The 'Phoenix Lights' March 1997

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

> 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.

Bill, for the first time in a long time you and I are on the same page.


Chasteh: I'm leaving town for the weekend. We'll pick it up again later. The statement by the Lt Col said they dumped their leftover flares when leaving the range. Therefore, the altitude is irrelevant. On a second note, dropping from that altitude is not uncommon.

I don't think they were seen over the South Mountain I was talking about. That's why I said the coordinates you posted cleared up some of the confusion. There are two south mountains and we were talking about different places. The south mountain you listed actually proves my point further. The ranges are in line of sight from Phoenix over south mountain. There is no footage looking straight up from south mountain showing the flares directly over the mountain. All of the footage is looking from phoenix, over south mountain, into the restricted ranges.

see you monday

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

[chasteh 0]

"The LUU-2 flare enhances a pilot's ability to see targets while using Night Vision Goggles. With the introduction of A-10 Warthog Night Vision capability, such flares are not used as frequently as in the past as they provide too much light for the very sensitive goggles. Flares burn at uneven rates and therefore fluctuate in brightness"

"The LUU-2 has a burn time of approximately 5 minutes while suspended from a parachute"

Which equates to X as a maximum altitude that the flare would be deployed.

What kind of research, Bill? Show me the money.

[chasteh 0]

>There is no footage looking straight up from south mountain showing the flares directly over the mountain. All of the footage is looking from phoenix, over south mountain, into the restricted ranges.

lol

That would most definitely not explain the view from the side of the lights, from Phoenix, over south mountain. The lights, were they flares, would have been much further south - and all views from phoenix would show the "flares" from the side, not as a line extending from phoenix to the south. (You mean they would have looked like 1:45 in the video below, Chasteh? Yes FallingOsh. Yes.) There are multiple angles in one video, seen here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg6cGCAB2Ck

Look at 1:08

3:24 Look at how elevated that mountain is. To have seen flares from an MOA 30 miles further would have put the flares at quite an altitude. The maximum altitude for Sells MOA is FL180 (18,000 feet MSL) and the maximum altitude for R-2305 is FL240 (Roughly 24,000 feet, depending on atmospheric pressure differences relative to the altimeter setting that Spring evening). Were you and Bill considered paragons of aviation research, you would have mentioned this. Just sayin'.

Also, were you guys going to explain why the lights were visible for an extended period of time? OR were you just going to assume that they were flares continuously lit at that altitude and place? edit: Remember, they only burn for five minutes at a time. Also, if the flares were at such a high altitude, at the MOA, why didn't anyone else (Aside from the military) mention them when they were made to be such a big deal?
Questions pending...

[chasteh 0]

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

Well wait just a minute... How is it possible that 1) there could have been flares dropped by a military aircraft; AND 2) That military aircraft had been in airspace in which the FAA is aware of their presence; AND 3) The FAA not have known about A-10's and the flares they were dropping within their airspace?

3) Entails NOT 2

How can we have 3 and 2 at the same time, then?

4)You aren't saying the FAA is not aware of them.

"Never said they weren't. Never implied they weren't" - FallingOsh

But you are also not saying the FAA is always aware, either?

>They're very aware of all jets and activities.

A second inconsistency, this time 4) with your own statement.

To solve this, you might want to show how the FAA was notified of such activity, that the FAA knew the MOA was active at that time (or the restricted area... this is something the FAA MUST know about - for the purposes of other traffic passing through those areas) and then demonstrate why the controllers at Sky Harbor did not know about them.

Also, flares were deployed my the military during a demonstration later on, to try to bring light (hah!) to the issue. The problem is, they never could replicate the flares: 1) Behavior, 2) color, 3) positions, or 4)scale, 5) duration.

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

What kind of research, Bill? Show me the money.

Flares (or chaff) dropped at that height (2 miles up) are used as a defensive/countermeasure weapon, not to illuminate the ground.

[dks13827 3]

there was a V shaped lighted, silent aircraft....... and also there were flares in several places ( i imagine to provide a cover story for the secret aircraft ).

[chasteh 0]

>Flares (or chaff) dropped at that height (2 miles up) are used as a defensive/countermeasure weapon, not to illuminate the ground.

That would be inconsistent with:

"Um, no. They're designed to illuminate the ground so the pilots can see what they're attacking. They're not protection flares. They're "you're about to get shot up" flares. "
- FallingOsh

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

>Flares (or chaff) dropped at that height (2 miles up) are used as a defensive/countermeasure weapon, not to illuminate the ground.

That would be inconsistent with:

"Um, no. They're designed to illuminate the ground so the pilots can see what they're attacking. They're not protection flares. They're "you're about to get shot up" flares. "
- FallingOsh

I'm not fallingOsh. Try to keeps us straight. I commented to your post which contained these words:

"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?"

[chasteh 0]

>"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?"

Hasn't it been established that the LUU2 flare is not a countermeasure?

>I'm not fallingOsh.

Neither am I. Wait.... nope

Nevertheless:

>Flares (or chaff) dropped at that height (2 miles up) are used as a defensive/countermeasure weapon, not to illuminate the ground.

Truth-value assignment: False, unless you have some o ther indication as to its use as a countermeasure.

[billvon 2,405]

>What kind of research, Bill?

The use of MOA's for flare and chaff training was explicitly described as training for missile countermeasures.

Here are a few other references if you like. From Wikipedia:

==============
IR decoy flares
IR-decoy flares serve to counter infrared-guided surface-to-air missiles (SAM) or air-to-air missiles (AAM) and can be expelled from a craft according to an anticipated threat in defined sequences.

Radar decoys
To counter radar-guided missiles, chaff is used. These are copper nickel-coated glass fibers or silver-coated nylon fibers having lengths equal to half of the anticipated radar wavelength.
==============

From the Defensive Training Initiative:

The USAF proposes to implement the Defensive Training Initiative which would provide F-16 pilots based at Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico, the ability to train with chaff and flares as defensive countermeasures.
==============

I suggest you read up on flares as IR missile countermeasures. Some interesting history there.

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

Hasn't it been established that the LUU2 flare is not a countermeasure?

You are the only one that has brought up the LUU2 flare as far as I am aware. When someone makes mention of chaff and flare in the same sentence, it is a pretty good bet they are referring to countermeasure type flares.

[chasteh 0]

>I suggest you read up on flares as IR missile countermeasures. Some interesting history there.

Neato. Maybe I'll do that when you guys make it necessarily the case that the lights over phoenix in 1997 were part of a military operation, let alone that they were actually in the MOA/restricted area south of phoenix and that it is not possible for them to have been something else, whatever that something may be, Bill.

[chasteh 0]

>Flares (or chaff) dropped at that height (2 miles up) are used as a defensive/countermeasure weapon, not to illuminate the ground

>You are the only one that has brought up the LUU2 flare as far as I am aware.

Initially, this was FallingOsh. Post #20

"LUU-2's actually. Think about a string of flares all burning out within a second of each other and falling from their canopy" - FallingOsh (It still hasn't been demonstrated how a flare of any sort used by the military will burn for as long as and for the same amount of time that the Phoenix lights, or "Flares" for some, did.)

>When someone makes mention of chaff and flare in the same sentence, it is a pretty good bet they are referring to countermeasure type flares.

Yep. Admittedly, I made the same error. Unfortunately, for some, the flare referred to, in place of what one might consider to have been intended to refer to, still does not behave as "those" (whatever 'those' actually refers to) that were observed in 97.

[chasteh 0]

In summary, I am exhausted from this entire thread. There hasn't been much progress made, at all, in terms of what 1) one group considers the possibilities, 2) another group claims to know what occurred, 3) what another group thinks occured, or even that one is willing to change their minds based on rival paradigms.

Pending FallingOsh's post, he apparently still carries enough courtesy to pend a response. In turn, I will read his next response - yet I will admit that even I at this point do not expect him to post something that will formulate end-all-be-all evidence, that even considering the truth of his premises will make it impossible for there to have been some other occurance, which he has not accepted at this point, to be in place of what he considers to have happened.

My first day of a very tough semester is about to begin tomarrow, so the time I have spent arguing with random people on the internet who, despite my skydiving career, I will most likely not meet, will most definitely become a thing of the past. The only thing I will have time for, most likely, will be looking for gear - and jumping that gear.

Therefore, with the exception of the courtesy I will show to FallingOsh as a response to his delayed response, my posting will be very limited on this Forum.

Worthy opponents found on this forum thus far:

Lawrocket
TomAiello
Billvon

Honorable mention:

wmw999

Thanks for your time otherwise. If I pissed you off, I am absolutely grateful for it. And if not, there probably would have been time for it at some point.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Therefore, with the exception of the courtesy I will show to FallingOsh as a response to his delayed response, my posting will be very limited on this Forum.

I told you I was gone for the weekend. Sorry for upsetting you.

You've refused to accept anything other than what you think happened (which you still haven't posted what you think happened or why you think that) so the conversation is apparently over. The military posted an official position with comments from the actual pilot involved. You don't believe them. You've made claim after rediculous claim involving everything from air-to-ground radar to flare techniques that prove how little you know and how little you're willing to research the subject. If you can come up with one suggestion (not even evidence, just a suggestion) that the lights were anything other than what has been stated then the conversation can continue. Otherwise, good luck with school. Don't forget your foil hat.

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

[billvon 2,405]

>Maybe I'll do that when you guys make it necessarily the case that the
>lights over phoenix in 1997 were part of a military operation . . .

I made no such claim. I merely demonstrated that they COULD have been part of a military operation, as they have been in the past. If you wish to prove that they were part of a military operation, knock yourself out. Or, if you prefer to continue to not understand how flares work as countermeasures, feel free to do that as well. Your choice.

>and that it is not possible for them to have been something else,
>whatever that something may be, Bill.

??? There are a great many things they could have been. Including, as we have shown, flares used for countermeasure training.

[chasteh 0]

>Sorry for upsetting you.

Indicate so.

>You've refused to accept anything other than what you think happened

Actually, that aligns more closely with your responses - considering my 1) admittance of the flares, 2) billvon's statements concerning flare and chaff in MOAs, and 3) the fact that I haven't made a claim concerning what else happened. The whole purpose here, it seems, was to show you that your claims are incomplete. Less than perfect. Not even inductively strong.

>You don't believe them

The presence of flares left the by the military is still possible, yet you can't even demonstrate that they were as such - co nsidering that there are so many logical problems with what is entailed by your theory.

>If you can come up with one suggestion (not even evidence, just a suggestion) that the lights were anything other than what has been stated then the conversation can continue.

Again, I do not have to make any such claim. You have made the claims thus far, I am just showing you the holes. There are lots of them.

[chasteh 0]

>I made no such claim

Fantastic. You seem, however, to be arguing something that is opposed to my objections of FallingOsh's statements.

>If you wish to prove that they were part of a military operation, knock yourself out

Not the point.

>if you prefer to continue to not understand how flares work as countermeasures, feel free to do that as well. Your choice

Or, if you (insert something else here intended as a PA, from our favorite moderator who seems ever so opposed to PAs)

See my response to FallingOsh above to indicate the purpose here.

[billvon 2,405]

>You seem, however, to be arguing something that is opposed to my objections of
>FallingOsh's statements.

Nope, I've just been disagreeing with your statements over how this or that could not possible have happened. Just pointing out that they can and do happen. Was that what happened here? I don't know - but it's a good possibility.

[chasteh 0]

>Just pointing out that they can and do happen.

Yet you haven't indicated anything about the presence of those flares in the Sells Moa, or that it is possible for them to have been over South Mountain as opposed to the MOA.


>Was that what happened here? I don't know - but it's a good possibility.

Unless, of course, we look at 1) the several perspectives that show the "lights" were somewhere other than the Sells MOA or R-2305, by virtue of how they were viewed from several different locations about Phoenix, 2) Consider the burn times of the flares in question - and the extended presence of the lights over South Mountain, 3) why the FAA didn't just resolve this issue by making a statement itself concerning flare activity - which is something they must know about, 4) why people from Tucson didn't report anything over the MOAs, or 5) why both Davis-Monthan ATC and Tucson ATC didn't report the said aircraft in question arriving or departing on that date
6) Why no one from the smaller communities south of Phoenix didn't dispell the "lights," given their adequate perspectives of the MOA and Restricted areas
7) Why the LUU2s in question, apparently, are considered to be countermeasures again (Where did this come from? Now are they countermeasures, or are they there for lighting? Are they both?)
8) Some other type of flare that could have burned and been suspended for as long as the Phoenix lights were

I guess our standards for "Good" possibility are far from the same.