The Pheonix lights and the lights observed two years before this are related. She would not deny this. Indeed, this is why it was even in the documentary to begin with!!! And even if that was not what you were referring to, how come you didn't realize this is what was being meant when I qouted you for what you said????
'No evidence' for extraterrestrials, says White House,....
- Thread starter phlogistician
- Start date
You said I claimed the Phoenix lights were chinese lanterns. I never said that. I was referring to the lights the MD stated 'looked back at her with intelligence'. These were a separate event. Please, try to remember the content of the stuff you link to, because it makes you look a bit vapid else.
Well sounds like you were mistaken all along, because when I have been primarily been speaking about the lights, I have more times than often spoke about the main event. Only once I think I mentioned that there was a sighting 2 years before this.
And it was a very very very brief account which I mentioned this. So either you are backtracking or an extraordinarily precise individual.
The Pheonix lights and the lights observed two years before this are related. She would not deny this. Indeed, this is why it was even in the documentary to begin with!!! And even if that was not what you were referring to, how come you didn't realize this is what was being meant when I qouted you for what you said????
How do you infer that?
She's a flake.
Dude. I never said the Phoenix lights were chinese lanterns. Never.
I was referring to the UNRELATED events she witnessed years earlier. End of story, let it go, you are flogging a dead horse.
I mean Phlog seriously, you said it was a plane. This is your third attempt at debunking this. You have failed three attempts now.
I realize you possibly have hearing difficulties, making the statements you have on noiseless aerodynamics.... and obviously a slight memory loss about making the statement about chinese lanterns being the cause (in which case, I might let it slide)... but you are beginning to clutch on at straws in any case!!! You are also taking any account, any conventional account to explain otherwise completely unconventional events.
You still haven't answered my main questions, do I need to go back and repost it for you... saying that, I might need to. You might have forgotten what questions they were now
I realize you possibly have hearing difficulties, making the statements you have on noiseless aerodynamics.... and obviously a slight memory loss about making the statement about chinese lanterns being the cause (in which case, I might let it slide)... but you are beginning to clutch on at straws in any case!!! You are also taking any account, any conventional account to explain otherwise completely unconventional events.
You still haven't answered my main questions, do I need to go back and repost it for you... saying that, I might need to. You might have forgotten what questions they were now
Me flogging a dead horse??? That is cheap coming from a skeptic holding onto artificial explanations that don't wash.
Answer these questions, adiquately please! For the fifth time!
Now, without even mentioning the Guy Hottel Memorandum, or other witness accounts that momentous day, could you explain to me if the Military was going to use a UFO ''explanation'' to account for the crash, why did they retract the statement almost immediately? Surely if they were going to use a UFO explanation to wash away their activities, they would have held onto this lie for much longer?
This doesn't make sense. So many people today are taking the CIA statement as them ''back-tracking'' again on the existence of alien technology. Many people simply don't believe that the Military would go originally to such extreems as to say it was a ''UFO'' that was possibly from another planet.
Here is another thing to consider, if indeed the UFO's are their own technologies, why are they displaying them often in view of hundreds of witnesses? This isn't keeping it low key at all and would seem to destroy the initial purpose that they seem to be saying they initiated in the first place. So many cases don't match up, such as the Pheonix Lights; why would the military shoot flares (at a remarkably low altitude) right above the town of Pheonix? Why would they have several orbs flying low over washington? These aren't products of their technologies... lol... they'd love to have you believe that but this is not the case.
The fact these objects are seen directly by hundreds of people, just defeats any secretive purposes. They might as well have a big arrow pointing at them saying ''here we are''.
Now, without even mentioning the Guy Hottel Memorandum, or other witness accounts that momentous day, could you explain to me if the Military was going to use a UFO ''explanation'' to account for the crash, why did they retract the statement almost immediately? Surely if they were going to use a UFO explanation to wash away their activities, they would have held onto this lie for much longer?
This doesn't make sense. So many people today are taking the CIA statement as them ''back-tracking'' again on the existence of alien technology. Many people simply don't believe that the Military would go originally to such extreems as to say it was a ''UFO'' that was possibly from another planet.
Here is another thing to consider, if indeed the UFO's are their own technologies, why are they displaying them often in view of hundreds of witnesses? This isn't keeping it low key at all and would seem to destroy the initial purpose that they seem to be saying they initiated in the first place. So many cases don't match up, such as the Pheonix Lights; why would the military shoot flares (at a remarkably low altitude) right above the town of Pheonix? Why would they have several orbs flying low over washington? These aren't products of their technologies... lol... they'd love to have you believe that but this is not the case.
The fact these objects are seen directly by hundreds of people, just defeats any secretive purposes. They might as well have a big arrow pointing at them saying ''here we are''.
No I didn't. I said an eye witness said it was planes, after he looked through a telescope with 43x magnification. You on the other hand can't summon a single eyewitness that states the contrary, that had access to such equipment. Which means you lose that round.
Again, you are stuffing a straw man. I never said anything was noiseless. I said, quite clearly, that not being any to hear any noise does not imply there is no noise. Pay attention.
Go watch the video again. You'll realise the quote I was referring to was not pertaining to the Phoenix lights. I never claimed the Phoenix lights were chinese lanterns. Pay attention.
I'[m clutching at straws? When you convolve separate events and discard testimony you don't like? Priceless.
You still haven't answered my main questions, do I need to go back and repost it for you... saying that, I might need to. You might have forgotten what questions they were now
I asked you to repost your questions already. Pay attention.
Why in Gods name are you bringing forth planes as an explanation if you are not willing to state this is your corner??? That's like me saying I heard a couple of guys saying it was birds with torchlights attached to them, but in the meanwhile, that isn't my ground....
:bugeye:
Don't worry, I'll drop that part about the lights at the mo. There are much more pressing issues with your dissilusioned perspective on the facts of the case.
''Again, you are stuffing a straw man. I never said anything was noiseless. I said, quite clearly, that not being any to hear any noise does not imply there is no noise. Pay attention.''
Along the same lines... Dude, why even mention then you lived next to an airport when I said to you that the plane theory was bunk??? You then continued to say you couldn't hear much of them....??? I don't get it... my statements might look like strawmen to you, but your statements to me sound like backtracking.
''I'[m clutching at straws? When you convolve separate events and discard testimony you don't like? Priceless.''
Listen to your arguement first. You want me to accept what testimony again? One man out of how many people? The whole point of me discarding his information was because his statement did not hold up to the facts. I stated this did not make sense, considering how low the lights were, and no one heard a sound, not even a blip? Not only that, but the lights remained stationary for good amounts of time to disregard the plane theory. So yea, I think I am within good rights to make the judgement I have on it. As I said, in a court of law, two men are enough to convict another. But in my case, I have over a hundred witnesses who can easily contradict the one claim of a man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
''I asked you to repost your questions already. Pay attention.''
The irony... you tell me to pay attention, you really should start taking your own advice. I posted it already, above!!!!!! :bugeye:
So you're not only hard of hearing, possibly got a bit of a bad memory, but your sight seems to be failing as well.
OK, so you are referring to Roswell. You really need to think about what you want to write, and be precise, because you are asking me a question about Roswell, without even mentioning Roswell.
OK, so why was the statement about UFOs retracted almost immediately? Because someone without the authority the make press releases blurted out that phrase without thinking about the ramifications, and this was quickly realised to be a mistake?
But anyway, talking about Roswell is pointess. It was a balloon, carrying equipment to eavesdrop on Soviet Nuclear tests. Case closed.
You aren't really being very clear here. UFO ≠ ETI. You need to state more clearly what you are talking about. I presume you mean ETI, but you don't actually state that, just like you didn't actually state Roswell.
So, you are asking if ETI visits, why do they keep secret, but give their presence away? Well I think that implies it isn't ETI you are looking at. This is a rather circular avenue you are going down, trying to make an observation fit a theory it doesn't fit,... can't you see that?
What altitude measurements do you have to back up these things were at 'low altitude'? The military say they dropped flares, why don't you believe them?
What are you asking about now? Again you haven't stated what you are talking about.
No Phlog. Get with the program. You where the one who made the radical claims that the UFO's or a large amount of them we see are products of government technology. In the statement of Roswell, we got onto a debate of the nature of them, in which you stated that the coverup uses UFO's to hide their activities, more or less.
I am now asking how and why would this be the case, when most of these objects are seen in full sight of hundreds or more of wittnesses? Why would the government for instance, in regards to Roswell, use a UFO explanation to begin with, but then retract that statement almost immediately?
It doesn't make sense that these are ''their techologies''. They are not keeping it low key at all!!! Defeats any purpose of that theory. Through and through. Even in the Pheonix Case, the Military would not have elaborately made a lighting scene directly above Pheonix for fear of exactly the type of secrecy you'd expect them to want to maintain.
(and the several orbs, if your history on UFOlogy is not as good as I was hoping it was) is the 1952 washington case. Indeed, if you believe half these things are produced by the Military then you need to ask why they would fly it overhead washington's White House. But then again, why would they send fighter pilots on their own men? If you are at all interested in this case, go to the nieghbouring thread. Not even a half-competent skeptic like you could even cut that down to size!!!!!
Because being an ex-scientist, I'm not jumping to any conclusion!
I am saying an eye witness reported seeing a formation of planes. Also, the military say they dropped flares, and that different people saw different things, and they may have been separate events convolved into one story.
That's like me saying I heard a couple of guys saying it was birds with torchlights attached to them, but in the meanwhile, that isn't my ground....
:bugeye:
Don't worry, I'll drop that part about the lights at the mo. There are much more pressing issues with your dissilusioned perspective on the facts of the case.
Because you stated the Phoenix lights made no sound, I corrected you and made the point that just because people didn't hear a sound, doesn't mean there wasn't one. I mam making no statement wrt noise at the actual event, but about people's perception. Got that?
It's called clarification. You make a statement that is false, I clear it up. I'm not making a point myself, just pointing out that your reasoning is false, and therefore conclusions based upon false reasoning less sound. Got that?
One man with a telescope, and you can't drum up one single close up picture of the supposed event, nor a witness with the telescope that says the formation was a solid object. Not one. You need to go look for that.
His statement IS FACT. You don't like it because it doesn't fit into your THEORY.
What measurement do you have of their altitude?
Which does not imply there was no sound. Got that?
APPEARED TO REMAIN STATIONARY. Doesn't mean they were, got that?
But not one of your guys had a telescope,.... or took a decent photo. IE, has nothing to counter the claims of the guy that actually looked properly.
Er dude, I was writing that, while you were reposting. Got that?
And guys, you can see the stationary positions of the lights here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hnumyxy5Ino&feature=related
In regards to the Pheonix lights. They aint planes. I know how planes move and these are hardly even moving at this point. Planes can't do that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hnumyxy5Ino&feature=related
In regards to the Pheonix lights. They aint planes. I know how planes move and these are hardly even moving at this point. Planes can't do that.
I also said I don't like the term UFO.
If you want to talk about secret military technology, let's talk about those cases. If you want to talk about misidentified natural phenomena, let's talk about those. If you want to talk about misidentified astronomical bodies, we can talk about those. But let's not refer to any as UFOs. Got that?
The term UFO is not helpful.
I can't tell that from that video. There was too much camera shake and camera motion to discern the actual motion of the objects. The way they popped into view certainly looks like a plane ejecting a string of flares.
You're not jumping to any conclusion, but you are ready to jump in and call everyone cranks and toilers because what... they don't use your conventional means to wash away an event? Plus, if you are going to use an arguement, you should do after you have evaluated the evidence for yourself, otherwise you look lazy and incapable of doing it for yourself.
''Because you stated the Phoenix lights made no sound, I corrected you and made the point that just because people didn't hear a sound, doesn't mean there wasn't one.''
Rubbish. Out of hundred or more people, you seriously believe that no one would have heard sounds??? Your logic is ... damaged my friend! Not only that, but the lights are stationary for large amounts of time as well. You NEED TO EVALUATE THE EVIDENCE, and not only that, if you are going to cite evidence, make sure it is credible after you have evaluated it, otherwise you look like you are desperately just trying to find some excuse.
''It's called clarification. You make a statement that is false, I clear it up. I'm not making a point myself, just pointing out that your reasoning is false, and therefore conclusions based upon false reasoning less sound. Got that?''
I've seen nothing written by your old fingers which has made me convinced otherwise, do you have that?
''One man with a telescope, and you can't drum up one single close up picture of the supposed event, nor a witness with the telescope that says the formation was a solid object. Not one. You need to go look for that.''
The fact not one of my hundred or odd witnesses heard any noise and taking into consideration that the lights are clearly stationary for large amounts of time states to me that the plane theory does not hold, which makes his statement less likely to be believed. Again, one man. How do we know he wasn't just looking for a bit of fame? Maybe he thought in some twisted way he could contradict the claims of many, it might serve him well in famehood?
''His statement IS FACT. You don't like it because it doesn't fit into your THEORY.''
Doesn't sound like you consider every possibility at all, as a scientist. If anything, I'd say you are quite a lousy one at that.
His statement is not FACT, just because you say it is. You need to show me credible reason why this one mans statement outweighs a great many more! One minute you say you don't stand by the plane theory, next you say it is FACT; You are just a bunch of contradictory statements.
''Which does not imply there was no sound. Got that?''[./b]
So there was sound, but no one heard it? Look, just because you have difficulty of hearing doesn't mean the rest of the world is. Sheesh!
''APPEARED TO REMAIN STATIONARY. Doesn't mean they were, got that?''
A hundred people looking at it from different angles would surely disagree with your narrow angled point of view. They did remain stationary. You can measure this for your own eyes, if your eyesight is good enough, by meauring there positioning in space, next to the mountain and the lights on the city. Take a washable ink pen, draw it on your computer screen and see if it displaces much. Simple.
''But not one of your guys had a telescope''
I don't care. I don't trust this guy for one moment. His claims seem bogus. For sure. My spider sense is tingling! lol
''Er dude, I was writing that, while you were reposting. Got that?''
Got it old timer.
Use your eyesight. You keep your mind where the light are on the city and where the lights are in the sky. They aint moving!
Besides, I've had enough of this discussion now.
You can clearly see the lights are not moving past the lights seen below; using the lights below as a marker to where the lights in the sky, no credible person will try and argue that these were planes -- planes displace much quicker than that. In fact, these lights hardly displace at all if measured correctly.
Who else denies this? Apart from Phlog I mean, because I have rapidly became bored of Phlogs supposed ''scientific'' approach. Even there right in front of him, he still has difficulty.
You can clearly see the lights are not moving past the lights seen below; using the lights below as a marker to where the lights in the sky, no credible person will try and argue that these were planes -- planes displace much quicker than that. In fact, these lights hardly displace at all if measured correctly.
Who else denies this? Apart from Phlog I mean, because I have rapidly became bored of Phlogs supposed ''scientific'' approach. Even there right in front of him, he still has difficulty.
You got it wrong again. They may not APPEAR to move, but that doesn't mean they aren't.
Just like I also keep saying, just because people didn't hear any sound, doesn't mean there wasn't any. I mean, the A-10s that dropped those flares have two jet engines, yet weren't heard. That simply means they were beyond hearing, not that they were flying silently.
Basically, you got nothing. No close up pictures, not altitude reading, no size information, no radar trace, nothing.