UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2004 > Mar > Mar 29

Re: Phoenix Lights - Man Made Hoax Devices? -

From: Bill Hamilton <skyman22.nul>
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 17:15:23 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 11:05:55 -0500
Subject: Re: Phoenix Lights - Man Made Hoax Devices? -

>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 00:12:56 -0500
>Subject: Re: Phoenix Lights - Man Made Hoax Devices?

>>From: Bill Hamilton <skyman22.nul>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 07:27:55 -0800
>>Subject: Re: Phoenix Lights - Man Made Hoax Devices?

>>>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac.nul>
>>>Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 14:54:00 -0500>
>>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>Subject: Re: Phoenix Lights - Man Made Hoax Devices?

>>>>>According to National Air Guard spokespeople in the summer of
>>>>>1997, the flares were released at an unusually high altitude.
>>>>>Capt. Eileen Benz, spokesperson for the Arizona National Guard,
>>>>>and the person who discovered that flares had been dropped that
>>>>evening by the Maryland National Guard (Snowbirds), flares were
>>>>dropped at an altitude of 15,000 ft. Capt. Drew Sullins,
>>>>>spokesman for the MD Nat. Guard. said a squad of A-10 using the
>>>>>Bary Goldwater training range had "dumped several flares" at
>>>>>high altitude.

>>>>Bruce, you fail to mention that at that altitude and distance,
>>>>these so-called perfectly round amber "flares" would be 1,500
>>>>feet in diameter.

>>>I don't know what you mean by this. The flares are fixed in size
>>>by the metal tubes housing the fuel that is burned. Are you
>>>trying to say thatthe flares change their size with altitude?

>>I am saying that based on the angular displacement of the light
>>and its distance from my viewing point, and trig calculations
>>indicate it to be over 1,500 feet in diameter. Pretty large

>The size of the image of a bright light which is too small to
>resolve at some distance (e.g., a bright light bulb a few inches
>in diameter photographed at several miles... or a bright star)
>is a function of its brightness.

>The image size grows with brightness for various optical
>reasons. Astronomers use this fact to estimate star magnitude
>from te size of images on photographic plates (at least they
>used to). Hence one cannot simply project the size of the image
>of a distant light out to the distance of the light and thereby
>estimate the size of the light.

Bruce, I happen to be an amateur astronomer and am familiar with
distant light sources and have spent many hours in the desert
observing the same.

>In other words, your calculation of flare size from image size
>is incorrect. The mst it can give is an upper bound to the size
>of the light source (it could be any size smaller than the upper

The image I saw was through a telescope as I have told you
before and it did not flare or glare as a star would. It
appeared the size of the full moon as seen with the naked eye
and, like the moon subtended a definite angle of arc and, like
the moon, its light was mostly confine to the inside of the
circle seen. Therefore, the calculation is correct.


[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com