Few events in UFO history are as complex and mysterious as the “Phoenix lights.”

On March 13, 1997, a huge V-shape craft was witnessed by hundreds of people including Arizona’s governor, Fife Symington, who years later would give a detailed description of what he saw. A military veteran and pilot himself, he observed a very large, low-altitude craft gliding silently over Squaw Peak.  Many others reported the same thing.

Although this mass sighting was spectacular, it was by no means unique. The Phoenix lights fits into a pattern of similar UFO sightings over several decades that have a curious commonality: virtually all such flaps involving numerous, credible witnesses have taken place either in the United States or in countries that are U.S. allies.

The string of mass sightings begins with the 1980 Rendlesham Forest encounter at two RAF bases leased by the U.S. Air Force; then comes a series of sightings, beginning in 1982, of a boomerang shaped craft in New York’s Hudson River valley; then dramatic sightings in Belgium from 1989-1990 of triangular craft; followed by the Phoenix lights; then, three years later, bizarre low-altitude sightings of a similar craft in Illinois that was witnessed by police in five jurisdictions; and, lastly, the weird 2006 sighting of a disc-shaped craft hovering over Gate C-17 at O’Hare International Airport in Chicago, witnessed by a dozen airport employees and pilots.

Over the past 35 years or so, there have been virtually no such flaps in, say, China, or Russia. Considering the huge chunk of geography these countries encompass, this would seem to be more than a chance statistical anomaly. At the same time, this agreement in venue supports the idea that these sightings stem from the testing of an advanced U.S. surveillance platform based on a new type of propulsion technology.

It would be impossible to test such a platform in traditional war games involving perhaps hundreds or thousands of personnel without acknowledging its existence. Yet, paradoxically, it would be vitally important to quantify its performance in realistic settings. So the only alternative would be to surreptitiously study its effectiveness in the airspace over cities, military installations and the countryside, a procedure sure to yield a bounty of data indicating how well these vehicles might perform over hostile territory. The radar data alone would provide a wealth of strategic information. But then you also have the accounts of witnesses, revealing, for example, how long the craft were able to loiter over a given area before being detected. If there is any military response, such as deployment of fighter aircraft, then you have data showing the results of these interactions. And, finally, you also have anecdotal information indicating effects on the psyche: how people reacted to the sighting. Were they in awe, were they fearful? Information of value for psychological operations.

This M.O. has been in evidence since flying saucers flew over Washington, D.C., in 1952, prompting the largest press conference since World War II.

While this sort of covert yet overt testing would be risky, it would be far riskier in potentially hostile airspace, where losing such an advanced piece of hardware would be catastrophic.

It’s also worth mentioning that defense officials have recently dropped hints of secret space weapons that could be brought to bear against ISIS.

Gen. David Goldfein, the Air Force chief of staff, has vaguely referenced these weapons when suggesting new “options” for President Trump. And, according to an article in USA Today, former Defense Secretary Ash Carter last year “urged the military space community to ‘join the fight’ against the Islamic State, though he declined to describe how.”

Huh? The “military space community” … ? Is this an independent entity that operates under its own authority?

Ash, please explain … you can’t just leave this sort of thing hanging. Drop me a line at e.venere@comcast.net.