Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here UFOs | Paranormal | Area 51 People | Places | Random Top 100 | What's New Catalog | New Books Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Our Bookstore is OPEN Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1997 -> Feb -> Here

From: "Steven J. Powell" <sjpowell@access.digex.net>
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1997 13:00:38 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1997 20:09:46 -0500
Subject: Re: 'Electrically Induced Hallucinations'

>From: Chris Rutkowski <rutkows@cc.UManitoba.CA>
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: 'Electrically Induced Hallucinations'
>To: updates@globalserve.net (UFO UpDates - Toronto)
>Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 17:19:35 -0600 (CST)

>> Uh-oh. 400 miles away is probably _way_ too distant, but I'd allow up
>> to a 100 miles, maybe 200 miles.

>You're more generous that I am; when I presented the TST to the rest of
>the geophysics department, they were amazed that Persinger was getting
>away with saying such things. And, BTW, I showed the TST to Persinger's
>own thesis advisor, who agreed that the TST was way off base.

On a clear day you can see forever <grin>.  I don't what a good distance
limitation is.  I don't know if (or how) 'earthlights' travel, how fast,
how wacky their transit is, etc.  Heck, _maybe_ 10 miles is correct, I just
don't know.

>> I'm astounded that the time window is 6 months either way!  More like 6
>> _HOURS_ surrounding the total event.  Are we talking about a series of
>> seismic events spread out over time, or clearly isolated-in-time seismic
>> events?

>Steve, first of all, if you didn't know what Persinger was claiming,
>why were you defending him? :)

I wasn't exactly defending him <grin>.  I'm very interested in the
coincidences involving magnetic fields and their affect on humans in
general.

>Yes, his "lag" and "lead" time was clearly stated as 6 months. He would
>accept as correlated data a magnitude 3 seismic event 6 months before
>a nocturnal light observation several hundred miles away.

Does he provide a basis for that time window?  What's the reasoning?  It
kind of seems to me that any geologically active area would have an event
or two per year, and it kind of seems to me that every 700 or so miles
you'll find a geologically active are, so it would be the same as saying
everything is TST without the requirement to prove it...

Wouldn't a detailed definition of an 'earthlight' be required _before_ you
could reliably select a time window and geographic area?  I mean, if we
knew what they were exactly and knew (for example) that they have a
duration of 2 hours maximum and a possible speed of 100mph maximum then
doesn't _that_ automatically create the necessary parameters?

>> Do you know where I can get the raw data?

>Oh, yes, that minor little point. He never presented the raw data, only
>the graphs.

What!?!?  _No_ data???  Has anybody aske him for it?

>There's one exception, of course, and that was when he "proved" that
>UFOs in Manitoba were correlated with weak seismic events in southern
>Minnesota, >700 km away. In that study, he used my own MANUFOCAT for
>the UFO data (in others, he admitted using newspaper clippings!). Since
>I know the demographics of the MANUFOCAT data, it was easy to see how
>silly his correlations were. And if that was typical of his methodology

Hold it a second.  You're saying he used newspaper clippings for the "raw
data???"

>> If you reduce the observation distance to 200 miles and the time window to
>> 24 hours what sort of correlation do you get?
>In Manitoba, that would be zilch. Elsewhere, who knows? In California,
>probably pretty good! :)

Hahahha!!!

Well, should we expect geologic activity to be similar worldwide?  Should
we then expect 'earthlights' to be similar worldwide?   (Isn't a siesmic 3
in China the same as a seismic 3 in Brazil?)

>> Majority, sure, but I don't know about vast majority.  I do know that many
>> (virtually all) of these cases are investigated post-event.  Its
>> convenient, perhaps accurate, to attribute a star (and the cute trick the
>> mind plays when staring at a stationary object far away) to the sighted
>> object.  But how do we know that's really the right answer?
>> Fireballs, balls of light, ball lightning all play into this also.

>Well, that's a very good question, and one aspect of ufology which
>really deserves study.

>The simple answer is that post-hoc studies are usually never done
>because once something *seems* like it was a star, satellite or
>airplane, there's no need to proceed further. However, your objection
>to this approach is a basic, philosophical issue, and one that needs to
>be addressed in detail.

>In other words, just because the "UFO" is stationary for 4 hours,
>twinkles like a star and sinks slowly into the west, does that mean
>it's a star? There is no question that aliens, wishing to disguise
>their activities could decide to masquerade as a star, but is that more
>likely than the possibility than the witness was really looking at a
>star?

>I think I know which choice I'sd make, based on my investigation
>experience. I know how poor are the observing capabilities of most
>people, so my own view is that if it smells, tastes and looks like
>****, it probably is ****.

Sure, with those parameters I'd go with 'Star' too.  But there a cases
where the witness says it moves oddly, etc.  If a witness says he was
facing exactly East at 7:00pm in Chicago and saw a bright light sort of
stationary but wobling slowly for 3 hours then zip off northwest what do ya
do?

>These questions make one thing very clear: investigative ufology is one
>field which has been ignored long enough. It's at the core of all
>ufological research and theories, and we need to take a long look at the
>basics again (if ufologists ever did at all).

I think long before our present time folks did work hard on that, nowadays
they just seem to want to include anything a witness says.

>> Well, it was you good folks up North who first (so far as I know) decided
>> to back-burner any single-witness short-duration sighting by default (as

>Not me, baby!

Hahahah!!

>> On the other hand I'm generally skeptical of explanations that merely sound
>> good.  How do we know a sighting was a misidentfication of an airplane or a
>> star?  I've read sighting reports that conclude airplane misidentification
>> simply because an airport was less than 50 miles from the event site, yet
>> the witness cited they _also_ saw an airplane elsewhere in the sky.

>I'd answer: 1) experience; and 2) probability. Also, see above.
>Witnesses' observational capabilities are *terrible* in most cases.

Terrible!?  Geez, I've been thinking that for years and everytime I mention
it I get mugged <grin>.

I personally think its another good reason to side-step the single-witness
cases...

>I'd be willing to develop a paper on investigative ufology and present
>it at some upcoming UFO conference. Of course, it wouldn't be as big a
>draw as Linda Howe or Colin Andrews, so I won't be looking for my plane
>tickets in the mail just yet. :)

Too bad for that, it would probably be _much_ more useful and important
than the alternatives mentioned!

>> >;)  Must be the NSA stooges in our midst!

>> I only live 20 minutes from NSA HQ (therefore I _must_ be in their employ
>> <grin>) so I'm used to them...

>And those black cadillacs with the smoked windows are sooooo blaisee
>these days! ;)

Sure, almost everybody has one!