PARALLAX · established 1995 · evidence first · no hoaxes · no threats · write the date down

PARALLAX

see it twice.
sightings & case files · the experiencers · cryptozoology · ancient anomalies · esoterica & prophecy · preparedness — an international community since 1995
PARALLAX  »  UFOLOGY & AERIAL PHENOMENA  »  Sightings & Case Files  »  Phoenix Lights -- five years on, the "flares" timeline still doesn't fit
✎ Post Reply   « Sightings & Case Files
Phoenix Lights -- five years on, the "flares" timeline still doesn't fit
Page 7 of 12   «12567891112»
Occams_Razorback
Resident Skeptic
◆◆◆◆◆
Posts: 16,720
Joined: Apr 1998
From: Chicago, US
#49▸ Posted: 17 Mar 1999, 10:55 CST
I've reviewed the latest reports and I need to be clearer about my position. The 8:30 formation, whether it is one object or multiple objects, exhibits characteristics that are not easily explained by conventional aircraft. The speed is too consistent. The altitude appears too low for conventional jets. The silence is the most troubling aspect. Conventional aircraft produce noise. All of them. Yet dozens of witnesses report silence. This is the core of the puzzle. Not the shape. Not the speed. The silence.
Occams
DesertGlass
Member
◆◆◆
Posts: 2,660
Joined: Apr 2000
From: Phoenix AZ, US
#50▸ Posted: 20 Mar 1999, 13:18 MST
Occams is correct. The silence is the key variable. I've been compiling witness statements specifically on this point. Not a single witness reports any sound whatsoever. No jet engine noise. No rotor noise. No sonic boom. Complete acoustic absence. This is unusual enough to warrant specific investigation. I'm reaching out to the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Transportation Safety Board to request any official reports from that evening.
--DG
Anonymous Coward
anon
(unregistered)
User ID: 25112061
From: a VPN, probably
#51▸ Posted: 22 Mar 1999, 03:11 EST
I'm the guy from Tucson. I was observing that night. I saw the formation pass overhead. I am an astronomer and I am trained in observational analysis. The formation was real. It was solid. It was silent. It moved with purpose. I cannot identify it. I have checked every database. I have consulted with colleagues. I cannot identify it. I'm reporting this officially now. I waited two years but I am reporting it now.
darkroom_Pete
Member
◆◆◆
Posts: 1,320
Joined: Feb 2000
From: Ottawa, ON
#52▸ Posted: 23 Mar 1999, 17:22 EST
The anonymous report from the Tucson astronomer carries weight. Professional observers, trained in detailed observation and measurement, tend to be reliable witnesses. Their reports are typically specific and reproducible. An astronomer would know the difference between an aircraft and something anomalous. The fact that multiple professional and semi-professional observers are now reporting corroborating details strengthens the case significantly.
Pete
MUFON_Gail
Field Researcher
◆◆◆◆
Posts: 8,044
Joined: Aug 1999
From: Ohio, US
#53▸ Posted: 28 Mar 1999, 11:44 EST
We have now compiled over 700 witness statements from the 8:30pm event. The consistency of the reports is remarkable. Direction of travel: northwest to southeast. Speed: estimated 30 miles per hour. Altitude: estimated 500 to 1500 feet above ground. Duration: approximately 5 minutes. Sound: none. The statistical consistency of these independently reported observations suggests a genuine physical phenomenon. We are issuing an updated case summary.
Gail
adamski_scout_Art
Member
◆◆
Posts: 880
Joined: Aug 1998
From: Mount Palomar-ish, CA
#54▸ Posted: 31 Mar 1999, 00:33 PST
The MUFON summary reinforces what I've been saying. A single craft, moving at controlled speed, at low altitude, in a stable configuration. This is not multiple objects. This is one object. The proportions, the speed, the duration, the direction -- all of this is consistent with a single delta-wing design. I'm now convinced this was a classified aircraft project. The question is which project.
Art
Occams_Razorback
Resident Skeptic
◆◆◆◆◆
Posts: 16,720
Joined: Apr 1998
From: Chicago, US
#55▸ Posted: 02 Apr 1999, 09:15 CST
Art, we disagree on the single-craft hypothesis. But we agree on the core fact: something unusual occurred on that evening. Something that current publicly available explanations do not account for. I remain agnostic on the final identification. What I am certain of is that this case demands rigorous investigation and that dismissal out of hand is epistemically irresponsible. The evidence does not permit closure.
Occams
DesertGlass
Member
◆◆◆
Posts: 2,660
Joined: Apr 2000
From: Phoenix AZ, US
#56▸ Posted: 13 Mar 2000, 21:40 MST
Three years. The thing I keep coming back to: there are now credible rumors that Symington himself saw the formation that night -- that the man who put an aide in an alien costume was privately shaken by what he saw. I cannot confirm it. But it would explain a great deal about the strangeness of that press conference, the overcorrection of it. If a sitting governor saw this and chose ridicule as his public posture, that is its own kind of evidence about what he was looking at. New witnesses still arrive. The case does not close. It just gets older and better documented.
--DesertGlass
Page 7 of 12   «12567891112»
✎ Post Reply
PARALLAX · see it twice. · evidence first · write the date down · sources or it didn't happen
all times shown in the poster's local zone