The Phoenix Lights

[EndLightEnd]

I want to address this subject independently because it is a mass sighting that has loads of information and videotape. More importantly I aim to show specifically why the lights observed could NOT have been flares in a conclusive manner.

Exhibit number one:

from http://www.astrosciences.info/Phoenixlites.htm

Right away anyone should be able to notice the obvious differences. Probably the most prominent feature is the presence of a smoke trail. Any military person will confirm this fact; flares produce smoke. At night the smoke is illuminated by and easily visible as seen in the picture above. The Phoenix Lights had no such smoke trails. Also flares drop, the Phoenix Lights were not.

Exhibit number two:

This shows the average movement of the light sources with respect to each other (ignore what the graph says) as a function of time. You can see the unknown light sources stay at a fix distance at ALL times, the flares however have predictable variations in distance as one would expect. This is a crude reconstruction of a graph I saw displayed in the film The Phoenix Lights by director Lynne D. Kitei (who quit her medical career to spend her time investigating this phenomena fully), its an excellent film and I recommend the watch.

Furthermore these objects disappeared only to reappear in the exact same place, flares dont do that. There are dozens of reports of low flying triangular shaped objects which blocked the stars behind them. All reports independently confirm each other, more information can be found here http://www.astrosciences.info/Phoenixlites.htm

 

[Ophiolite]

Furthermore these objects disappeared only to reappear in the exact same place, flares dont do that.

This is why I find it not worthwhile considering your other points.
Tell me what I find so ignorant about your statement and I'll give your post a second look.

 

[EndLightEnd]

Lets quit the guessing games. Why dont you just state what you think is wrong with the statement? I may have worded badly so let me know whats confusing you and I can change it.

 

[fedr808]

Well here's what is wrong. Flares produce smoke. but you can only see smoke in day light. Also those flares look closer to the ground than what was described in the phoenix lights.

The first graph is true but the second one is make believe. Last i checked the phoenix lights were active for a few minutes. No one had a laser range finder with them to test distance. The phoenix lights could have been a tiny object low to the ground or a massive one high up or anything in between. Quiet frankly there were nno scientific tools other than eyesight to describe distance, speed, and direction.

Also the flares that you describe are not aircraft flares. Those are flares either launched by artillery or dropped by aircraft for the sole purpose of illuminating a battlefield for infantry. The more likely kind of flares that would be dropped are magnesium flares which can either burn red or green and burn extremely hot and efficiently and let out little smoke.

 

[CheskiChips]

I live in Phoenix, the flares were commonly known to be from Luke Air Force Base. They do military games (mostly aviation) out by my old house frequently. They usually don't do flares that far in town...but it doesn't shock me that they did.

They still do military flybys around the airport as a routine, although they seem to have no logical time they consistently go at.

 

[draqon]

its bunch of flares launched at same time. period.

 

[EndLightEnd]

Well here's what is wrong. Flares produce smoke. but you can only see smoke in day light.

This is not true, flares are very bright and illuminate their own smoke as seen in the first picture above. Military personnel will also confirm this fact. Especially for magnesium flares (just do a google image search and try to find an image with no smoke).

The first graph is true but the second one is make believe. Last i checked the phoenix lights were active for a few minutes. No one had a laser range finder with them to test distance. The phoenix lights could have been a tiny object low to the ground or a massive one high up or anything in between. Quiet frankly there were nno scientific tools other than eyesight to describe distance, speed, and direction.

Maybe you misunderstand the graph. It is representing relative movements of the lights to each other, meaning the lights remained equidistant from each other to amazing precision. Flares on the other hand shift back and forth with variations in their relative distances. This is solid PROOF that they could NOT have been flares. Actual distance is irrelevant for this test, only relative distances from each other.

Also the flares that you describe are not aircraft flares...The more likely kind of flares that would be dropped are magnesium flares which can either burn red or green and burn extremely hot and efficiently and let out little smoke

Sorry you are wrong about this, the flares in the photograph above are magnesium flares and they were dropped by aircraft.

The flares were of the same variety used in the 1997 exercise: the LUU-2 magnesium flare which burn bright white. She could and identify these lights as flares as she could make out the sparks and smoke trail. These were not the same lights she videotaped on March 13, 1997.

from http://www.astrosciences.info/Phoenixlites.htm

Im not sure if you have actually burned magnesium yourself but it lets out tons of smoke for a tiny little piece. This was a test done specifically to if there was ANY resemblance between magnesium flares and the Phoenix Lights, and there ISNT.

 

[jessiej920]

Furthermore these objects disappeared only to reappear in the exact same place, flares dont do that. There are dozens of reports of low flying triangular shaped objects which blocked the stars behind them. All reports independently confirm each other, more information can be found here http://www.astrosciences.info/Phoenixlites.htm

I thought it was interesting that you mentioned low-flying triangular objects...from the reading I have done on the subject of UFO's, visitor experiences, and unexplained phenomena of this sort, many people, eye witnesses, and/or victims of such phenomena have shared a common characteristic in their experiences and that was that the symbol of the triangle played a distinct role. Many people have reported seeing triangular craft, triangular symbols, even triangle symbols enscribed on their arms or have developed triangular shaped rashes after such experiences. Whether this is actual physical phenomena or something within the own human psyche, I do not know.

I am unsure what to think on the whole matter. Some experts of the visitor and/or UFO phenomena have alluded to the fact that the Triangle has been an extremely important symbol through-out history such as the holy trinity (Father, son, Holy Spirit), the Triple Goddess symbol (Maiden, Mother, Crone), the phases of life (Birth, Life, and Death), Body, Mind, and Spirit (or Heart), etc. Throughout history and within many different religions and traditions, the Triangle is a sign of two equal, but opposing forces balancing out to create a stable shape.

I do think that, whether or not there is actual physical evidence of UFO's, something is happening to people who report being abducted. All over the world, all throughout time and history, people have reported similar experiences. I think that to simply ignore the phenomena as something phony is damaging to the people it happens to. It might be some sort of as yet to be explained mental or psychosomatic phenomena, but the truth is, is that many people who have nothing in common BUT said experience, truly think something scary, traumatic, or amazing has happened to them. To dismiss it as pseudoscience or to simply say that ALL these people are lying seems ridiculous and counter-productive.

 

[Ophiolite]

Lets quit the guessing games. Why dont you just state what you think is wrong with the statement? I may have worded badly so let me know whats confusing you and I can change it.

You had made this statement: "Furthermore these objects disappeared only to reappear in the exact same place."
In the absence of proper monitoring equipment, at night, with untrained observers, there is no way in which anyone can determine that they reappeared in the exact same place.
Making a statement like that reveals a total absence of any scientific rigour in your thinking. As such it calls into very serious question anything and everything you might say on the topic.

 

[SkinWalker]

Your photos in the OP of flares are of a different distance and, very likely, different set of atmospheric conditions than the flares dropped in the second photos.

The so-called "Phoenix Lights" were flares. There's no debate over this. Other speculations exist only in the minds of the ignorant, the significance-junkies, and the mystery-mongers.

 

[fedr808]

at several thousand feet high you cannot usually see smoke from ANY KIND of flare, especially when it is dark.

 

[EndLightEnd]

You had made this statement: "Furthermore these objects disappeared only to reappear in the exact same place."
In the absence of proper monitoring equipment, at night, with untrained observers, there is no way in which anyone can determine that they reappeared in the exact same place.
Making a statement like that reveals a total absence of any scientific rigour in your thinking. As such it calls into very serious question anything and everything you might say on the topic.

Ok let me add something to the end of the sentence.
"Furthermore these objects disappeared only to reappear in the exact same place with respect to the other lights."

Better?

Your photos in the OP of flares are of a different distance and, very likely, different set of atmospheric conditions than the flares dropped in the second photos.

What kind of atmospheric conditions makes smoke invisible? And I am sure they are a different distance, but that still doesnt explain the COMPLETE LACK of smoke. NOT EVEN A TRACE is seen.

And I see no one has touched the fact that these objects were not moving AT ALL relative to each other. How do you explain this FACT with the flare explanation?

 

[electrafixtion]

You had made this statement: "Furthermore these objects disappeared only to reappear in the exact same place."
In the absence of proper monitoring equipment, at night, with untrained observers, there is no way in which anyone can determine that they reappeared in the exact same place.
Making a statement like that reveals a total absence of any scientific rigour in your thinking. As such it calls into very serious question anything and everything you might say on the topic.

You're right Ophiolite. There is absolutely no more rigorously determined evidence that they weren't in the exact same place than they were, so what are we left with? We are left with expert testimony. That's what. Many ex-military, and some anonymous present military, testified along with other aviation authorities, pilots, and technical personnel, to the effect that what they witnessed was most assuredly not flares and was in fact a craft or technology of some sort.

Lets cut the one sided bullshit. I'm tired of it.

This old thing of "if you can't put it under a microscope, it must not be real" is asinine. Of course there is SOMETHING happening here. We just don't know what. OK? You don't. I don't. None of us do.

I will also state that I am growing VERY tired of being associated with a crack pot or a "believer" because I contend there is a phenomenon here that is represent of more than illusion and grandiose fantasies.

 

[electrafixtion]

Your photos in the OP of flares are of a different distance and, very likely, different set of atmospheric conditions than the flares dropped in the second photos.
There's no
The so-called "Phoenix Lights" were flares. There's no debate over this. Other speculations exist only in the minds of the ignorant, the significance-junkies, and the mystery-mongers.

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

 

[fedr808]

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.

 

[cosmictraveler]

They were cars lined up on a hill facing the camera with their lights on.

 

[fedr808]

Also a big arguement for aliens is that flares don't fly in formation, but the planes that drom them do in fact fly in formation.

 

[Ophiolite]

Lets cut the one sided bullshit. I'm tired of it.

I will also state that I am growing VERY tired of being associated with a crack pot or a "believer" because I contend there is a phenomenon here that is represent of more than illusion and grandiose fantasies.

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.

 

[SkinWalker]

What kind of atmospheric conditions makes smoke invisible?

Who said anything about "invisible smoke?"

And I am sure they are a different distance, but that still doesnt explain the COMPLETE LACK of smoke. NOT EVEN A TRACE is seen.

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'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.

I get the fact that most people go their whole lives without seeing even one of the wide range of flares that are dropped from aircraft or fired from artillery rounds. I get the fact that, to these people, such a sight is out-of-the-ordinary.

But, having watched these sort of flares from distances ranging from feet to miles on many, many occasions, I can tell you that these were flares. Moreover, there's no reason to suspect or believe that they were anything else but flares since they were dropped during a military exercise over a military training area. 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?

And I see no one has touched the fact that these objects were not moving AT ALL relative to each other. How do you explain this FACT with the flare explanation?

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.

I will also state that I am growing VERY tired of being associated with a crack pot or a "believer" because I contend there is a phenomenon here that is represent of more than illusion and grandiose fantasies.

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.

 

[EndLightEnd]

You still have not rationally explained complete lack of smoke. I have provided evidence showing how much smoke magnesium flares produce. This would be visible despite the distance, prove that wrong if you can, but no matter what FLARES PRODUCE SMOKE.

Also no one has yet addressed the fact these lights were NOT MOVING relative to each other. Flares on the other hand were TESTED and a random curve arose, which was expected.