A pilot debunks old UFO report (Phoenix Lights)

[cottonzway]

So this pilot is saying all the reports of peole reporting a large, structured craft at a size that is not possible per our current technology are kooks, crazies, or conspiracy theorists? Hmmm...interesting. I wonder who paid this guy for his bunk?

 

[Tom Levine]

This is just like the proverbial onion, isn't it? Peel one layer away and there are a ton more underneath.

I'm inclined to believe that the "triangle" sightings may represent the "all of the above" catagory that appears in so many UFO polls.
Much as you noted, many could be some form of modern-day blimp, yet others appear (I need to look into it more) to defy what we would consider possible.
Have you ever seen the NICAP website? It really is a warehouse of info.
I don't really understand what it is, who put it together or its veracity. However, they've posted tons of witness reports going back decades and there is very little (if any, I need to dig harder) refrence to triangles. Now, were things that were being reported as "flying wings" simply a different manner to describe a flying triangle, or is this really a new phenomena? And if so, than are we to assume that it is a prototype. . .
God, this is complicated, lets just try and figure out abductions where the human is floated through the wall ; )


Apparently there is an old report (disclaimer:just grabbed this off of a site, but I do seem to remember this sighting)

The earliest report which we were able to uncover dated from September 1952 and concerned the sighting of triangular-shaped UFOs seen during a NATO exercise called 'Main brace'. Significantly, UFOs were witnessed by military personnel reported throughout Main brace, including a now-famous encounter reported by half a dozen Royal Air Force personnel stationed at RAF Topcliffe in Yorkshire who saw a circular shaped UFO operating near the airfield.

Good stuff. NICAP website? Probably, but not sure...It's 11:30pm right now though, so I'll have to check it out down the road. From your info, it sounds like a good resource.

I agree it's complicated. Your ponderings pretty much sums it up I think. You're not alone. Yup, that's the list. I usually go through it once before bedtime. My response: I'm absolutely sure that you're possibly right on every single one of them

With regard to the earlier references to black triangles, I confess to not know much about that. Those could be referencing a different phenomenon, if the current one is in fact airships. My primary reference point is the NIDS study that came out in 2002, and their findings on the subject, from a somewhat statistical-scientific standpoint. If you go off of that, they concluded that the predominant black triangle sightings of at least the last 20 years, are likely to be as of yet declassified airships or LTAs. No one knows for sure, of course, so even if NIDS is J. Valle talking, it's still speculation.

 

[Tom Levine]

This should be obvious, but if you plot the points on a map of the reported
97 sightings and extrapolate the line to the northwest you will intersect
a dry lake bed and the longest runway in the world. Could this have been
a stealth blimp? Maybe a test flight over a heavily populated area to gauge
the reaction of the citizens and possibly even the military response? Throw
in a few flares for a cover story, then turn around and go back tp the base that doesn't exist. Next stop, Tehran?
Then again, maybe it was Hall's Tall Whites out for a picnic.

Something along those lines, yeah for sure. For me, I think it's entirely possible.

Oh, no. Please don't throw Hall's Tall Whites into this thread...

 

[Tom Levine]

The Belgium craft were hovering and then fast moving. Perhaps they sent up radar decoys of some kind to distract the F-16's while they crept away over the ocean.....
We don't often think of the possibility of aircraft carrying aircraft.

They seemed to respond to the F-16 radar, in a manner consistent with terrestrial ECM procedures..so I vote for them being terrestrial in origin.

Thanks for not saying "We don't have anything like that."

I'd love to hear more about this. The radar evidence is compelling, at face-value. What are these ECM procedures you're hinting at? Can you post links or share any factual data about this? It sounds like what you're saying is that some form of anti-radar technology was used to gum up the radar pings, which produced false readings. Go on, I'm listening...

 

[Tom Levine]

So this pilot is saying all the reports of peole reporting a large, structured craft at a size that is not possible per our current technology are kooks, crazies, or conspiracy theorists? Hmmm...interesting. I wonder who paid this guy for his bunk?

No, I think the news was a little different than that. (It's late and I'm too tired to go to yahoo news to quote and link, so I'll just comment off of memory here...)

The recent report that came out, was from the actual pilot in the National Guard, who is reporting that he remembers the flight mission that night...I think it's called mission "Snowbird", if I remember correctly. This was a training mission of the national guard. They were flying around and yes, dropping flares. At the end of the mission, this particular pilot gave the order to drop the remaining flares, prior to landing and completing the mission. He is saying that these are definitely the flares seen over Phoenix in 1997. His description of the nature and direction of the planes and their flight path, and the method in which these flares were dropped, is compelling to read. I think these guys said originally that they didn't even know about 'The Phoenix Lights" UFO sighting until several weeks later, when they were stationed in, ummm, was it Maryland I think?

So, is he a reasonable witness to buy his testimony as the truth? I'm not sure why we shouldn't believe he's telling the truth at this point. Do we think he's creating dis-information? Boy, I kind of doubt that, but anything is possible.

If he's telling the truth, than the flares explanation seems reasonable to me. There's some other wider issues we've brought up in this thread, however. I won't re-hash here, however.


But, I'm not sure about the suggestion that this guy was paid off. It could be, but doubtful. I'd want to see more evidence, perhaps challenging the facts of his story, or of his background and/or character.

 

[Noanswers]

Here's the link for the NICAP site. My guess is that most of you have seen it, but if you have not its worth a long looks.
Tons of info here. . .
Official NICAP Web Site

Great spot to look back and check for black triangle reports.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

My sincere apologies, A.LeClair. I really should have known more about Mr. Sims before attaching such a title to him. From your short description of your interaction with him, I may need to reconsider. If anything, maybe I've become far too jaded about Ufology and its attendent personalities.
In addition, there is that one over-night program that will go nameless, that has promoted a lot of less than reputable characters.
In any event, thanks for reeling me in and making me rethink my postions somewhat. . .but I still don't buy the Billy Meier stuff . . .just kidding.

Oh no need to apologize. He may be a huckster, I just haven't seen any evidence for it. If you ever do find dirt on him, feel free to let me know.

I don't buy into Meier's stuff either. Never have. Even when I was a child I thought it was bunk. Some of the photos are that bad. Does Derrell buy into it now? I'd be very surprised.

 

[MarsAve]

Digging up an old thread that was going before I signed on here...........

One thing to remember about the Phoenix Lights TV coverage....is to remember how slick they are when reporting on main-stream media channels. Now, I haven't seen every channel's news story- but if you think back,,what do they always show...? The lights in the sky..all lined up over the city - one even goes out, then comes back on, nice and neat-in the familiar video we always see. What they don't report on main-stream news channels,,,and they have ALL of the info they need, but always fail to connect....is they never say the time the light event started, what time the lights appeared, and they never show the dark camcorder video footage the guy filmed that shows the outline of a Triangle,(to compare it with the alleged flare pattern) and what time that was filmed-etc..tho' dark, it's good enough to see, that the light pattern DOES NOT fit the patterns of any known Airliner I have filmed in the last 40 years, as a hobby.(Nor does it match the alleged flare pattern!!!) I've filmed every known airliner built by Boeing & Lockheed & McDonnell-Douglas, US Built aircraft one would normally see at any US Airport. I have filmed airliners many times over, and I have watched many many times times at night- parked under runway approach lanes, just hanging out watching jets land for fun...,,and I have NEVER, ever- seen a Delta shaped light pattern on any Airliner - anywhere in the 11 western states I have been too - that match the video footage and light pattern, the man captured on home video in Phoenix.

The main stream prime-time news channels have never run those 2 together-side by side- at 6pm for all the Bud and Shirley's to see and digest while eating dinner at home-, and I have never seen it either, (though I have seen this on Cable channel documentaries) - but those don't get prime time coverage..... even the Military doesn't comment on the 2 issues. Being that secretive - shows they have something to hide. Even if it was a stealth ship,,,running lights on a stealth aircraft over well-lit Phoenix - was a bad move. But based on the witness testimonies I have read from throughout the Phoenix area about that event, and if I was sitting on a Jury - I'd have no choice but to vote for conviction, that the US Military was in on the cover-up.....and knew exactly what they were up against - and had to get the flares( from whatever source.....) up in the sky for them to create plausible denial - that 'everything is under control'....Go away media.

To me...the mere fact that it wasn't reported on national news channels the next day is all I need to hear....and then, closer to the anniversary of the Roswell event 1947-1997---just by chance,,,,( and I was watching that night in Mid-June..) all major network news channels 'just decided' on the same day - to run the Phoenix Lights story from way back on March 13th, 1997- at 6pm !!!!! lo and behold...!!!- all tied into the 50th anniversary of Roswell...complete with buffoons in tin-foil hats riding bicycle's around Roswell......how lucky was that!!!!!???? if you don't know what 'Spin' is.....you haven't been paying attention....the countless reports I have read on this event, don't add up........

MarsAve.

 

[auntiegrav]

I'd love to hear more about this. The radar evidence is compelling, at face-value. What are these ECM procedures you're hinting at? Can you post links or share any factual data about this? It sounds like what you're saying is that some form of anti-radar technology was used to gum up the radar pings, which produced false readings. Go on, I'm listening...

Sorry, I lost this thread for a while. Didn't mean to ignore you.

I can't say exactly what I meant because it would probably be illegal to do so, but I will try to explain the basics. In the Belgium transcripts, many times the F-16's achieved a 'lock-on' situation, the triangles would make a maneuver which took them out of the limits of the F-16's, either through speed, altitude changes, or some other means. Most people focus on the extraordinary maneuvers, because "we don't have anything like that".
I just happened to be familiar with operating modes of modern tracking radars, and that they A; don't simply stay pointing at a target, so the target only can tell if there is a change in the radar through specialized equipment and foreknowledge of the attacking radar system, and B: The craft seemed totally unintimidated, as though they knew exactly what capabilities the F-16's had.
Why would an alien race have such specialized equipment? (assuming I didn't read more into the transcripts than is actually there, that is)
If we imagine that these triangles could POSSIBLY be terrestrial in origin (not knowing whose or where), then connecting the dots becomes easier. I tend to go for the easy explanation if I can.
The easiest explanation is that the physics we know isn't all of the physics 'we' know, and the 'we' that knows more isn't telling the 'we' some key components of space/matter theory, and possibly is actively encouraging some bad parts of our current model. Sort of like an archeologist digging up ape bones and human bones together and saying he found a new creature. I don't know if I'm the archeologist, the Ape, the Man, or the Creature when it comes to evaluating some of this stuff. ;-)
Kinda makes ya bonkers. Bwahahahah

 

[BrandonD]

Hi, I've been considering the hypothesis that the phoenix lights craft was some sort of black-ops government vehicle. It makes tentative sense as a theory, but there is really one particular element of the hypothesis that just doesn't fit. Specifically, why would the military fly this craft across practically the entire state of Arizona? This is the main element of the story that inclines me toward the idea that this event was something other than a fly-by of a secret government craft.

The main response to this question of "why?" that's been presented is that the military wants to acclimatize the public to this vehicle. This just makes no sense to me. Flying this vehicle over the state of Arizona, then denying its existence, only to reveal it later on? This would be essentially saying "Yes your government lied to you."

In addition, if this is indeed our aircraft then I can see no reason why its existence wouldn't simply be announced. New technology to fight terrorism, the public would cheer for it. If they are planning to "acclimatize us to it", what exactly are we not ready for now that we'll be ready for later? It just doesn't add up.

This theory of flying a secret black-ops vehicle over a huge segment of the population (and then denying it) really only makes sense to me if it is part of some bigger plan that the public would not approve of, such as staging an alien invasion. This scenario makes more sense to me.

The other reasonable option is that the vehicle was flown by individuals not under the jurisdiction of the government or the military.

I'd like to hear other people's ideas on this subject, let me know if there's a facet of this story that I might not be considering.

 

[MarsAve]

Hi, I've been considering the hypothesis that the phoenix lights craft was some sort of black-ops government vehicle. It makes tentative sense as a theory, but there is really one particular element of the hypothesis that just doesn't fit. Specifically, why would the military fly this craft across practically the entire state of Arizona? This is the main element of the story that inclines me toward the idea that this event was something other than a fly-by of a secret government craft.

True.....and this is becoming a - "Either, Or" type of question: Why would the Gov't run a Black Ops aircraft with Lights on..?

Nobody has even come close to explaning that one. 1) I don't buy 'acclimating the public' - most people already believe in UFO's 2) these are seen all over the USA-with weird flight characteristics-and also, in different countries 3) The Illinois 2000 Police sightings were the best evidence yet, but virtually ignored, mainstream press...

I still believe Stanton Friedman after all of these years- The Gov't is definetly lying. The Alien contact and observation is real - it's just VERY WELL guarded - short of excellent amatuer video film coverage - and mainstream media running the story at the 6pm news.......it will remain well guarded. Stuff will leak out. It always has. The only acclimating to the public to be done..........is easing us into the BIG LIE to save this Democracy from collaspe, is probably a big part of the whole scenario.

MarsAve

 

[Open_Mind2007]

I have seen footage of this so-called ufo.In the end they do appear to flares going out one by one. I too cannot see what the big deal about the phoenix lights are. FLARES and why does there have to always be this conspiracy, just except th4 facts.
Witnesses are always wrong, they will see what they want to.

 

[MarsAve]

from Open-mind 2007

have seen footage of this so-called ufo.In the end they do appear to flares going out one by one. I too cannot see what the big deal about the phoenix lights are. FLARES and why does there have to always be this conspiracy, just except th4 facts.
Witnesses are always wrong, they will see what they want to.

Depending on what your agenda is,,'Open-Mind 2007' : it's been well documented there were 2 events the night of the Phoenix Lights in 1997. Many people reported the evenings events before the large arc of lights were spotted and filmed. Check www.NUFORC.org case brief on this sighting, search it up, read it, and it's easy to see there were 2 different events. Reminder, there is a small segment of film of amatuer video of a dull lit triangle shape type light pattern filmed by a man with a camcorder, that is not the alleged flare pattern, and it has been shown on TV Documentaries. There is no way these are the same arc of lights/pattern of lights - not even close, from what I have seen. There is also documentation I have read, that some investigators interviewd hundreds of people, met them at their addresses, and had them show the investigators where they saw the triangle.....young childern to adults, and most pointed straight up. Not to the south and west were the alleged flare arc was spotted later in the evening...

MarsAve