Cita:
Thethirdeye ha scritto:
Sei tu che hai parlato di quantità... e io ti sono venuto dietro.
Non girarla tu la frittata ora....
Davo per scontato che fosse chiaro che il riferimento di un peso testimoniale, nel caso in questione, sia dato dalla sua attendibilità, e non dalla quantità. La differenza non sta nel contare il numero dei testimoni, ma il metodo adottato per dichiarare che un oggetto osservato in cielo sia di natura inspiegabile, o addirittura aliena.
Non capisco perchè non accetti il fatto che vedere di notte delle luci in formazione, allineate o che formino un triangolo, diano delle false percezioni sulla sua natura, forma, quota.
Ma se ancora oggi, nel 2013, c'è chi scambia le lanterne cinesi, di notte, per una formazione sconosciuta, peggio ancora se a volare sono solo in 3 che si mostrano sempre in formazione triangolare.
Cita:
Questa è solo una tua opinione.... suffragata dal nulla...
anzi, da un adolescente, unico testimone...
Dal nulla? Ci sono stati casi analoghi nella storia dell'ufologia. Questo non significa di certo che si dà per scontato che quanto avvenuto a Phoenix rientri in tale statistica senza un minimo di approfondimento.
Che la "V-shaped", nel suo attraversare l'Arizona, abbia percorso una AWY (aerovia) standard non ti dice proprio niente? Strano che un "velivolo alieno" conosca bene le procedure di volo della FAA.
Cita:
Lo abbiamo detto... ma ai fini della ricerca, intesa come fatti accaduti, non ci interessano questi signori... Basta con Dilettoso e Hamilton. A me interessano i 999 testimoni ed è di quelli che sto parlando. Io parlo di loro e tu parli dei fuffari..... ma non sarai tu a voler mescolare le carte con questo modo di fare Insider?
Non interessano? Io mescolo le carte? Ma in quale realtà parallela vivi TTE?
Comodo ora dire che Dilettoso & Co. non ci riguardano più, quando sono stati costoro, attraverso il Village Labs, a veicolare le testimonianze. Come è stata la Barwood a gonfiare le prime segnalazioni ricevute nelle settimane successive all'avvistamento.
Ok, non ne parliamo più. Ma se rispunteranno ancora, nei prossimi commenti, a sostegno dell'ipotesi aliena?
Cita:
Ho fatto una domanda precisa...
come possono 999 persone NON riconoscere dei semplici "aerei in formazione"?
TTE, l'ho spiegato più volte nella pagine precedenti. Rientra perfettamente nella fallacia di un'osservazione fatta di notte e a occhio nudo. Il caso del rientro dello stadio di un satellite russo scambiato per un'astronave aliena con gli oblò da un'intesa popolazione è emblematico. Ma ce ne sono tanti altri.
I testimoni oculari non frodano nel dire che hano visto qualcosa che ai loro occhi è apparso insolito. Io, te ed altri avremmo percepito la medesima formazione come un'unica struttura a V.
Cita:
Filmato con i pixel spappolati..... che se poco poco lo avessimo postato "noi" per avvalorare la nostra ipotesi ci avresti preso a sberle.... eddai su... quel filmato potrebbe essere stato girato in Australia, per quanto ne sappiamo....
Non è così, i testimoni oculari che hanno visto la "V-shaped" hanno ritenuto quel filmato come effettiva formazione diversa dalla spiegazione dei "flare" che hanno dovuto subire per anni, contestandola a ragion veduta. Quel filmato, seppur scadente, che io sappia non è stato mai smentito.
Cita:
Uno contro 999 persone....
Che a differenza degli altri ha utilizzato un telescopio. Che a differenza degli altri, tutti ben ascoltati, è stato boicottato nel voler rendere la sua testimonianza in quella fase concitata dell'evento ormai mediatico.
Cita:
Questo è opinabile e molto comodo... e comunque non è immaginabile neanche il motivo per cui 999 persone non siano state in grado, contemporaneamente, DI IDENTIFICARE "aerei in formazione".
Nè opinabile nè comodo. Dimmi quindi un motivo per cui un appassionato di astronomia, pratico nell'utilizzo del suo strumento ottico, debba inventarsi una farsa. Che ci guadagna? Semmai è stato schernito da chi investigava in quel periodo accreditando la testi "UFO".
Cita:
Come non si capisce come mai quelle stesse persone, pur avendo visto eventualmente "5 aerei in formazione" non siano riuscite a SENTIRNE IL FRASTUONO.
Proviamo a chiederlo a Tony Ortega che ha investigato in quel periodo e che intervistando i residenti di Prescott (località attraversata dalla "V-shaped") hanno dichiarato di aver sentito il suono dei velivoli.
A tal proposito, questo era l'articolo di Ortega sulle luci di Phoenix, mi pare nel 2008, che ricostruisce gran parte dei passaggi che hanno generato il mito:
Cita:
The Phoenix Lights Explained (Again)
by Tony Ortega
UFOs make great ratings, so it isn’t surprising that NBC’S Dateline aired a special on Sunday, May 18, entitled 10 Close Encounters Caught on Tape. To its credit, the NBC program at least made an attempt to provide prosaic explanations for each of the events it presented. In most cases, those explanations were actually pretty good, and the “UFO experts” for the most part came off as yahoos.
But when I realized that they were saving “the #1 UFO event caught on tape!” for last — the lame Phoenix Lights, the 1997 event that I helped debunk years ago as a reporter in Arizona, I prepared myself for yet another time that so-called journalists wouldn’t get even the most basic facts right. I wasn’t disappointed.
For starters, there were two separate events on the night of March 13, 1997 over the skies of Arizona. The mysterious “vee” configuration of lights that so many people across the state witnessed was seen over Prescott at about 8:15 p.m. and traveled south to Phoenix at about 8:30 and then passed over Tucson at 8:45. That’s 200 miles in thirty minutes which means the vee was moving at about 400 miles per hour. Some early eyewitnesses perceived that it was high in the sky, others swore it was low and moving very slowly. (And I mention “early” purposely. As the months passed, more and more elaborate — and ridiculous — claims were made by eyewitnesses who were clearly trying to one-up each other.) As I’ve pointed out many times, the eyeball is a poor instrument for judging the altitude of point sources of light in a night sky. Simple physics, however, suggests the vee was high in the sky and moving very fast, even if it looked like it was moving slowly due to the altitude.
The images of the Phoenix Lights presented on the web further confuse the fact that two different incidents happened. The first incident, the original “vee,” passed overhead with almost no one photographing or filming it. Only one video seems to exist, and since it was shot of an overhead object it does not show a cityscape. This film was never promoted by UFO enthusiasts, perhaps because it doesn't show the famous optical illusion of the “dark triangle.”
Most of the photos and video of the lights were taken of the second incident — the flares — as people came out in response to the first. These images show the flares in an arc over the Phoenix cityscape, which is sometimes confused with the earlier, overhead “vee.”
As I first revealed in the Phoenix New Times, a young man with a 10-inch Dobsonian telescope, Mitch Stanley, spotted the vee from his backyard, and saw that it was a formation of airplanes. Using a magnification of 60X — which essentially put him 60 times closer to the vee than people only using their naked eyes — Stanley could see that each light in the sky was actually a double, with one light under each squarish wing. The planes still looked small in his scope — suggesting they were flying at high altitude — and he didn’t know what type they were. But there was no doubt, he told me, that they were planes.
After his sighting, Stanley tried to contact a Phoenix city councilwoman who was making noise about the event, as well as a couple of UFO flim-flam men working the local scene, but he was rebuffed. I was the first reporter to talk to him, and, as a telescope builder myself, I made a thorough examination of his instrument and his knowledge of it. (For the inexperienced: a Dobsonian telescope is much easier to move than the typical department store scope; it’s child’s play for an experienced observer like Stanley to get a good look at passing planes at altitude.) And he had a witness: he had told his mother, who was standing nearby, that the lights were planes. After my story, the Arizona Republic also found his story credible and wrote about it.
On the night of March 13, news of the 8:30 pm sighting traveled fast, so a large number of people were outside with video cameras when the second and unrelated event, at about 10 pm, happened in the sky southwest of Phoenix. A string of lights appeared in the sky, and slowly sank until they disappeared behind the nearby Estrella Mountain range. This was later shown to be a string of flares dropped by the Maryland Air National Guard over the North Tac military range. Dr. Lynne Kitei, featured prominently on the Dateline program, can repeat all she wants to NBC and other media that these lights were magical and “intelligent” and later showed up just outside her living room window, but the videotapes taken that night by many people show without a doubt that this was a string of mundane lights that fell and disappeared behind the range, exactly as a string of flares dropped by the military planes would have.
The problem developed later when people conflated reports of the two sightings. For the many people who had seen the earlier vee pass directly over their heads, the explanation of the flares made no sense whatsoever. News organizations didn’t differentiate between the two events or report on the Stanley identification — even the Republic stopped referring to its earlier solid reporting on the Lights and began promoting it as “unexplained.”
To this day, programs like Dateline invariably question people who saw the earlier “vee” event, and quote them saying that flares couldn’t possibly explain what they saw. They are right. They didn’t see flares, they saw a formation of planes. Dateline repeatedly showed people talking about their memories of the 8:30 vee while showing video of the 10 pm flares. Talk about misleading.
There was at least one person who videotaped both the 8:30 vee and the later event. I saw his tape myself. It clearly showed the five lights of the 8:30 vee moving in relation to each other, exactly as you’d expect in a formation of airplanes.
As for the people who swore they saw a black triangular shape joining the five lights of the vee, that’s a classic contrast effect of the human eye. In a very telling case, a man who swore he saw a black shape joining the lights of the vee saw it pass directly in front of the moon. At that point, he saw not a black shape but wavy lines pass over the undimmed moon. But rather than conclude that he’d seen the contrails of planes, the man, whose perception had already been heavily influenced by the UFO explanation concluded instead that the pilot of the alien craft had turned his spaceship transparent right at that moment so the man could see the moon through it. How convenient!
Part of what fueled so much confusion over the Phoenix Lights event was the input from a couple of UFO “investigators” on the scene — one of whom was literally put of business after my stories about him came out. For example, when it became obvious that the hundreds of people who saw the vee pass overhead had many different ideas about it — some said it was just over their heads, other said it was high in the sky, and no one could agree on the colors of the lights — instead of concluding that human beings naturally come up with different perceptions of the same event, these UFOlogists instead began to promote the idea that everyone had seen different vees! Again, going by the early reports, there was no doubt that a single vee crossed over the state that night in about a half-hour. But by the time the UFOlogists were through, the credulous came to believe that Phoenix was practically under attack by dozens of mile-wide triangular space-cruisers!
Also at fault was the local TV news fraternity, which not only couldn’t get the basic facts straight, but also cynically exploited the event for ratings. We’re still dealing with the misconceptions they promoted, such as…
Claim: The vee made no sound. (Not true. I talked to witnesses in Prescott, a quieter environment, who clearly heard jet noise.)
Claim: The vee didn’t show up on radar. (None of the UFO investigators bothered to ask for tapes from the FAA in Albuquerque, whose officials at the time told me they only kept tapes for 11 days. So we’ll never know what the radar picture looked like that night.)
Claim: The 10 pm lights fell in front of the mountain range, so they couldn’t be flares dropped in the distance by military planes (Videotapes taken by observers from higher elevations in the Valley saw the flares for a longer period of time than those who were in lower places, confirming that the flares dropped behind the Estrellas.)
Perhaps it’s a good thing that NBC has now declared this the numero uno UFO sighting of all time. Few sightings have been so thoroughly investigated by reporters, and so well debunked. But you won’t hear that from the networks, who can’t get enough of the ratings that come with “the unexplained.”
Si potrebbero rintracciare sia Tony Ortega che Mitch Stanley chiedendo loro, a distanza di 16 anni, di fornire (se è possibile) un'ulteriore riscontro ai riferimenti fin qui portati.
Cita:
L'arte della strumentalizzazione, lasciatelo dire, è tutta tua. 999 testimoni contro 1.
E' una bella forzatura questa, per tutti i motivi appena sopra riportati. Non credi?
Cita:
Questo va detto e questo per me rappresenta, insieme all'incartamento delle Basi Militari coinvolte che hanno annaspato come in poche occasioni al mondo, la base su cui lavorare......
Sono d'accordo.