Aliens

[Dotini]

A detailed analysis of an Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon captured by the Department of Homeland Security in infrared video and on radar.

There are portions on the latter part of the video when the object enters the ocean, moves under water, exits the water, then appears to double in size and split in two.

http://www.explorescu.org

Since I made this post, I've run across more recent discussion and analysis of the video, some of which discusses birds and balloons as possible explanations of the hot, fast-moving projectile being followed on the FLIR. The link below provides that and more.
http://www.openminds.tv/experts-chime-in-on-puerto-rico-ufo-video/34909

A U.S. Customs and Border Protection Bombardier DHC-8Q200. (Credit: U.S. Customs and Border Protection)

The expert with the most experience with the exact type of thermal imaging system used to capture the video has asked that his full name and the company he works for not be printed. OpenMinds.tv did have access to his name and personal information, and we were able to confirm his identity and experience. However, he says he still works on government contracts and did not want to jeopardize his career, but he and his colleagues do find the video fascinating, so they wanted to share their expertise.

This expert’s name is Dave, and he says he is a “Depot Level FLIR Technician that is quite familiar with government FLIR systems, including the one in question. He says, “I have 10 years of experience with infrared systems and I have viewed thousands of hours of combined live and recorded video.”

He says, “The absence of any obvious propulsion system and the heat it generates is quite fascinating. The object’s movement is atypical to what I generally see in infrared video; it moves more like a projectile.”

Dave also doesn’t believe the video is fake. He writes: “It’s my opinion that the video is legitimate, it would be quite difficult to fake. The video is consistent to the manual tracking of an airborne object.”

Dave says he and his colleagues, who all have an interest in the video, don’t know what the object is.

The Wescam MX-15 thermal imaging system. The same system used to capture the video. (Credit: Wescam)

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

It's not a random post.
Unfortunately I never saw anything in the skies, beside airplanes, birds and the ISS. BUT, I do believe that someone, somewhere in the world knows the truth. I'm a follower of some TV's shows like the Ancient Aliens, Hangar 1 (MUFON), etc, and I know a lot about this matter. Also, I understand how the entire universe works, and how big it is. So, I do believe that we (humans) aren't the only intelligent form of life.

Did you say you understand how big the universe is and how it works in its entirety. Cause that's what I read and if so, then you don't need to believe you must already know of other living things out in the deep cosmos. Also you might want to give CERN a call they're having problems getting to where you're at in life.

I'm guessing you didn't mean this though...at least I hope.

As for your belief in Aliens (which I too have) you probably shouldn't use Ancient Aliens as a line reference.

 

[Ramalhinho91]

Did you say you understand how big the universe is and how it works in its entirety. Cause that's what I read and if so, then you don't need to believe you must already know of other living things out in the deep cosmos. Also you might want to give CERN a call they're having problems getting to where you're at in life.

I'm guessing you didn't mean this though...at least I hope.

As for your belief in Aliens (which I too have) you probably shouldn't use Ancient Aliens as a line reference.

You can read my post after that. I don't know why you question everything I say... Of course I don't know how this works in his entirety! I just said that to show that I have some bases on the matter.

I don't use it as a line reference, there are many things that doesn't make sense on it, but it doesn't mean they are completely wrong.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

You can read my post after that. I don't know why you question everything I say... Of course I don't know how this works in his entirety! I just said that to show that I have some bases on the matter.

I don't use it as a line reference, there are many things that doesn't make sense on it, but it doesn't mean they are completely wrong.

Well because you can't possibly know how large the universe is, but see people on GTP at times have been known to make wild claims and thus it's a good concept to ask them if that's what they really meant. If so then one is usually tasked with challenging such a claim. Also GTP is an English only forum that's supports a large user base, who chances are, aren't English speakers first hand so at times they can make mistakes due to this and that's also a good reason to clarify for someone who may not be sure what you mean.

As for reading your posts I have, and that's why I'm trying to make sure I fully understand you and don't take your writing out of context, I'm not questioning you in a negative way, just making sure I respect your ideology. I'm not quite sure why over the past page a couple people seem to be sensitive to others wanting to better understand them (I'm not the only one asking by the way), but we're trying to give you the utmost respect on what is once again a very heated and complex topic.

@Dotini in what sense do you mean better documented, cause in relation fo FLIR captures the Mexico military capture is about in the same respect if not higher. If we're talking all high profile UFO cases, then I'd say the Belgium wave is of just as high or higher documentation and presentation on a matter that to me shows their is some anonymity out there under some control with such unknown objects that we're not getting answers for.

 

[Dotini]

@Dotini in what sense do you mean better documented, cause in relation fo FLIR captures the Mexico military capture is about in the same respect if not higher. If we're talking all high profile UFO cases, then I'd say the Belgium wave is of just as high or higher documentation and presentation on a matter that to me shows their is some anonymity out there under some control with such unknown objects that we're not getting answers for.

I was attempting to qualify @TenEightyOne in terms of his knowledge and recall of well-documented cases such as the Belgium wave you mention. Hessdalen is another such case.

What case of an unknown can you cite that is more real and better documented than the 2013, Aguadilla Puerto Rico case?

I like the Aguadilla case because of its simultaneous combination of:
- visual sighting by on-duty military pilots
- laser tracking from aircraft
- thermal video, presumably calibrated and certified
- ground-based radar tracking

They don't get any better than this, except if you experience them in first person.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I was attempting to qualify @TenEightyOne in terms of his knowledge and recall of well-documented cases such as the Belgium wave you mention. Hessdalen is another such case.



I like the Aguadilla case because of its simultaneous combination of:
- visual sighting by on-duty military pilots
- laser tracking from aircraft
- thermal video, presumably calibrated and certified
- ground-based radar tracking

They don't get any better than this, except if you experience them in first person.

Yeah but I want to know what you think is well documented since I feel you know more than he does on the matter or eat least from what I've seen. So I just want to see what you would consider more.

 

[Ramalhinho91]

Well because you can't possibly know how large the universe is, but see people on GTP at times have been known to make wild claims and thus it's a good concept to ask them if that's what they really meant. If so then one is usually tasked with challenging such a claim. Also GTP is an English only forum that's supports a large user base, who chances are, aren't English speakers first hand so at times they can make mistakes due to this and that's also a good reason to clarify for someone who may not be sure what you mean.

As for reading your posts I have, and that's why I'm trying to make sure I fully understand you and don't take your writing out of context, I'm not questioning you in a negative way, just making sure I respect your ideology. I'm not quite sure why over the past page a couple people seem to be sensitive to others wanting to better understand them (I'm not the only one asking by the way), but we're trying to give you the utmost respect on what is once again a very heated and complex topic.

Of course, I have the perfect notion that nobody can understand how big it is. I mentioned that some posts before. The whole concept of infinite is... mind blowing

I just want you to know that I didn't wanted to come here and say that I know all the truth or something like that. I'm not trolling with you guys, not joking in anyway. I'm a true believer and respect this topic a lot.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I like the Aguadilla case because of its simultaneous combination of:
- visual sighting by on-duty military pilots

Or so we're told. We have no statement from them other than a set of tertiary statements purporting to definitely be true.

- laser tracking from aircraft

Linear tracking which doesn't provide a distance-to-target figure (I'll come back to that)

- thermal video, presumably calibrated and certified

I'm willing to bet that with some effort you could make this video in Arma and then reprocess it to be of this appearance/quality. I'm suspicious of the poor quality of the video, actually, given that we're told it's from an MX-15 pod. If it is from the purported source then I would share your presumptions re- calibration and certification. I'm suspicious about that though, equally suspicious about the artefacting that I mentioned (which I'll also come back to)..

- ground-based radar tracking

Hell of a radar system picking up an object at that low altitude. Except your link says they only got an initial signal from the object, no track. The radar track released under FOI covers the movement of the aircraft carrying the MX-15.

Your own link has at least one "UFO expert" who agrees with the balloon/bag theory. He echoes my own feelings actually; the object is closer to the lens than it appears at times... meaning that the site's speed calcs are to high by a large margin. He also agrees with my own view that when the object "vanishes" behind or under things that's actually a technical product of the video rather than an accurate visual representation.

Certainly this video raises a number of questions;

- If it was leaked by a well-meaning whistleblower then why render it such poor quality when the original feeds are multi-channel HD?
- Why do we only have the IR feed when the EOW feed would be far more illustrative (particularly if the object was indeed glowing)?
- Why were none of the object speed tracking or geography tools enabled?

It seems convenient to me that the video is of too poor a quality to actually allow proper speed inferences to be drawn, I'm suspicious that the HUD artefacting doesn't appear original (it's like the video was processed a number of times at different stages)... it all smacks to me of a very, very good 21st Century hoax.

The HUD is an accurate representation though, maybe the producers were just too clever to fall down on that detail.

EDIT: From your own link; more dissonance on the trig and another the possible type for the object. Also another interesting question; if this was the subject of an aerial alert (as it must have been, a drone over an airbase/airport) then why does the released radar track show that the surveillance aircraft stood down to the south?

You think my "cognitive dissonance" prevents me from believing; perhaps so... but I want to believe, as the saying goes. I don't believe this time though.

 

[Dotini]

@TenEightyOne

It could be, as you hint, that the Aquadilla case is a hoax of some kind.

IMO, there is no proof or even good evidence of aliens or ET ever having visited Earth. Or even existing at all, anywhere.
At the end of the day, I believe it will be found that the UFO phenomenon, while real (and sometimes really weird), has a natural, earthly origin. We just don't understand it yet.

Total denial of the phenomenon combined with aggressive skepticism of every sighting may well be right for you.
But unfortunately that's not possible for me, since I have been party to several high quality multiple-witness UFO events. For 50 years it's been one of my hobbies to discover some of the truth about the phenomenon.

The UFO object depicted in the Aguadilla case is not entirely consistent with the UFOs I have personally seen, so I'm fine with you writing off this case as a devilishly sophisticated hoax. But not as a balloon.

 

[Dotini]

Also another interesting question; if this was the subject of an aerial alert (as it must have been, a drone over an airbase/airport) then why does the released radar track show that the surveillance aircraft stood down to the south?

So far as I know, there was no such alert, the aircraft loitered a bit longer (one orbit) in the vicinity of the airport out of curiosity, then proceeded down the coast on their regular duties, it not being their job to investigate apparently harmless aerial anomalies.

IIRC, the airport radar worked only for altitudes in excess of 500 feet, except for very close to the airport. The funny object, be it bird, balloon or otherwise, seemed to mostly stay below 400 feet. The airport radar had only intermittent detection of the object, obliging the authors of the report to correlate the laser tracker with the video with the radar to arrive at the course taken by the object in their analysis.

I want to believe, as the saying goes.

Have you gone so far as to undertake any kind of systematic survey of the best available literature on the subject? If not, it is difficult to take this statement seriously. If you wish, I can provide you with a list of what I consider to be the best and most interesting of the thousands of books that have been published on this topic.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The airport radar had only intermittent detection of the object, obliging the authors of the report to correlate the laser tracker with the video with the radar to arrive at the course taken by the object in their analysis.

Unfortunately that's not quite the case, the laser tracker is measuring the piece of ground at which the camera was pointed, your links say that there was no lock on the object. The object's speed was therefore calculated by guesstimating* the distance of the object from that groundpoint.

Your own link contains at least two experts who disagree with that guesstimation by a large margin.

Have you gone so far as to undertake any kind of systematic survey of the best available literature on the subject? If not, it is difficult to take this statement seriously. If you wish, I can provide you with a list of what I consider to be the best and most interesting of the thousands of books that have been published on this topic.

I have a couple of excellent books by Ph.D. bods that explain why God exists and the Bibble is true. I'm afraid I often give the same credence to tertiary UFO literature which purports to prove that we're being visited by craft of extra-terrestrial origin.

When I say "I want to believe" I'm telling you the truth; perhaps you think my standard of proof is too high. I want to be confronted with something that I can... believe. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to provide a potted top-ten-biblio? Pop the thing into spoiler tags if it might be messy?

*Guesstimate, I hate that word

 

[Dotini]

I want to be confronted with something that I can... believe. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to provide a potted top-ten-biblio?

You don't need ten books to read, only one or two. If you get that far, I will serve up more.

First, and by far the most important: Project Identification; The First Scientific Study of UFO Phenomena, by Harley Rutledge, published by Prentice-Hall, 1981. You will need to purchase this book used. I got my copy from Amazon, dirt cheap. If you need the money to buy this book, I will send it to you. Rutledge, a physics professor and department chairman, was contracted by a newspaper to do a multi-year study of a persistent local manifestation of UFOs.

Secondly, please read UFOs; Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go on the Record, by Leslie Kean, published by Harmony, a trademark of Random House, 2010. This best-seller will acquaint you with a handful of the best cases.

Once more, I will say that I have seen this phenomenon at first hand several times in spectacular multiple-witness daytime events, beginning back in sixties. After 50 years of study, my personal takeaway is that it is NOT due to aliens or extraterrestrials, but is a natural phenomenon, native but not necessarily unique to planet Earth.

 

[Dotini]

Photographs of extraterrestrial organism and alien manufactured object claimed by very eccentric British boffin.


‘Bull-Shaped’ Particle In Debris Collected From The Stratosphere Is A ‘Complet Lviing Entity’ Researchers Claim




‘Titanium Sphere’ Containing Biological Material From Space

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/2396952/fi...of-buckingham-scientists/#LiUYtCedyV1y0rKq.99

 

[Dotini]

Star Trek, Philip K Dick and Jacques Vallee have contributed to the Hermetic literature suggesting the UFO phenomenon is a sort of psychological control system.

http://thenightshirt.com/?p=3329

 

[Dotini]

An excellent anomalous object report.
http://www.ufosnw.com/newsite/3-witness-huge-object-in-day-sky-photo-taken/

3 Witness Huge Object in Day Sky. Photo Taken.
Posted on September 17, 2015 by Administrator
Location of Sighting: Argenta, Montana
Date of Sighting: September 13, 2015
Time of Sighting: 3 PM MDT

Map data ©2015 Google


POLAROID PHOTO OF HUGE HOVERING OBJECT.


Description: The witness was driving on Highway 278 in Southwestern Montana and saw a large object hovering over the mountains. The witness stopped his car, got out, retrieved his polaroid camera and snapped a photo. At that point the object abruptly streaked away (in 2 seconds). Two others witnessed the sighting. (A couple from Texas also stopped.) They didn’t hang around for long and were really “freaked out” by what they saw. The primary witness (reporting the sighting) said that both of the other witnesses had cell phones, but did not take photos. The witness stated that when he stopped he felt “electrical energy” in the air and that his hair “stood on end.” He also thought that the object was emitting beams of light. The object had very long wings with an upward protrusion at the end of each wing. The object was visible for about 5 minutes and was hovering. The witness thought that it could have been only 200 feet off of the ground. The object then streaked away towards Badger Pass and was gone in 2 seconds!


Note: I know this witness and consider him to be reliable. He is a retired pilot. The probability of a hoax is very low considering that the photo was taken with an old Polaroid camera (model SX-70). The above image was scanned by a print shop and may not be of optimal quality. The witness is sending the original polaroid image. I will scan this image in high resolution color and update the report if the image is of improved quality.

 

[Dan]

At first, I thought that was an image from a fighter pilot's heads-up display, similar to the image below:

 

[TenEightyOne]

Note: I know this witness and consider him to be reliable. He is a retired pilot. The probability of a hoax is very low considering that the photo was taken with an old Polaroid camera (model SX-70). The above image was scanned by a print shop and may not be of optimal quality. The witness is sending the original polaroid image. I will scan this image in high resolution color and update the report if the image is of improved quality.

Quotes would be helpful - I thought you knew the guy personally

Certainly an odd image. If that's a standard Polaroid then the object must be nearly 2km wide?

 

[Castrol96]

Just my Opinion.

 

[Dotini]

Quotes would be helpful - I thought you knew the guy personally

Certainly an odd image. If that's a standard Polaroid then the object must be nearly 2km wide?

Every thing I post beneath the link should be considered from the link, although I do often italicize.

If you've read your Leslie Kean, you'd know that some of the most important sightings such as that of JAL 1628, 1987 and the Phoenix Lights (early evening) mass sightings of 1997 involved apparitions of apparently gigantic objects. "Odd" is often the best term that describes many aspects of the phenomenon. Who knows if these apparitions are really real, even if they've been seen on radar? As far as we know, none have ever been retrieved or captured for close inspection.

 

[CodeRedR51]

It's funny how most UFO sightings are "confirmed" using a photo taken by a super old camera and/or a camera with horrible image quality.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Every thing I post beneath the link should be considered from the link, although I do often italicize.

If you've read your Leslie Kean, you'd know that some of the most important sightings such as that of JAL 1628, 1987 and the Phoenix Lights (early evening) mass sightings of 1997 involved apparitions of apparently gigantic objects. "Odd" is often the best term that describes many aspects of the phenomenon. Who knows if these apparitions are really real, even if they've been seen on radar? As far as we know, none have ever been retrieved or captured for close inspection.

They're quite easily debunked, both Phoenix and Capt. Terauchi (who reported multiple sightings of UFOs through his career, quite the statistical anomaly).

 

[Dotini]

They're quite easily debunked, both Phoenix and Capt. Terauchi (who reported multiple sightings of UFOs through his career, quite the statistical anomaly).

Your skeptic site attempts to debunk only the later event over the city of Phoenix. The early evening overflight of the state the same night has never been debunked. Did you read the book? Do you intend to?

The commercial and military radar contacts of the JAL case have been confirmed by John J. Callahan, head of the FAA Accidents, Evaluations and Investigations Division, so that case has never been debunked, either. Please do not state that cases are "easily debunked" when you have not personally read extensively about the cases.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

It's funny how most UFO sightings are "confirmed" using a photo taken by a super old camera and/or a camera with horrible image quality.

What? I haven't seen a Polaroid of a UFO since the same time of the PHX lights coincidentally enough as I see @Dotini and @TenEightyOne talk about it.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Your skeptic site attempts to debunk only the later event over the city of Phoenix. The early evening overflight of the state the same night has never been debunked. Did you read the book? Do you intend to?

As I first revealed in the Phoenix New Times, a young man with a 10-inch Dobsonian telescope, Mitch Stanley, spotted the vee from his backyard, and saw that it was a formation of airplanes. Using a magnification of 60X — which essentially put him 60 times closer to the vee than people only using their naked eyes — Stanley could see that each light in the sky was actually a double, with one light under each squarish wing. The planes still looked small in his scope — suggesting they were flying at high altitude — and he didn’t know what type they were. But there was no doubt, he told me, that they were planes.

After his sighting, Stanley tried to contact a Phoenix city councilwoman who was making noise about the event, as well as a couple of UFO flim-flam men working the local scene, but he was rebuffed. I was the first reporter to talk to him, and, as a telescope builder myself, I made a thorough examination of his instrument and his knowledge of it. (For the inexperienced: a Dobsonian telescope is much easier to move than the typical department store scope; it’s child’s play for an experienced observer like Stanley to get a good look at passing planes at altitude.) And he had a witness: he had told his mother, who was standing nearby, that the lights were planes. After my story, the Arizona Republic also found his story credible and wrote about it.

There is considerably more evidence that this was a high-altitude overflight of terrestrial aircraft than there is evidence of something else.

In the JAL case... as far as I'm aware Callahan has never released the tapes? Certainly Maccabbee (the "CIA" man who recalls being at the "secret" meeting with Callahan) remembers things very differently. He makes an interesting assessment of the whole case. Another participant, Pandolfi, also disagrees with Callahan's recollection of "secrecy".

Both of these incidents are very famous; I often find that relying on a single publication to explain the full facts puts one at editorial mercy. Going to the testimony of those involved can be more accurate, no?

 

[Dotini]

There is considerably more evidence that this was a high-altitude overflight of terrestrial aircraft than there is evidence of something else.

In the JAL case... as far as I'm aware Callahan has never released the tapes? Certainly Maccabbee (the "CIA" man who recalls being at the "secret" meeting with Callahan) remembers things very differently. He makes an interesting assessment of the whole case. Another participant, Pandolfi, also disagrees with Callahan's recollection of "secrecy".

Both of these incidents are very famous; I often find that relying on a single publication to explain the full facts puts one at editorial mercy. Going to the testimony of those involved can be more accurate, no?

Out of one side of your mouth you say the phenomenon exists, but out of the other side you aggressively debunk every case without prior consideration of all the evidence. You speak with forked tongue, poison the well of discussion, and I am finished working with you in the attempt to understand and explain the phenomenon.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

There is considerably more evidence that this was a high-altitude overflight of terrestrial aircraft than there is evidence of something else.

In the JAL case... as far as I'm aware Callahan has never released the tapes? Certainly Maccabbee (the "CIA" man who recalls being at the "secret" meeting with Callahan) remembers things very differently. He makes an interesting assessment of the whole case. Another participant, Pandolfi, also disagrees with Callahan's recollection of "secrecy".

Both of these incidents are very famous; I often find that relying on a single publication to explain the full facts puts one at editorial mercy. Going to the testimony of those involved can be more accurate, no?

For the triangle/delta aircraft in Phoenix I must intervene and ask why for one you're adamant about denying (or seem to be) that it wasn't a UFO. To me it seems more of the fact that you rather dissuade the idea of Extraterrestrial which @Dotini never hinted at, thus in doing so you deny everything else associated or attempt to in a across the board manner. To me that just seems like faulty logic, just because you can come to evidence that suggest one thing that makes aliens unlikely that doesn't mean unknown B is taken out as well.

The point of that matter is the PHX lights are more likely to have been some test air craft and not of off planet origin or a formation of smaller planes or migrating birds as others have hinted. The flight path of the air craft seems to indicate (and this is from calls in coming about seeing said object) starting in Nevada so possibly Groom Lake origin and the flying across Arizona to Goldwater test Range and then turning around over Tuscon and fly West toward Yuma/California. But as far as I know not being reported in that region.


I for one due to evidence seen and studied since I saw the lights as a kid, think it is most likely a test aircraft. And wouldn't be surprised due to recent new stealth sightings that the Air Force tried to deny over Texas and Oklahoma.

Here is a collection of all the crafts supposedly seen that day, made in a 3D animation program to give an idea


This video talking about it shows the only video of the V-Shape, not the South Mountain lights that may or may not have been flares



Here's is the flight path based on calls, with Kingman being the first area to give a call in

Image supposedly of the craft taken from National Ledger

http://www.examiner.com/article/wer...s-a-psychological-warfare-experiment-part-one

An idea of what the craft possibly could have been and what I find far more likely and still very creepy and just as interesting as Alien Air craft. An alien (unknown) terrestrial man made object.

As for the JAL story, while interesting there are many other Aviators in recent decades that have claimed to have near air misses with UFOs that are just as or more so interesting.

 

[TenEightyOne]

For the triangle/delta aircraft in Phoenix I must intervene and ask why for one you're adamant about denying (or seem to be) that it wasn't a UFO.

Because we have very good eyewitness testimony that the first sighting was a group of high flying aircraft - see the Tony Ortega link. Seeing black triangles in a night sky after staring at a triangle of lights is a normal retinal reaction - it doesn't mean that anything is there, only that it is perceived to be there. The second sighting (from many more people as news spread of the earlier sighting) was accepted as a flare set released from a recovering aircraft. That second sighting is on video.

Out of one side of your mouth you say the phenomenon exists, but out of the other side you aggressively debunk every case without prior consideration of all the evidence. You speak with forked tongue, poison the well of discussion, and I am finished working with you in the attempt to understand and explain the phenomenon.

Not in the least. Let's discuss credible, unexplained sightings. Neither Phoenix nor JAL constitute those. I just addressed the two Phoenix sightings in my reply to @LMSCorvetteGT2.

For the JAL sightings; the mystery is whipped up and supported by Callahan's evidence. The problem is that other people at the meeting entirely disagree with his version of how the meeting was conducted and the events that transpired. The pilot himself offers a different explanation from "flying craft" for some of his "UFO" sightings.

If anybody is poisoning the well of that particular discussion it's the bookable after-dinner speaker Callahan.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Because we have very good eyewitness testimony that the first sighting was a group of high flying aircraft - see the Tony Ortega link. Seeing black triangles in a night sky after staring at a triangle of lights is a normal retinal reaction - it doesn't mean that anything is there, only that it is perceived to be there. The second sighting (from many more people as news spread of the earlier sighting) was accepted as a flare set released from a recovering aircraft. That second sighting is on video.

The first and second sighting are on Video, you basically ignored the majority of my post for whatever you want to call this. The First sighting looks very different from the second that is on video. Also I'm aware that the CT-144s were supposedly the cause of some sighting, though the reason for their peculiar flight is questionable and covered in one of my links. I have the feeling you didn't look at it so I find that a bit disconcerting considering you tend to me more open in thought, so I'm hoping that this isn't some myopic perspective that is set in your head and swaying you before it can even start.

The fact you want to dismiss this as a mass wave of people having and describing the same thing and calling in not having any relation with each other, to nothing more than a vision anomaly. Also you tell Dotini you'd rather talk about more unexplained and I have the slight feeling there isn't a single case that is such for you. I could obviously be wrong but you'll inform me otherwise I suppose.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The first and second sighting are on Video,

And there are plenty of witnesses to both who can explain both. There was no massive object in the first sighting, simply a formation of aircraft. See the Tony Ortega link, and your own;

"A few miles away Mitch Stanley, a 20-year-old amateur astronomer, aimed his 10-inch telescope at the v-formation and discerned that each light was actually two lights on aircraft with squared wings. “They were planes,” he would tell the Arizona Republic. “There’s no way I could have mistaken that.”

CT-144s were supposedly the cause of some sighting, though the reason for their peculiar flight is questionable and covered in one of my links.

No, it asks why they were flying in formation and why they had their landing lights on-and-down. In the UK it's not uncommon to see the Red Arrows display team beetling from place-to-place, they always travel in formation to gigs, I guess many teams do. I myself have been asked to put landing lights on when there's military traffic about, particularly over Lincolnshire... we know there was heavy civil traffic around from your link. I really don't think that flight was so peculiar.

The second incident is also covered in your link - by this time word of the first "sighting" was out and many more people were looking to the sky;

Later that same night, around 10 p.m., a second unusual aerial event occurred--by coincidence or design--which would complicate attempts to sort out the evening’s chronology. Six A-10’s from the Maryland Air National Guard, on an annual training mission known as Operation Snowbird, dropped high-intensity illumination flares at 15,000 feet over an Air Force gunnery range 40 miles southwest of Phoenix. Each 1.8 million-candle-power flare was suspended from a parachute, burned for up to 10 minutes, and could be seen clearly for a radius of over 100 miles, creating the impression among Phoenix-area witnesses of nine giant white objects in a chorus line over the mountains. Numerous video camera operators recorded this display and the tapes played repeatedly on Arizona television stations fueling a belief in the minds of many that the v-shaped formation seen earlier in the evening had returned.

The rest of your post seemed to be "How would a triangular spaceship look". I can't argue with that although in the context of the Phoenix "sightings" it isn't really relevant. They're nicely produced though

The JAL sighting...I presented to you and @Dotini statements from other people who were at the "Callahan meeting" who differ completely in how they recall it. I linked the history of the pilot in seeing UFOs and his later explanations for those. The only person saying "there was a UFO and the CIA hushed it up" is Callahan.

These sightings really are explained.

 

[Dotini]

Ron Pandolfi- UFO psychic spy personality: http://www.isaackoi.com/ufo-personalities/pandolfi-ron.html
Bruce Maccabee - Physicist and prominent ufologist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Maccabee
Ryan Dube: Myth-busting blogger, worried about Scientologist UFO cult infecting the CIA: http://www.starpod.us/2013/03/29/co...y-infiltrated-by-scientologists/#.Vf6XqUt-_8s
John R Callahan - Chief of FAA investigations, equivalent rank of General: http://ufology.wikia.com/wiki/John_Callahan

All of these characters are involved up to their ears in the enduring mystery of the UFO phenomenon, of which @TenEightyOne seemingly cannot give a single example of which is unexplained.