Support NeoGAF

[SolidsnackooFoxhound]

which arizona incident? i'd like to read about it.

It's the first part of the documentary . Just watch it :3.

 

[Riggs]

But are any of those people ex military?

People make fun of it because there's no proof and essentially the absence of proof is what people use to prove these things are real which like I said would be considered absurd for everything except aliens apparently.

Wow lol.

 

[Joel Was Right]

I enjoy a monthly Illuminati stipend for being a skeptic on the internet.



"Definitely" is not a term I would use when we're talking about eyewitness accounts that people are being asked about again, long after the event has transpired, and in the context of UFO culture and the widespread meme that the lights they saw were alien craft. Memory is malleable and it is incredibly easy for "I saw some lights." to become "I saw an alien ship with features X, Y, and Z." under the right circumstances.




You'd better believe it, brother.

Should characteristics of the lights, the distance to the nearest air force base, and the lights' recurrence in later years lead us to the conclusion that these flare-like alien craft are flying extremely specific routes, or that they were Goddamn flares?

The Phoenix incident is unfairly conflated with purely lights or formations. Several people, including the governor (recent admission on his part, despite mocking the spaceship theory at a press conference in 97, the bastard), saw the actual physical craft flyby across the night sky - not "lights", but they could see the entire thing. Some witnesses who saw an object describe the stars being blocked out as it flew above them. Besides, even to the Air Force's admission, the flares were dropped hours after the first initial sightings of the triangle.

I've read a couple of Dunning's pieces over the years, hoping to find a counter balance, but I've stopped now; he is not neutral and if you were as familiar with the material you would come to the same conclusion I suspect

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

Wow lol.

Wow, good counter argument lol.

Am I doing it right?

 

[Joel Was Right]

In regards to the 720p title, I apologise. It is misleading. The reason i put it in there was because I originally saw this documentary a few years back in lower resolution. The high definition release of it came as a surprise and that was on my mind when I was writing the title.

 

[Riggs]

Wow, good counter argument lol.

Am I doing it right?

Just laughing at the snarkyness. As for your skills in argueing only the flare gods can judge.

 

[Orayn]

The Phoenix incident is unfairly conflated with purely lights or formations. Several people, including the governor (recent admission on his part, despite mocking the spaceship theory at a press conference in 97, the bastard), saw the actual physical craft flyby across the night sky - not "lights", but they could see the entire thing. Some witnesses who saw an object describe the stars being blocked out as it flew above them. Besides, even to the Air Force's admission, the flares were dropped hours after the first initial sightings of the triangle.

Awesome. More than "several" people saw the sun change colors and fly around the sky in Fátima, Portugal in 1917. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter. The first set of sightings, the ones that flares seemingly couldn't account for, are so poorly documented that they should be considered a complete and total dead end as far as substantive discussion goes.

I've read a couple of Dunning's pieces over the years, hoping to find a counter balance, but I've stopped now; he is not neutral and if you were as familiar with the material you would come to the same conclusion I suspect

It doesn't matter if Dunning is neutral or not - He's pointing out that the LUU-2B/B illumination flare could produce lights consistent with what many people reported. That would mean we'd have eyewitness reports that are corroborated by hard, documented evidence, rather than eyewitness reports corroborated by nothing.

The fact that similar lights were seen again in 2007 and 2008 should raise suspicion.

 

[Poimandres]

For the people who "lol" at things like this documentary, do you believe all UFO sightings are misidentification of natural phenomenon? Or fabrications? Or that there are some legitimate phenomena that we haven't properly explained/identified?

I'm not going to cry "aliens", but I definitely think some of the phenomenon witnessed by apparently trust worthy people can be classified as true UFO's. That is: can not be attributed to misidentifcation of known phenomena.

 

[Riggs]

Awesome. More than "several" people saw the sun change colors and fly around the sky in Fátima, Portugal in 1917. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter. The first set of sightings, the ones that flares seemingly couldn't account for, are so poorly documented that they should be considered a complete and total dead end as far as substantive discussion goes.



It doesn't matter if Dunning is neutral or not - He's pointing out that the LUU-2B/B illumination flare could produce lights consistent with what many people reported. That would mean we'd have eyewitness reports that are corroborated by hard, documented evidence, rather than eyewitness reports corroborated by nothing.

The fact that similar lights were seen again in 2007 and 2008 should raise suspicion.

Multiple flares wouldn't fly in perfect symmetry. But the again you will say they do.

 

[Joel Was Right]

Are you really trying to imply that being ex-military makes someone's word infallible and incapable of being incorrect?

Of course not. In the absence of physical evidence in many cases, where the testimony is the only measurable account of the event left for us to base our opinions on, it's more helpful to value the opinions of those closer to the topic. Whilst the testimony of an astronaut or colonel or pilot isn't infallible or proof, their position often allows them closer access to the incident (directly or indirectly through data) which adds more value to their comments than that of a regular Joe who saw something. For example, South American governments are more open with this than Western nations; Brazil and Uruguay allow their military pilots to give interviews to the press in uniform about their encounters above the clouds with fantastic objects performing beyond comprehension. From the perspective of attaining information, you can understand why that type of testimony is more valuable.

 

[Riggs]

Of course not. In the absence of physical evidence in many cases, where the testimony is the only measurable account of the event left for us to base our opinions on, it's more helpful to value the opinions of those closer to the topic. Whilst the testimony of an astronaut or colonel or pilot isn't infallible or proof, their position often allows them closer access to the incident (directly or indirectly through data) which adds more value to their comments than that of a regular Joe who saw something. For example, South American governments are more open with this than Western nations; Brazil and Uruguay allow their military pilots to give interviews to the press in uniform about their encounters above the clouds with fantastic objects performing beyond comprehension. From the perspective of attaining information, you can understand why that type of testimony is more valuable.

Basically what I wanted to say but was to lazy to type on my phone, Ty.

 

[Joel Was Right]

Awesome. More than "several" people saw the sun change colors and fly around the sky in Fátima, Portugal in 1917. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter. The first set of sightings, the ones that flares seemingly couldn't account for, are so poorly documented that they should be considered a complete and total dead end as far as substantive discussion goes.

The fact that similar lights were seen again in 2007 and 2008 should raise suspicion.

Yes, because clearly a large flying triangle object is comparable to a star changing colour and flying around a town. Well done, Orayn.

It doesn't matter if Dunning is neutral or not - He's pointing out that the LUU-2B/B illumination flare could produce lights consistent with what many people reported. That would mean we'd have eyewitness reports that are corroborated by hard, documented evidence, rather than eyewitness reports corroborated by nothing.

Why are we being selective in what people "saw"? You are willing to completely dismiss a testimony based on the likelihood they may be wrong yet are willing to embrace another to found your hypothesis on. The flare explanation only attempts to explain the sighting of lights people saw, it does not even begin to address the point of lights in a triangular formation moving in unison in the sky or a triangle object blocking the stars, much less a craft flying across the sky much less the fact that the flares were dropped hours after the sightings began

 

[Orayn]

Yes, because clearly a large flying triangle object is comparable to a star changing colour and flying around a town. Well done, Orayn.

The point is that a lot of people agreeing that they saw or experienced something doesn't mean much if that's the only type of evidence we have.

Multiple flares wouldn't fly in perfect symmetry. But the again you will say they do.

I don't think we have sufficient video or photographic evidence to support the claim that the lights formation was perfectly symmetrical and unchanging to a degree that could not be attained by airborne flares with parachutes.

Even if I give you that one, what do you make of the lights disappearing behind the lights disappearing behind the Sierra Estrella mountain range just like flares would? More flare-like features in their exotic timespace-warping propulsion systems?

 

[Riggs]

The point is that a lot of people agreeing that they saw or experienced something doesn't mean much if that's the only type of evidence we have.



I don't think we have sufficient video or photographic evidence to support the claim that the lights formation was perfectly symmetrical and unchanging to a degree that could not be attained by airborne flares with parachutes.

Even if I give you that one, what do you make of the lights disappearing behind the lights disappearing behind the Sierra Estrella mountain range just like flares would? More flare-like features in their exotic timespace-warping propulsion systems?

The lights all move together ...

As for the "what do you make of the lights disappearing behind the lights disappearing behind the Sierra Estrella mountain range just like flares would?"

I am confused.

 

[Orayn]

Yes, because clearly a large flying triangle object is comparable to a star changing colour and flying around a town. Well done, Orayn.

The point is that a lot of people agreeing that they saw or experienced something doesn't mean much if that's the only type of evidence we have.

Why are we being selective in what people "saw"? You are willing to completely dismiss a testimony based on the likelihood they may be wrong yet are willing to embrace another to found your hypothesis on. The flare explanation only attempts to explain the sighting of lights people saw, it does not even begin to address the point of lights in a triangular formation moving in unison in the sky or a triangle object blocking the stars, much less a craft flying across the sky much less the fact that the flares were dropped hours after the sightings began

An A-10 Thunderbolt releases flares with dispensers that can be placed on a number of different hardpoints on the plane. Since they hold multiple flares, and launch them one after the other, the pattern of the Phoenix Lights is not inconsistent with what could be attained by an A-10 with flare dispensers on opposite sides of the aircraft.

The lights all move together ...

As for the "what do you make of the lights disappearing behind the lights disappearing behind the Sierra Estrella mountain range just like flares would?"

I am confused.

The flares have parachutes attached to them, but they fall. Sightings from the greater Phoenix area tapered off in a timeframe consistent with distant flares that dropped to an altitude where the mountains would get in the way and make it impossible to see them.

 

[Joel Was Right]

The point is that a lot of people agreeing that they saw or experienced something doesn't mean much if that's the only type of evidence we have.



An A-10 Thunderbolt releases flares with dispensers that can be placed on a number of different hardpoints on the plane. Since they hold multiple flares, and launch them one after the other, the pattern of the Phoenix Lights is not inconsistent with what could be attained by an A-10 with flare dispensers on opposite sides of the aircraft.



The flares have parachutes attached to them, but they fall. Sightings from the greater Phoenix area tapered off in a timeframe consistent with distant flares that dropped to an altitude where the mountains would get in the way and make it impossible to see them.

Dunning fails to mention the timeline of events, and judging from your comments, you haven't done much reading on it. The first recorded sighting of the triangular light formation began at 6.55pm. The Air Force, by their own account, say the A-10's left Luke's Airforce base after 8.15pm and returned a couple hours later. Assuming the lights in the videos captured that night, caught around the same time frame as the A-10s were airborne, were flares caused by the planes then it doesn't explain what caused the triangular formation earlier that evening. It seems there were two separate incidents that night, and that's not to even mention the footage/photographs taken prior to the 13th showing light formations. If the flare explanation is an attempt to address what people saw that night, then it falls short of doing so, or at the very least nowhere near as conclusive as Dunning would have you believe.

 

[Apath]

No, just saying there are tons of ex military folks with eye witness accounts. I take their word more seriously then a civilian. Anyone can be wrong. I just find it funny how people don't believe anyone about UFO visits. Thousands and thousands of reports and stories, everyone is entitled to their own thoughts and opinions though.

Right, but you worded that as if doubting an ex-military personal's word is equivalent to thinking they're hippies -- aka foolish people -- or what not . If you were really just trying to say they're ex-military, so they are a little more note-worthy than your run-of-the-mill person, it doesn't really counter or deflate anything anyone was saying.

The reason people doubt these accounts are a multiple of reasons:
1) The "thousands" of reports are wildly inconsistent.
2) There is never any solid evidence to go with the eye witnesses.

The closest thing we get is "Wow, I cannot fully explain that", which does not necessitate that things point to extra-terrestrial visitors. Considering that is one of the least likely of all possibilities, it tends to get relegated in place of more probably phenomena during conjecture.

Of course not. In the absence of physical evidence in many cases, where the testimony is the only measurable account of the event left for us to base our opinions on, it's more helpful to value the opinions of those closer to the topic. Whilst the testimony of an astronaut or colonel or pilot isn't infallible or proof, their position often allows them closer access to the incident (directly or indirectly through data) which adds more value to their comments than that of a regular Joe who saw something. For example, South American governments are more open with this than Western nations; Brazil and Uruguay allow their military pilots to give interviews to the press in uniform about their encounters above the clouds with fantastic objects performing beyond comprehension. From the perspective of attaining information, you can understand why that type of testimony is more valuable.

Sure, but I wasn't responding to you or the idea you're discussing. His specific wordings implied that it's stupid to doubt the word of ex-military, which is hyperbolic and foolish. He clarified, so it's whatever. Still, it's also stupid to believe someone just because of their position. If anything, a position of authority would make someone more likely to make shit up.

 

[pottuvoi]

Ufo tv..
Is this something that even mystery channel wouldn't show?

I wonder how much they pay for chap from military to give statemant that he has witnessed something?
Or do they just go trough papers of people who have been awake for a week and ask from them if they have seen something weird..

Belive me, when you have been in woods awake for a week, you can see some weird shit.

 

[unomas]

Enjoying so far, what's with all the UFO hate GAF? Thnx again OP.

GAF isn't about keeping an open mind, it's about those who have typical beliefs speaking the loudest and hurling insults at others, or at least that is what its become. I prefer to keep an open mind, there should be room for both types of people in any environment.

 

[Death Dealer]

There is never any solid evidence to go with the eye witnesses.

There are cases with simultaneous, corroborated visual/radar sightings. As Michio Kaku said, the best UFO cases involve multiple means and multiple modes.

If anything, a position of authority would make someone more likely to make shit up.

I doubt that.

 

[Apath]

There are cases with simultaneous, corroborated visual/radar sightings. As Michio Kaku said, the best UFO cases involve multiple means and multiple modes.

I don't mean in a single specific instance. I mean UFO cases in general range wildly from sighting to sighting. Sometimes it's a disc, other times it's a triangle, sometimes it's an abduction with gray aliens, sometimes it's little blue men, etc. Those "thousands" of sightings would be a shit ton more convincing if they were all identical.
EDIT: I misread what you were replying to (how, I have no idea). If you show me some specific examples that don't involve an hour of video or what not, I'd be open to looking at it.

I doubt that.

It puts you in a position where people are going to be far more likely to believe what you have to say.

 

[red731]

Soboscribo!
Will watcho at hom-e..

 

[XMonkey]

GAF isn't about keeping an open mind, it's about those who have typical beliefs speaking the loudest and hurling insults at others, or at least that is what its become. I prefer to keep an open mind, there should be room for both types of people in any environment.

I'll admit, I laughed.

 

[jambo]

Everyone in this thread should read Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.

 

[PjotrStroganov]

GAF isn't about keeping an open mind, it's about those who have typical beliefs speaking the loudest and hurling insults at others, or at least that is what its become. I prefer to keep an open mind, there should be room for both types of people in any environment.

"By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out."

 

[Zinga]

The creator of this documentary James Fox produced another one called 'I Know What I Saw', he interviews a lot of credible witnesses and covers some of the best UFO cases known. Definitely worth a watch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIeGeE0uDJg

As an aside, I always thought this UFO footage taken from radar camera at Nellis AFB was exceptionally strong evidence. On the footage you can see that the object is getting a radar return, and giving a range whilst it is doing maneuvers no conventional craft can do. Considering that the footage is leaked from the military with telemetry in the footage, it is exceptionally strong:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XtUyzZxOYo

 

[mrklaw]

Dunning fails to mention the timeline of events, and judging from your comments, you haven't done much reading on it. The first recorded sighting of the triangular light formation began at 6.55pm. The Air Force, by their own account, say the A-10's left Luke's Airforce base after 8.15pm and returned a couple hours later. Assuming the lights in the videos captured that night, caught around the same time frame as the A-10s were airborne, were flares caused by the planes then it doesn't explain what caused the triangular formation earlier that evening. It seems there were two separate incidents that night, and that's not to even mention the footage/photographs taken prior to the 13th showing light formations. If the flare explanation is an attempt to address what people saw that night, then it falls short of doing so, or at the very least nowhere near as conclusive as Dunning would have you believe.

so, attempt at a cover-up by the Air Force, dispensing flares as an explanation to make things go away? Or just an odd coincidence that the lights appeared the same night the Air Force happened to release flares?

 

[noah111]

KHarvey hasn't crashed the party yet? :lol Will watch later, sounds interesting.

 

[Joel Was Right]

so, attempt at a cover-up by the Air Force, dispensing flares as an explanation to make things go away? Or just an odd coincidence that the lights appeared the same night the Air Force happened to release flares?

People have been accusing the Air Force of a coverup all the way back to the 40s and often with good evidence to do so. If you research UFOlogy, its certainly a logical position to arrive at in that the military has been less than forth coming about what they know, and so the idea that the flares would be a decoy is certainly plausible. But really, as I've reiterated several times now, the flare explanation does not match up for the very reason that the formation of lights were spotted several hours before hand.

What's interesting is that people saw this object so low that they could see refraction from the heat of the lights (they described it as the wavy air you see in summer in the heat on a road for example); they saw the physical outline of the object and drew it. People saw this, tellingly, from different locations and different perspectives - some saw the side of it whilst others were under it

To hypothesise these were flares that weren't even in the air at that point takes a greater leap, in my opinion, or just hallucination on part of everyone, of wishful thinking than the alternative explanation.

 

[Neuromancer]

Everyone in this thread should read Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.

I have read it, it's very good.

 

[marrec]

On GAF, reasonable uses of critical thinking = Trolling.

Delicious.

 

[The Elite]

I want to watch this.

 

[RagnarokX]

No, just saying there are tons of ex military folks with eye witness accounts. I take their word more seriously then a civilian. Anyone can be wrong. I just find it funny how people don't believe anyone about UFO visits. Thousands and thousands of reports and stories, everyone is entitled to their own thoughts and opinions though.

Eye witness accounts are untrustworthy even on mundane matters. They shouldn't even be allowed in court cases.

 

[Orayn]

GAF isn't about keeping an open mind, it's about those who have typical beliefs speaking the loudest and hurling insults at others, or at least that is what its become. I prefer to keep an open mind, there should be room for both types of people in any environment.

Being open-minded does not have to mean being overly credulous in situations where evidence is lacking. I am very much open to the possibility of alien life, but the supposed evidence for alien visitation in the form of UFOs is extremely weak.

 

[RagnarokX]

GAF isn't about keeping an open mind, it's about those who have typical beliefs speaking the loudest and hurling insults at others, or at least that is what its become. I prefer to keep an open mind, there should be room for both types of people in any environment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

 

[MrHicks]

damn @ jason raize (meus)
you know your stuff

respect brah
i've lost the energy to debate with hardcore debunkers but it's nice seeing someone informed still giving it a try lol

 

[Kurdel]

Being open-minded does not have to mean being overly credulous in situations where evidence is lacking. I am very much open to the possibility of alien life, but the supposed evidence for alien visitation in the form of UFOs is extremely weak.

This is the correct answer.

Believing modern fairy tales of aliens and refusing the possibility that those darn debukers might have a point is being closed minded.

 

[Cipherr]

Edit: On second thought, I sort of think this kind of thing is doomed, so carry on. Im not going to watch the video, just think it would have been interesting to be able to read a thread that didnt go the same way the others always did.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

People have been accusing the Air Force of a coverup all the way back to the 40s and often with good evidence to do so. If you research UFOlogy, its certainly a logical position to arrive at in that the military has been less than forth coming about what they know, and so the idea that the flares would be a decoy is certainly plausible. But really, as I've reiterated several times now, the flare explanation does not match up for the very reason that the formation of lights were spotted several hours before hand.

What's interesting is that people saw this object so low that they could see refraction from the heat of the lights (they described it as the wavy air you see in summer in the heat on a road for example); they saw the physical outline of the object and drew it. People saw this, tellingly, from different locations and different perspectives - some saw the side of it whilst others were under it

To hypothesise these were flares that weren't even in the air at that point takes a greater leap, in my opinion, or just hallucination on part of everyone, of wishful thinking than the alternative explanation.

How far apart were these people that their drawings were different because they saw it at a different angle?

 

[triplestation]

I see we got us a party pooper.

 

[Joel Was Right]

How far apart were these people that their drawings were different because they saw it at a different angle?

I'm sorry I'm not sure what you're asking exactly. Are you asking how differently they described it in relation to their position? If so, there are two predominant descriptions

1. (sorry for the crappy sketch)

They looked up and saw it from this angle as it flew above their heads. This was big enough to block the sky and people could feel the heat from the lights

2.

This is what the former Governor claims to have saw, an object flying along the horizon from left to right. It then started to turn and he got to see its shape as below

3.

 

[Vilix]

I've watched this months back. While it's informative, it uses the same clips (eyewitness interviews and cameria footage) from other UFO documentaries. Nothing really new. At least not to me.

 

[commedieu]

Watching because Orayn doesn't want me to...

 

[alphaNoid]

Watching because I'd rather do this than work

 

[DoDonGouki]

This whole thing is popcorn-entertainment, nothing more.

THE END

 

[Nizz]

Just favorited the video to watch later. Thanks OP.

 

[Leeroy3101]

Why does UFO always mean alien? I don't understand why we can't accept that our government may have ridiculous technology that we don't know about. These objects just may not be feasible despite all the testing they do.

 

[DoDonGouki]

Why does UFO always mean alien? I don't understand why we can't accept that our government may have ridiculous technology that we don't know about. These objects just may not be feasible despite all the testing they do.

AlienTechnology™

 

[akira28]

Science as a Scented Candle in the Dark.

damn @ jason raize (meus)
you know your stuff

respect brah
i've lost the energy to debate with hardcore debunkers but it's nice seeing someone informed still giving it a try lol

yep yep

 

[dluu13]

Damnit, i thought it was something new I haven't watched yet.

I also watched that documentary about the TV station manager from Vancouver who analyzed a shit ton of footage from space shuttle missions, and found some weird anomalies. Unfortunately, I don't remember the name of the thing.