UFO UpDates Mailing List
For other Cohen/Devereux discussions
Click here From: "Jerry Cohen" <email@example.com> Web Site: CohenUFO.org Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 09:00:06 -0500 Fwd Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 16:42:53 -0500 Subject: Re: EL/TST >From: DevereuxP@aol.com >Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 19:33:30 -0500 (EST) >To: UPDATES@globalserve.net >Subject: Earth Lights/TST Debate >>Date: Sun, 09 Mar 1997 12:02:41 -0500 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <firstname.lastname@example.org> >>From: "Steven J. Powell" <email@example.com> >>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Devereux-Rutkowski: EL/TST Debate >On March 9, John wrote: >>Can they [earth lights] be picked up on airport radar? Wouldn't >>radar tapes from airports near seismically active areas be an >>excellent data source? >A very good question, and this point hasn't been lost on earth >lights researchers. During the 1980s' Hessdalen wave of light >phenomena, there were cases of visually observed lights yielding >radar echoes. (However, sometimes, even when the same light was >being witnessed, no radar echoes could be received from it for >a time! It is this "on-off"/"here-gone-here" characteristic, also >noticed in other ways with earth lights, that first led to the >suspicion that we are dealing with a macro-quantal phenomenon.) JC: Paul, I'm sure I've missed something here. Did you say you have proof that particular light that was "on-off"/"here-gone-here" was an "earth light." Could you possibly point the members of this list directly to this information? Is it on the NET. I am interested in seeing this. > Also,I have spoken at length with air traffic controllers at the main >airport in Mexico City, who are equipped with advanced radar >equipment,who told me they received a radar echo from a spherical >green light moving close to an airliner on approach, and which was >being observed by the plane's pilots and ground staff. So it would >seem,from what little chance we've had to check the matter, that >earth lights can be picked up by radar - at least some of the time. JC: I don't quite understand. If you had "little chance ....snip.... to check the matter," how could you have determined that this green light was an "earth light"? >It would be nice indeed to use radar tapes - if one can get them! >A couple of years ago, while studying the "Marfa lights" in the >Big Bend country of Texas, we noted a radar blimp tethered at >15,000 feet not far from Marfa. We found that this was for monitoring >illegal traffic across the Mexico-Texas border, and that the radar >covered a very wide area and could distinguish targets down to >a metre across at ground level. This would have been ideal for >our purposes - it covered the Marfa area and beyond, and we could >have checked tapes generally and specifically during periods where >lights were being specially reported. Alas, a formal approach >was ignored: JC: So then, in this case, you are reporting a "failed-study?" >what we wanted was essentially a record of screen >litter material that would not have been of specific interest >to the authorities. Not forthcoming, though. JC: When you get it, I for one would be happy to see it. I'm sure others would as well. >Anyhow, radar is being included in the equipment arrays now being >worked on for the automatic monitoring of the Hessdalen valley. >When the valley is fully 'wired' (a huge job) we will have the >chance to obtain the ultimate in instrumental data. JC: This sounds fascinating and excellent. >Moreover, >you, and anyone on this list and beyond, will have the opportunity >to monitor Hessdalen on the Net in real time! (I can't wait for >ETH-besotted ufologists to get their first glimpse of an earth >light in the comfort of their own homes!) JC: Again, many of us have never said there are no such things as earth lights but, the person(s) studying them has to 1) prove they are "earth lights" and not something else. We are certainly not totally closed-minded to this possibility, but there has to be some concrete definitive proof we can all accept. 2) remember that, as I stated in my post to you which you have not answered, "many ufologists already mentally put these 'nocturnal light' cases in a lesser category, in view of the fact that out of the multitude of cases in existence, they are _lesser detailed cases_, and by definition, concern amorphous, rather than, 'visibly-structured' objects. Therefore, although your work is certainly highly interesting and will probably help us become aware of certain natural phenomena that exist on and within our planet, its applications to UFO sightings per se are necessarily limited." However, we are most happy to receive the input, even on that limited basis. ....snip.... >>Is it possible to guess at the type/kind of data this person >>[at>the Edinburgh Seismic Unit] is referring to? >From the nature of our conversation it would have been the production >of light phenomena in relation to tectonic activity. There is >in any case no doubt at all about this connection. As an absolutely >remarkable example, our TV film on earth lights shown in the UK >on November 3 (and here in N America on 17 and 22 March on Discovery >Channel) was followed by 7 days of widely reported light phenomena >over Cornwall and South Wales prior to an earthquake. JC: Interesting. >As I have >written elsewhere, I and other witnesses saw large golden orbs >break out of cloud cover close to the epicentre location two years >previously. It looked like a scene from some special effects movie! JC: And did you capture this on film for others to view? >>That leaves the better cases such as Westchester/Long Island, >>Cash-Landrum, Bentwaters, Belgium, Gulf Breeze, etc. >Yes, but it isn't a long list, is it? JC: As a matter of fact, it's a fairly decent list. And let us not forget, you only need _one_ to be the "real thing" and to open up a "Pandora's box." >Further, we have to ask ourselves what the true nature of those
>'better' cases really is, and what exactly the EL approach has to
>answer in reality. JC: In order to begin to do that you have to respond to my previous post, which you have not. In case you misplaced it, it is archived at http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1997/mar/m09-012.shtml >The Westchester case was, as certainly as one can say, due to >microlite funsters - a close reading of 'Night Siege' leaves very >little other option. JC: Hmmn. So I assume you've done an in-depth analysis. Have you written this somewhere where we can see it? >The ideas/impressions of large 'craft' came >from people 'reading into' the movement of multiple lights (a >common problem). Expectation has a powerful effect on visual perception. JC: Ah, yes it does, and on mental perception as well. However, it's a sword with a double edged blade. It can work from the skeptic's side as well, especially on those people who think to themselves; "It can't be, therefore it isn't" >The sounds of engines etc, are all give-aways in my opinion. JC: Sounds of engines? I assume you mean the Westchester case. Not everyone heard these sounds. I believe some swore there was absolutely no sound at all accompanying what they saw. >Gulf Breeze - that is still on the table in some quarters, then?
>(One despairs.) It isn't on mine. In the kindest analysis, the only >things that could possible be authentic in that situation are >lights out over the sea. JC: So, all the rest is either "hoaxed" or "misidentified;" daytime videos, triangulated videos and stereoscopic pictures? >The Belgian triangle *was* something, >a craft, but was it alien? I doubt it, frankly. JC: Yep! I guess those NATO boys are really incompetent. I don't know how on earth we defend ourselves. Calibrate their radar screens for approximately 55 minutes to eliminate prosaic malfunctions, scramble F-16s who chase whatever it was for approximately 75 minutes, get gun camera film on same which shows the object diving at a rate that would kill a normal pilot, have the head military brass, after analyzing the data say they felt the object(s) was "intelligently directed." Those darned fault lines are all over the place. (jc: URL added 2/11/2008) >The Cash-Landrum case was certainly an authentic event in my >opinion,too,I quite agree, and I just do not know what it was the > witnesses encountered. JC: That says it all right there. Either do we. >Landrum was sure it was a secret military >device,remember, and that remains as likely an explanation as any. >It *could* have been an alien craft, but, quite honestly, it could >just as easily have been an earth light - such exotic plasmas >as EL can certainly appear as "a diamond of fire" (precisely the >appearance of a light seen during the 1905 Barmouth outbreak) JC: And you've proven conclusively that light was an "earthlight?" May we see that proof? Again, we'd be quite interested and impressed. AUGUST 5, 1981 National Enquirer: "It's lighting up the whole sky, a long way up, and traveling fast," "Sometimes we can't see it, the trees are in the way." The object suddenly appeared in front of them and hovered over the road. "The massive, blue and diamond-shaped object was at treetop level, about 100 feet away, with huge red flames shooting from its bottom to the road below." "It's bigger than a water tower. And it's making a sound like beeping. Long beeps ...beep, beep, beep." "Long red flames are coming out of the bottom, like a rocket!" "For fifteen minutes the brilliant object hovered in front of them, huge flames spewing from the bottom end continuously. Sometimes the terrified trio heard a loud rushing sound like air brakes on a truck, as more flames shot toward the road." and >can also take on the appearance of "dull aluminium". JC: ??? To which case were you referring? Obviously, Cash & Landrum can't tell an "earthlight" from a UFO or a diamond from a sphere. It's those darn hallucinations. They get you every time. Did I hear you say there were fault lines in the vicinity? And the beeps? Earthlights beep too, right? I'm sure you've recorded this somewhere. And I must have forgotten that gravity pushes plasmas into a "diamond shape." Maybe it's my rotten human perception that does this. I'll have to go back and check this out. >Moreover, >the physical effects the witnesses suffered are entirely in keeping >with the sort of clinical reactions to energy fields surrounding >a light phenomenon as assessed by - dare I mention his name on >this list? - Persinger. JC: Feel free. We've properly expressed our feelings regarding his methods with the media. The ball is in his court. >They would also fit in with the new 'vorton' >hypothesis being advanced by Fryberger at Stanford.
(jc 12/11/2008: PDF Link added after I found it on the WWW. You need a specialized
science background for this one. I'd like to hear what people have to say about it.) JC: Hmmn. I haven't heard the "vorton" one. Is it possible for one
to see this posted somewhere as well? >My reactions to the Bentwaters case are similar. Something bloody >odd almost certainly happened there. The objects could have been >alien craft. But, again, they could have been exotic phenomena. >We know (above) that EL can yield radar returns, so no problem >there. At least one of the visuals was of a 'fuzzy light'. The
>behaviour of the objects, following planes, could also have been >an attractive reaction - if these things are magnetic/electricin >in their make-up. (jc 12/11/2008: That doesn't explain the Rendelsham/Bentwaters *craft*
described by Colonel Charles I Halt (Deputy Base Commander)USAF, ret.
and James Penniston, (Base Senior Security Officer), USAF, ret. at a
Washington Press Club conference 11/12/2007. They indicated a craft
with three legs, multiple lights, symbols on one side and which, after
forty five minutes, left with "impossible" speed. - pdf viewer
necessary for URL) JC: Must be just like the Belgium case where it got _repelled_ from the front part of the plane that was diving trying to catch it after it got computerized radar lock-on. The same plane that got the gun camera data? Very interesting. I'd like to see that demonstrated in a lab. Perhaps a member of your group could perform this experiment for us? (above URL added
12/11/2008) >(I also have my personal suspicions about pseudo-intelligent interactivity
>on the parts of these phenomena, as have most investigators who have actually
>witnessed them, as I have. JC: Witnessed what, amorphous lights? Too bad you weren't at my house November 4th, 1967. I can guarantee you'd be singing a different tune. ....snip.... >So, in short, we really do not know what EL has to explain. JC: You said it, not me. >My guess is that we do not know our planet and its energy dynamics >as well as we think we do, and it may be premature and even unnecessary >to postulate extra-terrestrial explanations (and despite the hoo-ha, >the ETH is no more than a postulation JC: You obviously haven't read my Oberg/Cooper series yet. >- it is so easy to forget that fact). But, of course, there is no >reason why ET craft and EL cannot co-inhabit Earth's atmosphere. JC: A large number of us would agree with you. The real trouble here is, you really don't believe they can. >If ufology was *really* >an 'ology', *all* ufologists would be supportive of EL research >as it would at least help sort wheat from chaff, as well as tell >us more about the planet we live on. JC: You mean like *all* scientists such as yourself are well informed regarding all the major research regarding UFOs? I didn't realize that. By the way, do you happen to know the total percentages of nocturnal lights and total percentages of daylight disks that were discovered in the Air Force's "Project Blue Book study" after analysis? (The staff at Blue Book collected UFO cases over a twenty year period. It's civilian astronomical consultant performed the analysis.) (jc 12/11/2008: URL added today) >But we know that, by and large, that's not what 'ufology' - especially in >America - is about, don't we? JC: Ah, yes, here we go again....the highly scientific approach of bashing " 'ufology' ....in America." Paul, you sound a little like the person who wrote; "FLYING-SAUCEROLOGY: Europe vs the USA." ONE QUOTE FROM MY REBUTTAL TO SAME: "Present your research on a *specific* case or topic; tear it to shreds, pull the guts out of it, dissect it, bisect it, trisect it but, for God's sake, ....snip.... USA bashing. If you don't agree with U.S. studies, so be it....ignore us. If you don't agree with the "abduction cases website" located at http://www.spacelab.net/~jvif/bhhp.html , ignore them. If you don't agree with "implant analyses" located at http://www.accessnv.com/nids/
and http://www.anw.com/first/ , ignore those. If you don't agree with "cattle
mutilation theories," please stop reading Linda Moulton Howe's books. If you
don't agree with Jack Kasher's analysis of NASA's ST 48, because you assume
it to be impossible, be my guest. If you don't agree with the
Pine Bush/Hudson Valley Website , Dr. Bruce Cornet , ignore that too. If you
think there are only a few UFO sightings which have occurred this year, please
don't look up the National UFO Reporting Center at: http://www.nwlink.com/~ufocntr
or the sightings in Colorado: http://www.netzone.com/~gilgash/ufoovni.htm. However,
I am quite sure there will be others out there reading this that may take a look
at some of these things for themselves and perhaps view them a bit more open-mindedly." Sincerely, Jerry E-mail: "Jerry Cohen" <firstname.lastname@example.org> P.S. By the way, still waiting for your explanations on "SKYTHING 1960" and Exeter. For other Cohen/Devereux discussions
Page from the website of: CohenUFO.org
UFO UpDates - Toronto - email@example.com
Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp - ++ 416-696-0304
A Hand-Operated E-Mail Subscription Service for the Study of UFO Related
To subscribe please send your first and last name to firstname.lastname@example.org
Message submissions should be sent to the same address.
Link it to the appropriate Ufologist or UFO Topic page.
Archived as a public service by Area 51 Research Center which is
not responsible for content. Financial support for this web server is provided by the Research Center Catalog.
Software by Glenn Campbell. Technical contact: email@example.com
Financial support for this web server is provided by the Research Center Catalog.