The Phoenix Lights

[SkinWalker]

I would like to see the evidence please. I am certain you can provide it, correct?

There's no requirement for me to evidence your claim of undue significance. Flares were admittedly dropped by the military. Flares are the most parsimonious explanation. There is no good reason to believe they are something else.

If they aren't flares, what are they?

You are the one that needs to provide evidence. You're the one making a wild-ass, unfounded, and ignorant claim.

 

[EndLightEnd]

Who said anything about "invisible smoke?"

Well then where is it?

Just because you don't see it in the images doesn't meant that it wasn't there. Cameras depend on light, distance, and either resolution of the camera (if digital) or the speed of the film in order to capture an image.

There are THOUSANDS of images of these lights, NONE of them contain any evidence of a smoke trail. But yes lets ignore the photographic evidence so your point stands.

There's no reason to believe that the smoke trail, even if one was heavy and present, should be apparent in an image or camcorder shot. No reason at all.

What about the thousands of eye witnesses which reported NO SMOKE? Im sure many had binoculars, but none reported smoke!

If not flares, what are you suggesting they are? What is a more parsimonious explanation that requires fewer new assumptions that explains points of light that behave exactly like flares?

The point of my graph was to show that they behaved very differently than flares. Must have overlooked that one eh? Watch the video.

Okay. Clearly you've never watched flares dropped before. But why would they be expected to move relative to each other? They're each subjected to the same physical forces, weather, gravity, etc. They behave exactly as expected if they were flares.

So you would expect the flares all to move as if attached to a pole? Obviously there are random differences that cause the path of each flare to be a little different then its neighbor, hence the variations in the graph above.

If you believe that there is something other than flares at work, then you are, by definition, "a believer." Not just any believer, but a significance-junkie who looks for undo significance where none is; a mystery-monger who gets off on mysteries that don't exist -in short, those that contend there is something other than flares at work are not only ignorant, they're woo-woos and crackpots.

Yes well at least we can function without calling people names every 2 minutes. Says alot about your personal outlook on life, and explains alot about your predispositions.

 

[SkinWalker]

The distances for all the observers to the flares were too great to see the "smoke." You're ignorant. This is clear.

So what are you suggesting that these points of light were, genius?

 

[electrafixtion]

Have you guys ever seen a plane at night at around a few thousand feet with its lights on. No one ever does. They can see the lights but the plane is so high up and it is so dark, no one ever sees the plane. Same with flares. All of your pictures are from altitudes so low you qould have to be blind to not see the smoke.

Also what military personnel name them. prove to me they exist.

If you yourself had done ANY research on this matter you would already know what I am stating is dead on. Now, have you done ANY research on the matter or are you just chiming in here?

If you had researched the case you would know that there is no case on record with more reliable mass eye witness testimony than this specific event.

Incidentally, these lights passed over the heads of expert witnesses at altitudes of no more than 500 feet. So you can throw that 2000 foot analogy right out the window.

There are only about a dozen full length documentaries on the matter. It shouldn't be too hard for you to get to the bottom of what you're after.

It's also important to note that identical light formations have been observed around the globe and still are till present. Many of these sightings are no where near military testing facilities or bases.

 

[electrafixtion]

There's no requirement for me to evidence your claim of undue significance. Flares were admittedly dropped by the military. Flares are the most parsimonious explanation. There is no good reason to believe they are something else.

If they aren't flares, what are they?

You are the one that needs to provide evidence. You're the one making a wild-ass, unfounded, and ignorant claim.

I see you're still just as talented at dancing as ever you old dog!

Where you been Skin?

We missed ya.

 

[SkinWalker]

Incidentally, these lights passed over the heads of expert witnesses at altitudes of no more than 500 feet. So you can throw that 2000 foot analogy right out the window.

Then you're talking about a different event than what is commonly referred to as "The Phoenix Lights" by UFO nuts.

Which "expert" witnesses used what methods to measure these alleged distances?

The flares that appeared near Phoenix were dropped miles from the observers that thought they were seeing space aliens. Miles. I'm at work now, but if it strikes my fancy tonight, I'll give you the data when I get home.

 

[electrafixtion]

If you believe that there is something other than flares at work, then you are, by definition, "a believer." Not just any believer, but a significance-junkie who looks for undo significance where none is; a mystery-monger who gets off on mysteries that don't exist -in short, those that contend there is something other than flares at work are not only ignorant, they're woo-woos and crackpots.

If you fall into that category, then it is by your own choice.

ROTFLMAO!!!!

Where else could I possibly depend on such nonsensical, yet entertaining, abuse? I Love it!

 

[VRob]

The Military sent up flairs AFTER the initial sighting at dusk as a cover story. Any nimrod paying attention would know that the flairs were sighted well after the alleged craft was seen.

The Phoenix Governor at the time has come out stating that what he saw wasn't the military flairs.

http://video.yahoo.com/watch/759761/3273347

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/22360

 

[Ophiolite]

The Phoenix Governor at the time has come out stating that what he saw wasn't the military flairs.

I bet you don't usually trust politicians.

 

[VRob]

I bet you don't usually trust politicians.

Deflection....... the point remains.

The flairs were sighted well AFTER the fact.

 

[electrafixtion]

Tough.
You have never displayed in any of your posts, to my recollection, the scepticism that is necessary in a scientist - or in one who claims adherence to scientific methodology.

A rational explantion is available. We do not see things, we perceive them. That perception is run through a creative filter that is far beyond our conscious control. Yet you are happy to take an ad hoc interpretation created by the human mind, over a thoughtfully analysed, but disappointingly mundane, explanation.

So get used to being condemned for being a pseudoscientist, until such times as you bring a mature, objective attitude to the problem. In the meantime, if you find this tiring, perhaps you could go elsewhere.

Do you BELIEVE that this honestly defines a "scientist"? I believe most great minds would disagree with you.

Replying to that which is italicized above, then how can you trust ANYTHING you see?

I was walking through the country one day when I happened on a astute looking young man, standing patiently beside the road. When within polite speaking distance I inquired of him as to why he was fixed there on the spot where he stood. I thought he had fallen and possibly hit his head because he looked confused and disorientated. I could see he was looking up and down the road somewhat anxiously and every so often his eyes would rest fixed on the road itself. After I heard what I thought was some semi intelligent mumbling about something called sci forums or whatever, the man turned to me and declared quite matter of factually that he dared not cross the street because that meant trusting his sight. You see, he wasn't even certain if where he was at was in fact a roadway. But by chance, if it were, he couldn't possibly risk being run over by a car or truck because even though he could clearly see for a mile or so in each direction, he was certain he could be plowed down at any moment if he were to attempt to cross this quite possibly busy road. I looked at him, shrugged my shoulders and as I walked past him thought out loud: man, that creative filtration business is a bitch.

 

[SkinWalker]

Deflection....... the point remains.

The flairs were sighted well AFTER the fact.

The OP was discussing the flares. The aircraft sighted earlier in the evening by other observers is a separate issue, but was still one or more aircraft.

What else could it be. Moreover, what are the significance-junkies and mystery-mongers in this thread suggesting these sightings are?

 

[VRob]

The OP was discussing the flares. The aircraft sighted earlier in the evening by other observers is a separate issue, but was still one or more aircraft.

What else could it be. Moreover, what are the significance-junkies and mystery-mongers in this thread suggesting these sightings are?

You've based all your posts here on the speculative theory that there were only flairs. No craft whatsoever.

What else could the aircraft sighted earlier have been.........? I don't know. I doubt it was simply a mistaken identity of a mundane airplane or helicopter. You seem to have already ruled out anything but those 2 answers. But that shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.

 

[SkinWalker]

I watched the video. They were flares (flares isn't spelled with an "i" by the way). If I watched a video of birds, I'd say "they were birds."

If I watched a video of a tornado, I'd say "that's a tornado."

If I watched a video of an olympic race, I say "people are running."

I wouldn't have any other evidence to go on but my experiences with each.

There's no reason to think that the flares in the video were anything else, but if you find some sort of "craft" (whatever that means) which behave just like flares, and can demonstrate that behavior, I'm willing to revise my opinion.

The only application of "speculative theory" is that there is something going on that is "mysterious" or of undue significance. The aircraft sighted earlier could have been any number of non-mundane aircraft like an F-117 or even several A-10's flying in formation.

The significance-junkie and the mystery-monger, however, makes mountains from molehills and wants something else to be there. But this shouldn't come as a surprise to the rational thinker.

I ask again, if not flares and an aircraft, what explanations are you and others suggesting? Keep in mind, the explanations should be demonstrated to be things that behave just as flares and aircraft.

 

[fedr808]

First off, the reports for altitude were as follows in order, 100 feet, 150 feet, 600 feet, 1000 feet, 1000 feet again, 1500 feet, 2000 feet, 2300 feet.

From different people

And the 100 and 150 foot ones were from people on mountains anyways


So unless your ufo was doing front flips the whole night long than you fail miserably.

Also you did not disprove my point, you insulted me than you talked about how great your idea is.

You made a BS claim that there were accurate instruments out there to record and see the UFO. According to all sources i found, no person had any instrument more scientific than a cam corder or a cell phone end of story.

Also i found reports that your UFO was in two places at once in two cases and three at another.

 

[fedr808]

If it were a UFO what would you do.

Laugh in our faces?

Call us names?

Who gives a crap, your imaginary friends have not done anything wrong.

What do you suggest that we shoot a nuke up at them just because they did'nt come wave hello.


Get a life other than proving people wrong.

 

[EndLightEnd]

The distances for all the observers to the flares were too great to see the "smoke." You're ignorant. This is clear.

So what are you suggesting that these points of light were, genius?

This is why people have instruments called binoculars and telescopes. Unfortunately binoculars and telescopes do not have any way to take pictures unless you have a very high end telescope (which is a very small percentage of the population). People who had binoculars and telescopes got a very good look at this objects, and yet NO SMOKE was reported in the THOUSANDS of reports submitted. And dont get coy with me, genius, I expect more poise from a mod.

Then you're talking about a different event than what is commonly referred to as "The Phoenix Lights" by UFO nuts.

Now you are showing your ignorance. There were multiple sightings in Phoenix of multiple craft spanning multiple nights. Craft were also observed the night before the "main" night. Here is a time line of events http://www.astrosciences.info/Phoenixlites.htm

There's no reason to think that the flares in the video were anything else, but if you find some sort of "craft" (whatever that means) which behave just like flares, and can demonstrate that behavior, I'm willing to revise my opinion.

Are you oblivious to the graph in the very first post which clearly shows that these objects did not behavior resembling magnesium flares; in fact it was not even close. If you doubt the validity of this claim watch the video I referenced in the OP.

The significance-junkie and the mystery-monger, however, makes mountains from molehills and wants something else to be there. But this shouldn't come as a surprise to the rational thinker.

Im getting sick of you playing this angle. Fort's principle makes it invalid so why dont you quit saying derogatory things. Is it possible you can discuss the topic without belittling the competition?

The feeling that no matter how honest scientists think they are, they are still influenced by various unconscious assumptions that prevent them from attaining true objectivity. Expressed in a sentence, Fort's principle goes something like this: People with a psychological need to believe in marvels are no more prejudiced and gullible than people with a psychological need not to believe in marvels

Surely a rational thinker such as yourself takes this into careful consideration. Our tendency to make mountains out of molehills is no worse than your tendency to make mountains into molehills.

 

[SkinWalker]

So what looks like flares, behaves like flares, but isn't flares?

Regardless of what you keep saying, those were flares. The videos look like flares. They behaved just like flares. They were flares.

But what do you think they were? What explanation is more parsimonious?

 

[SkinWalker]

Im getting sick of you playing this angle. Fort's principle makes it invalid so why dont you quit saying derogatory things. Is it possible you can discuss the topic without belittling the competition?

Would that you actually provide some competition. Or, at the least, something worthy of discussion. Instead, science forums become like flypaper to cranks and crackpots, trolling them to espouse "Fortean" nonsense and crackpottery. SciForums especially so, since we have a relatively lax policy on the crackpots and cranks.

Further, that you find criticism and rejection of crackpottery "derogatory," it's right on the mark. Either put up or shut up, as the saying goes.

I've asked several times: if not flares, what? What explanation is more parsimonious than flares?

Surely a rational thinker such as yourself takes this into careful consideration. Our tendency to make mountains out of molehills is no worse than your tendency to make mountains into molehills.

You have yet to show any mountains. We're standing on a desert plain -a flat expanse- of imagination and speculation. Before us is a small mound of dirt, but rather than step over it, you'd prefer to suggest that the mound is that which it is not: unclimbable, impassable, imposing.

And while you continue to stand, staring at the obstacle which has gripped your mind in such awe and wonder, the rest of us have continued our journey with an occasional glance over the shoulder and a chuckle under our breath.

Its just a molehill. You're getting left behind.

 

[Ophiolite]

Do you BELIEVE that this honestly defines a "scientist"? I believe most great minds would disagree with you.

I accept the definition of a scientist as one who employs the scientific method. An integral part of that method is scepticism on the part of the scientist.
I should be interested to see referenced quotes from 'great minds' that, in context, clearly state something to the contrary. Produce such quotes and I shall apologise.

Replying to that which is italicized above, then how can you trust ANYTHING you see?

Quite simply I don't. How does this work? Nothing like your amusing story.

On a day to day basis I accept that things are probably as they appear, but I am alert to any contrary input. This means I can cross the road exactly the same way you do, but I am much better prepared if - as has happened to me in Central London- a pink tank appears as part of the traffic flow.
In a work environment, where I will often be analysing data (or customer/colleague motives) my scepticism leads me rapidly to the 'truth'. or as much of the 'truth' as can currently be determined.