Hey moron what's wrong with the video you linked? Hint - I already told you in a previous post.
Have you ever noticed?...
- Thread starter electrafixtion
- Start date
electrafixtion
Registered Senior Member
Here's a little secret. I KNOW. Whereas I disagreed then, I still do. This is the real deal where no ulterior motive is involved. The contentions you are supporting are ludicrous. Airplanes don't hover for hours on end, and neither do flares. Those claims are exceedingly weak disinformation spun by the official channel retards et al.
You moron. Symington talks about a vee and the lights in the video show a straight line. The video shows hovering flares which Symington says were flares. So who is the retard?
You weren't even listening to Symngton's comments and compared them to the video. You are a moron.
Right, so some dude with a telescope claims to have looked at them, and seen seperate aircraft, and you dismiss it, in spite of the fact that at various times eye witnesses report one of the lights lagging behind the rest then catching up, and the existence of footage which (allegedly) shows them acting as seperate entities rather than a single entity on what grounds again?
Because it's inconvenient to you?
It's just a pity that the dude with the telescope wasn't setup for taking photographs, because nobody else was setup for taking useful photographs.
I mean, for crying in the sink.
This dude: http://www.nuforc.org/webreports/002/S02076.html claims to have seen them, and claims to have been doing asttrophotography at the time, but he didn't point his telescope and camera at them?
Not to mention in some shots it looks like there's 7 or 9 lights...
And in other shots, it looks like they're in a straight line...
What is interesting about the Prescott report is its reliability. The time, direction and speed were used to show that the sighting at Prescott was the same as the Phoenix sightings. So let's give 3 cheers to a job well done by this person. Now there are a number of sightings in Phoenix so let's be careful here. This is sighting number 1, the one Symington is talking about, but not shown in the video, which is sighting 2. This is the airplane sighting, not the flares seen later that night.
Kind of like the skeptics claiming that they have "debunked" the show.
We have. You just don't want to see it.
OK, let's get a few things straight. It took, what, five pages before you finally answered what direction you thought the object was moving. Why were you so unconfident, if it was so obvious?
They claimed to have seen a triangle shaped object, but a still from their 'enhanced' video clearly shows different.
They made unsubstantiated claims that the object did not have an FAA light, when all he could say categorically, was that he, personally, was unable to see one.
The 'object' they saw, three lights, flying. I live near an airport, I see such things fairly often. I just don't cry UFO when I see them. Also, they say there aren't airbases for so many miles this direction and that. Guess what? Planes, ... they can FLY! You know, travel, they are not restricted to routes, like cars on a highway! I've lived near the local airport for ten years, and I don't know all the approaches, and holding patterns they use. How would these guys know what approved routes and flight plans there were at any point in time? Simple answer, they didn't.
They selected a gold brooch from many, one that looked a bit like a 70's era jet, and made a model (albeit inaccurate, omitting the cut through stencil shape in the 'wings') and then bungeed it off an inclined plane, where it took a ballistic trajectory, and then stalled. It did not fly. If they'd attached a prop to it, and some control surfaces, and flew it around, maybe they'd have had something, but lobbing it off a desk? A cube of that foam would have travelled as far!
Also, on that model, it looks like a 70's era fighter jet. Not a Wright Flyer, or a WWI biplane, or a multi-engined commercial jet, or a Concorde, or a modern jet, or UAV, but a 70's era fighter. Given the many shapes tested for flight, it's not that surprising. btw, I think it looks more like a stylised dogfish. What's more likely, a representation of nature, or a time travelling 70's era jet fighter?
What else, oh yeah, the gold mine sequence. That was just padding. Pointless padding.
Their own UFO search. More pointless padding.
They referenced other 'sightings' that have been explained. Re-iterating a falsehood makes them look desperate, as did the padding of the episode, the cut shots to CGI UFO's, the over dramatised music, and the 'mockumentary' style the whole things was shot in.
You got that from this episode? I saw a program designed for entertainment, popularising common myths, with ZERO scientific content.
Yeah, and I love it when Joey doesn't get the point, and Chandler tries to be funny. Oh, sorry, those characters are from a different series. Still, roles are being played, however.
How can you say that? The video was blurry as hell. It was NOT 'quality', so everything that surrounds it, all claims and assumptions, equally as blurry.
Straw man. I don't have to prove a thing. UFO nutters have the case to make. All I am saying, is that what scant 'evidence' you do dig up, utterly fails to be convincing.
Which cosmologist has said that? It's entirely possible, but I think you just don't grasp the ramafications.
I shall explain. It is entirely possible there are other Universes with sets of dimensions that do not overlap onto ours, with different types of matter, with different forces acting upon it, and those forces do not affect matter in our Universe. We could not detect it's presence, nor it's absence, as we have no way to interact with it. That said, nothing can cross between one set of dimensions, and interact with another. It's a catchy phrase 'interdimensional travel' you know, B-Grade Sci-Fi uses it a lot. Maybe all you need, is to learn some science?
Last edited:
You know, when people pull shit like this;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhAQrR8Jhkk&feature=related
(check what happens at the 53second mark, and 2 minute mark, and 2'15" mark)
I'm not surprised people can't separate the facts, from the CGI cut scenes.
Got a video showing the light sources for that length of time?
Phlog that video you posted begins with the second UFO sighting that night and then changes to the first sighting. The sightings are mixed together. How interesting. Even more so is that the triangle of lights is the same image the UFO hunters used to claim a black triangular craft flew over Phoenix. In this video they have one of the lights fading.
The second sighting was better recorded due to the many people out that night after the first sighting. People claimed that the second set of lights mysteriously blinked out. I saw a video where they superimposed a daytime scene over the night shot. The lights are seen to disappear when going behind South Mountain. That's where the Maryland National Guard had dropped flares. The position of the drop, the time of the drop, and the number of flares matched up.
The guy in the video who is named as an image processing pioneer does an analysis of the videos and says that the light sources are unlike anything man made. He looks at the red, green, and blue pixel values to conclude unearthly lights. What he fails to admit is that the CCDs are quickly saturated by the brightness of the flares making the CCD images useless as spectrometers. That was demonstrated by another crew using the same CCD as was used to capture the videos.
The councilwoman in the video is mentioned by Tony Ortega who wrote in the newspapers about the lights.
"After his sighting, Stanley tried to contact a Phoenix city councilwoman who was making noise about the event, as well as a couple of UFO flim-flam men working the local scene, but he was rebuffed."
Stanley is the person who saw the lights through a telescope.
The second sighting was better recorded due to the many people out that night after the first sighting. People claimed that the second set of lights mysteriously blinked out. I saw a video where they superimposed a daytime scene over the night shot. The lights are seen to disappear when going behind South Mountain. That's where the Maryland National Guard had dropped flares. The position of the drop, the time of the drop, and the number of flares matched up.
The guy in the video who is named as an image processing pioneer does an analysis of the videos and says that the light sources are unlike anything man made. He looks at the red, green, and blue pixel values to conclude unearthly lights. What he fails to admit is that the CCDs are quickly saturated by the brightness of the flares making the CCD images useless as spectrometers. That was demonstrated by another crew using the same CCD as was used to capture the videos.
The councilwoman in the video is mentioned by Tony Ortega who wrote in the newspapers about the lights.
"After his sighting, Stanley tried to contact a Phoenix city councilwoman who was making noise about the event, as well as a couple of UFO flim-flam men working the local scene, but he was rebuffed."
Stanley is the person who saw the lights through a telescope.
Here is the segment in which Tony Ortega writes about the Prescott sighting which was located online.
Later on Tony mentions Prescott again.
Despite the overwhelming evidence that the lights were mundane events there are idiots that have to say things such as:
Later on Tony mentions Prescott again.
Despite the overwhelming evidence that the lights were mundane events there are idiots that have to say things such as:
Not only that, but the CCD's also fail to capture anything outside the visible range, making the claim doubly useless.
And finally (and this is my favourite) the Company that manufactures the software that he uses to come to that conclusion have explicitly stated that their software isn't designed to do what he claims to have done with it, and that his claims are useless.
electrafixtion
Registered Senior Member
So what you are stating is that the guy that was looking through the telescope was not even looking at what that mayor was looking at. Correct?
There is absolutely NO validation for the flares. None whatsoever. Far less than it being some other type of military or experimental craft.
For a guy that is a name caller extraordinaire, well, at least you are good at that much.
electrafixtion
Registered Senior Member
So what you are stating is that you don't have a clue what happened, correct? But, that you will take the man's word with the telescope, even though you don't even know which event of the many, (not just 3 to the idiot prior) the guy with telescope was looking at as compared to the public official that was standing directly beneath the object claiming it was solid and reasonably close. Not at that great of an altitude at all to begin with.
Dude, are you sure your not a creationist?
electrafixtion
Registered Senior Member
So what you are stating is that you found one dope that is a dopey as yourself and that because his perception of the event as judged via his own criteria happens to align itself with your BELIEFS, his is the "objective" and "rational" study. You call me a moron? You ought to be hung over an open fire till dry SOCK.
electrafixtion
Registered Senior Member
Still no real debunking whatsoever, just more typical Phloggy name calling and condescending BS. Just the differing of unsubstantiated opinion and chose of words. LAME.
Actually, it's my understanding that the guy that viewed the lights through a telescope (the report, if you had stopped to read it, makes no mention of viewing the lights through the telescope, and doing so would have required un mounting the camera, and mounting an eyepiece, which, if he was doing astrophotography, he may not have bought with him) is a third person.
Nope, that's not what I'm stating at all.
Public officials don't make any more credible witnesses than anyone else (and when push comes to shove, he's a politician).
I doubt the claims that it was a close solid object, because that's not what the video footage shows it's also not what all of the eye witness reports say (as has been pointed out already, some of the sightings in the quieter areas even reported hearing a noise like jets).
On what grounds do you dismiss those claims?
You are such a moron!
1. The answer is no.
2. The answer is YES you retard
1. The answer is no.
2. The answer is YES you retard