UFO UpDates Mailing List
For other Cohen/Devereux discussions
From: DevereuxP@aol.com Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 19:33:30 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Sat, 15 Mar 1997 10:42:56 -0500 Subject: Re: EL/TST >Date: Sun, 09 Mar 1997 12:02:41 -0500 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <email@example.com> >From: "Steven J. Powell" <firstname.lastname@example.org> >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.) 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. 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: 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. 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. 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!) Don't say we aren't trying to bring the evidence to y'all. >>With regard to 'energy' dowsing, I have for 15 or more years >>been the chief critic of such claims in the UK - ...and I have >>been hated, abused, and otherwise reviled by New Agecircles >>and dowsing groups because of my emphatic opposition to their >>nonsense. (jc: Paul's words from another exchange) > Do you feel the same about 'water' dowsing? Our research indicated that there was some evidence for successful water/object dowsing in a small number of cases. As I mentioned to Chris Rutowski in private email, for example, in repeated tests, we had one old guy - 72-year-old - who had never heard of dowsing and who had never even held a dowsing rod, who could distinguish plain water targets from those containing sugar and salt in double blind tests with 100 percent accuracy. Then Randi - would you believe? - further confirmed to me that there was *something* in it all. He ran a TV show in the UK. He had 5 dowsers, and for half an hour he ran them through some pretty sophisticated tests. Four of them failed every one. Useless. But one guy passed every one. He had 100 percent success with everything Randi could throw at him. This made life difficult for Randi who was, of course, out to prove that dowsing was false. So in his summing up, he only referred to the four who had bungled the tests. It was as if the successful man had never existed. There has also been successful building foundation dowsing on archaeological digs in Britin, all confirmed by excavation, and some of the biggest names in UK archaeology have come out in support of its effectiveness -- but, again, only a few doswers can actually achieve this level of success. What I am agin are the bozos who claim to dowse 'leylines', 'energy lines', 'planetary grids' etc. That is total bunkum and I have spent years studying it to ensure I know what I am talking about. BUT - I didn't come on this list to discuss dowsing, fascinating (or not)though it might be in its own right. It was a red herring introduced by Chris Rutowski, and there is no place for it here. >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. 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! >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? 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. 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. 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. The sounds of engines etc, are all give-aways in my opinion. 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. The Belgian triangle *was* something, a craft, but was it alien? I doubt it, frankly. The Cash-Lundrum 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. 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)and can also take on the appearance of "dull aluminium". 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. They would also fit in with the new 'vorton' hypothesis being advanced by Fryberger at Stanford. 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'. Ther behaviour of the objects, following planes, could also have been an attractive reaction - if these things are magnetic/electricin their make-up. (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. But this gets us into exotic areas against which the ETH pales, and I don't want to get into it here at this time - I have written about this matter elsewhere, in any case.) Nor are the speeds clocked up in this case anything out of bounds for EL - especially now we know vast light phenomena such as 'sprites' can reach a fifth the speed of light! So, in short, we really do not know what EL has to explain. 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 - 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. 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. But we know that, by and large, that's not what 'ufology' - especially in America - is about, don't we? All best, Paul For other Cohen/Devereux discussions
Click here 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.