The Village Voice: Runnin' Scared

Arizona's Worst Governor on Arizona's Worst UFO

posted: 5:26 PM, November 12, 2007 by Michael Clancy

Disgraced former Arizona governor Fife Symington told CNN's Larry King about how he saw the "UFO” known as the Phoenix Lights in 1997. But, as it turns out, there's a perfectly reasonable explanation for the phenomenon—one that never gets reported correctly.

by Tony Ortega

Before people get too worked up about disgraced former Arizona governor Fife Symington’s “disclosure” that he saw the 1997 “UFO” known as the Phoenix Lights—the subject of a breathless segment on the Larry King Live show last week—a few words about that phenomenon from someone who actually investigated it.

In 1997, Symington was in the middle of the bank-fraud scandal that would bounce him from office, but that’s not my way of questioning what he saw in the sky—thousands of Arizonans did, in fact, witness the famous Phoenix Lights that March. But from the start, bad reporting of the facts, hyperventilating by UFO “experts,” and constant stupidity from television reporters in particular resulted in a false impression that has hardened into seeming fact a decade later—that the “vee” of lights seen flying over the entire length of the state was explained away by the Air Force as flares dropped from military planes.

That is not the case. But it’s not hard to see why people think as much. Because the bare facts of what happened that night almost never get told by a confused press, even ten years later.

Here’s the truth: there were two, distinct events that happened the night of March 13, 1997 in the skies over Arizona, which I reported in great detail in a story that appeared a year later in the Phoenix New Times. The first event was the famous “vee,” which appeared over northern Arizona and gradually traveled south over nearly the entire length of the state, eventually passing south of Tucson. This is the “wedge-shaped” object that Symington and hundreds or even thousands of others saw—including two of my colleagues at the New Times. Timings of the “vee” sighting started at about 8:15 over the Prescott area, and it was seen south of Tucson by about 8:45. That’s 200 miles in 30 minutes, suggesting an air speed of 400 miles per hour.

News of the sighting spread fast, drawing out many other people who began looking at the sky, some with camcorders. And it was this second wave of observers who caught the second event of the night at about 10 pm, a set of nine lights falling behind the Sierra Estrella, a mountain ridge to the southwest of Phoenix. Television reporters were the first to suggest that this was a series of flares dropped over the North Tac range behind the Estrella. But naturally, people who had seen only the 8:30 “vee” were incredulous—how could “flares” dropped from planes fly over the entire state in a vee formation?

Well, they couldn’t, of course. But to this day, reporters almost never distinguish between the two events and the explanations that were soon presented for each.

The flares over the Estrella were soon cleared up. The Air Force, after some maddening early denials, eventually owned up that the Maryland Air National Guard had dropped them over the North Tac range. So much for the 10 pm sighting.

But what rarely gets reported is that the famous vee was also solved quite early. First of all, contrary to what you usually hear, there was a videotape made of the vee. I saw it after questioning the person who shot it (he also shot the 10 pm flares over the Estrella), and the video quite clearly shows the lights moving in relation to each other, rather than as lights on a solid object.

The human eye, however, seeing point sources of light in a dark Arizona sky, will tend to fill in the space between the lights in a contrast effect—convincing the eyewitness that he’s seen a solid object. Again, however, videotape of the ‘vee’ clearly showed that this was not the case.

(My personal favorite of all the accounts that night is a sighting that was convincing proof that the “vee” was not solid. A man saw it pass directly over the face of the Moon, and instead of a solid object, he saw five contrails pass over the Moon, making the Moon look blurry. Now, instead of concluding that he’d seen five planes flying in formation with their exhaust plumes plainly showing against the Moon, he instead insisted that the “captain” flying the alien triangular craft had turned it transparent just at the right moment so that he could see the Moon through it!)

Also, reports that the vee was low overhead and moving slowly have to be discounted. The human eye is notoriously unable to judge the distance to overhead point sources of light in a dark sky. Simple physics dictates that in order to fly from Prescott to Tucson in 30 minutes the vee was moving very fast, and, logic dictates, at a high altitude.

But there’s an even better reason to believe that the vee was not what Symington and others believed. As I reported in June of 1997, there was a credible report of the vee’s nature that was received immediately by UFO “experts” but not followed up—at least until I checked it out. It turned out that an amateur astronomer, Mitch Stanley, had been outside that night using a Dobsonian telescope, and had captured the vee in his field of view, giving him a view 60 times the magnification of the human eye. (I’m a builder of telescopes, and I thoroughly checked out his telescope and quizzed him about his use of it. There was no reason to question this young man’s veracity.) That March evening, his mother was standing nearby and could see that he was looking at the vee through the scope (I questioned them both) and they both say this was his response when she asked him what it was: “Planes.”

What I reported a decade ago:

What looked like individual lights to the naked eye actually split into two under the resolving power of the telescope. The lights were located on the undersides of squarish wings, Mitch says. And the planes themselves seemed small, like light private planes. Stanley watched them for about a minute, and then turned away. It was the last thing the amateur astronomer wanted to look at. "They were just planes, I didn't want to look at them," Stanley says when he's asked why he didn't stare at them longer. He is certain about what he saw: "They were planes. There's no way I could have mistaken that."

The only real mystery of the Phoenix Lights is which group of planes this was. I suggested that Stanley’s description (squarish wings) sounded like A-10s, not private planes. But the Maryland National Guard denied that they had flown over that path before dropping flares later.

Ten years later, however, the Phoenix Lights still live because it’s claimed by UFO supporters that the only explanation for the flying vee was that the Air Force called it flares. You’ll hear that explanation ridiculed again tonight on Larry King Live, and the “UFO community” will no doubt consider it a huge victory. So much for common sense.

categories: Fact Check

Comments

I don't know what to think about this, but your explanation seems to take a few anecdcotal observations and assume they all relate to the "vee" thousands saw. You take the most specious of all the accounts and discredit them. Your report seems lacking. I need to do more research. How about attacking the most credible reports, not "transparent moon guy"

Posted by: robert Barker at November 12, 2007 8:25 PM

Village Voice, you have sunken to a new low. If I wanted to read lies I would go read the Post or watch Fox news. Thank you for verifying to us that you are a definitie threat to humanity, peace, and freedom. The truth is unstoppable. If you have seen what I and many others have seen you would not be questioning this and making it out to be some kind of joke... or would you?
Articles like this only cause your publication harm. Despite what you want people to think - the majority know that when you try to discredit the fact about UFO's that you are lying and then you lose your credibility.

Posted by: a at November 12, 2007 8:28 PM

OK. So you have an theory and buddy that will back you up.
I respect your right to freedom of speech, but really don't understand why you would wish to publish such an article with so little basis of fact.

Posted by: johnnyb at November 12, 2007 9:06 PM

I disagree completely with this article, seems like you're bashing and discounting many individuals accounts. So much for common sense? What about the massive number of individuals claiming to have seen UFO's? I can't just deny the number of individuals, who over the past few decades alone, have related similar experiences. I've never seen a UFO myself but the possiblity they exist is definately equal if not greater to the notion they do not based on the vast number of accounts. We need more investigation and concern in this matter.

Posted by: T at November 12, 2007 10:48 PM

Interesting but I wonder why a Phoenix story gets the play in Village Voice??

Posted by: kenneth rexroth at November 12, 2007 11:31 PM

Why only focus on the Phoenix Lights when the UFO conference at the National Press Club emphasizes the need for investigation regarding a multitude of events re: UFOs...and this comes from credible witnesses from around the world, not merely the US. Why not report on the conference as a whole?
This article is just another hack job.

Posted by: 2lively at November 13, 2007 1:05 AM

Fair enough about clearing up the flares explanation. But I never heard of this before and I started reading about it. Some other eyewitness accounts just as credible as yours saw things that didn't appear to be planes. I'm not on either side, if we're talking about spaceships. I just don't think that this story proves anything. Naming the planes seen that night would help. Explaining why so many people thought this was a big deal would also help.
I won't ask you to explain other eyewitness accounts like that of truck driver Bill Greiner, who pulled over and watched the lights.
http://www.geocities.com/jilaens/phoenixlights.html

Posted by: Dave at November 13, 2007 3:41 AM

So the astronomer sees a plane in his scope but only thing he could say was "squarish wings"?Sounds logical rofl.All those peops who said that the object was massive,much MUCH bigger as any known plane are lairs?Funny how u use 3peops out of hundreds,if not thousands to put ur bias opinion and namecalling on the net.

Posted by: DD' at November 13, 2007 9:18 AM

Mitch Stanley needed a 10" telescope to see high altitude, wing tip to wing tip aircraft...? Pilots refuse to do this at night? Pretty dangerous isn't it? And yet, witnesses all claimed seeing low altitude aircraft, some claiming inbound commercial aircraft passed over it. Most claim the objects (yes, objects) to be low, slow and noiseless. There's so much more...
Tony, your entire 10 plus years verbal attacks have been aimed at Jim Dilletosa and former Phoenix city council woman Frances Emma Barwood, not the massive V shaped crafts witnessed throughout the state of Arizona on March 13, 1997. Didn't you get fired from the News Times for not letting up on this case? Besides, since when does high altitude aircraft stop little league games? Or stop traffic on the interstate? Or make people stare in awe at something never witnessed before? I hardly think high altitude military planes would do this.
You've proven yourself again to be a vendettive hack.

Posted by: Mike at November 13, 2007 9:20 AM

You ignore the fact that USSC went up the defcon ladder, Cheyenne mtn was buttoned up, interceptors carried
recon pods pilots had to be helped out of thir aircraft--and commercial aircraft at
40,000 ft going east into Az asked traffic
what was occluding lights over whole cities as the unknown
objects blotted out a large area as they traveled south. go talk to some pilots about your "solution"
shame on your ignorance and lack of
due diligence.

Posted by: vnce white at November 13, 2007 9:47 AM

Maybe you have some of the story, but do you have all of it. If these objects that you say people must have seen were even at an altitude of say 15,000 feet, I'd think some noise would have been audible. Did anyone hear anything? Why would aircraft have bright lights under the wings? Vertical landings? They'd have landing lights at the front of the nose and leading wing area, probably. On the underside of the wing makes no sense. They'd have navigations lights and strobes, typically. Bright, but nothing that would resemble flares or large lights even when combined. This also doesn't explain why A10s or whatever they were, were flying all over the state. Why would they fly over the city at all? Some people claim one wing or one side of the objects boomerang shape was literally blocks long and covered a huge piece of the sky. Could A10s or flares do that? Silently? I see little difference between someone who wants to bellieve, and someone who wants to disbelieve. I've seen plenty of skeptics and debunkers who, in the face of polar opposites with what UFO witnesses say, find their conventional explanations the final answers. Unless you were there and saw it for yourself, how could anyone be that certain. But once you realize why UFO reports are always dismissed as fantasy or misinterpretation, it makes complete sense how UFOs remain a mystery, and continue to be scientific taboo as they move about right over our noses.

Posted by: miss_lain at November 13, 2007 10:05 AM

I was researching the press conference and was excited to see an article in the Villiage Voice. However I question the case that was presented. On Peter Jenning's documentary he had video interviews with witnesses of the Phoenix Lights that clained that the dark shape blotted out the stars in the sky (I can't recall if it was incident one or incident two). Granted, in either case it is conflicting testimony for an event that neither Michael Clancy nor I had witnessed. However, there have been other documented sightings by credible sources of a large triangular craft (the incident with the Belgium air force encountering one in the 80's and the encounter by police in southern Illinois a few years ago) and it leads me to believe that what happened in Phoenix was a similar event.

Posted by: John at November 13, 2007 10:19 AM

I need to make one revision to my previous comment. I had mistakely thought Michael Clancey wrote the article, I meant to state Tony Ortega as the author.

Posted by: John at November 13, 2007 10:25 AM

I consider myself to be a healthy skeptic with a relatively open mind. It irks me considerably when people jump to conclusions to fit their own argument- no matter which "side" they are on- particularly when they seem to be acting on the side of "science." Your discounting thousands of eyewitness accounts in favor of a single amateur astronomer's story does just that. I'm sorry, but you've just as little data upon which to draw your particular conclusion as the so-called "lacking in common sense" majority of eye witnesses. Whatever happened to the true scientific method? There's no hard data to back up the existence or non-existence of UFO's- just the opinions of people you either side with or don't. For that matter- whatever happened to real journalism? Every "report" these days seems nothing more than an opinion. You've drawn an elaborate, unsubstantiated, and highly unlikely conclusion based on one man's testimony that differed vastly from the majority. Common sense? I'm sorry, but if this were a court of law, that would be criminal. This event, among many other credible reports, remains unexplained. As a scientist, I intend to continue investigating.

Posted by: CDH at November 13, 2007 10:25 AM

The British Government, through the Ministry of Defense, has changed their stance on Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon and they are now 'keeping an open mind' about the topic. The MoD has released a large number of UFO files in the past year. If the British Government is taking the topic seriously, why isn't the US government (my guess is that they are, but just not telling the public).

Posted by: Eric at November 13, 2007 11:08 AM

Another article on the incident that doesn't state the facts. I hope the VV loses readers and it hurts.

Posted by: RetiredUSAF at November 13, 2007 11:31 AM

What I find ridiculous is the fact that the author cites an observer watching a 400 mph moving plane spotted in a telescope, anyone who has ever used a telescope should realize that tracking a moving plane with a telescope is nearly impossible. Plus the fact that at night, there is no way to discern the shape of the wings of the craft, at most all one would have seen was the wingtip marker lights.

Posted by: instantkarma at November 13, 2007 2:22 PM

I like your explanation... it was great... (when the aliens land on the Whitehouse lawn.. I hope you're not around)

Posted by: Joseph Onzo at November 13, 2007 2:53 PM

Yikes. I am a casual reader of UFO-related things, and while I believe that unknown flying craft are a real phenomena, I always approach stories, evidence, etc. with a large enough dose of skepticism. (Anybody with an interest in the subject knows how carried away individuals can get). However, to dismiss the hundreds of eyewitness accounts of normal people of an enormous solid craft seems shady. "The human eye, however, seeing point sources of light in a dark Arizona sky, will tend to fill in the space between the lights in a contrast effect". Well that certainly works in your favor. That's right, your "favor", of actively trying to dismiss the whole event, rather than taking an appropriately unbiased journalistic approach. It didn't surprise me at all that your "favorite" account was of the man claiming the transparency of the craft. Among my favorites are those claiming it went directly over them and made no noise. If you've ever been in the vicinity of a flying A-10, as I have, they are roaring. In formation and overhead, I'm not sure people would mistake them for a single giant silent craft. But I'm not sure! And that guy with the telescope seals the deal; thousands of people were dumbstruck by airplanes...

Posted by: T at November 13, 2007 6:56 PM

Tony Ortega has the truth in his article. He can be trusted in his judgment of the facts in this article he wrote. Tony forgot to tell you that he had some Ocean Front Property in Arizona to sell you at a favorable price. From ones back porch you can see the sea. -----He also forgot to tell you that Elvis is alive and well in Memphis and that he will interview him next week.-------------------------Don

Posted by: Donald Atkins at November 13, 2007 7:01 PM

You are just the rest of those who try to make "fools" of people who witness UFO's.
The Government believes they can tell us we saw weather balloons, space ice, Northern Lights, lighting, flares, etc but sooner or later someone will get the proof. We know the Government has been lying to us for decades.

We have nothing that will fly silently at the speed of 7,000+ mph and make a right angle turn.

Yes many sightings can be explained but there are those that as a human one knows they are not from this earth.

Posted by: Fenton at November 13, 2007 7:44 PM

Your article drew an un-warrented conclusion. I can't decide which was worse...your "UFO phobic tone" or patting yourself on the back, for being the only person who really knew what happened in Phoenix. I hope that all this negative feedback you are receiving, might make you think twice and get over yourself!

Posted by: Mary Stitch at November 13, 2007 7:46 PM

So out of the hundreds of highly credible eyewitnesses, including many commercial airline pilots, all of who state they saw a massive v-shaped object that passed silently overhead (no engine or other noise), and many who say the view of the sky was blocked when the object was overhead, you chose to ignore their accounts because it does not confirm your conclusions. Instead apparently what clinched the case for you it was the testimony of one amateur astronomer Mitch who after just one look through his telescope decided they were just planes so he did not want to look again !

Posted by: ron at November 13, 2007 10:06 PM

I agree with instantkarma, near impossible to track a moving plane esp at the speed they were going with a telescope. Funny, how one person is right and hundreds if not thousands are wrong in what they seen that night, hmmmmm

Posted by: woo at November 13, 2007 10:09 PM

Yep, I see'em about once every two weeks here in Rainbow Valley...LOL

Posted by: Norbert at November 14, 2007 6:35 AM

People are in denial. You're calling thousands of people in Phx. basically blind liars, and I guess by extension all the people who witnessed what they did in Chile and the the huge sighting in the UK liars too. It's sort of pathetic at this point in time, that so much of the human race is afraid of a fact. I'm sure more spectacular things are coming soon, but folks in denial will always find a way to call it a lie or an illusion, etc., etc., ho hum, ho hum. Oh well. Don't be upset at this writer, or this article - this is just the way people are. Symington may indeed have used the flap as a distraction, but that doesn't take away the validity of your experience.

Posted by: Xtina at November 14, 2007 7:01 AM

THANK YOU, Tony Ortega. Finally, some sense made of this Phoenix Lights nonsense. I fly search-and-rescue missions. I am a trained aerial and ground observer. With that said; To all the angry UFO believers out there:

1. It is IMPOSSIBLE to determine altitude, attitude, speed, direction and size of an object in the sky at night with no points of reference.

2. Why didn't Sky Harbor radar pick up echoes? Their radar does not operate above 300 feet AGL. Why didn't Luke AFB track them? The Luke tower routinely closes at 6 p.m. By the way, Luke did NOT scramble jets that night, according to legend. Luke does not have jets on scramble status. Never has, never will. Luke is a SCHOOL for pilots.

3. You CAN track aircraft with a telescope. I've done it.

4. A witness on I-40 near Kingman, a former Air Force pilot, used binoculars to determine that they were high-flying jet aircraft.

5. Two America West pilots TALKED TO THE PILOT OF THE PLANE IN THE LEAD FORMATION OF THE V-SHAPED FORMATION. Even Albuquerque radar identified the V-formation as planes.

I have been criticized for not believing in ET life simply because I offer LOGICAL explanations for objects sighted in the night sky.

One has nothing to do with the other.

Live in the real world, folks.

Thanks again, Tony Ortega. Come on, believers, tear me apart.

Posted by: CAP314, Phoenix at November 14, 2007 1:47 PM

http://members.aol.com/tprinty/azconc.html

If you doubt Mr. Printy's research, you should not be allowed to live and function in this country.

Posted by: Steve, Phoenix at November 14, 2007 2:00 PM

OK, everyone that believes UFO's carry beings from another planet, raise your hands. Now, can you please explain why it is that lifeforms with sufficient technology to travel interstellar distances haven't ONCE gone public? Aren't they the least bit altruistic, and willing to help out a pathetic, war-mongering, ecology-destroying species hell-bent on its own extinction? Or, are they too busy laughing and pointing their appendages at us? Inquiring minds want to know...

Posted by: graymatter at November 14, 2007 3:51 PM

I have video taped lights in the sky in may of 2006 from pinnacle peak. A formation of them. they were so far across the valley, wow those "flares" must be pretty damn bright to see from all those miles away. oh and those "flares" staying stationary for so long. 3 separate sightings in one night. I caught them all on video. haven't released it publicly. Partly because i was at work at the time I taped them. but the footage is much better than you normally see, it's not all shaky and out focus either. probably the military testing some new craft we don't know about.

it IS highly egotisical to think we are the biological center of the universe.

Posted by: Jason at November 14, 2007 4:59 PM

To Jason,
Yes, those flares are bright. I am a pilot and I have seen military flares over the Barry Goldwater Range at a distance of more than 100 miles. If it's clear enough, you can see them even further away.

Also, military flares do remain stationary in the air. Near Ajo one time, I flew very close to a formation of flares that seemed to hover. The answer is simple; the heat from the burning chemicals keeps the parachute from falling (warm air rises, remember?) I know. I have seen it with my own eyes.

Posted by: Richard J., Glendale AZ at November 14, 2007 5:45 PM

To graymatter,

Let's say that extraterrestrials made themselves known to the world. Consider religious beliefs. Just consider human nature in general. The word "apeshit" comes to mind. Not everybody, of course, but we wouldn't dance in the street while the universal salvation army of aliens makes our planet cozy. People are comfortable with their individual beliefs, and as reality stands we are the most intelligent beings in the universe, perusing the surface of our watery planet going about our mostly mundane lives. Here are some likely reactions as I see it.

1)Oh shit they could destroy us (Defensive, Fearful)
2)They are Gods/Angels/Satan/Demons (The religious folks conclusions)
3)Our problems are over! Take us to your beautiful ships!

Of course this is just a few. I didn't even intend to get so involved in my response, just think about human nature and it should be pretty clear why an alien of above-average IQ (likely in the ten zillions) would hesitate to crash our party. :-)

Posted by: MD Hawkin at November 14, 2007 11:30 PM

Comments

Post a comment