Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Our Bookstore is OPEN Over 5000 new & used titles, competitively priced! Topics: UFOs - Paranormal - Area 51 - Ghosts - Forteana - Conspiracy - History - Biography - Psychology - Religion - Crime - Health - Geography - Maps - Science - Money - Language - Recreation - Technology - Fiction - Other - New 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 Location: Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1997 -> Feb -> Re: Peter Brookesmith on Tectonic Strain Theory

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@CompuServe.COM>
Date: 14 Feb 97 07:41:28 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 10:53:49 -0500
Subject: Re: Peter Brookesmith on Tectonic Strain Theory

From the Duke of Mendoza, greetings.

[This note I thought I had mailed to Feral Errol for posting, but
apparently I had buried it somewhere else instead. It is the "separate
post" mentioned in mine of 971202 responding to Jan. What with everyone
talking at once anyway it will only add a little to the prevailing
confusion so what the hell.--PB]

> From: Chris Rutkowski (rutkows@cc.umanitoba.ca)
> Date: 11 Feb 97 09:34:04 EST
> Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 10:21:50 -0500
> Subject: Re: Peter Brookesmith on Tectonic Strain Theory

> If you're talking about Devereux's pendulum-dowsing efforts

I think I can smell the smoke and steam from New York State from here.
What is this rubbish? Why should I, or anyone, take what you say
seriously when you misrepresent like this?

I've known Paul since 1981. I've never heard him mention dowsing,
"energy lines" and earthlights in the same breath without approaching
a condition of apoplexy. Have you actually maintained *any* contact
with what he's been doing in the last two decades? This makes me
wonder if you have read anything by Persinger since his original
tract,
obviously. Or have you just ignored it? Or what? What is this crap?

Deep breath. Briefly, pending an answer to the above, I note:

> or Brady's plasmas
> inside rock core samples or Derr's ball lightning, they hardly have
> *anything* to do with supporting Persinger's TST.

Not what you said in your admirably balanced:
UFOs as Natural Phenomena.
In: Evans, H. & Spencer, J., eds.  UFOS 1947-1987: THE 40-YEAR SEARCH
FOR AN EXPLANATION.  London: Fortean Tomes, 1987.  pp. 273-279.
although this was, of course, 10 years ago.

But I also observe that of the four articles cited in support of your
many works on the TST, three are by the amazing Steuart Campbell, who
having once proclaimed all UFOs ball lightning now thinks all UFOs are
mirages and (I have his communications to prove it) puts words into
mouths, or wordprocessors, that have said precisely the opposite. You
really want friends like this?

> It is *possible* that EM effects *may* be responsible for some
> aspects of UFO-related cases. However, this has not been
> demonstrated.

If Persinger's UFO data was flawed, start again. Meanwhile there is
plenty of evidence that quakes generate weird light effects. Light was
a form of EM radiation, last time I looked. If quakes make lights, why
should less dramatic wriggles in the Earth not do the same? The only
question is whether "unexplained" UFO reports and tectonically-
generated lights can be linked. It strikes me as unlikely in the
extreme that some natural lights would not be reported as UFOs and
remain in the unsolved tray - and there they will stay as long as
ufologists pretend natural lights don't exist or are somehow
"obviously" separate from UFOs.

> Perhaps with some solid research efforts and a thorough examination
> of the data and methodology, the TST *might* be refinable to a point
> where it can be acceptable as a viable theory. But not yet.

Putting aside my good intentions or poor judgement, I am NOT supporting
Persinger's TST per se, to the letter: I *am* saying it is a good idea
worth testing, even if it means starting again with different data,
which I gather has been done. And it is no good whingeing about "known
mechanisms", still less saying long-since-irrelevant things about PD
and pendulums, until the correlations between geophysical events and
lights are in place. On that, some "solid research" is forthcoming.
We may end up with something that's not the TST, but then Lavoisier
didn't get to oxygen without the phlogiston theory to kick around. Nor
did old Albert get to relativity without the ether.

As for picking apart, at this stage, the differences between ball
lightning, ELs, quake lights and the rest: I am strangely reminded of
the two, three or was it four? apparently distinct viruses that were
once bitterly competing for title of HIV - and when polymerase chain
reaction came along they turned out to be all the same thing. There
are lots of other lessons,too, in that little saga for everybody.

best wishes
Mendoza of the Mountains
Duke of Christmas Past