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 -> Jul -> Earth Lights - Objections

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 03:01:22 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 17:42:57 -0400
Subject: Earth Lights - Objections

In reading the discussion about Earthlights, I must admit to being
unconvinced - and not because of being a die-hard ETH proponent
(which I am not), but because of dissatisfaction with what I know
about the hypothesis.

1) Energy requirements: We have cases from Vallee (Confrontations,
ISBN 0-345-36501-1, p23-35) a) claiming energy output in the visible
spectrum of  2.3MW for approx 5-10 mins, disappearing for half an
hour, reappearing at the same location where it disappeared, and then
producing the same energy output for another 5 mins before flying
away to the west; b) claiming energy output of 15KW; c) claiming
energy output of between 160KW and 5MW; d) claiming energy output
of 500MW. Obviously, these energy output levels are significant. How
could this be sustained by an object given an initial impulse of energy
and thereafter unable to take on new energy (i.e. an object without an
internal power source)? How could such an object be dark for an
extended period and reappear? Other sightings, such as the 11/7/90
case over Montreal, last for extended periods (that observation was
for over 2 hours). How could such large energy outputs be sustained
for such periods?

2) Source and sink:  We have objects entering and leaving the oceans,
but these represent a relatively tiny percentage of the total. A few cases
show a UFO landing and then disappearing while on the ground without
an observed departure. Most UFOs come from the sky and return to the
sky. Yet an earthlights hypothesis would seem to me to require a high
statistical frequency of objects emerging from the ground and returning
to the ground to disappear, a frequency which is not present in the data.

3) Movement: UFOs exhibit significant manuverability and movement
across extended portions of the sky for extended periods of time. Why
should a plasma demonstrate such movement? One possibility is to
follow a course to ground, as with ball lightning. What would make
earthlights behave differently from BL? BL has been demonstrated
fairly well in the great Klass debates to be insufficient as an explanation
for UFOs IMO. Wouldn't the movement of a plasma require the release
of energy in addition to that required to sustain ionization and generate
light output, thus exacerbating the problem in (1)?

3) Dark objects: An energetic plasma is always going to emit some
sort of light. Yet many UFOs are dark in color (Loch Raven Dam case,
for instance). Plasmas are also at least semi-transparent due to density.
Yet close sightings reveal none of the transparency which might be
expected.

4) Solidity: Trace cases (such as Trans-en-Province, Socorro, Quaroble)
demonstrate solidity by showing through the depth of the trace the weight
of the object. In these cases, the weights have been on the order of tons.
Why should a plasma have such a weight? How large would an atmospheric
plasma have to be to attain such weight? Is there any reason to believe
that an atmospheric plasma could exceed the density of air? Other cases
demonstrate solidity by physical contact (California, 1974 (see Paul Hill,
Unconventional Flying Objects, ISBN 1-57174-027-9) P 38) as in striking
the object with a flashlight or bullets, and, of course, there are cases where
the UFO has been touched with bare flesh. Interestingly, there have been
contact cases (bare flesh) without the immediate burns and radiation effects
which one would invariably expect from a plasma.

5) Occupants and interiors: Occupants have been seen to be within and
without UFOs. How can these be consistent with earthlights? Hallucination
is not an acceptable answer, lacking specific and demonstrable proof in
realistic settings (outdoors, at a distance greater than 150 feet).

6) Correlation with faults: It is not a question of whether sightings can
correlate with faults (and some earlier posts have indicated that these
correlations are loose in any case), but even if tight correlations exist,
could they be due to chance? After all, the presence of faults in almost
every area of the earth is well known. Thus one would expect sightings to
happen near faults, whether or not UFOs are earthlights. The fact that
areas like France and the Northeast US have numbers of sightings
though tectonically inactive, while areas like Japan do not have orders
of magnitude larger numbers of sightings, would seem to be another
factor against acceptance of earthlights as an explanation for UFOs.
(Vallee did this type of test for orthoteny - have the earthlights advocates
done it?)

I have no wish to reignite a debate which has obviously occurred before,
but the above seems compelling to me. Why should earthlights be considered
even a possible explanation of ANY UFOs?

-------
Mark Cashman, creator of the Temporal Doorway at
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/5623/
http://www.infohaus.com/access/by-seller/The_Temporal_Doorway_Storefront
Original digital art, writing and UFO research
mcashman@ix.netcom.com