From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac.nul> Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 23:57:22 -0500 Fwd Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 15:51:22 -0500 Subject: Re: The Phoenix Lights - Man Made Hoax Devices - >From: Stuart Miller <stuart.miller4.nul> >To: <ufoupdates.nul> >Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 16:55:19 -0000 >Subject: The Phoenix Lights - Man Made Hoax Devices >The following is a short extract from an interview conducted >Phoenix Lights, for UFO Review, a new on-line e-zine to be >launched soon. The full interview will appear in the first >edition, TBA. >Interview date: 24th. March 04. >Time: 11:00 pm GMT. >SM is Stuart Miller >LK is Doctor Lynne Kitei. >SM: What is your reaction these days, now, when you still hear >the word "flares" mentioned in connection with the lights? >LK: Oh boy, that does get my ire. First of all, they weren't >flares! That I know. It's funny you should mention that because >last night, the three hour show (Coast To Coast 3/24/04) went so >well and we were getting such wonderful callers, from all over >the United States. It was just really amazing that all these > >people were up in the middle of the night listening to this and >it was really comforting. I ve had so much positive >reinforcement. The last caller though, this guy says, I know you >were looking south so it must have been flares on the Barry >Goldwater range. >Well, besides the fact that if you just look at the data, >there's no way these were flares because they don't act like >flares. They defy physics, as we know it, as I've been told by >numerous optical specialists. Flares cannot stay in a straight >line, they cannot form formations, for sure, they're very >erratic, they're white not amber. They have giant slope trails >and they reflect. That's what they're used for; to reflect light >on air. As I have pointed out here recently and to Dr. Lynne back in 1998, when I was analyzing her photos and the videos from March 13, the lights do not violate 'flare physics', they drop downward, and drift with the general eastward wind. But more importantly, the triangular using her video and those of Kyzysten and Rairdon, shows that the 10 PM video lights were far south of Phoenix. >This didn't come up until a month after the USA Today article, >when I know the media was just badgering, as we were, for an >explanation and so they had to come up with something. The only >real hard data that they had were the four videos that night of >us looking south, so whoever thought it up was certainly very >bright and could make a case because the video itself does not >do it justice. It does not do it justice at all because they re >white in the video; they flicker in the video which they do not >do in real life. They appear smaller as well. Who could tell, "in real life" if they flickered by the small amount noted in the video - there is noticeable flickering sometimes when the lights go out in Rairdon's video and not so in Krzysten's when they may be cut off by falling behind the mountain ridge. >People that want to feed into that explanation, do. Either >they're fearful of the real explanation or they just can't deal >with thinking about it and it's just easier for them to slip >into a logical explanation. Strange she should say this. In the months that I spent looking at her video and photo data I made it clear that the data pointed toward distant lights at 10 PM on March 13. However, I accept, and even helped her to prove, that the lights she photographed close to her house, in 1995, are unexplainable. >What's funny to me is that if you >look at the data, there's just no way. It's comical now when >somebody brings it up and some people are very hard set on it, I >have to tell you. Like this guy on the radio programme last >night. I also received an e-mail to that affect from a guy >that's with the Snowbirds somewhere. These are the people that >really don't look at the data. They hear an explanation; they >jump on it and say, That's fine. >Well what about the mile long triangular craft that everybody >saw. What about that phenomena? To me it's just as important if >not more so because thousands of people saw that as well, or >lights attached to something, which is very similar to what I >photographed, obviously. Th 8:30 PM object was seen by many people, passing through the skies north of Phoenix, and traveling southward over the city. This was long before the 10 PM lights were videotaped. This triangle is the real UFO case of March 13. >A number of people saw these orbs detach from the main object >and go out into the environment, which maybe was what happened >in 95 to my husband and I, and then re-dock. That we didn't find >out about until over a year, in December, after the mass >sighting when I went back to the negatives and tried to find the >one with four lights, which I realised was actually from 95. It >shows quite clearly that when the closed orbs were disappearing, >and when there were three orbs there originally, one on top and >two underneath, there were six lights in the background. Two of >them disappeared as the top orb disappeared so that we saw four >in the background when two were there. Then when there's only >one orb, there's two in the background. So the same formation in >the same location, disappearing in the background when we re >seeing the closed orbs as well. It' s a little too coincidental. Her 1995 photos are indeed bizarre for a particular reason I discovered. However, I am not at liberty to describe why.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp