@smokingun 
smokingun schrieb: Ortega behauptet viele sachen da die er sich aber selbst zusammendichtet
Wenn Ortega nur "gedichtet" hat, wieso ist dann sogar in der englischsprachigen Wiki zu lesen:
"Proponents of two separate events propose that the first event still has no provable explanation, but that some evidence exists that the lights were in fact airplanes. According to an article by reporter Janet Gonzales that appeared in the Phoenix New Times, videotape of the v shape shows the lights moving as separate entities, not as a single object;
a phenomenon known as illusory contours can cause the human eye to see unconnected lines or dots as forming a single shape.
und
"It is very possible that the Phoenix Lights Vee is actually a group of planes based on the explanation of a similar sighting in South California."
Außerdem erkenne ich nicht, wo Ortega in seinem Artikel grossartig mehr behauptet als sämtliche Zeugen, die ja ebenfalls nur etwas behaupten, (nämlich dass sie ein V-förmiges Vehikel gesehen haben wollen, mal mit 4 Lichtern, dann waren´s 5 Lichter, in den unterschiedlichsten Farben beschrieben, also welche der Zeugen sagen nun die Wahrheit, wem glaubt man, wem nicht? sondern vielmehr stellt er die Zeugenaussagen bzw. Behauptungen in Frage, nach denen es sich beim ersten Event um ein V-förmiges Vehikel gehandelt hat, und zieht - mMn auch berechtigterweise - Flugzeuge in Betracht, was meiner Ansicht nach nun mal auch die plausibelste Erklärung ist.
smokingun schrieb:bspw diese jet geräusche habe ich lange durch stapel mich durchgewühlt und Nirgends hat nur ein V Zeuge das irgendwo berichtet oder wurde irgendwo aufgenommen
Also, ich habe mich genau 5 Minuten "durchgewühlt" und das hier gefunden:
"I was on my way from Flagstaff to Laughin Thursday when I saw the light formation reported on the radio the other night. I'm a pilot and was in the u.s. air force 4 years. Being in the mountains on highway 40, the night was clear and still. As the formation came towards me I stopped my car and got out with my binocs to check out what this was.
As it came towards me, I saw 5 aircraft with there running lights (red and green) and the landing lights (white) on. They were also flying fairly slow and in the delta formation. As they went over me I could see stars going between the aircraft so it could not have been one large ship. The flying was like that of the Blue Angels or the thunderbirds demo team.
Also as they went buy their jets were not very loud because of the low throttle setting for flying slow but I did hear the jets as they went away towards the south. (Contry)
smokingun schrieb: aber du glaubst das einfach wenn Ortega schreibt man habe ihm das erzählt ? ohne irgendwelcher beleg
Ortega ja auch nicht der Einzige, der mit Stanley gesprochen hat, sondern ebenfalls Tim Printy:
"I personally communicated with Mitch via email and he had several interesting things to point out that were omitted in the article. He states that in addition to the lights on the wings, he also saw one underneath the fuselage, "3 lights! I saw 3. One on each wing and one on the fuselage"(Stanley). This confirms Rich's description to me that one of the lights was illuminating the front landing gear. Peter Davenport also confirms that the lights were possibly composed of two or more lights as Mitch states, "Mitch is correct that each of the larger lights was, by at least two good observers, reported to consist of two or three individual lights" (Davenport Update).
...
A common complaint I have heard about Mitch's report is that he could not track the aircraft in his scope and that the images would be inverted. This shows a poor understanding of the scope he was using. He appears in the article with a 10-inch Dobsonian (F5.5 according to Mitch). Amateur astronomers often call these "Light Buckets". The field of view is probably about a degree (He stated to me that he used a TELEVUE 32mm Plossl, which produces 43X not the 60X described in the article) and the alti-azimuth mount is very easy to work by a trained operator.
I have seen people track satellites with these type instruments. The Teflon coatings make the scopes motion very smooth. This is not your standard cheap telescope you pick up at a department store. Tracking the objects or reorienting the scope so the field intercepts the planes would not be too hard especially for a skilled observer, which Mitch appears to be. Mitch told me, "I also follow airplanes around in the sky when I get bored at things to look at, so I did already have some experience in following objects that were not stationary".
http://web.archive.org/web/20080102174259/http://members.aol.com/tprinty/azconc.htmlsmokingun schrieb:und warum fliegen die in der nacht wing to wingtip formation? sowas ist viel zu gefährlich in der nacht
Das frage ich vorsichtshalber jemanden, der sich mit Flugzeugen gut auskennt, bevor ich hier etwas dazu schreibe, und überhaupt lese ich mir sicherheitshalber nochmal den ganzen Thread durch, ich will ja nicht doppelt und dreifach -zig mal Durchgekautes hier posten und Murmeltiertag spielen
;)
Groucho schrieb:Die vielen Fragen, die smokingun vorzieht zu ignorieren, geben beredte Auskunft von smokis "Offenheit" bzgl. Pro und contra
Amsivarier schrieb:Niemand kann und wird endgültig beweisen was dort geschah.
Luminarah schrieb:Ich würde sagen ,wir brechen das hier ab
