The Washington National Airport Sightings

James R said:
Isn't (B) a conventional explanation? (e.g. the B-52 bomber explanation?)

More importantly, how have you established that "no conventional explanation can account for this sighting"? I could list about 10 possible conventional explanations off the top of my head. Have you really considered all the possibilities?

By the way, you should always take accounts of how fast UFOs move, how far away they are etc. with a grain of salt. Observers tend to be notoriously inaccurate about such things.
Click to expand...

Please list them.

We've been through flares, chinese lanterns (which I shot down with accuracy provided by help from Phlog and his little video). If you want me to cover this evidence again, I will.

Planes? Aye right, plenty reasons why that doesn't fit the bill either. Helicopters are equally the same. Rockets maybe in your 10 lists of things? Well, I don't know any rockets which fits the description of the Pheonix Lights.

Birds maybe James?

Common, list your 10 conventional explanations which can account for the pheonix lights. I'll assume you have not really studied the evidence to it's strongest and went through why any of the conventional explanations will not suffice, but don't worry, I'll be easy with you.
 
''By the way, you should always take accounts of how fast UFOs move, how far away they are etc. with a grain of salt. Observers tend to be notoriously inaccurate about such things.''

I do, which is what makes the pheonix lights so increadibly justified, because there are so many witnesses who are there making the same statements over and over again, without little contradiction.

A few contradict others, but these are based on whether they could see a structure passing overhead.
 
adoucette said:
What evidence are you referring to?
Click to expand...

1)Video evidence

2) Witness statements

3) history

4) documentary backing

5) even professional evaluation of the flare arguement

With all these side-by-side, each can argue against a conventional explanation. Let us put it this way, if there is an explanation, it is non-convention, which may mean an extremely elaborate explanation. That does not mean aliens by default. Though it seems very credible when the evidience is scrutanized.
 
Mister said:
1)Video evidence

2) Witness statements

3) history

4) documentary backing

5) even professional evaluation of the flare arguement

With all these side-by-side, each can argue against a conventional explanation. Let us put it this way, if there is an explanation, it is non-convention, which may mean an extremely elaborate explanation. That does not mean aliens by default. Though it seems very credible when the evidience is scrutanized.
Click to expand...

There is no Video Evidence.

The witnesses saw lights. Big deal, that isn't evidence of anything except lights.

History isn't evidence

Documentary backing isn't evidence.

An evaluation of an argument is not evidence.

You don't seem real clear on what constitutes actual evidence.
 
adoucette said:
There is no Video Evidence.

The witnesses saw lights. Big deal, that isn't evidence of anything except lights.

History isn't evidence

Documentary backing isn't evidence.

An evaluation of an argument is not evidence.

You don't seem real clear on what constitutes actual evidence.
Click to expand...

WTF are you talking about?

Of course there is video evidence... what do you call this: http://www.youtube.com/results?sear...1056146l43l40l3l30l0l0l467l1538l0.4.2.0.1l7l0

They were the searches off youtube. more directly

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

How can you say there is no video evidence? You are clearly trolling?

Guys do you do this to me intentionally? I mean seriously.

''Documentary backing isn't evidence. ''

Yes it can be, if there are genuine investigators in the name of science giving their views. It is very much evidence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But since you are under the dilusion that no video evidence actually exists, that's ok, I'll take it your highly mistaken about everything!!!

''You don't seem real clear on what constitutes actual evidence.''

How? Dare I ask, explain! If you mean physical evidence, no I have none. Evidence comes in many arrays! Indeed, comes in many forms!
 
Mister said:
Please list them.

We've been through flares, chinese lanterns (which I shot down with accuracy provided by help from Phlog and his little video). If you want me to cover this evidence again, I will.
Click to expand...


are washington and tinley one and the same? ;)
 
There are many similarities, but on the same hand, some reasonable cause to think they are different.

Interestingly, there was an object in complete symmetry which happened in Australia just the next day! eek

I understand your comment, as I have said, but the major differences is that eye-witness testimony stated (pilots nonetheless) which have stated that the lights surrounded them, and moved differential patterns, so assume this to be true, then we have on this case, lights that are not part of a structure.

The tinley lights have massive evidence to suggest they were part of a massive structure.
 
Mister said:
WTF are you talking about?

Of course there is video evidence... what do you call this: http://www.youtube.com/results?sear...1056146l43l40l3l30l0l0l467l1538l0.4.2.0.1l7l0
Click to expand...

Ah how did we get from Washington National to Pheonix?

''Documentary backing isn't evidence. ''

Yes it can be, if there are genuine investigators in the name of science giving their views. It is very much evidence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

No, that's an OPINION and can hardly be used as actual EVIDENCE of Alien visitors.


If you mean physical evidence, no I have none.
Click to expand...

No kidding.
 
adoucette said:
There is no Video Evidence.

The witnesses saw lights. Big deal, that isn't evidence of anything except lights.
Click to expand...

the prima facie evidence for the sun is sunlight
observation is the starting point for the scientific method

sunlight is evidence of sunlight?
i suppose if it were up to you we would be still grunting in caves
 
adoucette said:
Ah how did we get from Washington National to Pheonix?



No, that's an OPINION and can hardly be used as actual EVIDENCE of Alien visitors.




No kidding.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I have confused my threads. The rest stands though.
By the way, the part which said the video evidence was not true, was also excerpted from an alleged page (which has not been directly linked yet) to numerous errors. Such as stating there were no witness accounts of the lights.

:rolleyes:

I have asked atleast three time for this page to be revealed, but no has entertained me! So saying there is no video evidence, is akin to me saying there was no witness testimony to the lights. So far, I can demonstrate the latter is false by linking testimony evidence. No one has set me straight to where these claims that the video was taken from Xfiles lol
 
Gustav said:
the prima facie evidence for the sun is sunlight
observation is the starting point for the scientific method
Click to expand...

Well I'd put observing the object in the sky as the primary evidence, but let's not quibble.

sunlight is evidence of sunlight?
Click to expand...

No, the light from the sun is evidence that the sun radiates light energy.

Light can both be seen from what it reflects off of or what it radiates from.

Because light can pass through the atmosphere without being visible, one can't necessarily tell, at a distance if one is seeing the generation or the reflection of a light.

So the reality is that no evidence has been given as to what created the lights that were seen, and since we know that light can come from a LONG way off, one can't use the presence of fast moving LIGHTS to presume the speed of an object.

For instance, one could project a spotlight on a distant object, and just by a relatively slow movement of the projector create the appearance of a very fast moving object.

Which is why limited evidence can also be misleading.
 
adoucette said:
Well I'd put observing the object in the sky as the primary evidence, but let's not quibble.



No, the light from the sun is evidence that the sun radiates light energy.

Light can both be seen from what it reflects off of or what it radiates from.

Because light can pass through the atmosphere without being visible, one can't necessarily tell, at a distance if one is seeing the generation or the reflection of a light.

So the reality is that no evidence has been given as to what created the lights that were seen, and since we know that light can come from a LONG way off, one can't use the presence of fast moving LIGHTS to presume the speed of an object.

For instance, one could project a spotlight on a distant object, and just by a relatively slow movement of the projector create the appearance of a very fast moving object.

Which is why limited evidence can also be misleading.
Click to expand...


There were several lights observed. The sky was as dark as ever, and the lights traversed at a low altitude.

Only the sun really effects cosmological objects. Not even a meteor will have noticable effects from the sun --- The reason why they are seen is because of Oxydization chemical reactions to the atmosphere.
 
Mister said:
No one has set me straight to where these claims that the video was taken from Xfiles lol
Click to expand...

I don't know where it came from but apparently neither do you.

You can tell it's more modern then 1952 by the superimposed text on the bottom and the fact that it is in color.
 
Mister said:
There were several lights observed. The sky was as dark as ever, and the lights traversed at a low altitude.
Click to expand...

And I've seen that effect when there is a very very thin cloud layer.

Looking directly up, one doesn't even notice it and can see the stars and moon with no problem, but then the searchlights hit it and they are reflected as a spot, seemingly floating in air.

Saw it somewhat often in LA caused by the the thin inversion layer of smog being hit by searchlights for various happenings.

And yes, at the right angles it does look like very fast moving objects.

And yes, with multiple searchlights it does look like that video you posted.
 
adoucette said:
And I've seen that effect when there is a very very thin cloud layer.

Looking directly up, one doesn't even notice it and can see the stars and moon with no problem, but then the searchlights hit it and they are reflected as a spot, seemingly floating in air.
Click to expand...

Yes so have I. At the break of dusk maybe, not when there has been sufficient time for the radiation of the sun to traverse before there is absolute darkness.
 
adoucette said:
And I've seen that effect when there is a very very thin cloud layer.

Looking directly up, one doesn't even notice it and can see the stars and moon with no problem, but then the searchlights hit it and they are reflected as a spot, seemingly floating in air.

Saw it somewhat often in LA caused by the the thin inversion layer of smog being hit by searchlights for various happenings.
Click to expand...

And don't mistake light from the moon onto clouds. That is a secondary effect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top