The 'Phoenix Lights' March 1997

[billvon 2,435]

>MOA's are considered to be areas where there are no arial hazards other
>than intense pilot training and/or military aircraft maneuvers.

And training with chaff and flares.

Here's a copy of the environmental impact statement the Air Force filed before beginning flare/chaff training in the Pecos MOA and the Taiban MOA:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/enviro/DTI_EA/02_FONSI.pdf

[chasteh 0]

In the case where there is firing done in an MOA, it actually would contain a CFA (Controlled firing area) during the times that projectiles are released. They present a hazard to non-participating aircraft, and they are not charted. When a non-participating aircraft is spotted in these areas, firing seizes.

[billvon 2,435]

>In the case where there is firing done in an MOA, it actually would contain
> a CFA (Controlled firing area) during the times that projectiles are
>released.

Agreed. Chaff and flare training is conducted under much less stringent rules than projectile firing.

[chasteh 0]

Chaff and Flares are still projectiles. They present a hazard to non-participants. Hence- the area would be considered a CFA.

[chasteh 0]

Oh yea - and the FAA is aware of such hazards and military activity within their airspace, FallingOsh.

[billvon 2,435]

>Chaff and Flares are still projectiles. They present a hazard
>to non-participants.

No, they're not. That's why they got permission to do chaff/flare training over sparsely populated areas - because burned-out flares and chaff do not pose a significant hazard to people on the ground. Read the link; it's pretty instructive.

[chasteh 0]

>people on the ground

I did read it. There are other aircraft within the vicinity of and inside of MOA's. All that is required of them is that they exercise extreme caution, whatever that is, within the MOA - which in this case contains a CFA, wherever that is.

Remember - the whole point of this airspace system is separating aircraft, including military and civil aircraft.

Yes, they are. The projectile presents a hazard to someone on the ground if it didn't burn in time. It ALWAYS presents a hazard to other aircraft.

[rivetgeek 0]

Quote

>"It is better to be silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."

How cute. That works really well in social situations. Be well reserved, and people will never be able to judge your intelligence.

Now for reality.

This is an online forum. My podium is FAR smaller than even the least known television or radio personality - and it is anonymous.

Having said that, there have been far too mareplies to my posts to say that they are all simply idiotic and not worth your time. Clearly these issues are still up for debate, as will be science's findings for the rest of time.

Have a nice day, ass.

Firstly, you are the one that has been proven wrong time and time again. Your claims regarding GPS and time dilation are just flat out wrong. Not debatable, not up to scrutiny, just fucking WRONG.

Secondly, you are NOT anonymous, Mr. Chas Hines of Albuquerque (formerly Farmington).

~Bones Knit, blood clots, glory is forever, and chicks dig scars.~

[billvon 2,435]

> the whole point of this airspace system is separating aircraft, including
> military and civil aircraft.

Right. Not flares, chaff or skydivers - aircraft.

> The projectile presents a hazard to someone on the ground if it
>didn't burn in time. It ALWAYS presents a hazard to other aircraft.

Skydivers always present a hazard to other aircraft. Yet the only separation service provided in most locations is the warning on the VFR chart, along with a warning if the other aircraft happens to be on the right frequency. Chaff and flares present a far lesser hazard, since hitting a piece of chaff or a flare will not do much to an aircraft - but hitting a skydiver will usually destroy it.

[chasteh 0]

>Right. Not flares, chaff or skydivers - aircraft

False.

Flares, chaff, skydivers - they are all objects dropped from an aircraft. The pilot in command is responsible for ensuring that 1) those on the ground will not be presented a hazard from those falling objects and 2) that those on the ground, or nearby, are alert to the object dropped from the aircraft. As a skydiver departs an aircraft, they themselves become yet another aircraft/object (though typically falling) and when their parachutes are deployed, become another less-maneuverable aircraft than that from which they were released. While skydivers aren't typically made aware of it, they too are a part of the system - and so are other objects released with the permission of the pilot in command of the primary aircraft.

>Chaff and flares present a far lesser hazard, since hitting a piece of chaff or a flare will not do much to an aircraft

Any falling object presents a hazard to an aircraft. That would be including hot magnesium or warm-blooded mammals.

[chasteh 0]

>Firstly, you are the one that has been proven wrong time and time again. Your claims regarding GPS and time dilation are just flat out wrong. Not debatable, not up to scrutiny, just fucking WRONG.

Not necessarily, considering the GPS system compensates for at least some time variation - it does not mean that the age of something, or its presence in time varies, either. I am of the opinion that your "proof," whatever that is, is going to be filed under another perceptual problem - and not one caused by gravitational time warping, either. Yell and scream all you want.

>Secondly, you are NOT anonymous, Mr. Chas Hines of Albuquerque (formerly Farmington).

Huh?

[billvon 2,435]

>they themselves become yet another aircraft/object (though typically
>falling) and when their parachutes are deployed, become another
>less-maneuverable aircraft than that from which they were released.

No, they don't. The FAA has made it clear (via several administrative and court decisions) that skydivers are not aircraft.

But in any case -

>Any falling object presents a hazard to an aircraft. That would be
>including hot magnesium or warm-blooded mammals.

Agreed. And we have also agreed that flares can indeed be dropped in MOA's - which is what the original argument was about.

[chasteh 0]

>The FAA has made it clear (via several administrative and court decisions) that skydivers are not aircraft.

Yet they still must fit in within the national airspace system, are subject to restriction by the FAA (and TSO's), and comply with regulations set forth in Part 91 and 105.

A skydiver deploys typically a ram-air canopy that can be used for the purposes of limited aerial maneuvers and navigation to a landing point. A skydiver also presents an airborne hazard to other aircraft and persons on the ground - they are falling objects. That wasn't the point.

>And we have also agreed that flares can indeed be dropped in MOA's - which is what the original argument was about.

Great. So you have demonstrated that under specific circumstances there can be flare and chaff activity within designated areas in an MOA. That wasn't the original argument, either.

The argument was that the "lights," flares, what have you were deployed (or lit on some spaceship, since FallingOsh seems ready to say that I mean this is a realistic alternative) no where near where the "Phoenix Lights" were observed in 1997. (The original point)

[billvon 2,435]

>So you have demonstrated that under specific circumstances there can
>be flare and chaff activity within designated areas in an MOA.

Correct.

[chasteh 0]

That presents Y number of problems now.

1) IS it the case that Flares and Chaff can be dropped over Sells MOA? When? When in '97?
2) At what altitude - and with at least 30 miles of visibility at that altitude - does such a view require?
3) We need to account for what all the other people saw at that time, all over the city, from each angle, and what it presents to us logically
4) Why has there been no information of the sort specified in provision 3 from other views, like Arizona City, Tucson, Eloy, Casa Grande, Gila bend, Bisbee, and so on
5) The "Vee" formation?
6) What other evidence, if we can even gain testimoney concerning flares being dropped over the MOA or R2305, do we have that in THAT location specifyies it was the military, even given the higher likelyhood that such a testimony would indicate that it was the military?
7) Ad infinitum

[chasteh 0]

>Security Analyst (chasteh is a stalker)

Correct. That much was outlined in my first thread ever. I have been stalking all of you for years.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Oh yea - and the FAA is aware of such hazards and military activity within their airspace, FallingOsh.

Never said they weren't. Never implied they weren't. They're very aware of all jets and activities. Not sure what your point is. You don't think a giant v-shaped craft flying across phoenix would show up on radar?

Here's recent video of mysterious lights over phoenix.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=92e_1208872160


Here's one that says the FAA commented that F-16's were in the area practicing with flares.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b5ba9fd369

A report about one of the actual pilots on the 1997 mission:

Air National Guard pilot, Lt. Col. Ed Jones, responding to a March 2007 media query, confirmed that he had flown one of the aircraft in the formation that dropped flares on the night in question.[23] The squadron to which he belonged was in fact in Arizona on a training exercise at the time, according to the Maryland Air National Guard. A history of the Maryland Air National Guard published in 2000 previously asserted that the squadron, the 104th Fighter Squadron, was responsible for the incident.[25] The first reports that members of the Maryland Air National Guard were responsible for the incident were published in The Arizona Republic newspaper in July 1997.[26]

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[chasteh 0]

>Never said they weren't. Never implied they weren't. They're very aware of all jets and activities.

Yet they weren't aware of any such activity in the area the lights were spotted. No radar signature was there. The controller for the sector and for Sky Harbor Tower was interviewed on a documentary and specifically stated that he saw nothing on the scope for the area. The point is that if there was someone in the area, the controller would have said there was.

>They're very aware of all jets and activities.
Well... military activity in MOA's and restricted areas, yea. I have a buddy who flies a twin otter (a jet) and a Lear (a jet) and they aren't always in contact with air traffic control, particularly on short hops. Also, the Army likes to ferry helicopters from city to city under VFR (Visual flight rules), which means their transponders may be off or not squawking a discreet code - meaning ATC doesn't know what they are doing, who they are, or where they are going.

>Here's one that says the FAA commented that F-16's were in the area practicing with flares.

Different time, different date. Notice the difference in consensus? Also, the lights observed in 2008 were far different than those observed in '97 - and the FAA knew about it.

"Hey look at something that might be similar from 10 years later. See? Those are flares - and the FAA and military both say they were dropped from f-16s. Now look at testimony from some dude who claims to have been from the Maryland Air National Guard practicing in the area - with f-16s. An entirely different aircraft than the accused A-10 that was in the area, and does have advanced A-G radar."

He also responded in July, well after the fact. If he was in an F-16, the FAA would have known. And they didn't.

"It was a training exercise out of the Marine Corps Air Station in Yuma, Ariz., officials said. The Federal Aviation Administration also reported that Luke Air Force Base had six F-16s that were also out on the range practicing ground attacks while using flares."

Hey look at evidence for this one! Let's prove that point, and then assert that the 1997 incident was the same!

edit: Oh yea.. and those videos look like they were FAR FAR outside of phoenix. They left no indication that the lights were observed near phoenix, or over south mountain this time. The 2008 case is far more believable. Where are those observers for the 1997 case?

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Yet they weren't aware of any such activity in the area the lights were spotted. No radar signature was there. The controller for the sector and for Sky Harbor Tower was interviewed on a documentary and specifically stated that he saw nothing on the scope for the area. The point is that if there was someone in the area, the controller would have said there was.

So if there was a giant v shaped ship in the area, don't you think he would've mentioned that?

Quote

Different time, different date. Notice the difference in consensus?

Yes, I know the dates are different. My point is that lights seen from phoenix are not uncommon.

Quote

Now look at testimony from some dude who claims to have been from the Maryland Air National Guard practicing in the area - with f-16s. An entirely different aircraft than the accused A-10 that was in the area, and does have advanced A-G radar."

The maryland air national guard is A-10's. Dude, seriously... Google.com...less than a second returns to keep some of these left field comments down.

Quote

"It was a training exercise out of the Marine Corps Air Station in Yuma, Ariz., officials said. The Federal Aviation Administration also reported that Luke Air Force Base had six F-16s that were also out on the range practicing ground attacks while using flares."

Hey look at evidence for this one! Let's prove that point, and then assert that the 1997 incident was the same!

Yes. Look at that evidence. More flares. Same area. Same explanation. Different jets.

Quote

edit: Oh yea.. and those videos look like they were FAR FAR outside of phoenix. They left no indication that the lights were observed near phoenix, or over south mountain this time. The 2008 case is far more believable. Where are those observers for the 1997 case?

South Mountain is over 100 miles from Phoenix. What do you consider FAR FAR outside Phoenix? The video from 1997 also doesn't leave evidence those lights were over south mountain.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[chasteh 0]

>So if there was a giant v shaped ship in the area, don't you think he would've mentioned that?

Not necessarily. If there were a rogue F-22 releasing flares int he area, he wouldn't have known that, either.

>My point is that lights seen from phoenix are not uncommon.

From phoenix they are. The area where flares and Chaff are dropped are at least 30 miles from where they were seen in '97. And the FAA didn't know about it then. (Assuming they were flares, and the military was there - this hasn't been made necessarily true as of yet, let alone the problems associated with the lights being seen that far south from Phoenix but not in the cities near R-2305 and Sells MOA)

>The maryland air national guard is A-10's. Dude, seriously... Google.com...less than a second returns to keep some of these left field comments down.

>"These left field comments"

What left field comments? The ones that from your source said they were F-16s? You are being inconsistent now. Was the pilot from MANG not an F-16 pilot at the time? Well?

>Yes. Look at that evidence. More flares. Same area. Same explanation. Different jets.

No dude... did you even read the caption for the video? Those lights were seen near Black Mountain (Way north of Phoenix)
And the videos do not indicate that they were in Phoenix, either. Do you see any city lights? Negative.

>"More Flares"
You are still assuming that the '97 incident involved flares. Don't do that. Make it impossible for it to be the case that htey were not flares, please.

>South Mountain is over 100 miles from Phoenix. What do you consider FAR FAR outside Phoenix? The video from 1997 also doesn't leave evidence those lights were over south mountain.

Hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...............
Really dude? Fine. I'll do it one, more, time.

South mountain is at N33.335355/ W112.064585

Google maps
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=N33.335355%2F%20W112.064585&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7ADBR&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wl

Attached photo. (look at it this time)

l3935065, or however his name is spelled (the author of this thead) said he saw them over south-mountain. So did I.

[billvon 2,435]

>>So if there was a giant v shaped ship in the area, don't you
>>think he would've mentioned that?

>If there were a rogue F-22 releasing flares int he area, he wouldn't have
>known that, either.

F-22's aren't "giant V shaped ships."

[chasteh 0]

Right on, Bill. However, they are stealth fighters. (You know - the stuff they can use on modern aircraft that may take advantage of other non-public technology. The same kind of stuff that would, in fact, make the UFO conspirator have another possible premise to add to the description of the vehicle he saw)

edit:

The kind that the FAA would not have seen on Radar.

edit2:

The kind that could have been used on any other type of craft in the area, even if it were human. (Insert misunderstanding of what may or may not be my explanation of what was there - which actually has not been a part of this thread)

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

let alone the problems associated with the lights being seen that far south from Phoenix but not in the cities near R-2305 and Sells MOA)

Why do you think they weren't seen from those other cities? Couldn't it be that it just wasn't reported to the authorities and put on youtube because the people of gila bend are used to it. Flares are dropped all the time. Why would they be so surprised to see it again?

Quote

What left field comments? The ones that from your source said they were F-16s? You are being inconsistent now. Was the pilot from MANG not an F-16 pilot at the time? Well?

I'm not being inconsistent at all. The recent lights were said to be from F-16's. The 1997 lights and the Lt Col who talked about it from Maryland were A-10's. Here's the site since I know you wont take the time to look it up.

http://www.175wg.ang.af.mil/

Quote

>"More Flares"
You are still assuming that the '97 incident involved flares. Don't do that. Make it impossible for it to be the case that htey were not flares, please.

Try making it even possible it wasn't flares, please.

Quote

>South Mountain is over 100 miles from Phoenix. What do you consider FAR FAR outside Phoenix? The video from 1997 also doesn't leave evidence those lights were over south mountain.

Hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...............
Really dude? Fine. I'll do it one, more, time.

South mountain is at N33.335355/ W112.064585

Ah. Now we're getting somewhere. You've been talking about South Mountain Park. I've been talking about South Mountain. 32.001096, 112.0830

That would explain some of the confusion. It would also explain a lot as far as the flares; a lot. You saw the flares in the direction of south mountain park(over south mountain, not at south mountain). Draw a line from Phoenix/Tempe through the coordinates you gave me for about 50-60 miles. Almost dead center of R-2304.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[chasteh 0]

>Why do you think they weren't seen from those other cities?

They were over South Mountain in Phoenix. If people also saw them in those cities, they would have clarified it further - but this hasn't occured.

>Try making it even possible it wasn't flares, please.

A test aircraft was observed, instead of flares.
Now its possible. Your turn! Make it not possible.

>Ah. Now we're getting somewhere. You've been talking about South Mountain Park. I've been talking about South Mountain. 32.001096, 112.0830

You mean the south mountain that is like 100 miles from phoenix past several other 4-5000 foot mountains? Seriously? You think people in phoenix were looking at THAT? Ask anyone from phoenix about "South Mountain," And they will know the one that is in the middle of town. If the story were in that South Mountain, then the story would be different. It would follow: Lights seen West of Tucson!

Not: Lights seen over phoenix!

>That would explain some of the confusion.
It would also explain a lot as far as the flares; a lot. You saw the flares in the direction of south mountain park(over south mountain, not at south mountain). Draw a line from Phoenix/Tempe through the coordinates you gave me for about 50-60 miles. Almost dead center of R-2304.

And I also explained how from my position it did not look like it was over R2304-5 at all, considering I was East-Northeast of South Mountain (park- even though the picture I posted said 'South Mountain')

That would put those "flares" somewhere very in between the Alert, MOa, and R-2304-5. The lights were observed far closer to phoenix, over "South Mountain." (My line of sight would have put them no further south than Gila Bend, had they actually been that far out)

Also, assuming they were flares that far out, from the line of site that would put it over R2304 - now you need to explain why they would be seen at the altitude they were observed. If the lights were roughly 1500-2000 feet above South Mountain (park), that would mean that Sierra Estrella is in the way, and even if it wasn't in the way, you would STILL have to explain why the lights would be so high above Sells or R-2304. I have to go skydiving here (ugh, I know) so maybe at some point I will do a quick trig problem and (assuming your theory is correct) estimate what altitude those flares would have had to be for people in Phoenix to see them, and how fast an A-10 would have had to have gone to place the flares as far apart as they did- and why the flares woul dbe put so far apart as to not light one giant area but to light several areas along one giant strafing pattern.

My guess, by as far apart as the "flares" were (Assuming they were flares, of course) and what altitude the Sierra Estrella mountains at 4000 feet would have put the flares to make them visible from Phoenix (1500 feet and below), that fighter pilot would have had to have put them above say 12,000(Lets call it Altitude Z, since it is unknown still) feet from that angle. At that point, assuming you are right, we STILL have to answer for why the hell the military would put flares out that high. I mean, doesn't deploying flares two miles above the ground seem kinda counter-productive? Why waste the flare, if it won't light anything for you?

Holy, holy holy. Holy theory, thus far dude.

You seem very certain of your theory for it to have so many holes still.

[billvon 2,435]

> I mean, doesn't deploying flares two miles above the ground
>seem kinda counter-productive? Why waste the flare, if it won't light
>anything for you?

I think perhaps you misunderstand what those flares are for. A bit more research is in order, I think.