by chase7628 » 05 Nov 2013, 09:36
amazing i was looking for information on my UFO footage that i shot in 1997 and i found this site that someone had posted it too...if you youtube oneida lake incident.there are 2 more videos, i have also typed up the official MUFON report from 1997 ill attach below: it is a bit long sorry let me know if you have questions....it was named the Phoenix lights of the east coast usa!
ONEIDA LAKE LIGHTS- 5/97, Overview:
We had two meetings with a couple involved, Ed and Mindy Granoski. Their son, Chad Granoski, who was also present for all the light displays, could not be present for the two meetings since he was away on a trip; I did talk with him briefly on the telephone and got his approval of the meeting data and some added input.
The first meeting with the couple was a get acquainted session, and Bob Canino was also present for that session. Bob’s summary of the entire Oneida Lake Lights situation is included below. At this first meeting we had a chance not only to see the original 8mm videocam footage, but also to get the running narration by Ed and Mindy. We know from that session that there were also small, white, moving lights to be seen at times, on the video in the original form, and this does lend credence to the possible presence of aircraft dispersing flares.
At the second session, a few days later, the only other person present besides Ed, Mindy, and I was a friend of mine, John C. Who was auditing not only the case, but the interview procedure itself. The Granoskis had no objection to his presence, especially since their testimony is not on an anonymous basis.
There were 10 different episodes over the 24+ hour period involved, and there were these three witnesses. They agreed on all major facts; minor differences are highlighted below.
A careful reading of the attached summary by Bob Canino will show that he and I (Dave Bodner) have minor areas of disagreement on this case. This is as it should be since these lights are still unexplained.
The video shot by the Granoskis was compared with a (much shorter) video supplied by another witness some miles away. One sequence was confirmed to be the same, and so triangulation was possible. The location of that result is over Redfield, NY at about 8000 feet over mean lake level.
Despite the dozens of other witnesses we talked with, no other triangulation was possible. Although one other witness did describe similar lights in his area near Redfield at about the same time. And unusual helicopter activity the next day.
ONEIDA LAKE “LIGHTS” BACKGROUND SUMMARY – by Bob Canino:
“Event: During the last week of May, 1997 various anomalous lights were reported in the night sky around and over the northern shore of Oneida Lake. Over 30 different witnesses have given credible reports that have involved what basically can be described as glowing “light balls” moving in formation around the sky at different distances and different heights. Two outstanding videotapes of a major portion of the event were taken by two different witnesses (unrelated and unacquainted with each other) during what appears to be the exact same time frame on the night of May 28. One party, Ed and Mindy Granoski of Lakeport taped a total of 48 minutes of what appears to be UFO’s hovering over the north shore of Oneida Lake over a two night period. What makes their tape so outstanding is the fact that Ed worked the zoom correctly and also set reference points in the background, as well as remembering to hit the date/time feature occasionally; all great aids to video analysis. Also at the same time that Ed was taping, his son Chad was watching the lights with a pair of field binoculars and making various comments that can be heard on the audio portion of the tape. The second tape, take by (ed: anonymity reserved for now) a lawyer residing at t(ed: the other end of the lake) in Cicero shows the exact same signature formation of the lights taken at the same time as the Granoskis tape. He was alerted to the lights by his father who lives a few houses down from him on the south shore of Oneida Lake. (His) young son also witnessed the lights and stood by his father’s side as the videotaped them. During the sighting Mike (ed: adult witnesses’ first name) called his brother in law who lives near Constantia, NY on the north shore of the lake and alerted him to what appeared to be hovering UFO’s but the brother-in-law (looking south and out over the lake) did not see anything at that time. After the event (Mike’s) curiosity was piqued and did some good follow up on his own (he is a top-notch attorney in the Syracuse area) but came up (with) no easy explanations of the event. (One significant lead he did follow was the suggestion that a paintball park on the north shore of the lake was using flares in a “night game”; but contact with owners of the park indicated that there was no night game running on the date in question) His tape also shows the lights “winking” out and coming back on as well; a feature well-documented in the Granoski tape.
OTHER WITNESSES / REPORTS:
A total of 28 witnesses have come forward with sightings so far at this stage of the investigation most all appear credible. The witnesses, both men and women, report strange, anomalous lights, light balls or objects in the vicinity of the north shore of Oneida lake and in the general region of the Tug Hill plateau. Some of the most interesting sightings come from witnesses who say they saw the lights move from east to west (sighting location: north of Parish on Route 81) and from a witness who was camping (location: general Altmar/Williamstown vicinity) and saw the lights. Another report from a woman on a farm near Altmar indicates repeated sightings over that week long period, along with intermittent activity during the rest of the year. (A fact unsolicited to a third party)
SPECIAL CASE: THE OGDENSBURG TAPE –
(anonymity reserved) of Ogdensburg, a British national residing with her husband near the St. Lawrence River, took some equally outstanding videotape of the “light balls” seen at apparent tree top level near their place on the same May 28 date. She was first alerted to the objects when “ her dogs went nuts” (she has a grooming kennel) and her husband saw the lights and called for her to bring out the video camera. She subsequently did and shot some outstanding videotape that is currently undergoing analysis right now at 2 separate locations. She has showed the videotape to an Ogdensburg radio station where the station manager took a personal interest in her story and was convinced of her sincere honesty. A prominent North Country local radio personality was also fascinated by her story and devoted a whole morning talk session of his show to her report in specific and UFO reports in the North Country in general which brought several interesting and surprising (see below) responses.
THE PHOENIX CONNECTION –
Since early this year (ed. 1997) Phoenix Arizona has undergone a UFO flap of remarkable proportions and numerous still photos and videotapes exist of the many sightings that have taken place. Ed and Mindy Granoski (video tape #1) (ed: not included herein) immediately noticed the similarity of what they videotaped to the “Phoenix formations” (they viewed it on the internet) and when a copy of their tape was sent to a veteran UFO investigator Bill Hamilton and Tom King in Phoenix, they were astounded at the quality and duration of the Granoski sightings. The signature formation(ed. About 7 lights in a row) from the Granoski tape matches almost exactly the “signature formation from Phoenix and has astounded all parties who have studied it (including former NASA scientist Richard Hoagland) with its similarity. Veteran investigator Tom King even suggested that the tape was so good that he brought it to the attention of Robert Kiviat Productions, a company that produced a TV special devoted to UFO videos that was shown on FOX network on July 28. The investigators in Phoenix are analyzing the Granoski tape with sophisticated computer equipment at the moment.
A MILITARY EXPLANATION?-
During the last two weeks of May, the Watertown area underwent a series of sightings that centered around the Chaumont Bay area. Under public pressure, the Wheeler-Sacks Airbase at Ft. Drum issues a statement that A-10’s were releasing flares with 2 million candlepower brightness over the range of Ft. Drum from 10:15pm to 3:45am, Tuesday (5/27 through Thursday 5/29) This release of flares was routine, the statement said and were designed to hover and illuminate. Contact with Rich Smith the reporter who covered the event for the Watertown Times newspaper, indicated that this was a “grudgingly” given statement and that in many cases the military description of the flares DID NOT match the eye witness reports that came in. Rich also indicated that he lives about six miles from the base itself and he has a hard time seeing the flares that they supposedly use at night for illumination.
LIGHT GLOBES IN THE ST. LAWRENCE VALLEY-
When (ed. The British National mentioned above) took her video tape to the local radio station in Ogdensburg the host of the morning show got so interested he devoted a whole show to the phenomenon. Many other reports then surfaced about strange light globes and formations of lights that had been seen during the last week of May time period. During the live broadcast of the radio, the station also received a fax from Ft. Drum with the official flare statement in it, is interesting to note this fax showed up unsolicited.
WHAT WE ARE LEFT WITH-
At present the objects in the Granoski / (other witness at the other end of the Lake) videos remain unidentified. The most plausible explanation is the “flare” one, but a few important questions have to be answered before the case can be satisfactorily closed with that explanation. To wit: 1. If they are military flares, what are they doing near Oneida Lake and the lower region of the Tug Hill Plateau are, a MOST uncommon testing ground for anything? Even military said their flare explanation was offered for the St. Lawrence are sightings (and witness reports even contradict THAT right now) and didn’t mention flares down in the southern Tug Hill plateau area. Which is not to rule out this explanation, but until the military is more forthcoming with specific information, nothing more can be determined. 2. A few of the witnesses (most notably Ed Granoski) are familiar with military type flares and have said that what they saw / taped was NOTHING like those types of illumination devices. 3. Further investigation by the Skywatch Phoenix team (Bill Hamilton, Tom King and Jim Dilettoso) into the “flare” explanation for the numerous Phoenix sightings has moved further and further towards ruling OUT the flare hypothesis. One piece of evidence that they offer is a sophisticated analysis by a former munitions company owner who worked for the Defense dept. for years. He was asked to examine the many formations (including the one signature formation whose twin showed up on the Oneida Lake tapes) sighted over Phoenix and determine if it was any incendiary device he had ever produced or asked to work on for the Department of Defense. After much study and due diligence, the man determined the formation could not have been made by anything he produces or was asked to produce over his long term of working under government contract (A personal letter to that effect is posted on the Phoenix Website). While secret illumination devices and flares are not ruled out in the Granoski / (ed. Other end of the lake witness) case, it will now be increasingly hard to prove without some movement from the military, which does look like it will be forthcoming. The other interesting aspect of this case is all the attendant sightings of the “light globes” which seem to move hover and fly in formation, if all witnesses are to be believed. The hovering, sometimes animated light globe phenomenon is one that is familiar to all UFO researchers, as it is a phenomenon that has showed up widely over the years. What is interesting in this case is that the region of all these associated sightings (from Southern Tug Hill Plateau to the St. Lawrence River Valley) seems to be a “window” area for UFO sightings for one reason or another throughout the years. That is, many more reports come out of that area than say urban area, which has led to various speculations over the years.
SPECIFIC LOCATION DETERMINATION-
A preliminary triangulation from the Granoski and (ed. Other end of the lake witness) sightings along with data from a solid third witness place the objects/phenomenon over the Redfield area. Redfield is a tiny village in the lower Tug Hill Plateau region. It is interesting to note that two other significant Upstate sightings over the past 16 months have come from the same region. A couple in Lyons Falls, NY (east of Redfield) reported a very strange and long lasting green fireball and a man in Remson (also to east of Redfield) reported seeing a cigar-like object in the sky earlier in the year.
OTHER EXPLANATIONS-
Some strange kind of atmospheric phenomenon might be responsible for the Granoski/(ed. Other end of the lake witness) sighting, but it would have to be a very exotic one. This has not been ruled out; however even such an exotic explanation would not account for the many lighted globe sightings.
WHAT WAS THE WEATHER LIKE ON THE 28TH AND 29TH OF MAY 1997 IN THE ONEIDA LAKE AREA?
Although it had rained earlier in the week, during the time when other reports reached us this light display, seemingly right over Oneida Lake, and drenched our efforts to observe it for ourselves, the 28th and 29th of May 1997 were very nice days. Clear, unlimited visibility, little or no clouds, no rain, very light breeze, temperatures low 50s on the evening of the 28th and early morning of the 29th, and mid 60s during the evening of the 29th. All in all, great observing weather. And a great time, also for whatever casual agency sponsoring these light shows to have much fun.
WHO ARE THE WITNESSES-
Well we have “true believers” skeptics, people who don’t want their names used and even people who won’t identify themselves on the phone. We have people who would like to sell their stories and pictures. And we have others who want only “the truth” to come out. We have a lot of people on the south shore of Oneida Lake, and even a few further north, toward and around Watertown, and Ogdensburg! There are summer camp owners, year round edge of the lake dwellers, people working the “graveyard shift.” Old people, young people, but all curious as to what was going on, especially on May 28th and 29th 1997. But, first and foremost, we have our best 3 witnesses, and our best evidence located at the east end of Oneida Lake. Because these 3 witnesses, the Granoski family, not only shot a great videotape, but also observed these lights during 10 different time periods and learned a lot about those lights. This report will concentrate on Edward and Melinda Granoski and their son, Chad Granoski. Ed and Mindy are an established 40’s something married couple with a lovely home with a great view to the north across the lake. Ed owns and operates his own business in the Syracuse Area. Chad – a senior in college, majoring in Business Administration and Marketing. The way I will tell this story is by time segments, beginning the night of the 28th of May 1997. These folks are not “UFO skywatchers.” Their normal routine was abruptly interrupted by brilliant yellow lights in the sky that just could not be ignored! UAP’s had intruded on the calm of a premature summer’s eve along the lakeshore.
In all the quoted remarks to follow by Ed and Mindy Granoski, the quotes are combined quotes, with the following explanation. They both gave their testimony together, they both observed under the same conditions with similar good eyesight, and they both offered parts of the quoted narrative which the other then agreed with. Thus, to save repetition, I am using a combination quote device. In the case of Chad Granoski, he was not present at the initial interview, and so he gave separate testimony. He observed with younger, more excellent vision; he used binoculars more often than his parents did. His quotes are shown separate from his parents.
Some of the following is taken from the witness videotape. Anyone viewing that videotape should add 47 minutes to the date stamp shown on the footage – but only for the sequences of the evening of May 28th. By the sequences of the early morning of May 29th, and further, the date stamp had been corrected to show very accurate times.
All the details of the sequence of lights coming on and going off cannot be shown in this limited report, but the following is typical. All times shown are starting times (either date stamp +47 = actual, or date stamp = actual; as explained above). The lights stay on 5 to 5 ½ minutes, and then they go out, many times in a sputtering fashion, generally in the same sequence whence they came on.
LATE EVENING, MAY 28th –
4 sequences of lights;
10:32pm, three lights in a triangle formation with base at bottom;
10:41pm, three lights in a triangle formation with base at the bottom with an additional two lights at 10’oclock position as a visual degree reference, approx. 300 degrees Clockwise from up aligned roughly parallel to the left side of the triangle;
11:01pm, three lights in triangle formation pointing down;
11:31pm, twelve lights, with 2 at left horizontal, 5 spaced to the right of those and also roughly horizontal, and another 5 below in a very rough horizontal arrangement.
1. In family room watching TV
2. Son noticed lights in sky out of rear windows of house
3. Not sure (ed. What did you think it was)
4. Immediate reaction was to get binoculars and video camera to view better because of apparent distance – After viewing for a while we had no idea what these lights were
5. Looked like bright sodium light – lights seemed to drift – cast light reflection on lake approx. 4 miles – only once did we see abrupt movement @ 10:41pm sighting two lights moved towards stationary 3 lights (ed. On other side of sheet these comments added) When camera was out of focus, light appeared to have circular shape with the bottom 1/3 dark or solid During 10:41pm sighting it looked like an object broke off from the 3 stationary lights after the 2 lights abruptly moved towards the 3 lights. During the 10:32pm sighting the triangular light formation turned and faced East
6. Lights seem to fade, then a small pulsate at the end, and then disappeared.
(Ed & Mindy Granoski)
The following details were as noted by principle investigators Dave Bodner and Bob Canino; there was also an independent observer present during parts of the interview. Many details are obtained not only from witnesses, but from viewing both the initial, original 8mm camcorder tape and subsequent copies of the same. (note as in previous and future quotes, every effort will be made to preserve not only the words, but the style as well. So you will see things like CAPS in unusual places; things like that. No attempt, however, will be made insert “SICs” in all those places. Misspellings will be corrected when appropriate, and missing sentence periods will be added.”
1. “Walking down hallway, peered out and saw lights
2. (ed. What caught your attention) Brightness / Color / Lack of Movement
3. (ed. What did you think it was when first noticed?) Airplane
4. (ed. Immediate reactions) Immediately to tell parents. After seeing I felt nervous because I was unsure of what had happened.
5. Lights appear to be orange in color, casting light off the lake. Very bright in the night sky
6. Lights after a period of time would slowly fade away. Most of the time in the order they appeared”
(Chad Granoski)
(ed. Ed Granoski has a degree in Electrical Engineering and was in the Naval Intelligence in Vietnam, claims to have 20/20 vision and does not wear glasses, and was before and after these sightings in excellent health. Mindy Granoski has a clerical background, farsighted and wears nonprescription magnifiers for reading and was before and after sightings in excellent health; Chad Granoski was a college student at the time of these sightings, claims 20/20 vision, and was before and after these sightings in excellent health)
These sightings were made outside, using binoculars and a camcorder. The area is rural near Oneida Lake. The sky conditions were clear with no precipitation. The UAP was seen in the northern sky at approximately 3-5 degrees elevation, depending on the exact formation reported on over the 2 days. There was generally very minor movement involved. Because of the reflections of the light in the water, the witnesses estimate the lights to be a minimum of 4 miles (other side of the lake) from them. Later triangulation with another witness location would show that at least one of the formations (the 12 lights above) were approx. 26 miles from the Granoskis, due North True (see end of this report). If any of these environmental details are different for the other formations reported below, the exceptions will be so noted then. Otherwise, they are the same.
There were no sounds associated with these lights, although there were a few regular type airplanes going their regular things during these 2 days. At times, there were small while lights in addition to the very intense orange lights; the inference of dispensing aircraft cannot be ignored.
Specifically, during this first set of 4 formations on the evening of May 28th, the orange lights appeared about 5 times bigger than a star, drifted a little, and were about 10 times brighter than a 200 watt sodium vapor light would be (and was) on the far side of the lake. The lights changed direction a little, tended to hover, descend, ascend, flutter like a leaf (once), appeared to eject something (once), cast reflection on the water. They also appeared to spin in the electronic viewfinder when the camcorder was out of focus. That could infer a spinning object, or it could infer uneven burning, or it might be an entirely unknown mechanism.
Other details about this first group of sightings on the evening of May 28th are as follows. These 3 witnesses were grouped together, generally agree about the details, thought the objects were higher than 500 feet elevation and quite a bit further away than a mile. They described the shape as star like, glowing, and with no apparent structure. Prominent colors were orange, yellow/orange, and with no associated sound. In the following reports below, any significant differences from these observations will be noted; otherwise these comments won’t be repeated.
Witness went to bed after last formation faded. One of the above formations will lend itself to triangulations; details later.
THE MAY 29TH EARLY MORNING FORMATIONS-
1. Four lights in a horizontal row at 3:03am
2. Four lights in a row, approx. declinated at about 30 degrees to the right at 3:13am
3. Eight lights, starting higher at left, in approx. shallow convex arrangement at 3:23am
4. Three lights in a horizontal row at 3:33am
All the above following the 5 to 5 ½ minute from appearance to going out rule.
WITNESS DIRECT QUOTES-
1. Woke up at 3:00am from sleeping from 1:00am
2. We were looking for them from the previous night sighting
3. (ed. What did you think the lights were initially?) Same as lights on May 28th sighting
4. (ed. Reactions, during after the event) Continue to video same as before
5. Looked like bright sodium light-cast light reflection on lake approx. 4miles –lights on 3:23 am lit right to left in sequence
6. (events ended how?) Lights seem to fade, then a small pulse at the end, and disappeared
(Ed and Melinda Granoski)
“witness seen driving boat on video went approx. ¾ mile from south shore towards lights.”
(Ed and Melinda Granoski)
1. (ed. How did you notice the lights?) I had just awoke from a sleep. [Father woke me]
2. My parents pointed them out to me
3. (ed. What did you think lights were initially?) NOT sure now.
4. (ed. Reactions, during and after?) Excited and nervous
5. (ed. Describe lights and its actions?) Appeared slowly 1 by 1 until 8 SHONE THEN slowly disappeared just like last sighting
6. (ed. Event ended how?) Slowly disappeared 1 by 1
(Chad Granoski)
Differences from sightings of previous evening:
- Binoculars used very little or none
-Viewed through open window without screen
-Mostly hovered rather than any position changes. No ejecta or trail
AND NOW, THE EVENING OF MAY 29TH-
1. (ed. How did event start) Casually looking outside for previous night lights while watching TV.
2. The bright lights appeared
3. (ed. What did you initially think they were?) Same lights as object appeared on May 28, 1997
4. (ed. Reactions/actions?) to video and view as before sightings
5. Looked like bright sodium light – cast light reflections on lake approx. 4 miles
6. (ed. Event ended how?) lights seemed to fade, then a small pulse at the end, and disappear
(Ed and Melinda Granoski)
1. (ed. How did event start) Watching TV, checking every so often to see if they came back.
2. (ed. What did you initially notice?) THE BRIGHT LIGHTS
3. (ed. What did you initially think they were?) not sure, just same as other night
4. (ed. Reactions/actions?) Watched through binoculars, objects this night did not raise as high into the sky as night before, you could see them just above the tree line and then they would go behind the hills/trees
5. (ed. Actions of lights?) Would light up and the disappear after some time
6. (ed. Event ended how?) Slowly fade away
(Chad Granoski)
THE FOLLOWING IS A SHORT ANALYSIS OF THE ABOVE CASE-
Of the more than 30 witnesses who were interviewed in person and by phone, only 3 thought the bright lights were white. All the others said yellow, sodium, yellow/orange, amber or similar. This could be assumed to be some degree of subjective observation or color blindness on the part of the three – if it were not for the fact that 2 of those 3 were married couple. Did they both have the same subjective skew, or did they both have the same type color blindness, or one witness one problem and the other witness the other problem? More likely, one was trying to please the other spouse. In any event, the working assumption is that these lights were, indeed, “yellowish.” They appeared bright white whilst in focus on the videotape (overdriven camera saturating to whiteout?). When out of focus, and thus within the normal design range of the pickup electronics, they do show up as “yellowish”. Also the water reflections (again, well within the saturation limit) show a “yellowish” rendition. THESE BRIGHT LIGHTS WERE YELLOW, to put it plainly.
Another witness, filming from the other end of Oneida Lake, at the same time, within seconds, of the 2+5+5 formation of May 28th, also got white oversaturation results on his tape. His camcorder held focus, and therefore we have no presaturation confirmation of yellow. However, both his sightings azimuth from true north, as well as the Granoskis, was determined by this reporter by having the witnesses point out significant landmarks below where the lights were. TRIANGULATION using these two locations on this same formation yielded a distance of about 26 miles at an elevation of about 8000 feet about lake level. THESE LIGHTS WERE ROUGHLY OVER REDFIELD. Those interested can check the difference in elevation between Oneida Lake and Redfield on a topo map to determine the lights altitude above Redfield.
We had one witness from Redfield who told of close up lights of the same variety. And then, the next day he saw helicopters in the area picking something up. We have not been able to re interview him or to confirm this.
Within minutes of the 2 tapes shot at Oneida Lake, another unrelated 2 witnesses were videotaping a similar close up 2+5+5 formation from Ogdensburg. Although it appeared to be a mirror image of our bright lights, and would infer a rear view of our lights, we don’t think they are the same ones because of the extreme distance involved, and also because we have been unable to get a sighting direction from these witnesses at this time. We will keep trying. The azimuth would have to be perfect (and approx. South) to have a triple point/small sizetriangle overlap of reasonable size.
Another witness pointed out where he saw a string of bright lights early in the morning that week at one of the same clock times as the Granoskis. Triangulating would fix the location of this other formation only a few miles north and slightly west of the Granoskis just inland from the north shore of Oneida Lake. Unfortunately, this other witness cannot say for sure what DAY it was. Therefore, we can’t use it!
Nearly all witnesses thought initially these were not flares and several have had extensive experience with flares. Sine this report was first done last year, most of those witnesses have changed their minds and more of less accept the flare theory, however unlikely, as the most simple and reasonable explanation for these lights.
Initial reports of these lights on the internet contain several small errors, and one LARGE one. That is the witnesses at first thought the elevation about 30 degrees. All changed their estimates when a review of the ½ degree linear aspect of a full moon was reviewed with them. Then, the typical estimate was 6 to 8 to 10 full moons from local horizon up to the lights position. Three or 4 or 5 degrees follow directly from that.
Summaries of this case also appear on other websites. Many of the details which would lend credence to the flare theory do not appear in those summaries. My estimate is that I’ve included all relevant details about and perhaps as much as 90+% of all details really. It’s difficult boiling down a 33 page report into a readable text report for this medium. Questions are welcome and I perhaps can flesh out any other details I have and may have left out.
The original report was submitted to a formal organization that studies such things. Although it is possible they might publish it someday, it appears that you’ll get the full story here much sooner – RIGHT NOW ACTUALLY.
HOW DOES SCIENCE INTERACT WITH THE ABOVE DATE?-
Repeatability & Predictability:
Well, were hoping for a reply in late May of 1998. We’ll see. Also the Granoskis were able after the first evening of sightings to predict accurately they turn off sequence based on the turn on sequence. Also they were able to predict each lights life expectancy. These things can be heard on the videotape as the show goes on during the later events on May 29th. SCIENCE ON THEIR PART.
Which of the main theories, mysterious interactions from afar OR flares, has the inherent vulnerability of being proven wrong. It’s pretty easy to see the flares are real world things that we can argue about and possibly shoot down. Mysterious interactions are not at all vulnerable, and must therefore be quite suspect from science’s perspective. SCIENCE TILTS SOMEWHAT TOWARDS FLARES.
We prioritize towards proving or disproving things we can, real world things, like flares. We can do science on flares. Mysterious things from afar offer little to chew on.
Peer review starts HERE apparently, rather than in the enlightened circles holding up the publication of this data. That’s too bad; this is an important case, on a par with the Phoenix, AZ lights of the same time period. The cases supplement and complement each other. Science would benefit from the gullest sharing of the data, as is after all the intent of THIS posting.
We did QUANTIFICATION on distances and altitudes. And spacing’s will follow, if interest is there. No quantification was possible on the mysterious objects from afar theory. Quantification on the overall flare theory is also lacking at this time, but not beyond the pale.
Which theory has a good chance of following out of established science? Well no one who’s talking knows of such flares being in existence, but their technical design could easily follow from established technologies. After all, a metalized parachute, with or without motive power could explain the typical hovering, with the air warmed by flares burning providing pre calculated lift. At several miles, especially the demonstrated 26 mile event, some descent might not be noticed. Do mysterious things from afar follow from established science? Maybe, maybe not. Could other things besides science account for things from afar? Sure, anything is possible, but science per se probably wouldn’t apply. AGAIN, SCIENCE TILTS TOWARDS A “THIS WORLDY “EXPLANATION. IN OTHER WORDS, MAYBE FLARES!
Is there physical evidence? We couldn’t find any last year, but this year with our cadre of lake watchers, we might get right under the flight path and catch stuff at it falls!
Common sense tells us that all these people saw something funny and that they’re not lying. The videos help there too of course. Science must be guided by common sense, sometimes, but not overpowered by it. Science will continue to wait and see this angle.
Ockham’s Razor is plenty sharp enough to see that the simplest explanation here is FLARES.
UPDATE OF SEPT. 1998-
Additional information indicates that a more intensive determination of the exact azimuth angle from the Granoskis to the 12 light formation would be useful. Because there were so many sightings over the 2 day period, an average azimuth of TRUE NORTH was used. It appeared that the accuracy would be approx. +-2 degrees for any one formation. This was an error on my part and should be corrected, mainly because even a couple degrees may help establish whether the formation seen from Ogdensburg could have been the same one. New information about data concerned with the Phoenix AZ. Lights of a few months before that now lends credence to the idea that both the color and drop time may agree with a far greater distance to the lights than we originally thought possible.
