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 -> Mar -> Re: EL/TST

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: "Jerry Cohen" <rjcohen@li.net>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 09:00:06 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 16:42:53 -0500
Subject: Re: EL/TST

>From: DevereuxP@aol.com
>Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 19:33:30 -0500 (EST)
>To: UPDATES@globalserve.net
>Subject: Earth Lights/TST Debate

>>Date: Sun, 09 Mar 1997 12:02:41 -0500
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: "Steven J. Powell" <sjpowell@access.digex.net>
>>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.)

JC:   Paul, I'm sure I've missed something here. Did you say you have proof
that particular light that was "on-off"/"here-gone-here" was an "earth
light." Could you possibly point the members of this list directly to this
information? Is it on the NET. I am interested in seeing this.

> 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.

JC:   I don't quite understand. If you had "little chance ....snip.... to
check the matter," how could you have determined that this green light was
an "earth light"?

>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:

JC:   So then, in this case, you are reporting a "failed-study?"

>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.

JC:   When you get it, I for one would be happy to see it. I'm sure others
would as well.

>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.

JC:   This sounds fascinating and excellent.

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!)

JC:   Again, many of us have never said there are no such things as earth
lights but, the person(s) studying them has to 1) prove they are "earth
lights" and not something else. We are certainly not totally closed-minded
to this possibility, but there has to be some concrete definitive proof we
can all accept. 2) remember that, as I stated in my post to you which you
have not answered, "many ufologists already mentally put these 'nocturnal
light' cases in a lesser category, in view of the fact that out of the
multitude of cases in existence, they are _lesser detailed cases_, and by
definition, concern amorphous, rather than, 'visibly-structured' objects.
Therefore, although your work is certainly highly interesting and will
probably help us become aware of certain natural phenomena that exist on
and within our planet, its applications to UFO sightings per se are
necessarily limited." However, we are most happy to receive the input, even
on that limited basis.

....snip....


>>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.

JC:  Interesting.

>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!

JC:   And did you capture this on film for others to view?

>>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?

JC:   As a matter of fact, it's a fairly decent list. And let us not
forget, you only need _one_ to be the "real thing" and to open up a
"Pandora's box."

>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.

JC:   In order to begin to do that you have to respond to my
previous post, which you have not. In case you misplaced it, it
is archived at
http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1997/mar/m09-012.shtml

>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.

JC:   Hmmn.  So I assume you've done an in-depth analysis. Have
you written this somewhere where we can see it?

>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.

JC:   Ah, yes it does, and on mental perception as well. However, it's a
sword with a double edged blade. It can work from the skeptic's side as
well, especially on those people who think to themselves; "It can't be,
therefore it isn't"

>The sounds of engines etc, are all give-aways in my opinion.

JC:   Sounds of engines? I assume you mean the Westchester case. Not
everyone heard these sounds. I believe some swore there was absolutely no
sound at all accompanying what they saw.

>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.

JC:   So, all the rest is either "hoaxed" or "misidentified;" daytime
videos, triangulated videos and stereoscopic pictures?

>The Belgian triangle *was* something,
>a craft, but was it alien? I doubt it, frankly.

JC:   Yep! I guess those NATO boys are really incompetent. I don't know how
on earth we defend ourselves. Calibrate their radar screens for
approximately 55 minutes to eliminate prosaic malfunctions, scramble F-16s
who chase whatever it was for approximately 75 minutes, get gun camera film
on same which shows the object diving at a rate that would kill a normal
pilot, have the head military brass, after analyzing the data say everyone
felt the object(s) was "intelligently directed." Those darned fault lines
are all over the place.

>The Cash-Landrum 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.

JC:   That says it all right there. Either do we.

>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)

JC:   And you've proven conclusively that light was an "earthlight?" May we
see that proof? Again, we'd be quite interested and impressed.

AUGUST 5, 1981 National Enquirer:
"It's lighting up the whole sky, a long way up, and traveling fast,"
"Sometimes we can't see it, the trees are in the way."  The object suddenly
appeared in front of them and hovered over the road. "The massive, blue and
diamond-shaped object was at treetop level, about 100 feet away, with huge
red flames shooting from its bottom to the road below." "It's bigger than a
water tower. And it's making a sound like beeping. Long beeps ...beep,
beep, beep." "Long red flames are coming out of the bottom, like a rocket!"
"For fifteen minutes the brilliant object hovered in front of them, huge
flames spewing from the bottom end continuously. Sometimes the terrified
trio heard a loud rushing sound like air brakes on a truck, as more flames
shot toward the road."

 and
>can also take on the appearance of "dull aluminium".

JC:   ???   To which case were you referring? Obviously, Cash & Landrum
can't tell an "earthlight" from a UFO or a diamond from a sphere. It's
those darn hallucinations. They get you every time. Did I hear you say
there were fault lines in the vicinity?

And the beeps? Earthlights beep too, right? I'm sure you've recorded this
somewhere. And I must have forgotten that gravity pushes plasmas into a
"diamond shape." Maybe it's my rotten human perception that does this. I'll
have to go back and check this out.

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.

JC:   Feel free. We've properly expressed our feelings regarding his
methods with the media. The ball is in his court.

>They would also fit in with the new 'vorton'
>hypothesis being advanced by Fryberger at Stanford.

JC:   Hmmn. I haven't heard the "vorton" one. Is it possible for one to see
this posted somewhere as well?

>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.

JC:   Must be just like the Belgium case where it got _repelled_ from the
front part of the plane that was diving trying to catch it after it got
computerized radar lock-on. The same plane that got the gun camera data?
Very interesting. I'd like to see that demonstrated in a lab. Perhaps a
member of your group could perform this experiment for us?

>(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.

JC:   Witnessed what, amorphous lights? Too bad you weren't at my house
November 4th, 1967. I can guarantee you'd be singing a different tune.

....snip....

>So, in short, we really do not know what EL has to explain.

JC:   You said it, not me.

>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

JC:   You obviously haven't read my Oberg/Cooper series yet.

>- 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.

JC:   A large number of us would agree with you. The real trouble here is,
you really don't believe they can.

>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.

JC:   You mean like *all* scientists such as yourself are well informed
regarding all the major research regarding UFOs? I didn't realize that. By
the way, do you happen to know the total percentages of nocturnal lights
and total percentages of daylight disks that were discovered in the Air
Force's "Project Blue Book study" after analysis? (The staff at Blue Book
collected UFO cases over a twenty year period. It's civilian astronomical
consultant performed the analysis.)

>But we know that, by and large, that's not what 'ufology' - especially in
>America - is about, don't we?

JC:   Ah, yes, here we go again....the highly scientific approach of
bashing " 'ufology' ....in America." Paul, you sound a little like the
person who wrote;  "FLYING-SAUCEROLOGY: Europe vs the USA."

ONE QUOTE FROM MY REBUTTAL TO SAME:
"Present your research on a *specific* case or topic; tear it to shreds,
pull the guts out of it, dissect it, bisect it, trisect it but, for God's
sake, ....snip.... USA bashing. If you don't agree with U.S. studies, so be
it....ignore us. If you don't agree with the "abduction cases website"
located at   http://www.spacelab.net/~jvif/bhhp.html , ignore them. If you
don't agree with "implant analyses" located at
http://www.accessnv.com/nids/ and http://www.anw.com/first/ , ignore those.
If you don't agree with "cattle mutilation theories," please stop reading
Linda Moulton Howe's books. If you don't agree with Jack Kasher's analysis
of NASA's ST 48, because you assume it to be impossible, be my guest. If
you don't agree with the Pine Bush/Hudson Valley Website . Dr. Bruce Cornet
http://orion.adp.wisc.edu/bcornet1/ , ignore that too. If you think there
are only a few UFO sightings which have occurred this year, please don't
look up the National UFO Reporting Center at:
http://www.nwlink.com/~ufocntr or the sightings in Colorado:
http://www.netzone.com/~gilgash/ufoovni.htm. However, I am quite sure there
will be others out there reading this that may take a look at some of these
things for themselves and perhaps view them a bit more open-mindedly."

Sincerely,
Jerry

E-mail:  "Jerry Cohen" <rjcohen@li.net>

P.S.    By the way, still waiting for your explanations on "SKYTHING 1960"
and Exeter.