Culture of Contact Episode Twenty S'Heaven: Dr. Lynne Kitei
| Played: 2358 | Download | Duration: 00:00:00
Dr. Lynne Kitei discusses the Phoenix Lights, "Raising Arizona" and singing at the Atlantic City UFO Conference.
Culture Of Contact
http://blog.valiens.com
Culture of Contact: Culture of Contact Episode Twenty S'Heaven: Dr. Lynne Kitei
Dr. Lynne Kitei discusses the Phoenix Lights, "Raising Arizona" and singing at the Atlantic City UFO Conference.
Nice job on the interview, Jeremy. It was a classy thing to do.
Reply to this
*
***********************
MP3 VERSION OF PODCAST
***********************
http://tinyurl.com/33y5a5
Look for the file named:
Culture of Contact Episode Twenty S-Heaven - Dr. Lynne Kitei.mp3
Reply to this
Jeremy Vaeni is _not_ as asshole. He only plays one on an occasional pod-cast.
That said: he's a freakin' prince as you've pointed out and I have only the greatest hope that he enjoys at 65 the bowel control enjoyed at 35.
_That_ said: It _was_ a classy program, Jeremy. ...a shining star continues its ascendency in the east... [g].
alienview@roadrunner.com
> www.AlienView.net">www.AlienView.net
>> AVG Blog -- http://alienviewgroup.blogspot.com/">http://alienviewgroup.blogspot.com/
>>> U F O M a g a z i n e -- www.ufomag.com">www.ufomag.com
alienview@roadrunner.com
> www.AlienView.net">www.AlienView.net
>> AVG Blog -- http://alienviewgroup.blogspot.com/">http://alienviewgroup.blogspot.com/
>>> U F O M a g a z i n e -- www.ufomag.com">www.ufomag.com
Reply to this
You'd think, however, he could use some of his spare time and put out a few more shows per week...say, three, or so. There's nothing _new_ in my podcast folder.
Reply to this
Jeremy,
Wonderful Interview, although perhaps "interview" is not the right word, since I think Lynn could carry an hour show herself without even pausing for air! I actually envy her amazing ability to speak (with numerous embedded parenthetical statements and momentary diversions) and somehow keep the monologue all relatively straight and flowing. I think we got a lot of information, perhaps more than ever conceived possible before in a 1 hour show.
I was impressed that you were polite yet diligent to finally get her to answer your question (asked rather early in the interview but answered quite late) about her plans in the world of UFOs.
As I predicted with my great psychic powers in the previous comments section, she was a good sport about the local amusement over her singing. I could actually picture her laughing goodnaturedly at my earlier jests, rather than launching into an attack on my integrity and intelligence as a human being.
Living in Phoenix, I am intrigued that there will be a local presentation of her DVD. We often go to the theater she referenced for the showing on March 16th in posh Scottsdale (no sticky floors, gang tags or used condoms in Scottsdale theaters).
Thanks, Jeremy for a great show. This is a keeper.
I am touched that "Getting to Know You" was part of the show (hope that isn't a spoiler) since in the previous podcast's comments, I had included a joking reference to visualizing Lynn on her mountaintop singing that particular tune to the golden orbs.
Now, Jeremy! You jaded New Yorkers (Sue, David...). Humph! You didn't tell us the context for why she sang the song, didja? I think that might have mitigated a lot of the comments in the previous podcast. We all do some very strange things for our families at times.
I'm looking forward to
Reply to this
"You didn't tell us the context for why she sang the song, didja?"
She didn't tell us the context at the time.
Reply to this
...continued from previous post. I am looking forward to an MP3 version of the show to load to CD. But I see that Lotusland is really on the ball and already graciously provided one. I am humbled by your efficiency and contribution.
Reply to this
You're welcome! I have to convert them for myself anyway, so it's easy to share with everyone else.
Reply to this
Can I just say that for all the accolades I get, Lotusland is the real hero of this show?
I ordered some stuff from Cafe Press to see how our artwork looks on various items. They accidentally sent me a black baseball hat that says "I Still Play With Trains" or words to that effect. It's yours for the asking.
Reply to this
"...rather than launching into an attack on my integrity and intelligence as a human being."
A little pompous and undeservedly righteous in tone, Sir, given you've deserved _every_ pointed observation aimed at you, and that it is you, ironically, making incompetent assessments on _my_ mental stability and _my_ conduct in the community.
We can take each of your concerns in turn — explore them in depth, eh? But that blade cuts two ways, right?
A sleeping dog can be left alone, and one can live as one would let live, but carp these little inaccuracies as quality assertions at me and you're going to _read_ about it. It's part of the tariff I wrote about earlier. Pay up old bean. Eh, what?
¥
Reply to this
That was a delightful interview, Jeremey! And Lynne got a chance to clear her good name.
I had suspected that it must have been a somewhat smallish venue, with a group of people she felt comfortable with, for her to have broken out in song. Heck, even if it wasn't, she's got a great voice, lovely vibrato and she can certainly carry a tune. I never did understand why so many got bent out of shape over it. You go girl!
The most important point I came away with was the idea of raising consciousness, or more specifically, reaching a critical mass of awareness. It's that wonderful tipping point of the Eureka moment where we can all talk freely about this subject AND be taken seriously. I look forward to that day.
In the meantime, Jeremy, thank you for bringing us yet another great interview. I would love to hear more about the Native Indian experiences with the "star folk" if Lynne ever feels inclined to share.
Reply to this
Jer
I just recently discovered your show after hearing you on Adam's podcast. I must tell you you're a much better interviewer than guest and as such I am now behooved to listen tou your weekly show here and at BoTh. 2 Jers a week.
Yay!
Baba
Reply to this
"I must tell you you're a much better interviewer than guest"
Agreed. I don't know why that is. I tend to get manic as a guest and laid back as an interviewer, eh?
Reply to this
I wanted to address the orbs in the Phoenix Lights event. I didn't move here until 2004, but was lucky enough to see their revisit in June 2004. I was in my backyard in the pool when to the South I saw the golden orbs appear. I got binoculars and they were as Lynn described: like pearls in the sky in that the light was coming from within but not glaring outward like a car headlight. There were 6 to 8 in an arch across the sky, just floating in 1 spot. Then eventually, one by one, they slowly winked out, like a light on a dimmer switch.
I immediately emailed a report to Peter Davenport, who put me in contact with Dr. Lynn. I sent her an email report on what I saw. This began a correspondence of several days. This hit the news, and Dr. Lynn made several appearances at that time on Coast to Coast radio and other media venues. I felt very lucky to see the famous Phoenix lights. I do not believe they were flares, since I am very familiar with flares from Reserves Training as a young man. This was an actual enigma, folks.
I have a whimsical theory that beings in another dimension perhaps travel via these "ships", and when airport traffic becomes too congested, they are directed by their traffic control center to shift temporarily into 3rd dimensional space until the backup can be cleared. So, what we take for deeply intentioned sightings are actually representative of a defect in another dimension's ability to handle air traffic! Phoenix and Arizona in general seem to be a hotspot for UFO's. I've subsequently seen 2 very peculiar "craft" during the day. Both were not moving like conventional aircraft, but were jerking forward like a leaf falling. In one case, a white light zoomed straight up into the sky from one larger white object. In the other case, the object was egg shaped and revolving on itself as it jerked itself over our house and over Mount Daisy, where I lost sight of it.
Fascinating place to live.
Reply to this
Nice interview Jeremy. I unfortunately fall on the other side of the fence with regard to the Phoenix Lights, as I've spoken to the Guard unit here that dropped the flares, and looked extensively at the overlayed video showing the lights were not over Phoenix, but past the often seen mountain within the Goldwater Range. Many claimed these lights "hovered" but when the videos were sped up they clearly were slow falling, and "winked out" at the appropriate time as they went behind the mountain, one by one.
LUU-2B/B illumination flares at a distance of 50-70 miles fall well within the range of luminosity to look like the Phoenix lights. The key here is always the distance, scintillation, and slow movement.
However I do think there's reasonable evidence for a structured object seen earlier, more then likely some sort of experimental craft, but who really knows.
Phoenix has it's share of UO sightings, like anywhere else, but based on what I've seen and conversations with the men in the Natl.Guard in MD, the "lights" phenomena in Phoenix is misperceived flare drops at varied distances.
I think more then anything, Macabbee's presentation of the flares dropping behind the mountain, and the History channel's hired video forensic overlay of the night in question to aligned daylight footage sealed the deal for me. Again, it's all about looking past the seductive presentation of UFOs and space brothers to seek the rational explanation. When there is none, then ya got something.
Reply to this
Yeah, I asked her about that, as you heard, and her answer was that she's sure they dropped flares at some point to obfuscate the issue but I wasn't clear on when. She does seem to be saying that that particular and most famous piece of the incident is not a flare drop, though, right?
Here's what I don't understand: If the residents there are used to things like flare drops, why would this be so spectacular to them? They do wink on one by one and seemingly hover there. When you talked to the Guard, did any of them confide to having dropped those flares as a means of misdirection? If not and you believe that's probably what happened, why do you believe anything they tell you about that night? (Although I should add here that the sped-up footage does, indeed, look like the flares going behind the mountain.)
Also, what do you say to Dr. Kitei's evidence that it's not flares because we'd see a smoke trail, lot's of flickering, and they wouldn't stand evenly in the sky for so long?
Reply to this
Yes, she says there was no flare drop...which might not be consistent with her "facts" but is consistent with evidence.
"Here's what I don't understand: If the residents there are used to things like flare drops, why would this be so spectacular to them? They do wink on one by one and seemingly hover there."
I don't know that the people there are "used" to flare drops or not. Why this one got so much attention could be the earlier craft seen by a lot of people. I do not know also, how frequently the Goldwater range is used for such drops. They wink on one by one because theyre dropped one by one in an arc. They wink out because they fall down behind the mountain. Had that mountain not been there, you'd most likely have seen them get very low. The appearance of hovering is only due to the fall rate. Speed the raw footage up to double speed and you'll see them dropping slowly and falling out a bit from the drop formation. No smoke? At the mileage away these were, you're looking at the light obscuring that detail.
"When you talked to the Guard, did any of them confide to having dropped those flares as a means of misdirection?"
I got no sense of that. The project I believe was called "Snowbird" for that particular operation. However the PR officer said the routine names are made with no exotic meaning...just a name.
"If not and you believe that's probably what happened, why do you believe anything they tell you about that night?"
I not only called and asked, but I also have family members in the air guard.
"Also, what do you say to Dr. Kitei's evidence that it's not flares because we'd see a smoke trail, lot's of flickering, and they wouldn't stand evenly in the sky for so long?"
Smoke-distance and scintillation would probably obscure that. You're talking many miles away. Flickering-there is a lot of flickering on the tape I have, scintillation from 50-70 miles would add to that, giving a very odd appearance.
Evenly in the sky-again, drop speed and distance. Looking at the tapes, they really do look like they're still, but they are not. They are dropping and moving, slowly, just like they're supposed to.
It's a matter of perspective, and distance. People look to the sky and see lights next to lights and think they're right next to each other perspectively, when they're miles apart. When civilians reported the Phoenix lights, these were claimed to be "over the city of Phoenix". Thats a complete mis- perception, and the overlay broadcast on national TV solidifies that these were behind the far mountain range.
There's a point where everything adds up and the argument is pretty much answered. I'd say that was reached with the Phoenix lights a long time ago. I don't believe Dr. K is lying, nor misrepresenting something she knows can be explained. I think she genuinely believes the lights to be unknowns. It's clearly effected her.
But, the way I see it they've been explained very well, and shown to be flares.
Reply to this
Jeff, I've also seen the very convincing video overlay of the mountains in back of the Phoenix lights and how the lights seem to wink out exactly at the point where they cross behind the mountain range. In fact, before moving here I assumed the entire thing was flares, much to do about nothing, methinks.
When I saw them myself in 2004, they really were so perfectly round, and floating perfectly still in the air that I was perplexed. I wondered if I had previously been dupped by a mainstream cozy explanation for something that was indeed strange.
However, I have no vested interest in the lights being paranormal. I'm actually quite relieved that Phoenix does not sport a PHOENIX LIGHTS museum, complete with a plexiglas grey alien smiling from the marque, as in Roswell, NM).
The seduction is always to think that the phenomena is personal to you. While Dr. K implores us to let the data speak for itself, I still think she feels personally involved, if not in some secret "Steven Greer" sort of messianic way responsible for the lights appearance, sort of the Phoenix embassador to the space brothers who appear so close to her mountain top home. Yet I sympathize and empathize.
July 1967, I was sitting in my hot humid room in our rural home in central Wisconsin. For no reason I began doodling disks as I listened to WLS radio (local radio, even in the swinging 60's, only played polka music!). I felt a great urgency to go outside into the dark night. I walked into the field in back of our house and looked up at the Big Dipper, faithfully always to the right of our roof top. I noticed that the handle of the constellation was 1 star too long. This star became bright red and raced toward ME, becoming a huge red disk with a frenzy of lights swirling around the middle. There was no sound and the light came from all over the surface, like an old fashioned painted Christmas tree light. All I remember is that I went into the house feeling rather dirty, as if I had just had casual teenage sex with someone out in the field. I felt I had done something that my parents would deeply condemn, and that I had a great secret, even though I did not know what the secret was!
And so it goes...sometimes the phenomena does seem to respond in the sky to our presence and thoughts. Sometimes it even seems like a set-up to get our attention.
I give the Phoenix Lights a benefit of a doubt, but hope they never garner the rather tacky fame of Roswell. The last thing Phoenix needs is for the local fundamentalist preachers to proclaim them a warning of God's Wrath and the coming End Times. Not sure if Lynn is really helping or hurting us locally. Her delivery takes a lot to get used to. My wife was deeply interested in the interview, but began holding her head in her arms half way through, and said "Doesn't that woman ever pause for breath? She's giving me a headache." Lynn has that Bruce Goldberg and Steven Greer style of speaking that can leave you in a daze.
Reply to this
The point missed here, is that there are hundreds, even thousands of documented witness accounts that all describe a mile wide CRAFT with lights, flying low, slow & silent across the state of AZ & Phoenix. Others saw lights that ‘seemed to be attached to something’ in a boomerang, triangle or arrowhead shape – exactly what the videos show.
As Dr. Lynne explains, blowing the sighting away as flares points out how easily one feeds into a logical explanation for something so illogical.
In her meticulously researched book, which I highly recommend reading, she writes that people outside the Phx area never got to see the local TV News cast, trying to duplicate the alleged analysis that was in that program, “An Anatomy of a Sighting”, which aired ad nausea for years. This program professed that the mysterious lights were flares disappearing behind the mountain – over & over & over again. On closer scrutiny, it appears that the footage has been altered to make the case for flares! In fact, the videographer was interviewed by a FOX TV News reporter to illustrate.
If you take a look at the original footage vs the footage aired in the TV special, you will see clearly that one lone light is separate from the boomerang array & on the right side of a foreground tree on the property of the videographer. In the TV program, this light is either absent or on the left side of that tree. When the Fox TV crew compared the real footage with an identical daylight shot, the lights were IN FRONT of the mountain & they were not flares. Like Dr. Lynne said, the data speaks for itself. Take a look.
And that brings up Dr. B. Macabee’s so called analysis. Before Dr. Lynne presented her excellent Documentary at the NJ Conference, she shared that she had contacted Dr. M personally to try & triangulate 4 videos from a very different sighting in Jan. 1998. He also analyzed her ‘close 1995 sighting’ at that time and subsequently presented the case as ‘true unknowns’ at the 1999 MUFON International Symposium in DC, I believe.
Anyway, when he came out with his professions that the 1998 lights were at a distance [so what???] & concluded that they must be flares over the Barry Goldwater Range, he also concluded that therefore, all the March 13, 1997 mass sighting footage were flares too! Dr. Lynne knew immediately that this was frivolous, as she had hired an ASU Geology Professor to triangulate the mass sighting videos & he stated emphatically that NO ONE could – because the sightings were captured from four different vantage points over a half hour period around 10 pm. She was frustrated, because she was remaining anonymous & couldn’t refute this blatant disinformation tactic, which has been referred to as definitive. Dr. M has also never explained the same lights in a row in the same location in any of her photos, which according to ATC were in restricted airspace & definitely not flares. Delivery aside, Dr. Lynne's work is exemplary & appreciated by many.
Reply to this
I already mentioned the earlier sightings of the large V craft was most likely a legitimate one (although it could been a black aircraft of some kind).
I'm talking about the widely publicized "lights" everyone recorded. As far as I know the "craft" seen earlier was only video-taped by one man.
As far as Dr. M's analysis,and Kitei's response to it, it goes to show that when people don't get the answer the want, they go to someone else til they do. The notion of distance and your "so what??" comment...well...thats a critical and crucial piece of data Ben, and cant be ignored when doing the analysis.
Let us not forget that Jim Dilettoso's "analysis" seems to figure into Kitei's equation as well. Dilettoso is the man responsible for image analysis on the Meier case. We all know how that came out. Here's some encouraged reading on Dilettoso and the Phoenix lights, by a Phoenix paper:
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1998-03-05/news/the-hack-and-the-quack/
Reply to this
Thanks for your thorough work, Jeff. One question: Could they be angels or demons? That sort of thing?
But seriously, folks.... What do you make of her wishing they'd show up and then she goes out and three of those lights appear? Have you seen the photo of them? Are they the same quality of light as the flares?
Note: Checking out the photos on her site, www.thephoenixlights.net, one says it was taken on 10.10.01 noting, "One month after 9/11." Actually, it's off by a day but nevertheless, why would that be important to note? Are we really to draw a connection between terrorist attacks in NY, DC, and PA and an orb photo in Phoenix? Communication or coincidence? COINCIDENCE.
Reply to this
Are you a debunker? Seems that you keep grabbing at flimsy straws to make your case. The New Times rag article has been established as a discrediting ploy. It actually worked. But then backfired. The reporter was inevitably sacked.
On the other hand, have you seen Dr. K's comprehensive Documentary? Perhaps you should. It covers much of what you so quickly dismiss or bend to suit your own convictions.
But then again, it probably wouldn't matter. Seems you've already made up your mind.
Reply to this
Benjamin, before you (and others) jump to conclusions about Jeff I recommend doing a background check on him and/or listening to my interviews with him here in the archives.
Reply to this
Well for one who claims distance "so what??" I wouldn't go throwing around "flimsy straws" at me.
Maybe you can explain how the "rag" article was established as a discrediting ploy. Who discredited it and why.
This is an article the Meierites claim is nonsense as well, but never provide any data to support that.
Here's how I look at it: if it were patently untrue, Dilettoso could sue the pants off them. He hasn't. And ultimately, facts presented in that article have been supported by others, and others are named...in print, and longstanding print I might add.
Facts are facts. I've seen him on national TV spouting his spectral analysis from video tape nonsense.
I did some looking into, years ago, on Dilettoso's claims, and spoke extensively with Russ Estes (RIP) about him. Frankly? As far as I'm concerned one only look at the Meier case involvement.
You assume I quickly dismiss anything...I'm sorry...do you spy on me to know what I've dug into? I have no convictions but what the facts tell me, that I worked myself...there's nothing to bend, and again, you feign knowing the amount of work I put into it. Unlike many proponents of this case, I don't have any vested interest. For that matter there's no vested interest in any case for me. I just want to get to the most likely truth, and I don't care which way it goes.
I'd like nothing better then a bona fide mass sighting in the US, but I don't see this as it (at least not the popularized one). I think there's plenty of better cases out there, with no explanation.
Reply to this
Hey, Will,
...nothing wrong with a little polka with the concertina, bratwurst, a cold Leinenkugal's...and few UFOs.
whw
Reply to this
Digression from the serious topics:
When I was a kid, growing up in rural Wisconsin, we could only get 1 TV station from a "big city" of 20,000 people about 75 miles north of us.
Imagine my "thrill" that prime-time network TV was pre-empted every Saturday night for Dairyland Jubilee, 3 hours of live polka music with a dance floor of farmers in Sunday Best clothes hopping around in circles.
WLS radio (out of distant Chicago, a lone beacon of pop culture at the time) was my refuge, the only place I discovered MoTown music (which was NEVER allowed in our redneck of the woods). Now I understand the redneck of the woods has expanded to engulf WLS, which is not a right wing talk show station.
Reply to this
Dang it - wish this had an edit function! I screwed up the final punchline. "which is NOW a right wing talk radio station".
Thanks, whw, for your help in keeping folks from getting way too serious about their opinions. You seem to be a calming element.
Reply to this
As a fellow Wisconsinite, I owe it to you...and since I took an amien twenty minutes ago, I'll be even calmer soon....like...(snore)...comatose.
Reply to this
Why the persistent badgering and put downs of Dr. Kitei? I, for one, applaud her bravery and courage for coming forward with, I dare say, important information, given the risk she's taken, including personal critiques. I find her discussions enlightening and endearing, as well as jam packed with info.
I've lived in the Valley since 1986 and witnessed the event myself in 1997, with my family.I have followed the aftermath with some regularity and have to say, that before she came forward to refute the flare explanation and impart her own compelling evidence, most around here who had seen the craft were still reeling with questions of their own mental perception. Those who hadn't were lulled into complacency with the military flare explanation.
Don't know how long you've been around, but have to say that the ribbing and ridicule in the media has definitely changed for the better since Dr. Kitei has been 'out there'. There was a TV Newscast last week on the local ABC affiliate talking about the UFO section in the Firesman's Guide. Just a short few years ago, that would never have been discussed. Now it's featured.
Maybe it's time we cut this lovely lady some slack and acknowledge the great strides she's made to get the truth out to the public.
Thanks Jeremy for giving us a terrific program.
Reply to this
Who is badgering and putting her down? Ritzmann is presenting his findings having actually investigated the case.
Which event did you witness? The triangular craft or the orbs that were video taped and have become synonymous with the case? (Or something else?)
Reply to this
I'm retired Navy and witnessed both. The V shaped craft about 8:20 pm and a sighting of equidistant lights in a line/V shape over Phoenix (near the airport) just before 10 pm. Both were NOT flares.
Besides Jeff dismissing Dr. K's close sighting of similar phenomena in a gated mountainside community (a no fly zone), she also states that Air Traffic Control at Sky Harbor IAP witnessed the same thing at the same time that she did in restricted airspace. Again, they weren't flares. How can you dismiss these vital reports?
But in the end, what does it matter. We're lucky to have any photographic evidence to discuss - otherwise this whole matter would probably be buried like every other case that only has human testimony.
Reply to this
Again, I refer to the widely publicized video footage of lights beyond and over Goldwater range. I have no idea what Kitei saw regarding her own personal sightings, and I have no access to her original photos. I cant comment on what I don't have. If she wants to submit photos/negs, I'm all for it.
Again, I am not talking about the large V shaped craft. I'm not sure why people cant get their heads around that as I've been really clear. I'm speaking of the lights over the range, widely claimed to be over Phoenix, when they clearly were not.
I'm just pissing everyone off, so I'll keep quiet. Have fun.
Reply to this
You're not pissing me off. I appreciate the information. I've been confused about the lights versus the structured craft for years, and it's nice to see a third party interpretation. I'm sure Dr. K wouldn't object either.
Reply to this
Now you're pissing me off by leaving. See how you can't win? (Hypnotically) Staaaaaaay.... Staaaaaaaaay.....
Reply to this
Don't have a cow Vaeni. I'm just keeping quiet, not leaving.
Reply to this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iIYSZWLLPc
¥
Reply to this
Thanks, Alfred,
...now I have this strange urge to start smoking and gain weight...what was that damn thing?
Reply to this
Again, Air Traffic Controllers (professional skywatchers) note that the strange lights were over Phoenix at 10pm when Dr. K took her video. But you could be correct in that there may have been flares deployed to divert attention away from the REAL deal that night as well. Makes sense.
By the way, Dr. K has displayed many anomalous pics on her website www.thephoenixlights.net. Have a go at analyzing them. From what she tells, she's tried fruitlessly to have them explained to her by University optical scientists, even the renowned Brooks Institute of Photography, throughout the 11 years since the mass sighting. Why don't you have a go at it. And please keep us posted.
Reply to this
I've seen the photos and they seem interesting, but I cannot use online photos of this nature to do exams with.
Reply to this
Dr. Kitei's caffeinated ramblings were hard to listen to. Jeremy tried to bring a little coherence and balance, but like Jeff, I'm still not convinced about "the data" that she proclaims. The subtle differences she describes between flares and the lights are minimal, and probably the product of her overactive intellect.
On the other hand, what a great opportunity to hear from Florence Arizona! She is a walking, talking Coen Bros movie.
Reply to this
My knowledge of the Phoenix Lights Incidents is minimal, but I find the idea that one can "call" the phenomenon (does this also determine the form it takes?)fascinating. Shades of Whitley Strieber there.
And I've often wondered what the Native American take was on the issue, pretty much what I expected (legends/myths back centuries).
Great interview Jer and Dr. Kitei put forth some well thought out and intelligent info. Kudos to you both!
Reply to this
..
Reply to this
Oooo... sorry dude. I asked the hypno-toad to come over and impose the usual efficacious imperative in support for Jeremy... you know. Apparently the Toad's been co-opted, too.
What brand of smokes and was it Chili's or TGIF? I'll lodge a protest with the Toad's Guild.
¥
Reply to this
Not sure this note is of help, but when someone says they saw lights over Phoenix, that is similar to saying they saw lights over Los Angeles. Phoenix takes up a huge expanse of land, being a "Los Angeles style" city. The original historical city was quite generous in lot sizes for individual homes, unlike a proverbial "ancient" city of the Northeast. Phoenix is now the fastest growing city in the USA and the 5th largest (no boast there, said with some regret!). The point therefore is when lights are seen over Phoenix, that can mean just about anything. I only offer this note in case others have not been here and have the misperception that Phoenix is a rather small compact little desert town like Palm Springs. Instead, picture a mini-Los Angeles without the horrendous smog. Not sure that changes anyone's perception on the topic.
Reply to this
As a career attack helicopter pilot, I fired these 2.75 FFAR illum rounds a lot.
The M257 Illumination Warhead was designed for battlefield target illumination. The flare and rocket can be launched from either fixed-wing or rotary-wing aircraft. The M257 consists of an ignition system, flare, main parachute, drogue parachute assembly, and an integral fuse and delay assembly. The warhead is enclosed in an aluminum case. The setback-actuated fixed time integral fuse provides a standoff distance of approximately 3,000 meters. The arming fuse and delay assembly is actuated by motor acceleration. The rocket is fired from the helicopter (or A-10) to attain elevation between 2000 and 4000 feet at 3000 meters downrange. An M442 integral fuse provides a standoff range of approximately 3,000 meters with the MK 40 motor and approximately 3,500 meters with the MK 66 motor. Any higher and the illumination is wasted.
The M257 candle descends at 15 feet per second, burns for approximately 100 seconds with a minimum light output of one million candle power. It can illuminate an area in excess of 1 square kilometer at optimum height. The weight of the M257 is 10.8 pounds, of which 5.4 pounds is magnesium sodium nitrate.
While the flare falls it wobbles back and forth on its parachute pendulum because the hot gas and air fills the canopy and these gases must expel themselves. This is done in an uneven manner causing this pendulum movement.
Additionally, these flares smoke _hugely_ leaving a large smoke trail which is always illuminated in the light of the flare.
The A-10 spokesman said the flares were fired above 10,000 feet because they were not allowed to land with live munitions on board at the time of landing. I'm not aware of AF Guard Safety procedures, but the pricey-ness of these munitions makes the assertion ludicrous on its face. Taking off and landing with munitions a lot more explosive or incendiary than M257 Illum round was SOP in the Army.
Finally, firing the rockets above 10,000 feet could have them drift down in controlled airspace where they would be a hazard to civil aircraft.
Something, perhaps, passed behind the mountain range beyond the city... but it was not a tube launched aerial flare of this master combat aviator's experience.
¥
Reply to this
Oooops: And damned that edit-less feature, eh, "Will C."?
I said: "Something, perhaps, passed behind the mountain range beyond the city... but it was not a tube launched aerial flare of this master combat aviator's experience."
I should have said: "Something, perhaps, passed behind the mountain range beyond the city... but it was not a tube launched aerial flare of this combat master aviator's experience."
I was never a Navy SEAL nor did I ever even _try_ for the "TASK FORCE" Army aviator crowd, friends of mine who would have told me more about what they were doing but who weren't altogether kidding when they said they'd have to kill me, eh?
How's that for needlessly employed cookie frosting, I know, But you see, with a scurrilous skunk of actual unctuousness skulking among us like a scurvy cur — Rich Reynolds (mendacious libeler and scurrilous slanderer) one tries to be clear and truthful so the aforementioned scut can metaphorically fish out the hem of your sweats and fallaciously rupture the door on your gym locker. It's what he does, but I digress.
¥
Reply to this
Oooops, again!
I said: "...with Rich Reynolds (mendacious libeler and scurrilous slanderer) one tries to be clear and truthful so the aforementioned scut can metaphorically fish out the hem of your sweats and fallaciously rupture the door on your gym locker."
I should have said: "...with Rich Reynolds (mendacious libeler and scurrilous slanderer) one tries to be clear and truthful so the aforementioned scut cannot metaphorically fish out the hem of your sweats and fallaciously rupture the door on your gym locker."
Thanks for your kind attention, but the best proofread is always done after publication, eh?
¥
Reply to this
Alfred,
So, you're saying that in your experience at actually dropping the things, you don't think the 'flares' report is correct? Not that I have any problem in buying the government might deliver yet another half-assed, fictional response to a sighting, but you're saying these didn't look/act like flares?
Reply to this
Well -- they're not dropped, they're launched, but yes... time illuminated, lack of movement, lack of smoke, lack of wobble, the fatuous reason they were said fired at all, and that they were launched at the altitude at which they were launched... do _not_ indicate use of the M257 FFAR, or any other parachute illumination.
I was going to do an Engvallian "No, I meant the the gods were smoking reefer and the lights were the fiery ends of their spliffs... Here's your sign!" routine on you, but thought it might confuse the issue. Though, know it was in my heart, my brother from another mother.
¥
Reply to this
Wha? It's not enough just to call me dense? You realize your position not going to make those who feel most especially comfortable with skeptibunking happy, don't you? (And speaking of your position, straight up your back - and get that look off your face or it'll stay that way.)
Reply to this
LOL! Nowhere is it writ large that I must contribute to the comfort of the errant klasskurtxian apologist, nor succor same in any way. Let 'im eat old fish-heads and drink warm American beer!
What 'e gets for feeding crap to the rest of us lo these many years, right?
¥
Reply to this
I'm listening to the crickets. We all seemed to be much happier when we agreed the lights were flares. You brought this conversation and thread to a screeching halt. I hope you're pleased with yourself.
Reply to this
LOL...yeah it did get quiet. I'm still solid on the flares, though. If the flare drop was to conceal and confuse the real unknown that night, or a black project aircraft...I'd say it did it's job.
Reply to this
[skreetskreet... skreetskreet...]
Wuff -- seems so...
...Maybe if I promised to microwave my head for two minutes on high or found an authoritarian bailiff to whack my pee-pee?
¥
Reply to this
Perhaps like other general readers, I wondered who Rich Reynolds might be, since he has incurred the Imperial Wrath. I did a google search and came up with a Truck Dealership Owner in Modesto. See url below. Is this the guy?
http://www.cafordtrucks.com/
Reply to this
He's a UFO guy, and has a blog here:
http://ufocon.blogspot.com/
At least I think thats his, I don't keep up on the UFO personalities as such.
Reply to this
Thanks Jeff,
I thought maybe it was OK to use this "podium" to just dis on people we personally don't like, as long as they are not present. For example, I think Pamela Brennar is a cruel pig! In 4th grade she said I looked really stupid in my baggy swimsuit with the gold fish decorations. I also think the store clerk in Headlines in San Francisco in 1997 who acted like a snob is really just a glorified clerk in a long defunct boutique of overpriced junk for tourists. In conclusion, I'd like to name Tom Heiser, who said I was his best friend but then proceeded to steal my power tools and break the left brake light on my truck!
The aforementioned people are anathema to me now, although I certainly see the ultimate ONENESS we share as fragments of the One Selfhood in Christ, God dang 'em!!
Reply to this
[Mr. Ritzmann.] I can dig it, Sir! It may _still_ be a "duck." I grok.
...A duck, though, beyond my considerable professional experience with ducks, and without a duck's "quack," a duck's "waddle," a duck's "webbed feet," or the tepid water of a duck's cat-tailed and froggy pond! With respect, where's the duck?
~~~
[Mr. "Will"] -- "...incurred the Imperial Wrath...," eh?
Capitalized too, for that valued-added irritation otherwise found in Neil Boortz broadcasts or Rush Limbaugh sound-bites on Olbermann...
I begin to lose _all_ patience with you. You seem honor bound, if flatulently so, to be deliberately thick, blithely obtuse, or inordinately dull.
You see, the way search engines work? If you key in "John Smith" or even one Rich Reynolds, you can expect a gravid _panoply_ of Smith's or Reynolds, the specific one you want _not_ made plain. Astonishing, eh?
If truly interested, one with a passing intelligence or the smallest degree of imagination might key in more *information* to limit the scope of returns, right? Adding "Lehmberg" to "Reynolds" in the Google input bar —what a concept!— has the following come up 10th out of 3340 hits...
http://alienviewgroup.blogspot.com/2005/11/smoke-and-fire.html
...If one is really interested? Hope that helps. Reynolds is one cracker-jack fellow, and I'm certain you'd get along _famously._
That's what rolls, Mr. Will. "You put one of mine in the hospital and I put one of yours in the morgue. It's the Chicago way."
Reply to this
I brought up Rich Reynolds as a way of really asking, what does your mentioning of Rich Reynolds have to do with the topic of this Podcast, which I believe is Dr. Lynn and the Phoenix Lights? Is Jeremy's website really just a place for the Alfred Lehmberg story to be told, since you evidently take yourself and your story intensely seriously? I sincerely wish to know, since there seem to be a lot of unwritten yet perhaps special rules around here in regards to how you should be regarded and treated. I do my best to ignore your entries, but politely just wondered what that personal tirade against this Rich Reynolds guy had to do with anything else discussed in this thread. I am, by the way, sorry if he maligned you, but perhaps the Alfred Lehmberg story could best be told in an autobiography?
Note that nothing I wrote here is a personal insult, while in your previous note again you immediately launch into personal insults against me, something Jeremy seems to tolerate quite well when the originator is YOU. As I told him, yes, I do understand the rules around here. We are all equal, but some are MORE equal than others. It is, as you noted, his website and he can moderate any way he pleases. God Bless him.
Reply to this
Know what? I'm done with both of you. You're fucking children. I'm sick of coddling antagonists. Why can't you JUST IGNORE EACH OTHER? Why is that so hard? Does every little thing have to have a long, cruel retort, Alfred? Does every idiosyncrasy have to be addressed, Will?
God damn, live and let live. But let's not pretend this game of oneupsmanship makes either of you the good guy and the other the bad guy. You're both guilty and as much as I like BOTH OF YOU, I'm booting the next one who says peep.
Reply to this
Dear Jeremy,
Peep.
Bye. The conflict is over. Alfred rules supreme. Alfred's attacking someone who isn't here to defend himself...an idiocyncrasy? (as you put it). Amazing logic.
I'll enjoy your podcasts as long as there are interesting guests.
Will
Reply to this
"Alfred's attacking someone who isn't here to defend himself...an idiocyncrasy? (as you put it). Amazing logic."
Really, Will? This offended your sensibilities did it? Hold on a sec, let me go reread what you posted about Whitley Strieber....
Reply to this
OK, I will say this: there is a world of difference between posting an opinion of a world famous public figure like Whitley Strieber (which comes with the territory of celebrity-hood), and posting a denunciation of some guy I and most other average readers never heard of. If (as I subsequently learned) this guy did do Alfred wrong, that's too bad, but is he going to wear it on his sleeve publically forever? So if Alfred has a bad experience with a house contractor, can we expect we will hear about it HERE for years?
I apologize for bringing up personal details like the hospice thing. I misread this place. Some more traditional forums become "communities" and the people get to know each other well and share their background situations. I was just doing that. I can see how obviously Alfred would see it as he does, since he projects so much of himself and his issues onto others. "Imperial Wrath" certainly fits, since the guy went ballistic over 2 posts in the last podcast where I naively was joking with him (1. Asking Dr. K to sing a song just for AL. 2. saying a met a guy named Alfred Limberger). My God, you'd think I had devastated the man. No sense of humor. Nuts! I leave him to you, Jeremy. May he help you in your career path to ufo truth and greatness.
Reply to this
Well, Will, when you wrote the Whitley slam you prefaced it this way:
"Oh, I think I can get away with posting this here. This got me thrown off the official Whitley Strieber online forum a few years ago, but this seems to be a more forgiving site."
Right. And it is. But apparently you only want it to be a forgiving site in relation to you. Isn't that always the way? You know Ritzmann goes back and forth with Alfred no problem. Why? Because he doesn't take everything to heart. You have a couple of attacks on you and you leave or threaten to leave. Well you can leave again if you want but just know that Alfred won't be bothering you as I have upheld the rule and booted him. But let me tell you what big mean evil old Alfred did: He emailed to say it's okay, he understands and there's no hard feelings. And let me tell you what evil bad friend Alfred has never done. He's never given me an ultimatum: Either Will and/or Daniel go or I go. Furthermore, he's never sent me private emails urging me to get rid of anyone for the good of the board or my show or whatever.
No, Alfred has never tried to define for me what a good friend should do and certainly not in terms of him being a good guy and his adversary being a bad guy. He certainly hasn't implied that I'm just as bad as they are if I don't see it his way.
So Alfred cannot post here any longer because he broke the new sensitivity to others rule that I put into place specifically for you. But he's still a friend of mine who doesn't even begrudge me that, so mull that over as you condemn us and/or walk away.
Reply to this
You've a short memory and an even smaller imagination Mr. "Will." Reynolds was brought up for the reasons specified in the post, and over-hammered because he's abundantly earned it.
That said: It may be that we would have best heard your incessantly puling reminder that you were a hospice worker in an "autobiography" as indeed, Sir, what did that have to do with the subjects at hand on this board, mmmm?
...Except to indicate what a compassionately wonderful human being you are, of course... curry some idiosyncratic appreciation you'd _yet_ to earn otherwise, eh?
Still, you'll notice you must progress first in _some_ kind oblique insult, trifle one of my "fingers" before I relieve you of a "hand..." or what did "...incurred the Imperial Wrath...," mean, exactly?
...Then whine to Jeremy and fellow board members when you can't give as good as you get. How 'nancy...' really. I'm not a bully, Mr. C. But I fail at the cheek-turning, eh? You too apparently. Buckle up.
¥
Reply to this
Sorry dude... I'll mea culpa... but I don't retreat. You know that.
I'm not leaving... gonna have to boot me. But you know I'll respect that if you're so moved.
¥
Reply to this
Sorry, Alfred. The rule is the rule. I still love ya though. Take care.
Reply to this
Geez. You leave to take a nap and make a pot of coffee, and look what happens. Now, I'm forced to finish Jeff's reading assignment on flares. I guess I'm forced to improve myself once again - and here I thought I was already better than I ever thought I could be.
Reply to this
Hey sorry if I inadvertently started anything...I was just answering a question. Everything seemed to go south from there, so I hope I'm not at fault.
Fred-I don't understand your reply, you'll have to give it to me in non-duck metaphor mode.
Reply to this
Hi, Jeff,
I've got no vested interest in believing Dilettoso - and yes, I think people too often forgive proven quacks (_if_ he's an example of one), but the con side of the debate wasn't proven in the article either. Odd things happen, and science hasn't done much to explain them (at least, in this context and at this time). Alfred unequivocally says that in his experience they weren't flares. Why is his "opinion" worth less than a TV reporter who declares they look the same. And don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing the point. It's entirely subjective. There are similar problems with _everyone's_ story - and _nobody_ is immune. The same points are made every time that 'light in the sky' makes a high speed, right angle turn. There's nothing in physics to support it.
Aside from more or less science based refutation of Dilettoso, it reads like a typical hit piece. It leaves me pretty much the same way - with more questions than answers.
Reply to this
I'm in complete agreement with you regarding the science's lack of real explanation of the UFO issue..absolute agreement.
As far as Dilettoso, it doesn't take much to refute someone who claims to do spectral analysis on video tape, and if you been around this game long enough you can easily see what a bullshit artist he is. It may read as a "hit" piece to you, but for many of us, it's been a long overdue exposure finally written and researched.
Any case that comes around who believes they have valid evidence should stay as far away from him as possible.
Reply to this
Well, I guess you're right - but people who would fall for him in the first place will always find something else to fall for: booze, drugs, Jesus or Republican politics...you know. As bad as he appears in this story, don't you suspect people will believe him even more? Don't we already know that loonies abound in this subject? And the subtext of the article is really that anyone reporting an anomaly is nuts or a liar. And this really isn't about the flares or goofy light analysis or an obvious fraud, it's about that big frigging thing apparently honest and sane people reported flying over the city. Meanwhile, nothing gets solved (or barely even mentioned), and the subject itself is diminished. What would be far more courageous than exposing an obvious fraud would be confronting an inexplicable phenomena. That almost never happens.
Reply to this
Well, I'm just making the point of one issue, but if ya wanna go that deep into it...then lets talk about the real problem.
The real problem is jokers like him make a mockery of us all, who have a genuine interest or desire for answers. Because guess who the media heads for when it comes to this subject? You already know, I don't have to tell you.
So, the first order of business is to expose and make public who's shitting in the pool.
Nothing gets solved? Well of course not. Not till the garbage is ignored. But try doing that in any constructive way. Too many people want so desperately to believe, and they'll believe anything that pacifies the question for them.
I'm in this for personal reasons - it impacted my life. Selfish reason I guess. But I think if it impacted more people's lives like it did my own, they'd be less likely to tolerate the scams and suffer the fools. If ya care about the subject, ya do the leg work to look at these "characters" and "personalities" yourself...if ya don't, ya don't really care enough.
Reply to this
Hi, Jeff,
I really don't disagree - more like hair splitting and whining on my part. My motivation for reading or listening to this stuff is also personal, and its not that I don't care. Put the bone-heads out. But this arena is more difficult. We don't know where or how to draw clear lines. Look at the medical profession. Sure, there are quacks, and every time one of them is exposed I'd expect a law suit to help keep the profession clean. But you don't see an article accusing the entire medical profession of being a bullshit science, no matter how many amputations occur where there should have been appendectomies. This area of research is so fragile - most work for free. Yes, I agree with cleaning up Ufology (whatever the hell that is), but we don't have much which is tangible to clean. Our "science" seems to be that the more independant people report similar things, the more likely it is to be legitimate. That's just about _it_ for methodology - as poor as it is. Otherwise, it's like the old west. Yes the article exposed a fraud, but it did more damage to our interests in the process than it did good. I could go on whining like this just about forever. So, I'll stop. It's a hard argument to make, frankly, because it sounds like I'm defending crooks. I ain't! Take care.
Reply to this