Yes it is
Posted on 01/17/2009 1:52:28 PM PST by JoeProBono
CHAMA, NM - Several meandering V-shaped UFOs near a mountain slope here turned up on a woman's digital photos. Three photos shot with a 21 megapixel camera caught multiple crafts approaching in the first frame, one craft in frame two moving close to the ground while the others take positions in the sky, and then frame three shows all of the crafts moving out of the area.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
that would be nice.
Actually, God Almighty will deal with
ALL EVIL DOERS
of every stripe, label and flavor . . .
evidently a lot sooner than they are at all suspecting.
Thanks for the ping.
It’s a friggin’ bird.
Yes it is
Show me a primary source. If you did a PHD or Masters thesis using only secondary or tertiary sources you’d be laughed out of the university.
Primary source refs are all over the place, if one is serious about finding them.
About what issue? That was a long post!
Mostly, I know what I believe and why. I don’t have any great compulsion to prove anything to those for whom no amount of evidence has the slightest weight.
BTW, my dissertation used tons of all kinds of sources as well as raw primary level research done myself in the process.
I think my ref pages were more than 20 pages.
And as acting head of the Special Collections Dept of the Univ Library in my BA program . . . I dealt overwhelmingly in primary sources.
You probably missed this primary first person experience report:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread429061/pg1
posted on 18/1/2009 @ 22:25
Phoenix Lights -— My Story.....
Greetings,
It has been nearly 12 years since the incident known as the “Phoenix Lights” was shown around the world, nearly 12 years that something has been burning inside of me. When the official explanations of the incident were released (mainly the story about Maryland ANG A-10 “Flares” story), myself and everyone else that had anything to do with the incident itself were deflated, as we knew it was false.
In short, on the night of March 13, 1997, USAF personnel stationed at both Luke AFB in Glendale and Davis-Monthan AFB in Tucson were a bit scared, as something was occurring over the skies of central and southern Arizona that night, and the on-duty personnel at both bases had no idea what it was. That night, Luke AFB scrambled two F-16C’s from the 56th Fighter Wing, however, these aircraft were not vectored southwest of Phoenix towards the source of the lights, but directly south towards Tucson. What is known further, is that less than 10 minutes later, a second set of F-16C’s from the 56th were also scrambled and sent south-east.
Radio reports from the first flight of aircraft indicated something “odd” was occurring, however the pilots never gave any indication or specifics (in the open at any rate), as to what that was. Both flights were kept away intentionally from the lights being seen near the Estrella range. It was obvious to all with access that there were other aircraft in the area, with orders to drop flares (whether this was the Maryland ANG is unknown). It was felt that this was indeed a “deception” measure to keep curiosity focused on one space in the sky, as flares were never used that far north of the Goldwater training range (as any Luke personnel can tell you, if they were, there would be weekly “Phoenix Lights” incidents).
The next morning, wing intelligence units at both Luke and Davis-Monthan were scrambling to compile information. No one knew what had occurred the night before, but for some top officers that were summoned in during or just after the incident, there was an element of anxiety (I would not say fear, though many were disconcerted). The “hush” order took a few days to trickle down, but it was not a complete wash-up. Because of the sheer amount of public scrutiny, focusing on the “flares” video and photos allowed for a convenient and plausible explanation. Few in the mainstream press talked about the “other” sightings that night, focusing on the large triangular craft that had passed over the Phoenix metro area, the outskirts of Tucson, and over Fort Huachuca before slipping in to Mexico.
Neither did anyone mention the F-16’s at all. Even though we KNOW there were numerous civilian witnesses to the scrambles (and even a few mentions here and there), NO ONE in the media asked what we all hoped they would, if this entire incident was just “flares” dropped from ANG aircraft, why then were four F-16’s in the air that night, with one pair flying all the way to the Mexican border before turning back to Luke?
The incident has quietly fallen down the memory hole for most, but not for many USAF personnel close to the incident that night. There is a considerable amount of information that was never leaked, and for an incident of this magnitude, the mind boggles as to why.........
AL
I’m in Phx and saw the F-16’s ...also not mentioned is the hugh red/orangish glode south west of Luke AFB
Absolutely any researcher reading this would dismiss it out of hand since it is 100% biased. The person writing is WANTS to believe it is a flying saucer. Note the comment:
“myself and everyone else that had anything to do with the incident itself were deflated, as we knew it was false.”
It is full of such comments setting himself up as somehow knowing something that others didn’t know. And full of assumptions about the emotional state of the pilots, and comments like “as any Luke personnel can tell you.” In other words, the writer is loading it up with bias that the casual reader may not notice but that completely invalidates this statement. In a court of law, the judge would throw this out as full of inadmissible hearsay.
But in any case, what in the world does this prove. Some lights were seen, the USAF declared them to the flares (rightly or wrongly), but otherwise we have no idea what they were. You can no more declare them to be alien visitors than I can claim them to be angels. This is NOT primary source material. This is the biased writing of a true believer.
Primary source material would be the first hand physical contact with a space craft and or an alien. It would require backup since it is outside of the norm. The backup could be forensic evidence from the alien or spacecraft (and not someone claiming they saw the evidence, I mean the evidence itself). Original photo negatives, movie film, or digital imagery that has not been processed through Adobe. The photos should have something known in them that will provide dimensions.
Of course, you have none of that, just claims by other people, that they or a cousin or a friend of a cousin saw these things. They write it up, and we have absolutely no way of judging their veracity. Until any of this evidence is delivered, visits by aliens remains completely unfounded.
“I dealt overwhelmingly in primary sources.”
Then you should have known that the latest posting was not reliable or valid primary source material.
“I don’t have any great compulsion to prove anything to those for whom no amount of evidence has the slightest weight.”
Ya know, if you want to deflate us naysayers all you have to do is point us in the direction of one single fragment of evidence. I mean evidence that would stand up in a court of law, IE the real thing. Absolutely EVERYTHING you have cut and pasted on FR is claims by people that they have seen these things, or held them in their hands, or did scientific studies of the specimens. But nowhere do you provide any such items. Just claims that someone saw them and someone has them and it’s all being covered up in a grand conspiracy.
Not at all.
Merely that an idiotic definition is being applied.
The post was written by someone experiencing the incident. Can’t get more primary sourced than that.
. . . unless one wants to have the primary sources flying the UFO or the F-16’S ETC.
Ain’t naysayers lovely. They are so habitually dependable . . . will NEVER admit a truth until it lands in their lap and castrates them. So cute.
For the Wikipedia policy, see Wikipedia:PRIMARY.
Primary source[1][2] is a term used in a number of disciplines. In historiography, a primary source (also called original source) is a document, recording or other source of information(paper, picture,....etc) that was created at the time being studied, by an authoritative source, usually one with direct personal knowledge of the events being described. It serves as an original source of information about the topic. Primary sources are distinguished from secondary sources, which often cite, comment on, or build upon primary sources.[3]
I suspect that his is yet again . . .
yet another . . .
example of the rank hypocrisy of the naysaying position.
I doubt there’s single other area in any naysayer’s life
wherein such a demand is made.
If there were, those around the naysayer would laugh him to scorn for the absurdity of such a demand.
Trusted relatives or friends or work colleagues or even friends of relatives and such . . . come back from a hunting expedition with a serious report of the wrecking of a camp by a hungry bear . . .
Would the naysayers demand that the bear be produced?
Would they demand to see the bear scratches on the cooler?
Would they demand a half pound of bear poop?
I seriously doubt it.
Or say an extended relative, friend, co-worker confides in a great trauma over a teen daughter’s rape by a classmate . . .
Would the naysayer demand to see the semen sample on a slide from the daughter’s vagina before believing?
Would the naysayer insist on interviewing the examining Dr and the arresting policeman before believing?
I hope not.
Or say a naysayer’s relative in a distant city has their home broken into and some precious heirloom jewelry taken and the dog shot . . .
Would the naysayer insist on seeing a copy of the police report and on touching the body of the dead dog and personally examining the dog’s bullet wound before believing?
Or would the naysayer just immediately dismiss it as fantasized paranoia or wild story to cover losing the jewelry and insist that the dog must have died of old age at the age of 5 years just because that’s the only bais the naysayer’s fears and arrogant rigidities could tolerate?
Given some of the absurd statement by naysayers hereon, I’m beginning to suspect the latter is the only possible response some of these naysayers could bring themselves to having.
What hypocrisy.
Ah wellllll, their ridiculous assumptions will run into some very painful brick walls a lot sooner than I’d prefer. I’d rather they be able to maintain their fantasies the rest of all our natural lives. Alas, it is not to be.
Which part of
“DIRECT PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE”
or
“DIRECT PERSONAL EXPERIENCE”
as a key aspect of the definition of
PRIMARY SOURCE
is too difficult to understand?
Actually,
There are
a surprising number of authoritative reports
of anomolous materials
1. from the archeological dig at Roswell
2. from alien implants taken from abductees.
3. from within authentic crop circles vs outside the authentic crop circles.
Naysayers typically very hypocritically and absurdly dismiss such hard evidence out of hand
not because
the even scientific evidence is lacking
but merely
because the REAL FACTS DO NOT CONFORM
to the absurd biases and assumptions of the naysayers.
The hypocritical absurdities of the naysayer’s fantasies win out with them every time.
Thanks much for your
FIRST HAND, PRIMARY SOURCE REPORT.
What do you think the red glow was about?
January 26, 2009 02:38pm
AIR Force Top Guns have already battled UFOs in the skies over Britain under a top-secret Government directive, a former senior insider has sensationally claimed.
Nick Pope - whose 21-year stint at the Ministry of Defence included three years on the UFO desk - told The Sun of the rules of engagement for the first time.
He claimed RAF pilots had fired at UFOs several times - but couldn't take them out.
And he added: "We know of cases where the order has been given to shoot down - with little effect to the UFO."
Related links: More UFOs spotted over NSW Gallery: UFOs ... are they out there?
Mr Pope said the rules of engagement were drawn up after dozens of close encounters with suspect craft in British airspace.
RAF attacks on UFOs were "not automatic but happen when something in our airspace is deemed to be a threat".
Mr Pope said the orders had been issued under the highly classified directive since the early 1980s.
He also claimed credible UFO witness statements had come from dozens of near misses with planes, police helicopters and RAF jets in recent years.
The MoD did not comment.
SPUTTER SPUTTER FOAM AT THE MOUTH . . .
[naysayer trying to respond]
‘It CAN’T BE TRUE! The fellow never worked for the MOD.’
‘Oh, he verifiably did?’
‘Welll! Harumph. He MUST have been a low ranking file clerk!’
‘Oh, he headed the department responsible for keeping the UFO RECORDS?’
‘Oh, wellll, harumph, then he MUST have become schizophrenic!’
‘No?’
‘WELlllll, I still don’t believe it—just cause I don’t!’
So yet again, we can see the absurd thought processes of the typical naysayer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.