From: Bill Hamilton <skyman22.nul> Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 17:23:41 -0800 Fwd Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 11:23:47 -0500 Subject: Re: The Phoenix Lights - Man Made Hoax Devices - >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac.nul> >To: <ufoupdates.nul> >Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 23:57:22 -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. As I keep pointing out both Mike Kryzsten and I saw these lights through telescopes. He agrees with me - no Flicker! In 2000 re- enaactment - plenty of flicker and different color. Ignore eyewitness testimony on this one, but take into account in the Gulf Breeze incident. Ignore all the other testimony from March 13th on amber lights and how they were seen moving horizontally and also docking with the triangle. I suppose the Triangles shoot out flares which return to them and dock in bays on the sides! >>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. No flickering, no glow around them. Very poor flares that do mot illuminate surrounding air or objects.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp