chasteh

>And comments like these are exactly why the conversation is over. Keep believing it's a government cover up. No skin off my back. Statement: Chasteh believes it is a government cover-up. Truth-value: False. Statement: FallingOsh: The military shot flares over south mountain, and that is what the lights over phoenix in 1997 were. Truth-value: Truth-functionally indeterminate

Exhausting. >Explain again how you've proven or disproven anything >Here's an attached picture of the MOA's You are cute, dude. You see one giant MOA west of tuscon and beginning 30 miles south of South Mountain. (That picture shows what is onthe official FAA chart on skyvector.com.) It is west of Tucson, and well south of the Gila Bend VOR. That isn't very close to South mountain, dude. Oh yea... and logic shows us that it can't be true that the MOA is both over South mountain and 30 miles south of it. Also, if they really were illumination flares, for the purposes of lighting a target area, why would they be visible over South Mountain? Hmm? Oh yea... and just a factoid: MOA's don't contain firing of ANY SORT. Restricted areas do. The restricted area you think you are referring to, but don't even know about yet - is Restricted Area R-2304 and R-2305, which are BOTH BLOCKED OFF BY 4000+ FOOT MOUNTAINS. How is it that you could see flares in this area and at the same time have mountains blocking your view? Uh oh. Nice attempt with the google'd picture of Sell's MOA, though. Have you even looked at the chart? Arizona, New Mexico, and so on are littered with military activity. However, South Mountain is not. Hint: The Sauceda mountains are not "South Mountain." South Mountain is closest to Sierra Estrella, which is halfway between R2305 and South mountain, which is in the middle of town. >So far you've been wrong about: >LUU-2's What am I wrong about? The time they burn for? THeir deployment altitudes? Their purpose? Please. >self-protection flares Self-protection flares. Ohhhh - you mean Evasive Countermeasures. Gotcha. What am I wrong about? >the use of illumination flares Maybe. You still haven't demonstrated that they were, in fact, illumination flares or that they were dployed by a military aircraft. Are you done yet? >The ranges Dude! I grew up in the South West, and much of my time was spent in Phoenix. I know what I am looking at on the chart. Do you? >Air-to-ground radar What? You mean because the A-10 didn't have Radar-pod capability until year X? Way to be specific, dude. >the lightning pod They have lightning pods? That must be cool. The military sounds alot more like Quake III Arena now. I might just join on up. >night vision goggles Yea right. Explain how much light you actually need with NVGs, and then explain how those conditions and technology weren't available. >the hud Grab a book. Ex-haus-ting. >the MOA over south mntn. See above. Or a book. edit: Oh yea.. and if that activity was in the area yo specified, where is the footage/report/evidence from anyone from: 1)Gila Bend 2) Ajo 3) Casa Granda 4) Eloy (for fun) 5) Tucson 6) Arizona City 7) Stells ?? Oh yea... and in case you do find that, where, from each one of those positions, were the lights found? Anywhere near that Restricted Area?

>"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 many replies 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.

>No one is claiming that anyone "moves backwards" in time. They just move forward at different rates based on their relative speed. Fantastic. This is FAR different from the two individuals actually moving through time at different rates. Someone's "getting smaller" because they move further away from us is also FAR different from them actually getting smaller. >Their reference frame is different, so time passes at a different rate for them. Well... you would definitely see everything near you move before the objects further away move, because the light emitted from those further objects has a greater distance to travel to you. Does that mean that the objects actually moved at a different time? No. >They are moving forward in time, just at different rates. In optical illusion land they do.

>So if you "believe" in GPS, you also believe in time dilation by extension Not necessarily. In satellites I see hundreds of satellites still existing in a "now" just as they tick along, moving around a giant ball of dirt. If you freeze all motion, you will see them in one spot, and if you advance all motion by one second, you will see that motion change by one second. > If they didn't constantly correct for this their clocks would get further and further off relative to ours, making them useless. So why not just assume that they are moving forward in time? We are getting positional data from the future! Please. >But if one leaves on a relativistic trip and returns to earth, the twin on the trip will be many years younger than her sibling when she returns. So they and their synchronized clocks would still be on the same time. One would be "years younger" because they travelled somewhere? What?

>Perhaps you might be the one that needs to learn the English language. Perhaps. Fucking brilliant. >Just because you are not able to comprehend that time is relative, doesn't make it not so. There is a MAJOR difference between saying that a person moves forward or backward in time in actuality and saying that their clock appears different due to the motion and distance traveled. Where did I say that time is not relative, anyways? Time is merely a method of measurement - a human creation. Their concept of time is relative to, say: The period the planet Earth takes to revolve around the sun, the period the planet Earth takes to rotate once, and so on. What I am saying is that this theory of time traveling as a result of moving through space is nonsense.

Oh, the horror! Defeat at its best! Edit: Oh yea.. so much for logic, mister "Military airspace exists over south mountain!" Hah!

The receiver has to compensate for it, otherwise it would not get the signal it needs to accurately depict where, say, an airplane traveling 500 knots over the ground is within x number of feet. That isn't silly, it is necessary.

>Your rant is pretty close to unreadable What? You are high. I have typed my "rant" in English. Learn to read English. >but I take it you don't believe that time moves slower the faster you are traveling? I think the perception of it is totally different, but I think everyone/thing still ticks on by as if motionless. Monozygotic twins will have similar lifetimes, even if they are separated. Pre-synchchronized clocks will still read the same time when compared side-by-side. >http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/...st162/Unit5/gps.html Awe shux. Didn't anyone tell you that aviators all reference their clocks with Zulu time? (You know... Zulu time. That time referenced with GMT, or Greenwich Mean Time, that place that determines where the International date line is on the other side of the planet?) Having said that, the GPS system compensates for the distances that they are from their receivers on the ground, what direction and velocity both they and their receivers are moving, and how long it takes those messages to be transfered to the GPS receivers. That doesn't prove that time is warped by their positions! It proves that they need to compensate for the several factors that change their computations and accuracy. >Each satellite in the GPS constellation carries one or more atomic clocks in order for a GPS receiver to compare the signals from different satellites and triangulate its position Precisely! The gps units have to compensate for the distances they have traveled from their origins, where they continue to travel, the time that the messages take to travel, and the times associated with those position measurements. None of them prove that space/time is warped by their position - only that their perch needs to be accounted for.

Sure I have a desire to talk about this logically. I have included statements that are 1) provable and 2) are inconsistent with what you say happened. Logic dictates that. I may have added some emotional (and rather funny) tidbits here and there. You did too. Boo fuckin hoo. >You're right. It wasn't the military. It was something else entirely. Well if it was the military it wasn't something we know about, because none of the flares we have information about can last for so long over a given area. >What, you have no idea. How, you have no idea. Whom, you have no idea. I don't need to to evaluate your argument. >But it definitely wasn't the military. That much I haven't proven, I don't think. However, your justification for the claim "It was the military isn't complete and is self-contradictory.

>They would see two years of activity compressed into a month, like a VCR on fast-forward. It would, of course, be drastically redshifted or blueshifted That is what they would see around them and their craft. Why would what they saw inside be different from the physiological experiences they would have at rest relative to earth? >Unless your plane can reach speeds of around 670 million miles per hour, you're not "going back in time." You're just seeing the sun in a different place in the sky. My theory is that when an object travels 670 million miles per hour, it travels 670 million miles per hour. It is simply a measurement of its velocity. There is nothing restricting it from having the physical capacity to travel faster, although there isn't anything to propel it (an energy source, energy being limited by light speed) that fast. My guess is that nothing happens to you at that speed. (Although everyone around you wishes to comfort their dear little hearts and explain what you are experiencing) edit: Here is a FUN thought: Make object A travel 3/4 the speed of light in vector A Make object B travel 3/4 the speed of light in the reciprocation of vector A (The other direction) When object A and B pass each other... a physical speed is reached relative to the other object. (Sort of like how we measure velocity on Earth) The end.

>Where did you read that the flares were over south mountain? There is military airspace over south mountain. Not for dropping flares, but there is military airspace You are assuming I simply read that they were over south mountain. Are you listening? What type of military airspace is it? There are civil airspace forms over south mountain: Class E, Class B Shelf, Class B Mode C area, Class E over the shelves, and Class A beginning at FL180. Where is the military airspace, jack? >Yes. And it has nothing at all to do with air to ground radar. It doesn't need to. It has everything to do with one of the methods fighter pilots or bomber crews can use to select, paint, and attack targets on the ground - without seeing anything with unaided eyes - and several of those methods have been illustrated for you. >You haven't negated anything. You haven't even challenged it with any amount of reason. It was explained. It can be explained. I can be reproduced. It was reproduced. You have provided nothing to suggest it was anything other than flares No, for a dogmatist, it sure hasn't. Yet you STILL haven't explained the presence of the lights for longer than ANY flares man or the military have, and that there was ANY form of military aircraft in that area to release them repeatedly. Don't you think after Air traffic control and the rest of the public reported the lights, that the military would have ordered them to stop? Yes! Clearly - it did not happen. >So you're saying that fighter do not drop flares to aid in night bombing? I just want to clarify that little gem Nope. I am questioning why the military would need to, since they clearly don't, and why they would repeatedly do it with such an amount of precision so as to make it look the same every time. Cute lil' gem you got there, jack. >You haven't even challenged it with any amount of reason. "Boo hoo! You're wrong, im right!" Oh yea. And explain the flare problem - you know... the one about their position, how long they burned for, and why the military didn't stop doing it for several hours over the same spot. Reasoned invididuals who make claims about how the military is responsible can usually defend that a little better than you have. Crap! >Again, where did you read that they were over south mountain. South mountain is nearly 100 miles away from Phoenix. You think you could spot a plane of any size 100 miles away? What? South mountain is West of Ahwatukee and Chandler, which are just south of Phoenix and within the Class B service area. Are you high? >You think you could spot a plane of any size 100 miles away? Well usually when you make a claim about it being a military aircraft emitting flares you usually have more evidence than that. Sort of like how there is limited evidence explaining the lights to be emitted from Alien spacecraft. HHHHHHhhhhhhhh. Exhausting. Ok, lets go through your "facts" here: >Besides the fact that jets drop flares there all the time. No, they don't. Look at the chart. >Besides the fact you can see the flares descending in the video. Or several other types of explanations. Isn't it so convenient for you that the flares are made of magnesium and most of them burn up before hitting the surface? Where are the flares and the footage or even the Radar return from the fighters? Phoenix Approach never saw a military aircraft over where the lights where. And guess what, inside the Mode C service area they have to have transponders - you know... those thingies that tell ATC everything about your flight position and altitude. >Besides the fact that you can see new flares lighting as the others burn out. You are STILL assuming that they are flares. Please demonstrate how they are flares. Wait... are they flares or photographic reproductions? Which is it, again? Your not even being consistent, jack. >Besides the fact that the AF reproduced it. Yeah, besides all that I have nothing. Were you going to show this, or just keep stating it? Your argument is "Rock" solid, jack. >You haven't said anything. I'm ready to listen. Write a reasonable (or even an unreasonable) explanation and I'll read it That isn't my goal here. I am evaluating your crazy responses, not claiming what the lights were. I am comparing your explanations with reality. And your explanations don't even match up. >> I have negated it readily >How? By saying 'oops No, by showing that you don't have evidence for: 1) How the flares maintainted their repeated positions, were they flares descending under parachute 2) How you cannot explain how there is no evidence of something such as an A-10 emitting them 3) How the "flares" can burn for so long 4) Why the military didn't stop launching them 5) Why ATC never saw them 6) And so on... Man. Your argument is crap. edit: Oops! LoL! >I'm not saying you didn't see it. I'm saying you refuse to believe the logical explanation for what you saw. Actually, my logical explanation goes like this: I saw "lights" for several hours over South mountain. Your attempt at labeling them as military flares isn't very consistent with any of this. Next.

Subjective time. Interesting. So they would see Earth's activity (should they still be able to see earth, say through a telescope) and watch one month of activity - even though two years have passed. Just out of curiosity, what says that the person traveling hasn't experienced two years of time? When i travel "back in time" to Australia, my nose-hair still grows about 15 hour of length. I still have to take a shit twice in the airplane. What gives? (bullshit time-stopping and bending theories bend reality, thats what)

>Why would you assume they are anything other than flares on a known range where flares are used? 1) I was there 2) There is no military airspace overlying South mountain 3) The nearest military airspace is quite a distance from South mountain >Wow. You really have zero clue what you're balbbering on about. The A-10 has no air to ground radar. Night vision still requires light to work. Explain to me how a HUD makes things visible on the ground Edit: HUD's will show you targets you have selected through other imagine means. MFD's (multi-function displays) will show you radar returns and other means you can use to detect things, select, them, and intensify the reading of their returns,) No air-to-ground radar on a modern strafing platform? Really? Do you know what a "pipper" is? (Predicted impact point, for say a missile or bomb - You can select a radar return, paint it, and then drop something on it.) You can also "paint" a target using other methods. "A-10's use the Northrop Grumman Litening ER (Extended Range) targeting pod, which includes 640 x 512 pixel thermal imager, CCD TV, laser rangefinder, IR marker and laser designator. The pilot can wear night vision goggles and also look through the electro-optical imaging displays of the Maverick AGM-65." Hence... they don't need to "light up an area to see it." Nightvision goggles don't need that much light to function, and clearly the pilot has many other methods to use to light a particular area. (Yet this is STILL outside the point... why would an A-10 let out flares over south-mountain?) >Ok. So you should know where the ranges are Not over South-Mountain, and no where near where the lights were seen. Crap. >Military airspace covers that entire area. Ranges are on all sides. Where did you read the flares were over south mountain? No it doesn't. Military airspace is in a select few sectors of that area. Here.. ill draw you a picture: http://skyvector.com/ Click on the globe on the top of the page, and then click on the "Phoenix" Terminal Area Chart. Look at the southern part of the city. South mountain. Look for any type of Alert, Restricted, MOA (military operations area), MTR (military training routes), or even a nearby air force base. Look how far it is from south-mountain. (Where the lights were) >Oops, what? You saw two sets of flares over the same ranges? "Flares" being the symbol you use to represent the light fixture, whatever it is, over the area - wherever that was. You still haven't supported the notion of them being flares. However, I have negated that, and yet still haven't claimed what they are myself. Crap. edit: Oh yea... Furthermore, who is to say that those "flares" just so happened to be fired again when I went outside to look before going to sleep? Or the millions of times they were observed by other people in Phoenix, or the thousands of times they were photographed and video-taped? >1. The lights seen were a common flare used by jets that frequently (daily) use those areas. It was explained and reproduced by the Air Force "Those areas," which you aren't even familiar with, aren't near where the lights were, jack. >2. It's a giant cover up to hidden technology or a visit from space aliens. Not convinced. However, your explanation is less than probable, because you cannot provide justification for it outisde of "those were flares, dummy." >You have done nothing to even remotely approach a convincing argument that the whole situation was not a simple (and reproducable) misunderstanding by some people with video cameras. Yet you haven't explained how it is reproducable. You can photoshop it all you want, but you can't just do the same for 3 million people in Phoenix metro. Whether it is man-made or not, what was seen can be arguable NOT a military event. Are you even ready to listen? I can see from the tone of your posts that you consider me to be one of the conspirators, and that I think this is a demonstration of spookey cookey space aliens. I haven't said this, jack. >You're refusing to accept a perfectly reasonable explanation in exchange for aliens or government cover ups. Actually, i have negated it quite readily. Where, again, did I claim the government is trying to cover this up, or that someone did not fabricate it on a camera (they didn't - I was there and saw this shit myself - although what you saw could most definitely have been fabricated. That happens often with UFO stories and footage)

>One would think a skydiver would know a bit about the difficulty of spotting an aircraft at a great distance And given that difficulty is is that much more absurd to say that you can know that A-10's dropped the flares, that they were flares, and that even a man-made military vehicle dropped them off. But wait... there were people underneath the lights as well... where is that footage of the a-10 flying overhead?

>If you watched the video I posted then you can see new flares lighting at a higher altitude than flares already burning You have to assume that they are "flares" to call them "flares" still. All you see is one light source illuminating, then another, then another. Where is the A-10? Oops! >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. Someone help them! Those pilots only have air-to-ground radar, night vision, and a HUD to use to display those ground targets! Oh no! Let's show the enemy where a fighter jet is going to be lurking. >Yes they were. I'm not going to Google everything for you. Do a little research on your own. I live in the southwest. Guess where! Now guess where I was when the lights showed up. Uh oh. Maricopa county motha fucka! Holla! >You finally got something right. They are not self-protection flares. They are illumination flares. Illumination flares designed to float under canopy to provide light. Light on a range that can be seen from Phoenix In case ya didn't know, cutie pie, those flares were over a place called "South mountain." I am looking at the aviation chart for phoenix right now. Where is the military airspace at over south mountain? Where is Luke AFB? Where would those flares be shot? (In restricted areas) R-2310A,B, and C are at least 30 miles east of the South Mountain, and the Alert area over Luke AFB is at least the same distance to the north-west of South mountain. Care you answer for that? Wanna "do more research for me?" edit: Oh yea.. and we first saw them between 9 and 10 pm (dark) and saw them past midnight. Oops!

>Where did you get ten minutes? I read they were seen for close to two hours From the wikipedia page Quade supplied. And if they were seen for two hours, were they seen constantly being shot out the backside of the supposed A-10? If so, where is the footage of them being re-deployed every 5 minutes? (The time frame the flares yo mentioned can burn for) >That's what they're designed to do. They wouldn't do much good for the pilot if they floated away They were designed to float under parachutes to illuminate a particular area on the ground. (to illuminate an area in order to protect something/somewhere from enemy night combat patrols) So really, they weren't meant for the pilot at all. Those are very different flares from the type pilots use to evade hostile missile attacks.

I just thought of another fun one... If light can only travel at approximately c speed, how is it that we could ever use a propulsive mechanism (that relies on energy transfer and conversion- thus dependent on speed c) to make an object travel faster than the speed of sound? Would we use gravitational pulls? Are gravitational pulls dependent on the speed of light/energy?

>doesn't mean the subjective time does. Otherwise your body would instantly age, no? Well... to get yourself to age more quickly, you would actually have to be able to increase the rate at which you travel toward yourself... which is only possible for a brief period of time for a rather short distance. What the science buffs here forget to mention is that "time" is only changing as a result of the perceptual change that occurs with traveling to or from something... Not that you have actually travelled in time. This reasoning also puts those who think they "lost a day in time" to physics when they take a plane ride over several time zones. You haven't actualyl "lost a day," you just re-set your clock so that it is in sync with someone elses clock, such that you lost a day in that transition. If you were to travel back to where you came from, you would simply re-set your watch so that you were observing a day previous to what you were observing in the second instance. No one "gains or loses" time from travelling somewhere, no matter how far or fast. Your clock just changes, and you observe another clock differently. In other words, if you set two clocks at the same time (roughly... for you assholes who will say "you can't because the time won't be precisely the same because you will have set the time for the other watch while it will have been a split second faster than what yo thought it was set for) and then carried one clock with you at the speed of light away from the other... the other one would appear to have stopped while the one you were carrying would still tick for the time you spend travelling.

>Not that the speed of light can be reached in the first place though The speed of light! Please, we can't even travel the speed of sound without spontaneously combusting! Oh wait... physicists were once wrong about that, too. Gotta love Einstein... but I think he is mistaken there. (Although his theory concerning absolute zero is quite interesting)

>Based on current knowledge, I think it is estimated it would take more energy than exists in our entire solar system to create a wormhole large enough to handle even a modest sized vessel. And aiming it to a specific destination is pie in the sky. If we knew an advanced species were out there, and that they could develop weapons far superior to our own, and some businessman here knew about it - he would find a way to make it happen. Kind of like how Lockheed Martin and GE have lobbied to mass-produce the F-35 (and failed),

Lets see the exact same results, and the creation of those results by the military. As far as I am concerned, "as good as it gets" isn't achieved until you have done this.

>Think about a string of flares all burning out within a second of each other and falling from their canopy. Might look like they were flying away from you in formation, wouldn't it? Why did they "burn" for ten minutes? Why did they stay situated for so long? "The LUU-2 has a burn time of approximately 5 minutes while suspended from a parachute." - from your own link.

>Obviously no amount of admission by the government nor recreation by them is ever going to satisfy you Really? Re-creating the same event and being able to describe the technology used while also showing how that technology behaves in the same way as was observed, and you will convince me. Where are these infinitismal flares? Oh yea... at what point does admission from the government make something legit, again? I mean... the government spent a great deal of time trying to convince us that there was a link between 9/11 and Iraq... Uh oh, that one didn't work out so well for the government's credibility, now did it? edit: Oh yea! And it was the same Department of Defense that is in question now as was in question concerning the 9/11 - Iraq link.... Interesting.

>Mostly because I was a science nerd and knew while the likelihood of extraterrestrial life is almost a certainty There are "aliens" that exist on the floors of our seas that look, behave, and live in ways that we could never have imagined. (Even more bizarre than the wildest of science-fiction novels) The likelihood is extremely high... but you are right... it is so unlikely that they are even near our solar system, let alone any distance close enough to reach us within the lifetime of any intelligent species we know of - even by traveling the speed of light. The likelihood that those same aliens 1) breathe oxygen, 2) function within a society, 3) are advanced enough to have vessels with which to travel on their own planet, 4) have vessels with which to travel in space, 5) can travel at the speed of light, and 6) are able to survive long enough to make such a journey, and 7) be able to survive in our own atmosphere is horribly [un]likely, at best. Yet, it seems much more likely, now, that they have been "here" all along.