chasteh

>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.

>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.

>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.

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.

>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.

>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.

>"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.

>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

>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.

>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...

"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.

>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.

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)

>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.

>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?

>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.

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

>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)

>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?

>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.

>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.

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

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

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.

MOA's are considered to be areas where there are no arial hazards other than intense pilot training and/or military aircraft maneuvers. The presence of all firing or other arial hazards including the launching of missiles, unguided projectiles, and other hazards are carried out with FAA notification in designated areas, including Restricted and Controlled Firing Areas. Moa's are not included.