Talk:Phoenix Lights

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Bill Clinton Knee Injury[edit]

Bill Clinton slipped and fell at the home of professional golfer Greg Norman in Florida the night of March 13-14, 1997. The fall was severe enough to require surgery. This is more than a coincidence to me, and it adds to the legitimacy of the Phoenix Lights, since one scenario of how a president surrounded by Secret Service agents could slip and fall would be that the military was on high alert that night and the president was running for his limo with a Secret Service man's hand on his back, when he fell. It is plausible. I would love to ask Hillary Clinton how Bill really injured his knee that night. Consider adding some information about the coincidence, to the article, please. Thanks. (talk) 05:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


I took the box for npov off, since this entry here is the first on the talk page. If there is a neutrality issue, please put the box back up, but also make an entry on the talk page to say what the issue is. Jmlk17 20:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

There was no NPOV dispute at all. It was placed by a Anon User. Martial Law 23:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC) :)

Alright...thanks Jmlk17 00:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

As of March 2007
Actually I have some problems with the neutrality of this article as well. The writing style leans heavily in support of USAF explanations. Regardless of what the truth may be, the article should only present verifiable info, and not draw conclusion on it's own. But I'm also saying that verifiable info includes what witnesses have said, and what the USAF has said. Then if there is verifiable info about what decisions were made about it, and who made them, great. Include that. Statements like and it was easily seen that the lights vanished in line with the outline of the mountain are not appropriate. Also but the USAF identified them is kind of weasily. I'm putting up an NPOV tag myself. x 22:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The article seems to be written using UFO proponent websites as sources. I doubt they meet WP:VER. Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources There is plenty written by mainstream sources on the Phoenix Lights. Why not use those as sources instead? --- LuckyLouie 01:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I've tried to add more support to other explanations, but it still probably comes up short.Bubbles4sale 06:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The NPOV tag was removed with no clear explanation as to why, and the isses I've brought up here have not been addressed. In terms of sources, that's not specifically a NPOV issue; the issue is how the information is presented. Too much of it is more an inline debate than an objective encyclopedic article. I've placed the tag back. x 13:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The article contains all pro's and con's, detailed explanations of what many people claim to have seen and what officials later explained. It is well balanced and neutral at the end, well written too and cites many sources. So the only conclusion is to remove all tags! Thank you. Please do so if there are no further objections. -- 01:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, first paragraph... why is Fox news criticized for taking the stance that the US Goverment, and therefore every other news agency, took? I disagree with the flare story as well, but dont act like Fox is the one perpatrating it. I know you guys at wiki really hate on fox/conservatism, but this is just ridiculous (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

And the thing thats most ridiculous about accusing fox news for saying it was flares is that later in the same article there is a huge paragraph explaining the likelyhood of it being flares!!!! As i said, you guys notoriously favor liberalism here, but this is just on a whole new level. I mean what are u guys taking donations for, to donate them back to the obama admin? Come on guys, have just a little integrity. (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC) About the USAF and the direction this report should go in, I can refer you to new ideas supported by a video contributor at You Tube named DERRUFO360. He has listed some new messages in video format for ideas that challenge how to perceive what occurred in Arizona in 1997.-BlondeIgnore Blondeignore (talk) 18:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing Activity[edit]

There is still ongoing activity going on in Phoenix. Go to the external links, such as the UFO Casebook link, and the Jeff Rense link. Martial Law 23:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC) :)

Due to the ongoing activity, should the article be renamed The Phoenix UFO Incident ? Martial Law 21:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC) :)

The normal use of the phrase "The Phoenix Lights" refers to the particular phenomenon reported March 13 1997. I think there should be a specific article for that event, that can then link to article(s) about subsequent events.x 16:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Everyone needs to stop referring to these events as "lights." It reduces the size of the object(s). The "lights" that everyone is referring to are the visible aspects of energy; we don't know what kind of energy, but clearly something that is in the visual light spectrum. This energy is being emitted from something that is an "object." As the object is in the sky and is unidentified, it is an unidentified flying object, which is what UFOs are. Therefore, this entire incident should be referred to as the "Massive UFO Incident" of Arizona (MUI) because there are certainly going to be more Massive UFO sightings in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

We should not be supposing UFO sightings in the future which can not be proven so it is not a legitimate reason for calling it Massive UFO incident anyway.

We don't know exactly how large the object really is yet or whether these were multiple objects so the term massive would be inappropriate. We know there were lights. Nothing else has been proven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The "disputed" tag[edit]

I inserted the "disputed" tag on this article because it is so horrendously unencyclopedic. Examples? Let's look just at the second paragraph alone, which is as follows.

''At about 18:55 PST, (19:55 MST), a man reported seeing a V-shaped object above Henderson, Nevada. He said it was about the "size of a (Boeing) 747" [1], sounded like "rushing wind" [2], and had six lights on its leading edge. The lights reportedly traversed northwest to the southeast".
    • This man is significant to this amazing story, but he is unidentified. Why isn't he named? Why isn't there a link to a reputable site that names him?
    • A specific time is given for this man reporting something. Who did he make this report to at that specific time?
    • He said (in that specific report) it was about the size of a 747? Where is there a copy of that report that can corroborate that description?
    • He said it sounded like "rushing wind" and a link, supposedly in support of that claim, was given to an external site. But guess what! That specific site we are taken to says the following:
      • "All witnesses agreed on several common factors ..... it moved silently......they distinctly had 'strained their ears' trying to detect a sound emanating from the object. It was perfectly silent."
    • All witnesses said it was silent. That's on the link which is supposed to corroborate a claim that it sounded like rushing wind.
    • Did it traverse "northwest to the southeast", or from the northwest to the southeast?

The whole article is dodgy, and these anomalies I list here result from only one paragraph. I would attempt a fix, but knowing how quickly it would be reverted I won't bother. So I've attached the tag instead. Moriori 02:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The man that said it generated a sound which he equated to that of “rushing wind.” was the first person to see the lights. The next witness, the one in Paulden AZ, was the one who said it was silent. ONEder Boy 04:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Somehow you missed the point. The article says 'sounded like "rushing wind" [2],' . Obviously, that [2] is intended to be a link to evidence supporting that quote. However, that link actually denies that quote, saying "All witnesses agreed on several common factors ..... it moved silently......they distinctly had 'strained their ears' trying to detect a sound emanating from the object. It was perfectly silent." OK? Moriori 04:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I think I've figured out what you're saying and I attempted to make it better. I'd appreciate any help you could give in rewriting the article to make it better. ONEder Boy 22:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
The only way this can ever be made better is by excising all supposition and unverified and unverifiable claims, and giving a bit of balance. For instance, what would you say if I amended the reference to no sonic booms to read "Although that was more almost three times the speed of sound, no sonic booms were reported which indicates the lights had no physical properties"? (The actual quote is in light italics and my addition in bold italics). Moriori 23:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea. Actually, any help that you could offer would be great. I haven't had a whole lot of help in writing this article save for Martial Law and some other people copyediting. ONEder Boy 23:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

UFO pix[edit]

Go to UFO Casebook's homepage to see a TUBE shaped UFO. Martial Law 20:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC) :)

Since this is a videotape, there are language issues. This was shot on 3-13-06. Martial Law 20:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC) :)

The picture should be removed from the article and replaced with a genuine one - this picture is a recreation that was made for the cover of her book and bears little resemblance to the hundreds of actual photographs and videos, which show a long slanting line of lights.

Rename Article[edit]

Due to the still ongoing activities, see Re.:UFO Pix above, the article should be titled, The Phoenix UFO Incident to reflect this fact. The incident started in 1997, and, in spite of what others have stated, the incident is still ongoing, Jeff Rense is also getting pixes of UFOs photographed over Phoenix, Arizona. Martial Law 21:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC) :)

Why not just rename it the Phoenix Flares, so everyone knows what it was? Skeptic2 (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


I have personally investigated this incident while getting a $60,000 trailer fixed. The "flare explanation" is a true farce. Was also trying to locate one Peter Gersten, who was running CAUS at the time. I have caught a UFO on "film" as it was passing a auto dealership. That pix is now my Wall Paper, and seen one near Willcox, Arizona as well. I did not find "The UFO Lawyer" at all. One witness I had discussed this matter with stated that the(polite) expletive had flown over her house. Another stated that armed jets were seen chasing, yes, chasing UFOs, not dropping (polite) expletive flares, and that the govt. had better quit the expletive and tell the expletive truth. Only being honest, yet complying with Wikipedia:Profanity and WP:NOR. By the way, the UFO was one of those "classic lights". I have also seen on TV (Have Satellite TV) the farce that was perpetrated when two DPS officers had a BIG "Alien" in handcuffs and shackles placed on TV. Martial Law 06:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC) :) 'Bold text

Military Activity[edit]

There were alleged reports of air force planes being launched to intercept the object but actually provable reports that say the military was active that night. as well as the air force saying there were only a couple of calls to report the object, However on the contrary the police stations and millitary base were flooded with calls from people and this triangular craft was seen by thousands of people some air force pilots themselves that say "these were not flares" as well as pilots who say the same thing. Also one has to think, the air force would never release flares over civillian cities.

For more information on the investigation go here:

I was in the Marine Corps stationed at Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma AZ at the time of this event. I saw it and didn't think too much of it at the time. I thought it was strange though. It is not unbelievable that it would have been flares because that whole area from around southern California all the way past the east side of Phoenix is a training area for the Air Force as well as Marine Pilots; however, based on the speed and the perfect formation over such a large area of land, I don't believe they were flares. I also don't believe in aliens so I wouldn't call it a UFO made by extraterrestrials either. It was definitely an Unidentified Flying Object of some sort though. (Derik) 23:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think people are making large assumptions when they say the military would or would not do something that might endanger civilians or be seen by thousands of civilians.

Someone said something similar in the documentary "The Phoenix Lights". They said the military would never fly in formation like that over the state and then right over Phoenix. My thought was you seem to be trying to make the argument that the government is covering up something and then you say the government would never do something. It's an odd thing to say to me if the person believes in UFOs that are extra-terrestrial.

You might say they want to keep things secret but it's too big of an assumption to eliminate the possibility the military was doing an exercise. You need to keep your mind open for that possibility instead of shutting it down because you want it to be an extra-terrestrial UFO.

Stealth Blimp Theory[edit]

Should we not have a section of this page devoted to the theory that the Phoenix Lights were a secret military airship, as described in this article:

Unless someone gives a good objection, I am going to remove this section from the article. The above linked article does not specifically mention the Phoenix Lights and is therefore not relevant to this article. (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


another sighting of the phoenix lights has returned in the past week and close up footage was taken by residents and also fox skycam also captured the lights during a video

The new videos look much different. I wouldn't be so quick to group it with the '97 Phoenix Lights. The new ones can be explained as flairs. The sightings in '97 seem to be much different. For instance, they lasted longer. They were in a still line, not free falling on a parachute. They are much different.-Slipgrid 02:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Not exactly convincing. I agree with Slipgrid. Jmlk17 07:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You can still see the video from 2007 here [1]. It's pretty obviously the same thing again. Skeptic2 (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

TELEVUE 32mm Plossl telescope is not a telescope.[edit]

The article says that the lights were observed by an amateur astronomer with a "TELEVUE 32mm Plossl telescope" however the Televue item described is an eyepiece and not a telescope. Picky maybe but lack of technical accuracy tends to undermine credibility. Maryyugo 23:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

03.21.08 Sighting of Phoenix Lights[edit]

Fox 10 News in Phoenix, Arizona just aired a report about someone who videotaped a sighting of the Phoenix Lights, 11 years, and 1 week after the original date of 03.18.97. I can't find reports anywhere. I am going to look it up and report back. Just wanted to put the word out there. Layalzebub (talk) 05:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent event?[edit]

Should this page be tagged as a current event? (talk) 21:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The Lights In The Sky...[edit]

-- (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)-- (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


Please tell me why, because the article linked to the A-10 Warthog does not, why on earth a high-speed, close-support, military aircraft, one of the most advanced in our arsenal, would ever be dropping flares over civilian populations in a clearly discernable, slow-moving pattern? To cite this as a reference requires, to my mind, at least a comparable assertion in the article on the A-10 itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

  • From what I understand, it wasn't actually dropping them "over civilian populations". It dropped them way off in the desert (hence the disappearance of the lights being explained by their dropping over the mountain--they were behind it). The flares just happend to be visible to the city. Also, what does a "clearly discernable, slow-moving pattern" have to do with anything? It's not like that's unusual, or out-of-the-ordinary. Are they supposed to go out of their way to make it an undiscernable, fast-moving pattern? Shnakepup (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Correct, the flares were dropped over the Barry M. Goldwater Air Force Range. There have been more recent repeats of such flares being mistaken for UFOs, e.g., on February 6 and 22, 2007: Lippard (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The most common use of Flares is to illuminate the ground for Airstrikes, or to confuse Heat Seeking Missiles. The Phoenix Lights seem to be doing neither. Add to this witness accounts of strange flying objects in the weeks before Phoenix and you have a genuinely puzzling event.Johnwrd (talk) 04:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The thing about flares is that they are designed to stay up in the air for as long as possible (either so they illuminate a large area - or so they continue to disrupt missiles for as long as possible). They often have little parachutes on them (See Flare (pyrotechnic): "Flares may be...parachute-suspended to provide maximum illumination time over a large area."). Hence when you see them out there, they don't appear to be falling. When you're a long way away and the are dropping from tens of thousands of feet - they appear to just sit there for a long time, slowly drifting as a group in the wind. That seems very much like the motion described in this case...and what's more, that's been conclusively proven by the technique of overlaying the video footage over an identically framed and tracked daylight shot of the same scene. You can see the lights wink out as they drop behind distant hills that are invisible in the nighttime footage. Hence these lights are further than the hills - and the illumination they are casting on the ground is blocked from view. This also shows how far away they are - and at those distances, the effect of visual perspective is such as to make them look like they are moving very slowly. They aren't being dropped over civilian populations - this exercise is going on a LONG way away - but flares are amazingly bright - and when dropped from high altitude - they take a surprising amount of time to reach the ground. SteveBaker (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Well it would make sense that any kind of aircraft, especially something designed just for CAS would have flares and therefore have to train in using them. If an enemy were to lock onto to an A-10 or any other plane with some kind of missle, either shoulder fired or aircraft, the A-10 would drop flares to confuse the missle and mis-guide it. The heat given off by the flare would do this. However, our military is very very technologically advanced and i seriously doubt they would endanger thousands of lives potentially by dropping these over populated areas. Regardless of where they actually were dropped, they would take wind and other things into consideration so as to not harm the citizens. Personally i think this event was due to some sort of still secret military project —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If you read Gerald Haines' excellent 1997 article on the CIA website about the CIA's involvement with the UFO phenomenon since the 1950s, it becomes clear that numerous "UFO" sightings since the 1950s have been of (then) secret military hardware/technology being tested. Haines demonstrates that the CIA, Air Force, and other groups even deliberately encouraged some sightings to be labeled as "UFOs" to keep people from learning it was actually a U-2, Stealth fighter, or some other secret military project. My own take is that the Phoenix Lights and many other "unexplained" sightings were/are probably some secret US military project, and not aliens from outer space/another dimension, etc.

More Questions?[edit]

Collective thought is our future —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torchofaz (talkcontribs) 06:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

optical phenomena[edit]

im thinking that using that phrase is a way to forced(akward) attempt at "neutrality". lets break this down. the lights were flying, they are yet to be identified, and we can assume that they are some sort of object. UFO will do. Using the phrase UFO does not imply little green men from mars. it implys that its flying and we dont know what it is. only the ignorant attach the little green man part. (talk)im too lazy to sign in thanks —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC).

no flares![edit]

All, don't you think after the Stephenville Texas sighting ( we can safely conclude the "flares" explanation is bunk? This object was picked up on radar. Flares don't generate a radar return. Those entries should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyper formance (talkcontribs) 19:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Those entries should stay. The plane dropping the flares generated the radar return. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC).

Im gonna assume this was the person who also implicated Fox News as the ones who originated this theory. Please take that off of this article, as this is probably one of the most important UFO sightings ever, and also one of the most well documented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a more likely explanation for the radar return - when an A10 is doing anti-missile training, they drop flares to confuse heat-seeking missiles mixed with "chaff" (a cloud of thin strips of aluminum foil or something similar) which is designed to produce a strong radar image to confuse radar-guided missiles. If you check our A10 Warthog article, you'll see that it carries an "SUU-42A/A Flares/Infrared decoys and chaff dispenser pod"...when the pilot deploys the SUU-42 device, both flares and chaff would be dispensed. Since the entire purpose of this device is to fool people into thinking that there is something just like a much larger and slow moving aircraft present (to distract a missile from the A10) - I'd say this gizmo did exactly what it was designed to do. So if the flare-dropped-in-training-exercise explanation is true - I'd actually be rather surprised if there WASN'T a substantial radar return! SteveBaker (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Bad or misused source[edit]

In the "explanations and skepticism," it is correctly noted that the second part of the 1998 event was explained by the USAF as being "slow falling, long burning flares."

It incorrectly suggest that this source concludes "[m]ore recent investigations have come to the same conclusion." It's true that more recent investigations, of more recent events, have come to the same conclusion, but that source does not suggest that the event in 1998 was flares. The source specifically talks about a January 9, 2007 event, that is not even reference in this article. The bad block is below:

The second event has been more thoroughly covered by the media, due in part to the military's backing of the explanation. The USAF explained the second event as slow falling, long burning flares dropped by an A-10 Warthog aircraft on a training exercise over Luke Air Force Base. An investigation by Luke AFB itself also came to this conclusion and declared the case solved.[23] More recent investigations have come to the same conclusion.[24] (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


I've started to go through the sourcing on this article, it was and still is, in really bad shape. I'll do some reference hunting once some of the more badly sourced info is removed. Feel free to source and add material back in. BrendanFrye (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you think this site is an appropriate source for this text?
A resident of Deer Valley in North Phoenix, Tony Toporek videotaped those lights. He was talking to neighbors around 8 p.m. when the lights appeared. Toporek stated, "Four brilliant red lights first formed a vertical or diagonal line, next a U-shape, then as I retrieved my camera and began to roll tape, the lights spread apart and made a diamond or cross shape, similar to the 'Southern Cross'".[citation needed]
It appears to be Mr. Toporek's personal web page, and I am unfamiliar with the appropriate policies regarding reliable sources. If that is unacceptable as a source, I propose removing the text, as the "citation needed" tag has been in place since June of last year. (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that's not a reliable source, I would consider that to be unacceptable. I would say that any text that has a months old "citations needed" tag is fair game for removal. BrendanFrye (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Why no photo?[edit]

So if this "UFO" sighting was so well documented, why is the only photo on the wikipedia page a drawing? (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, my good sir, that would be because they were flares and it was well documented, but Wikipedia, instead of going with factual-based evidence, is so hardcore with their neutrality stance that these are the kind of people that would give intelligent design equal teaching time in biology class. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

There were several photos taken, actually.
When the article starts citing a MAJOR text, a book called "The Phoenix Lights" (it's only mentioned under the film section), then we'll be starting to get somewhere. I read the book, but have yet to add in citations, etc. I haven't checked out the associated Web site yet:
Maybe I'll have time before I die, LOL.
Misty MH (talk) 03:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Spectral analysis[edit]

If there are no objections I am going to remove the following paragraph from the article:

UFO advocate Jim Dilettoso claimed to have performed "spectral analysis" of photographs and video imagery that proved the lights could not have been produced by a man-made source. Dilettoso claimed to have used software called "Image Pro Plus" (exact version unknown) to determine the amount of red, green and blue in the various photographic and video images and construct histograms of the data, which were then compared to several photographs known to be of flares. Several sources have pointed out, however, that it is impossible to determine the spectral signature of a light source based solely on photographic or video imagery, as film and electronics inherently alter the spectral signature of a light source by shifting hue in the visible spectrum, and experts in spectroscopy have dismissed his claims as being scientifically invalid.[16][17] Normal photographic equipment also eliminates light outside the visible spectrum (e.g., infrared and ultraviolet) that would be necessary for a complete spectral analysis. The maker of "Image Pro Plus", Media Cybernetic, has stated that its software is incapable of performing spectroscopic analysis.[16]

Is there any point in stating a scientifically invalid claim, then pointing to statements attesting to its invalidity? (talk) 22:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Because it's an encyclopedia? BrendanFrye (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Are you saying that this piece of text should be included in the article because the article is in an encyclopedia? That isn't a very logical argument, and it doesn't help me understand why the text should be kept. (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
How about a good reason for removing sourced material? The burden is on you, not me. BrendanFrye (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
You are apparently unfamiliar with the rules around here. The burden here is to show why this information is notable enough to be included in the article - whether it is already in the article or not is immaterial. From reading the sources, I see that a non-notable non-scientist made a pseudoscientific claim that was then wholly refuted. So the above material adds nothing factual to the story of the Phoenix Lights. Perhaps Jim Dilettoso is himself notable as a famous pseudoscientist and deserving of his own page; in that case this should go on his page.
I could be wrong about the rules here, I am coming to the talk page because I want to hear the reasons for this info to be included. If you have an argument for the inclusion please give them here. There are standards concerning what information is notable enough for Wikipedia, and whether this paragraph meets those standards is the issue at hand. (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Please stop vandalizing the article. You are blanking sourced content and have violated the 3rrule. I'll be happy to discuss this with you right here on the talk page but not until you stop vandalizing content. Thank you. BrendanFrye (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Anyway, this whole page is about psuedoscience so it makes sense to have that voice heard. The sections that you are blanking are sourced and have an evenhanded approach to their respective controversies. I don't know why you are aggressively deleting sourced material concerning psuedoscience with rebuttals on a page that is composed of psuedoscience and rebuttals. Please explain what metric you have found that allows you to delete sourced and relevant material, other than you don't agree with it, because that is what this comes down to. You are deleting sourced and relevant material that you don't agree with, that's vandalism. Maybe I'm not the one who doesn't understand the rules. BrendanFrye (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I have blanked exactly one section, the "Stealth Blimp" section. The references in that section do not refer in any way to the Phoenix Lights phenomenon, they refer to other UFO sightings. Therefore this section is irrelevant to the Phoenix Lights article, unless a reliable source can be found which links the two subjects. Also, please keep the discussion here rather than on my talk page, thanks. (talk) 17:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
AFTER ALL THIS YOU FINALLY GIVE AN EXPLANATION! Good job! Was that so hard to do? You could have put that in an edit summary and I would not have reverted you. Do you realize that all this drama is coming from your hesitance to explain yourself? Oh, that wasn't discussion on your talk page, those were vandalism and 3rr warnings. BrendanFrye (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Your belligerence towards me is getting on my nerves, and I would appreciate it if you would cut it out. You are the one who failed to engage in the discussion above. I can't be held responsible for the fact that you didn't read the talk page. With all that out of the way, do you have a valid reason for including the "Stealth Blimp" section in the article? If not, I'll be removing it again. Also, if you have anything to add to the "Spectral Analysis" discussion, please add it below. I still haven't heard a good reason to keep that info in the article. (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It isn't vandalism, and you know it. The fact that you disagree with me doesn't make it vandalism, and I am currently awaiting an apology from you for this personal attack. I fail to see how it is me who is guilty of violating 3RR and not you. I have explained every edit I've made in the edit summary, and before removing any text have come here to the talk page to see whether anyone had another point of view. Just because you failed to see the section above discussing the "Stealth Blimp" section doesn't excuse you from justifying your revert of my edit. This section is for discussing the paragraph involving Dilettoso's claims and whether they are appropriate for inclusion in this article. If you have anything to add to the discussion about the "Stealth Blimp" section of the article, and the removal thereof, please engage in the discussion above (and refrain from accusations of vandalism - see WP:AGFC. (talk) 17:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
No apologies are forthcoming. You HAVE NOT explained every edit you made (in edit summary or other form), all you have to do is check the history of the page for that. Why don't you try a talk page conversation BEFORE removing paragraphs of sourced material and THEN you can use an edit summary when making drastic edits. BrendanFrye (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Calm down, and take a look at the section above where I proposed removing the section on the 17th of March - five days before I removed the section. When you are ready to engage in a rational discussion of this issue, I will be here. (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
You put that section in the wrong place entirely, it's back with December discussions from last year. Oh, I see, it was a comment to a many month old post. Great job! BrendanFrye (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
"You put that section in the wrong place entirely" - of course I did. Why would I put a proposal about the "Stealth Blimp Theory" section in a section of the talk page titled "Stealth Blimp Theory?" How silly of me. (See, I can do sarcasm too - but it is not helpful in the discussion so I ask you to refrain from further sarcasm towards me). (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I apologize. I was referring to chronological order. That refers to the order in which posts appear. I guess you didn't understand that. My mistake. BrendanFrye (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
There's that sarcasm again. It is not helpful to the purpose at hand, which is improving this article. As to the content of your comment, I still fail to see why that is relevant. You saw that I had blanked a section titled "Stealth Blimp Theory," and your reaction was to revert my blanking and insult me by calling me a vandal - rather than come to the talk page and look to see if there was any prior discussion concerning this section. If you had looked first, we could have avoided all of this edit warring. I implore you to read WP:Assume Good Faith, as this is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and one that you need to internalize. (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I completely agree, This text should be removed. There is no valid rationale for its inclusion. Certainly "this is about pseudoscience so Wikipedia's normal guidelines and consensus practice doesn't apply" is an awful argument. __meco (talk) 18:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
What's with the quotes? Did I actually say "this is about pseudoscience so Wikipedia's normal guidelines and consensus practice doesn't apply" or are you just full of it? Why would you attribute something to me that I obviously didn't say? Not smart enough to quote what I actually said? Or are you just that dishonest?
I'm actually ok with the removal of the first section I just wanted an explanation instead of random removals without edit summaries or discussion. This explanation (given after the fact) "I have blanked exactly one section, the "Stealth Blimp" section. The references in that section do not refer in any way to the Phoenix Lights phenomenon, they refer to other UFO sightings. Therefore this section is irrelevant to the Phoenix Lights article, unless a reliable source can be found which links the two subjects.", is a perfectly suitable explanation. As for the second part, it's a rebuttal to a psuedoscientific explanation, I don't see ANY reason to remove it. BrendanFrye (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Good, now we have established that the "Stealth Blimp Theory" section can go. When I first blanked that section,I neglected to point to the section of the talk page where I listed the reasons for doing so - my bad. Then BrendanFrye neglected to read the talk page and accused me of vandalism, a mistake on his part. Hopefully we both can learn from our mistakes. (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Not a mistake on my part, but carry on. BrendanFrye (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I hope you are already married, after this painful episode of knowing each other so publicly! Wouldn't it had been much more simple to do a search and learn that Dilettoso is an idiot, member of the Ufo Hall of Shame and a firm believer of Billy Meier's saucer photos veracity, among other absurds? A black spot in the brave field of Ufology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

To be really clear here - the problem with even the concept of doing spectral analysis of a photograph is that the photographic emulsion consists of three light-sensitive dyes - one is responsive to red light, another to green and the third to blue. Digital photography works the same to do our eyes. If you take the light from a photograph or a computer screen - or even attempt to do math to seek out the light frequencies present in a digital or emulsion photograph - all you'll get is the spectrum from the three dyes, pigments or phosphors present in the imaging device. The result is essentially three colored lines...nothing like a useable spectrum. A true spectral analysis would have had to be done from the direct light from the actual Phoenix lights themselves. Such analysis, done by some incredible flook or foresight while the actual event was happening, would have yielded some invaluable information as to the true sources of those lights. But carrying out any such analysis on the photograph of that light is beyond useless.

So it is 100% clear that this claim is not just untrue - it's completely and utterly naive, crazy! Either the original claimant is an outright liar and did not do the experiment as claimed (seems most likely) or this is someone who is incredibly scientifically naive and therefore in no position to interpret the results in any meaningful manner. Either way, any and all claims from the results of such "analysis" are entirely useless. SteveBaker (talk) 00:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

This section has to go - it's WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, possibly WP:BATSHIT (have not looked that one up). An ignorant nut makes unscientific claim in support of whack-job personal theory... how is that notable? I propose to delete this section myself unless somebody can come up with any reliable references that show this is a legitimate method of photographic analysis. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Spectral analysis - take 2[edit]

Let's focus on the subject at hand, the paragraph relating to Dilletoso. My thoughts on the matter are as follows: Any yahoo can make scientific-sounding claims regarding the Phoenix Lights incident, but only the notable claims need be included in the Wikipedia page. The question at hand is whether Dilletoso's claims, proven to be false, are notable enough to be included here. I am interested in hearing other points of view on this matter. (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Dilletoso was the primary expert touted repeatedly on Fox News's local coverage in Phoenix. His views still seem to be the dominant views of people who have heard of the Phoenix Lights, even though they're completely debunked. His claims and what is wrong with them should definitely be included in this article, as they're as notable as the Phoenix Lights themselves. Lippard (talk) 22:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
From WP:Fringe,
"Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources.
Ideas that are of borderline or minimal notability may be mentioned in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight. Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting new ideas, for countering any systemic bias in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. Fringe theories may be excluded from articles about scientific topics when the scientific community has ignored the ideas. However, ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong. By the same token, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to offer originally synthesized prose "debunking" notable ideas which the scientific community may consider to be absurd or unworthy. Criticisms of fringe theories should be reported on relative to the visibility, notability, and reliability of the sources that do the criticizing." BrendanFrye (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
That is literally the first coherent contribution you've made to the discussion, and it was only a cut and paste job. The relevant portion of the above policy is "Fringe theories may be excluded from articles about scientific topics when the scientific community has ignored the ideas." Since this doesn't apply to the text in question, the text can stay. Thanks for clearing that up. (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. It is well established that WP:FRINGE does not just apply to entire articles. All claims of a scientific nature have to be treated carefully by Wikipedia. The claim that you can do any kind of sophisticated spectral analysis of a photo or digital image is most certainly a scientific claim - and it must be examined in the light of WP:FRINGE. Since it's clearly complete and utter bullshit...and we have a reference to say so...we may decide that they are not notable and choose to exclude them from our article - or we may decide that they are notable and present the claim along with the debunking of it. Under no circumstances can we include the claim of spectral analysis without the debunking of it because that would be a gross violation of WP:WEIGHT. SteveBaker (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Concur with SteveBaker - this section gives undue weight to a refuted theory which was based on one individual's misunderstanding of the way digital photography works (i.e. you cannot for a spectrogram from an RGB image). As nonsense goes this is not notable nonsense. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Phoenix events 2010 and 2011[edit]

It seems that the phenomenon has occured two more times : November 2010 and November 2011. Should we talk about this in the article ? Workingonwp (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Problem in Explanation / First Event Section?[edit]

The last paragraph of this section currently reads:

Mitch Stanley, an amateur astronomer, observed high altitude lights flying in formation using a Dobsonian telescope giving 43x magnification. After observing the lights, he told his mother, who was present at the time, that the lights were aircraft.[17] According to Stanley, the lights were quite clearly individual airplanes; a companion who was with him recalled asking Stanley at the time what the lights were, and he said, "Planes". When Stanley first gave an account of his observation at the Discovery Channel Town Hall Meeting with all the witnesses there he was shouted down in his assertion that what he saw was what other witnesses saw. Obviously Stanley was seeing the Maryland National Guard jets flying in formation on their way to drop high-altitude flares at the Barry M. Goldwater bombing range south of Phoenix. His account as to the nature of the lights that moved in formation that night is contradicted by several thousand Phoenix residents without high powered telescopes, however, and no military or civilian aircraft formations were known to have been flying in the area at that time[citation needed]. Of course, the Maryland National Guard jets were not known about at that time because their mission was a classified military mission.
  1. Sentence 1 appears to accurately reflect the information in the sourced article in the Phoenix New Times.
  2. Sentence 2 appears to accurately reflect the information in the sourced article in the Phoenix New Times.
  3. Sentence 3 appears to also be in the sourced article, although Stanley's mother is referred to here as 'a companion'. The cited article is clear that Stanley and his mother Linda were the only people present. Therefore the words 'a companion who was with him' should be replaced with 'Linda Stanley'--otherwise the impression is created that there was a third person present during the observation.
  4. Sentence 4 about the town hall meeting isn't mentioned in the cited article, so as written this is simply an unsourced claim and either should be removed or should be marked as needing a citation.
  5. Sentence 5 (beginning with the word 'obviously') is a serious problem. Stanley claims to have seen planes flying in formation. They may have been the A-10s involved in the flare-dropping exercise or they may have been some other planes. Exactly who is remarking on the obviousness of this conclusion? This is not sourced, and just reflects an author drawing his or her own conclusions. That's really not what we should be doing here. If there are a number of sourced pieces of information that suggest what the author is concluding is 'obvious' then those pieces should be listed and the conclusion should be up to the reader to make. Present the facts only, and if you are posting opinions, they should be sourced. Otherwise, the article's neutrality can be legitimately challenged as it has been in the past.
  6. Sentence 6 definitely needs a citation, as noted. But why not just remove it? It's already clear from the rest of the article that there is a contradiction between Stanley and other observers.
  7. Sentence 7 shouldn't begin with 'of course'. Once again the author is inserting the opinion of 'obviousness' into what is supposed to be merely an accounting of sourced facts and opinions surrounding the event.

Given the lack of neutrality in this paragraph, I recommend:

  • Sentence 3 should be modified to remove the implication that a third person was present during the observation.
  • Sentences 4-6 should be removed altogether--none of them are sourced, and they are drawing conclusions that betray the bias of the author.
  • Sentence 7 should either be removed, or (provided a source can be found as to the classified nature of the mission) amended to remove the 'Of course'.

This would render the paragraph as follows:

Mitch Stanley, an amateur astronomer, observed high altitude lights flying in formation using a Dobsonian telescope giving 43x magnification. After observing the lights, he told his mother, who was present at the time, that the lights were aircraft.[17] According to Stanley, the lights were quite clearly individual airplanes; his mother, Linda Stanley, recalled asking Stanley at the time what the lights were, and he said, "Planes". The Maryland National Guard jets were not known about at that time because their mission was a classified military mission[citation needed].

This would be much cleaner and more neutral. The town hall meeting sentence (#4 in the paragraph) is certainly very interesting, and if a source can be found for it, it should probably be kept. If it was actually televised it seems like getting a citation for it shouldn't be that hard. (talk) 11:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Smoothing Out Text, Improving References[edit]

Hello to all watchers of this page. I am about to attempt an improvement of this article. Mainly, I want to smooth out the way the text reads and improve both the number and quality of the references cited. I see it has been several years since there has been significant activity on the talk page here, but if anyone has suggestions I would be very grateful for the help.VaDawn (talk) 01:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Wonderful news VaDawn, this page has been needing help.Sgerbic (talk) 05:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)