sand and rattles.
The URL contained a malformed video ID.

How odd... be right back.

Right --- about to fix it. Remind yourself the order of which the video's are represented because I will be keeping to the order.

well that was annoying! lol

The first link instead of running to that document, here is the actual footage of the pheonix lights which will suffice the arguement

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdIdDpJYSOM&feature=related

The second link we will go the footage in the document because the professional opinions are important on the reason why it cannot be flares: as mentioned, flares emit smoke trails.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb3pTOv886Y&feature=related

You don't need to watch any more than 4 mins worth to find the important information. Also note, I had a link for the governor or Arizona as well. Just follow the documentary to last part and to last couple of minutes worth for that relevant information.

Watched both videos and I have to say that, from the videos alone, I can't rule out the flare explanation. The video of the actual event is too poor quality to even hope to make out smoke trails. Of course I still remember that the first incident had only one eyewitness who was able to observe the lights with any detail, the guy with the telescope, and he said that they were airplanes.

Flares can be ruled out immediately. Flares leave smoke trails which are always visible to the eye. Do you see any trails?

The video is not poor which the experts use to test the flare theory. Their analysis is confirmed.

@Mister --

Due to the video quality I can barely tell that there's lights. Perhaps you can link us to the video that the experts used.

And even if flares leave smoke trails, are they visible to the naked eye in all visibility conditions? No, they're not.

I did - post 8, the link is direct to the video in which the video the experts use and a demonstration video shows that they are incompatible as flares.

It is also highly unlikely the military would have shot flares over a crowded populace. The same arguement is made by the UFO investigators in the Tinley park incident. The same can be applied here.

It is also highly unlikely the military would have shot flares over a crowded populace.

Nobody is saying they did. Just that they were visible to a crowded populace.

Again, you infer too much from what people say they have seen.

Nobody is saying they did. Just that they were visible to a crowded populace.

Again, you infer too much from what people say they have seen.

Not at all. I infer exactly what is required, no more and no less.

@Mister --


I did - post 8, the link is direct to the video in which the video the experts use and a demonstration video shows that they are incompatible as flares.

Oh, I thought you were saying that there's a higher quality video of the actual event out there, that is something I'd like to see.

No, I watched both of the videos you linked to in post eight. I still can't rule out flares because the video of the event is really quite shitty. And just out of curiosity, who is the "expert" you say ruled out flares, because I've been doing some digging and found some interesting information.


It is also highly unlikely the military would have shot flares over a crowded populace. The same arguement is made by the UFO investigators in the Tinley park incident. The same can be applied here.

Except the lights don't appear over the town, not in the video you linked us to anyways. We have two points of reference with regards to distance in the video(the town itself and what looks like a substation or radio tower in the foreground on the hill), given that we can tell that these lights are behind the mountain range, not over the town at all. I'm currently looking for video confirmation of this but it's hard to find.

I have seen the trajectory which the object is said to have made, and it is clearly over the populated area's. And what is this interesting evidence.

If we were lawyers, you'd have to share. Don't be selfish, show me yer pie!

@Mister --


I have seen the trajectory which the object is said to have made, and it is clearly over the populated area's. And what is this interesting evidence.

I highlighted the important part of that sentence for you. However, like I said in my last post. The video quite clearly shows that the lights were behind the mountain range, hence explaining why they suddenly go out(they fell behind the mountains). As for the eyewitnesses saying that they saw the lights moving horizontally, you must keep in mind that these lights were seen from a rather large distance(well beyond the optimum visual distance for humans) and in poor lighting conditions(unless you're photosensitive like me, but we're quite rare). Given just that we know that the testimonials regarding speed and movement are going to be worthless, even for people(again, like myself) who are normally good at judging such things(humans are notoriously poor judges of movement at a distance at the best of times)

When it comes to this sort of thing it's always better to trust what physical evidence you have over the eyewitnesses.


If we were lawyers, you'd have to share. Don't be selfish, show me yer pie!

Oh I'll share, I just want to know if my guess is on the money, and for that to happen I need to know the name of the expert who ruled out flares.

No that is clearly wrong. They don't fall behind the moutain range. For one logical reason.

Each light was suspended at more or less the same altitude in a straight line for the same amount of time. (Straight from a forward view, more triangular from below) but maintained the same distance seperated and height.

The lights go out seperately over different times. If they fell behind the mountain, you'd expect them all to disappear at the same time.

Secondly, I think witnesses are able to tell whether the lights fell behind a mountain or not. We are not dealing with retards here.

The name of the expert, watch the video!!! I am certainly not going through another video for you. The other one isn't as long.

Not at all. I infer exactly what is required, no more and no less.

How do you decide what is required in advance of viewing the evidence?

You cannot, so that's your problem.

How do you decide what is required in advance of viewing the evidence?

You cannot, so that's your problem.

Once I evaluate the evidence, I know what kind of arguements which can and cannot be used.

@Mister --


Each light was suspended at more or less the same altitude in a straight line for the same amount of time.

Yup, they were in a visible line(doesn't mean that they were actually in a line or even a shape at all) for a few seconds, after that they lost that formation.


(Straight from a forward view, more triangular from below) but maintained the same distance seperated and height.

Yeah, and then they lost this formation well before they reached the mountain line.


The lights go out seperately over different times. If they fell behind the mountain, you'd expect them all to disappear at the same time.

That's not at all what you'd expect because if you watch the video again you'll not that they are not quite lined up and that they're not horizontal either. They go out exactly as you would expect if they were flares falling behind a mountain range. We know this because a comparison has already been done and been independently verified. If you'll remember from the wiki article that you so strongly held was evidence of ETs or a conspiracy(still not sure which but it doesn't matter since it isn't evidence of either), the independent video lab Cognitech superimposed the video of the lights onto daytime footage taken from the same spot and, lo and behold, the lights went out one by one as they dropped behind the mountains.

The problem with your evidence that they were over the town is that nobody in the UFO community bothered to verify that that was indeed the case. And in case you're feeling bitchy about this you should also remember that these results were independently verified by one Dr Paul Scowen from ASU.


Secondly, I think witnesses are able to tell whether the lights fell behind a mountain or not. We are not dealing with retards here.

No, we're not, but I am dealing with an innocently ignorant person here. I know that you've never been to Phoenix so you wouldn't necessarily know this, but do you know what color the sky is at night in Phoenix? It's quite possibly the deepest black. Do you know what color the mountains are at night when they're not backlit by something? The same color as the sky. This is true even for me and I'm about fifty percent more sensitive to light than is average(I have more light sensitive cells in my retinas due to some genetic mutation somewhere).

So your assumption that they would be able to tell the difference is a fallacious one that doesn't stand up under scrutiny because it just doesn't fit the facts.


Once I evaluate the evidence, I know what kind of arguements which can and cannot be used.

Then how do you explain your documented trend of using logically fallacious arguments?

@Mister --



Yup, they were in a visible line(doesn't mean that they were actually in a line or even a shape at all) for a few seconds, after that they lost that formation.



Yeah, and then they lost this formation well before they reached the mountain line.



According to who?

When I watch the video evidence, the lights are quite clearly still in that formation, and as each light blinks out, the formation would have still been held.

You misunderstood all the evidence again Arioch.

No one even claims it went behind the mountain. Some of these people have arguably lived there all their lives, I think they'd be able to discern where the mountain is in their area and where the sightings journey ended.

I don't live in America, I have never been to America so I've never been to Pheonix. I am not ignorant because I am not ignoring witness accounts.

You are ignoring the witness accounts however, whether or not you have been pheonix.

@Mister --


Then how do you explain your documented trend of using logically fallacious arguments?

That is cheap coming from someone who doesn't evaluate the evidence at all!

From stating that man had common arthiritus, to stating the lights went behind the mountains, every arguement you come out with is highly suspect. Even your chinese lantern case for the Tinley park lights were laughable to those who had evaluated the evidence.

My arguements are usually sound and I bring an excellent discussion to the table which even the resident skeptics here seem to have trouble here with.