 Member ◆◆◆ Posts: 380 Joined: May 2000 From: Lincolnshire, UK |
#25▸ Posted: 23 Jun 1997, 16:44 GMT
I have some experience with aircraft and flare deployment. Let me be technical here. LUU-2 flares descend at about 150 feet per second and burn for roughly 5 minutes. They would not form a V-shaped formation that witnesses describe. They would not move across the sky as a cohesive unit. They would scatter. They would twinkle as they fell. The 10 pm event as described -- one long object with red/orange lights beneath it, moving smoothly -- that is not consistent with flare patterns I know. Unless the Arizona Guard was doing something non-standard, I remain skeptical of the full flare explanation.
RF |
 Member ◆◆◆ Posts: 2,660 Joined: Apr 2000 From: Phoenix AZ, US |
#26▸ Posted: 25 Jun 1997, 20:12 MST
Thank you Gail for doing this properly. The governor's stunt has made people angry but it shouldn't stop us from finding out what was real. I saw the 8:30 formation. I am CERTAIN of that time because the news had just come on. The 10 pm lights were something else entirely -- I didn't see those, I was already in bed by then. Two separate events. THAT is the point everyone is missing. Symington was trying to mock BOTH of them away with one stupid costume. It was disgusting.
DesertGlass |
Anonymous Coward  (unregistered) User ID: 13684988 From: a VPN, probably |
#27▸ Posted: 27 Jun 1997, 13:55 MST
I work at Goldwater Range. I was here that night. We had A-10s dropping flares. It was Operation Snowbird, part of training exercises. The 10 pm lights -- that was us. But I will tell you something: if people saw something at 8:30, we didn't do that. We were not in the air at 8:30. Check your records. We started the drop around 10. So if there are two separate sightings, the flares only cover one of them. Make sure you keep that straight.
|
 Field Researcher ◆◆◆◆ Posts: 8,044 Joined: Aug 1999 From: Ohio, US |
#28▸ Posted: 01 Jul 1997, 10:22 EST
That last post is exactly what we need to confirm. Military sources confirming the 10 pm flare operation is CRUCIAL because it establishes that the two events can be separated. The 8:30 formation remains unexplained. I have filed FOIA requests and I am expecting responses within 30 days. I have also contacted Frances Barwood who has been calling for a real investigation. She is being ridiculed by the media and by other council members but she is not backing down. At least ONE elected official in Arizona understands how serious this is.
Gail - MUFON Arizona Section |
 Resident Skeptic ◆◆◆◆◆ Posts: 16,720 Joined: Apr 1998 From: Chicago, US |
#29▸ Posted: 03 Jul 1997, 16:44 CST
I need to say this clearly: if the military explanation for the 10 pm lights is correct -- and I think it probably is -- then people SHOULD acknowledge that. Not because it explains everything, but because honest analysis REQUIRES it. If we admit the flares caused the 10 pm event, then the 8:30 sighting stands on its own merits, with NO flare explanation available. That is actually STRONGER for the serious investigators. Conflating the two events weakens your case. Smart skeptics will separate them anyway, so get ahead of it.
|
 Member ◆◆◆ Posts: 380 Joined: May 2000 From: Lincolnshire, UK |
#30▸ Posted: 10 Jul 1997, 21:33 GMT
Occams is making the most sense in this thread. Conceding ground where warranted is not weakness -- it is the mark of genuine inquiry. However, I remain to be convinced that LUU-2 flares in standard deployment match the eyewitness accounts of the 10 pm event. I have read that some witnesses describe a structured craft beneath the lights. That is not consistent with flares falling separately. Flares do not maintain formation. They drift. They separate. So while the TIMING of the military exercise matches the 10 pm sighting, the VISUAL DESCRIPTION may not match standard flare deployment. I want to see the FOIA documents before I concede.
RF |
 Member ◆◆◆ Posts: 2,660 Joined: Apr 2000 From: Phoenix AZ, US |
#31▸ Posted: 15 Jul 1997, 19:08 MST
The governor's little stunt has had one good effect: it has made people ANGRY enough to ask hard questions. Frances Barwood is pushing for a real investigation. MUFON is filing FOIA requests. We are not going away. Symington thought he could mock this into nothing. He was wrong. We know what we saw and we know it was real. The flare explanation for 10 pm may be right -- fine. That leaves the 8:30 formation completely unexplained. And that is what matters.
|
Anonymous Coward  (unregistered) User ID: 53836648 From: a VPN, probably |
#32▸ Posted: 22 Jul 1997, 08:44 MST
I'm a skeptic and I think you people are crazy, but I will say this: the military should release the full details of Operation Snowbird. They should release the exact times, the altitudes, the number of flares dropped, the duration, everything. If it matches the 10 pm sightings perfectly, that will settle that part. And if it doesn't match, then you have a real problem for your flare explanation. Either way, the military should be transparent. They owe that to Arizona.
|