Finally, someone using a little science and common sense (Triangulation). I have seen the LUU2 flares in action many times. The Arkansas Air National Guard used to fly night missions in a training area to my north. One fighter would be trying to evade a pursuing fighter and when the aggressor came close enough to get a missile lock, the pursued aircraft would eject several of these flares and head for the deck. They would do this for maybe 30 minutes flying this long oval pattern. The "lights over Phoenix" looked exactly like the fighters I witnessed.
There were several things the UFO Hunters program didn't take into account when they let their hysterical eye witnesses expound on why the lights could not have been flares. First, everyone seemed to assume that they weren't flares because they didn't light up the sky. LUU2 flares are not used for illumination. They provide a heat signature to deter missile tracking.
The second observation of the eye-witless observers was that these lights did not lose altitude as a parachute flare should. The LUU2 has a descent rate of 8.3 feet per second. I do not know the average burn time, but it appears to be around 20 seconds. That would yield an average drop of a mere 166 feet. I defy anyone to discern a distance of 166 feet at the distances involved in these observations. I am not sure what the average OT distance triangulation came up with, but even at 15 miles, they are trying to detect a drop of 166/79,200 feet.
Finally, the UFO Hunter people's flare test parameters were so far from the actual parameters that they were laughable. Who can actually say with a straight face that a marine flare fired from the water, to attain an altitude of 1000 feet is a fair comparison to Phoenix? Also, the observers were only a couple of miles from those flares. I knew there was a good reason why I don't normally watch any of the UFO or other paranormal fare on cable. Give me a good old pro wrestling show any day. One can tell that their stuff isn't fake (sarcasm intended). Thanks for the forum and now I have to go watch this weeks WrestleMania. The featured event is Sasquatch Vs The Mud Wrestlers from Mars!
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Re: Why Dr. Maccabee's Reanlysis?
4 years 7 months ago #118
The 1998 specs for the flares are provided in this lawsuit. There is nothing in the specs regarding anything but illumination. There are other kinds of flares used as decoys but not the LUU type the MNG claimed to be using in their exercises.
In terms of the drop rate - you say 8.2 ft. per second (the spec is actually 8.3). That's 1992 feet in 4 minutes (a duration time we recorded from our location which was 244 seconds). A key point that's been overlooked to this day is that the burn time of the flares used in 1997 in the US was 4 minutes or 240 seconds. From the lawsuit filing I linked to above:
"The LUU-2B/B flares ATK delivered to 6 Canada were made in accordance with
ATK specification TWR-T50741 (subsequently specification TS10376), ATK part number
IT13659, NSN 1370-01-331-3485. These flares were designed to burn for 5 minutes at a slightly
lower light intensity rather than the 4 minutes flares ATK sold to the United States."
If we use simple arithmetic on the Light Duration tables found in the Nat Geo Powerpoint, It's apparent that Chuck Rairden began filming the array at least 3:08 after our initial Light 1 went on (we have 3:43 of Light Duration vs. CR's :35 seconds but it could have been longer since that Light went behind a house or tree later on from our view). Our Final Light 9 shows a Light Duration of 4:04 (the 244 seconds) while CR shows 2:26 Light 9 Duration in his film. Therefore Light 9 shows a total Light Duration of 5:55 or 355 seconds (4:04 + 2:26 - :35). At 8.2 ft. descent per second - they should have dropped (assuming they were miracle flares that could burn 68% longer than their design) 2,910 feet. The video shot from my home shows barely any drop at all.
It's unfortunate that the Phoenix Lights "story" has been dramatized so much that the detailed analysis of what the facts were hardly ever get mentioned. Let's give Dr. Maccabee credit for the work he did years ago which have led to the recent reanalysis.
MK's mountain range is 2,000 Ft. above mine, yet in both our videos, they move behind the range (in my case the range was only 14 miles away). The range altitude from my vantage point was only 918 feet above me (my location was altitude 1192 ft. with the range at 2110 ft.). The lights appeared so low in the horizon that Tom King, the videographer, had to stand on the ledge of the balcony to film them. MK's mountain range was at 4107 ft. altitude. You can see his Lights appear in this video where the furthest light to the left (Light 1) and the furthest to the right are right on the line of South Mountain which has an altitude below 2,600 ft.
If we look at Light 8 from both perspectives, MK shows 2 minutes less duration time for that light before it descends behind his range. 120 seconds X 8.2 ft. = 984 feet of descent from an altitude in perspective to the range of 4107 ft + 984 ft. = 5,091 ft starting position (however this is unlikely because the Cognitech Analysis showed them to start at the top of the range before disappearing).
Even just looking at my 4 minutes duration of Light 8 would put the starting altitude position at 2110 ft.+ (240 X 8.2 ft.) 1968 = 4,078 ft which is 1,000 ft. lower than MK. Theoretically, however, if the lights were just above our ridge line, which is supported by Tom King's leap to the balcony to see them along with the ground house references in the film, would have caused the lights to descend below the ridge line in a few seconds at the rate of descent of 8.2 feet per second. If we want to place the starting position higher to match the disappearance with MK's lights, we would need a starting altitude of at least 5,078 ft. (Dr. Maccabee has them starting at 10,800 ft. altitude 77 miles away from MK and recently expanded to 95 miles away) which, if this is the case, why don't the rest of MK's array of 9 lights appear in our view since the starting position would be close to his ridge line? We only see 5 lights plus the disputed lower light in front of the neighbor's chimney or dormer window across the street - (see Nat Geo Triangulation).
The higher you take the lights from my vantage point, the larger the array becomes and more out of sync with lower ground lights (as well as taking them north of the military base and closer the Estrella Range).
It's a Rubix cube issue I challenge any scientifically minded person to solve using all the data points I've provided on the Triangulation portion of this site.
The conclusion can only be that either MK, CR and I were seeing different sets of lights with different descent speeds or we were seeing other phenomena than flares. In either case, this does not match-up with the Maryland National Guard's statement that one set of flares were dropped over the Goldwater Range far south of Phoenix at 15,000 ft.
The only other possibility of course is that we WERE seeing the same Lights - Close up, right over the Estrella Range which accounts for why Chuck Rairden sees the full 9 light array from Apache Junction and I do not. This is because Chuck is at a higher altitude and the right side of Kryszton's Lights are out of my range because they were too low in the horizon to see with houses and South Mountain obscuring my view. The Estrella range could not have obscured them because the highest point in my view - Montezuma's Peak is still at a lower elevation than MK's range (they would have obscured Mike's view if they were obscured from us by that peak).
See 6:02 in this video shot of my location the morning of the mass sighting that evening for perspective.
This however would put the Lights only 14 miles from my position which would have allowed the smoke, parachutes and other characteristics of flares to show up in the video, which they do not - even with close-ups that showed the Lights appearing as spheres at one point.