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: Chris Rutkowski <rutkows@cc.UManitoba.CA>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 14:16:07 -0600 (CST)
Fwd Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 18:07:31 -0500
Subject: UFO UpDate Re: Peter Brookesmith again ...

> Date: 12 Feb 97 18:13:39 EST
> From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@CompuServe.COM>
> To: UFO UpDates <updates@globalserve.net>
> Subject: Re: Peter Brookesmith on Tectonic Strain Theory

Peter Brookesmith wrote:

> Granted. And if Dr P happened to correlate a seismic event with a
> set of sightings that happened to be every one a IFO (which could
> happen with cluster effect inside a genuine random sample of raw
> reports) then he would be in shtuk. But I am wondering, in the light

... and that is what he has done. This is the core of the argument.

In no uncertain terms, in the classic paper in which he correlates UFOs
in Manitoba, Canada (a seismically-inactive area) with distant minor
tremours elsewhere, he uses as his source of UFO data the Manitoba UFO
Catalogue which I myself compiled. I know its limitations and
weaknesses. I know that *at least* 90% (ninety per cent) of the
cases listed therein have definite, probable or possible explanations,
or have insufficient information to form a conclusion.

Yet, somehow, the IFOs explained as aircraft, stars and other
misidentified objects were *strongly* correlated with distant
earthquakes separated not only by distance (>700 km) but time (several
months lag or lead time).

Does this not seem a bit "dozy" to anyone?

With all the nitpicking about definitions of jargon and who said what and
where, the bottom line is that statistical studies cannot be used to
support a "mysterious mechanism" that can evolve from seismic energy,
piezoelectricity and plasma discharges in the atmosphere.

> TST has also gradually been updated and refined. Now, for example,
> piezo-electricity has been joined by other possible mechanisms such
> as emissions of radon and other gases, and chemoluminescence. Another
> refinement has been associating the incidence of light phenomena not
> so much with numbers of quake epicentres, but with the intensity of
> such tectonic activity.

In other words, there is no satisfactory mechanism to explain the
luminous phenomena, and the research is simply to try to find an
explanation that seems to make scientific sense. Perfectly legitimate,
but perhaps it could be stated up front.

> --if the bone you and Chris are worrying over has any meat left on it
> (especially when he waves imaginary dowsing rods in the air, dear God,
> and you are still snapping at piezo-electricity). Did you read my
> original post, even? (This is a real question.)

Yes. See my other replies.

> The whole issue is long, complicated, subtle, and not suited to
> being debated from trenches or Puff the Magic Dragon. I say this
> as one trained for combat rather than the Corps Diplomatique.

I agree. This is hardly the proper forum. Go ahead and publish your
book. Do I get a review copy? :)

> referring to what Dr P may have had in his mind when he started out
> - at which point neither you nor Chris, I imagine, would have had an
> opinion on his hypothesis! I dunno what you or he think of the ETH,
> and in the context it's not greatly relevant - or at least not so far.

True, although I've read his doctoral dissertation and spoken with his
thesis advisor. Aliens were about as far removed from it as anything
else! :)

> For the rest of my general drift on this issue, see my post in
> response to Chris's last. To which I'd add only that my impression is
> that Dr P has, in the terms of my previous analogy, actually fallen
> off a horse and actually got pregnant, and here are good folk picking
> apart *his* story of what happened in between instead of looking for
> a better connection for the two events. You seem to agree there is
> something worth digging at here. So make with the spade, already.

I didn't understand the analogy, but what the heck.

> I really do, now, have to pass this torch to Paul, as earlier I said I
> would, since he is familiar with all its ins and outs as I am not. To
> what extent he has the time or inclination to reply I hesitate to guess
> (especially after Chris's dumb line about dowsing). At least S. John

Not so dumb ... dowsing was used as part of the Dragon Project in
England, which also was involved in earth lights.

Look, as I've said on many, many previous occasions, I think that it's
possible that some UFOs might be explainable as natural
geological/geophysical phenomena. But to assume that a luminous object
seen in an earthquake-prone area is related to seismic stress is not
justifiable, given the preponderance of other explanations.

I think that pure research into the possibility of luminous geological
mechanisms (LGMs) (remember, I coined it here!) is bona fide and should
be pursued. I applaud the *effort*, but not the methodology or the
claims at this point. Call it a "work-in-progress", maybe ...

Cordial best wishes,

Grumpy

--
Chris Rutkowski - rutkows@cc.umanitoba.ca
(and now, also: Chris.Rutkowski@UMAlumni.mb.ca)
University of Manitoba - Winnipeg, Canada