There
are those who thought that I had been unfair to Philip Klass when I mentioned
the article from the Bangor, Maine newspaper that reported his take on the
Loring AFB unidentified craft (and note here that I didn’t use the more
pejorative UFO). Turns out, there wasn’t much in that article that didn’t
appear in his book, UFOs: The Public
Deceived. It was just a little more condensed in the newspaper and some of
the wilder assumptions made had been left out.
First,
he seemed to be very annoyed that one of the newspaper reporters, in this case
Ward Sinclair, had been dismissive of him, telling him, when asked if he had
thought about calling Klass for his take on Loring, “No. In no way would I
check with you. Why would I check with you? You’ve assigned yourself a
credential that I have every right to be as suspicious of as Todd Zechel’s
credentials.”
For
those out of touch, Zechel claimed many things in his life that turned out to
be less than credible and I wouldn’t cite Zechel as a source without checking
out his information with other sources first. In fact, I would probably ignore
anything Zechel said if there wasn’t any other source for it. In fact, if
Zechel told me the sky was blue, I’d probably go out and look.
But
I do understand Klass’ annoyance because, on the flip side, I’ve run into it. I
was scheduled for an interview at the Chicago
Tribune, but rather than a reporter from on staff, the interview was
conducted by an intern in the hallway. She said that the editors knew there was
nothing to UFOs so they weren’t overly interested in anything that might
suggest they were in error. Sort of the same attitude that Klass had run into
with Sinclair and sort of the same attitude we sometimes see here. A personal
bias that colors thinking rather than an intelligent exchange of competing
points of view.
The
Bangor newspaper article had mentioned Klass’ theory that some radicals might
have obtained a helicopter to acquire an atomic bomb. Well, in his book this
isn’t quite as direct, but he is still of the opinion that a helicopter was
responsible for the intrusion at Loring and there were radicals at the
controls. In a footnote on page 97, he wrote, “At the time some radical groups
protesting the war in Vietnam were resorting to violence and the use of explosives.”
And
my criticism remains… didn’t these radicals, in October 1975, realize the war
was over and the communists were in Saigon? Didn’t anyone point this out to
Klass such as a copy editor… or maybe someone who had read the newspaper
article about the fall of Saigon. This idea seems to be out of touch with
reality but no one seemed to realize it. Not to mention that this has
absolutely nothing to do with the sightings at Loring.
Klass
did find that a helicopter had been scoping out part of Maine. He talked to a
former sheriff deputy, Ivon Turmell, who reported on a helicopter landing at
the Moosehead Motel. Klass wrote, “When I called Turmell, he told me that the
red and white helicopter, built by Hughes Helicopter company, had created some
talk in the small town [Rockwood], when it landed outside the Moosehead Motel
and operated from this site for several days, taking off each morning and
returning every night. When Turmell had called the owner of the motel out of
curiosity, he learned that ‘the whole thing was very hush-hush,’ he told me,
adding that the crew and maintenance personnel carefully avoided talking to
other guests at the motel.”
Well,
this is sort of interesting, I suppose, except for a couple of facts. According
to Klass, in his book, this all happened “shortly” after the late-October
incidents at the air base. And, Rockwood and the Moosehead Motel are some 120
miles from Loring AFB. Close in time and distance, but probably unrelated to
the intrusions at the base. But someone was flying a helicopter, of some
indistinct type, (which Hughes helicopter was it?) and they were in Maine. To
Klass: Case Closed…
Klass
wanted to know, “Could Rockwood’s ‘mysterious helicopter’ have been the same
craft that reportedly penetrated Loring’s airspace on the night of October 27?”
No,
and there is no apparent reason to connect the two events. Had we on this side
of the fence attempted something like that, we would be condemned for
“ufological thinking.” This is debunker thinking… just throw out a question
about an event that might explain the sighting and then pretend that it does.
One
other point should be made. The available documents show that there was an
intrusion at Loring, and in at least one case, seemed to penetrate the weapons
storage area. Although they mention that it was a helicopter in those documents,
they were unable to identify it, catch it, or apparently stop it. Violating the
restricted area and flying over the weapons storage area would be a matter of
national security and should have caused a somewhat more robust Air Force
response. The documents suggest that the Air Force couldn’t identify the
helicopter but didn’t work very hard to find out who had committed the crime. I
have to wonder if Klass could find a possible culprit by talking to an
ex-deputy, couldn’t the Air Force have found the same culprit and wouldn’t they
have followed up on it? It would seem to me that the Air Force would have
investigated this, and since it goes unmentioned, means the helicopter had
nothing to do with the intrusion.
So,
they, debunkers and the Air Force, call it a helicopter though the witnesses on
the ground, and sometimes within 300 feet of it, couldn’t recognize it as such.
They described it as hovering, and dropping below radar coverage in the manner like
that of a helicopter. The Air Force, rather than using the term UFO, chose to
call it an unidentified helicopter. One witness, in November, did report a
mysterious craft that did look like a helicopter, but then, that was in late
November and that’s not part of the Loring sightings in late October.
The
skeptics line up behind the Klass explanation because they all know that there
can be no alien visitation. They accept his information about the helicopter,
though it isn’t actually in the right place at the right time. They assume the
witnesses, who mentioned a motion like that of a helicopter, meaning it
hovered, just couldn’t identify it for some reason, and dismiss everything in
that way. Nothing to look at here folks, just move along.
And
now I must always add a caveat to these postings. No, this case does not prove
alien visitation. It suggests something unidentified was seen over Loring, and the
Air Force response seems inadequate given the penetration of the weapons
storage area. The mystery helicopter was never found, and given the national
security aspects, I would have thought the Air Force would have responded with
more enthusiasm.
But,
since it was a matter of national security, I don’t believe that all the
relevant documents have been seen… nor do I expect them to be released through
FOIA. This was, after all, a matter of national security.
34 comments:
“At the time some radical groups protesting the war in Vietnam were resorting to violence and the use of explosives.”
Not literally true, however during that autumn Weather Underground claimed responsibility for three bombings, and a Manson sympathizer pulled a gun on President Ford in Sacramento -- you remember Squeaky. There was domestic terrorism afoot in late 1975.
Regards,
Don
Also, the Symbionese Liberation Army and Patty Hearst melodrama.
(Nobody wants to go back to the 70s)
Regards,
Don
Kevin wrote:
The available documents show that there was an intrusion at Loring, and in at least one case, seemed to penetrate the weapons storage area. Although they mention that it was a helicopter in those documents, they were unable to identify it, catch it, or apparently stop it. Violating the restricted area and flying over the weapons storage area would be a matter of national security and should have caused a somewhat more robust Air Force response. The documents suggest that the Air Force couldn’t identify the helicopter but didn’t work very hard to find out who had committed the crime.
Obviously Loring was staffed by drooling idiots, just as Roswell, Rendlesham, Minot, etc., etc. were. Apparently the absolute dregs of the Air Force are always in charge of our nuclear weapons.
"Obviously Loring was staffed by drooling idiots, just as Roswell, Rendlesham, Minot, etc., etc. were. Apparently the absolute dregs of the Air Force are always in charge of our nuclear weapons."
....Also sprach der Optometrist....
Now this is an interesting case. it has hard, reliable, documentary evidence that an event of some sort occurred which means we then need to consider the witness evidence (from credible witnesses), particularly given that the descriptions include effects that we now might predict to see in relation to UFOs but at the time were not published (the optical refraction effects we discussed around part 1 on this topic).
I particularly like your pointing out, Kevin, that the helicopter was at the motel after the date of the intrusion at the base...Is that definate?
This has reminded me of the quite high number of cases in the literature from sensitive military sites or related situations, such as the many sightings around experimental balloon launches in the 1940's and 1950's etc. This could be reporting bias, both in terms of observers making reports and in the reports being published in the literature. They may be more likely to notice them as well, given 24/7 operation and guards etc. I shall have to have a think as to if it might be possible to test out the statistical significance of such reports in some way, but that isn't obviously straightforward at first sight.
"Apparently the absolute dregs of the Air Force are always in charge of our nuclear weapons."
That, or there _is_ something unusual afoot... both considerations are worrisome in extremis but your garden variety denialist insists on speculations regarding the truly nonsensical. This says more about the reflexive skeptic than that skeptic's counterpart one would think...
Anthony -
Here is what Klass said in his book about this. "The memo [to a Bangor reporter on November 14] indicated that Rhodes [the reporter] learned from Sheriff Francis B. Henderson, of Somerset County, Maine, that a helicopter bearing no external company identification had 'dropped down in Rockwood,' approximately 120 miles southwest of Loring, shortly after the late-October incidents at the air base."
He offers no evidence that this helicopter had anything to do with the events at Loring, nor that it was in violation of FAA regulations. This is a simple red herring to suggest a mystery helicopter that might explain the sightings but it does not.
Kevin
Thanks. Amazing he he even tried to make a connection given that he had that piece of information...although why I should continue to be surprised by the poor quality of so many of his ''explanations' I don't know.
What would be more surprising than a helicopter being within 120 miles at some future time would be a helicopter NOT being within 120 miles at some future time. In 1975, it would probably be hard to find many places without a helicopter being within 120 miles.
"Monsieur Rick, I'm shocked to discover civilian aircraft within 120 miles of a military air base."
These sort of non-explanation explanations remind me of Michael Persinger and his Tectonic Strain Theory "explanation" for UFOs, that they are supposedly brain-induced by geomagnetic fluctuations, therefore we have to consider distances of dozens of kilometers from earthquake faults and months to years difference in time to derive a supposed correlation between UFO reports and geomagnetic activity.
This is casting a net so broad that it becomes useless as a predictor of anything. If there is any correlation between UFO reports and seismic zones, the more likely explanation is that more people tend to live in seismic zones because that is where the mountains and valleys are, thus rivers, lakes, roads, fertile soil, natural beauty, etc. More people will correlate with more UFO reports.
Another way to say this is correlation is not the same as causation. And this makes a helicopter 120 miles and existing in the future not exactly a good "explanation" for Loring, along with crash dummies from the future and in wrong locations to "explain" reports of bodies at Roswell.
Reminds me of the Bermuda Triangle. This 'triangle' got extended and distorted in shape to include whatever oddity took place in the air or sea in the Atlantic.
It wasn't really triangular but the word 'triangle' sounded good so it was used as a general term.
The point was that nobody really knew where the triangle was, hence writers could do what they liked with it.
As for the happenings at Malmstrom and Loring bases, surely these form parts of a parallelogram (which in turn form another piece of the Great Lakes Triangle)?
DR wrote:
“These sort of non-explanation explanations remind me of Michael Persinger and his Tectonic Strain Theory "explanation" for UFOs, that they are supposedly brain-induced by geomagnetic fluctuations, therefore we have to consider distances of dozens of kilometers from earthquake faults and months to years difference in time to derive a supposed correlation between UFO reports and geomagnetic activity.”
Exactly right. If you expand the space and time boundaries from one event far enough and make up enough hypothetical connections in between, you can always find some other event that appears to be correlated to it. Let someone make up an arbitrary number of hypotheticals, and anyone can explain anything as caused by anything else. Any idiot can do this.
"Let someone make up an arbitrary number of hypotheticals, and anyone can explain anything as caused by anything else. Any idiot can do this."
It remains to be so comforting to the reductionist, this complication of the hypothesis. Isn't that the soul of irony?
Hello David and Larry
I do agree with your comment about the helicopter, David, and I would agree it is wise to be sceptical concerning Persinger (and Makarec 1985?) proposal that EM fields associated with TSLs, or earthquake lights, might cause perceptions similar to CE4 experiences. The lab results involve complex fields that must be very precise to achieve some effect, which is only to a limited extent similar to CE4 experiences. There is no evidence either way regarding the occurrence of such complex, and consistent, fields in nature. Perhaps most significantly Susan Blackmoore found no enhanced levels of frontal lobe lability in CE4 experiences. Unfortunately I found (Mugan, 2011, Journal of Frontier Science) a significant correlation of UFO reports to CE4 events (with an effect size consistent with the majority of CE4 reports being REM atonia or other explanations). I do hope Persinger is right, therefore, but at the moment doubt it in terms of CE4 events.
That said, the evidence for the existence of TSLs is secure ( e'g. Locker et. al., 1983, Nature) as is the correlation with UFO reports. Causal mechanisms still poorly understood, but with some progress. We should recognise this. TSLs help get rid of a good percentage of the older unknowns, particularly the large waves where there are ball of light type reports, bobbing around fairly randomly. Plasma can reflect radar at times and can be shaped by airflow. Does this sort the whole problem out? No. There is a significant difference in the pattern of occurrence of ball of light types and both mdisks and triangles (Mugan, paper accepted by Bufora as a guest paper, not yet online)
Should have added that TSLs of course show that the Colorado Commission was fundamentally flawed. The missed a new natural phenomena at least. It also leaves us with those cases were there are indications of intelligent control such as Ellsworth 1953 or Tehran 1976 amongst many others, or evidence of a technological effect such as the Florida Scoutmaster case or Trans-en-Provence. Lofting is interesting as there is some possibility of an indication of intent (given the number of reports from such sites) and possible technological effects. In both aspects the evidence is weak at the moment, but certainly worth leaving in the mix at the moment unless a good alternative match can be found, if there was an increase in seismic activity in the area within around a month that could be suggestive
Ps
Don't you just love predictive text. Every time I try to correct a typo it locks up on me! (Lofting...!)
CDA -
Ah, but you are wrong on the Bermuda Triangle... you forget that one of the disappearances left from a port on the west coast of Mexico and actually vanished in the Pacific Ocean. You should have said, "This 'triangle' got extended and distorted in shape to include whatever oddity took place in the air or sea in the world."
Anthony:
This is off the topic of Loring, of course, but if Kevin will allow it in the name of scholarly discourse, I will reply to your comments on earthquake lights, or TSLs.
As I would summarize it, the TSL model explanation of UFOs is that 1) tectonic strain energy somehow produces a large reservoir of free charges, stored somewhere underground, 2) an earthquake (or more generally a tectonic event) somehow liberates the stored charges which flow up to the interface between the ground and air, 3) the electric current flow into the air somehow creates (in Persinger’s model) just the right pattern of electromagnetic radiation at just the right distance to directly stimulate human brains into hallucinating CE4s while, 4) simultaneously somehow creating stable atmospheric plasmoids which are mistaken for artificial intelligently controlled UFOs, OR, 3) the electric current flow creates the atmospheric plasmoids which, 4) THEMSELVES then create the electromagnetic radiation pattern that causes the CE4 hallucinations.
My skepticism regarding this explanatory scheme lies first of all in the large number of “somehows”, “somewheres”, and “just rights” that are embedded in it. The 1983 Lockner et. al. article proposes an answer to one of the “somehows” namely how to create a large reservoir of free charges. My colleague Freund proposes a different mechanism. This tells me there is probably no clear consensus of the experts on this "somehow" and probably the others as well.
My more profound reason for skepticism is based on the idea that all natural physical processes are thermodynamically entropic, that is they run in the direction of increasing disorder and decreasing information content. The body of free charges stored underground (in this model) should represent the most negatively entropic (i.e., most ordered) state. When the charges start flowing, the process should go to a less ordered state. Instead, the hypothesis is that they form a more highly ordered (and therefore less stable) entity (i.e., a plasmoid) capable of being mistaken for an artificial intelligently controlled UFO. Then, in Persinger’s model these natural processes go one step further in the direction of negative entropy to create a highly ordered and structured pattern of brain stimulation which is then interpreted by the mind as a CE4 event. The Tectonic-Strain-to-UFO explanation is running in the wrong direction, thermodynamically.
I don't dispute the correlations you allude to, but I will need a coherent end-to-end thermodynamically plausible explanation to be persuaded that there is anything other than a coincidental relationship between tectonic strain and the UFO phenomenon. (Otherwise, why didn't we see the same incidence of UFO reports before 1947 that we see after it?)
Hi Larry
Hope this isn't a duplicate response. First go didn't seem to go through.
I do agree with you regarding the CE4 connection...doesn't seem secure at the moment. Also agree that the physics of this isn't fully understood. I also thought Freund's 2004 paper was interesting on that.
As to if they actually exist though, I do think that is pretty clear (e. g Teodorani 2004 re the Hessdalen phenomena) and the correlation of seismic strain with raw, mainly visual, UFO reports also seems secure.
I would strongly argue that there remains a core of reports which are difficult to explain as anything other that technology. Loring may fall into that category given the hints of intent and possible refraction type effects, although perhaps not decisive enough. It would be interesting if there was no increase in seismic activity as that woul reduce considerably the chance of a TSL which I'm always mindful of with ball of light type reports, along with other possible explanations. Ish all have a go at digging out the data.
Really good point about entropy, beyond my competence but possibly suggest an open system?
Per 1947...thought there were such reports going back into prehistory. May well be that 47 was a time when people were ready to come to different conclusions, plus reporting effects etc.?
To follow up
The USGS ANSS database shows no seismic activity within +/- 1 degree of latitude and longitude of Loring for the period October 75 through January 76 inclusive. It would therefore seem very unlikely that the Loring UFO could have been a TSL.
The repeat appearance at the location and the other factors we've discussed do seem to make this an interesting case within an interesting pattern
Anthony wrote:
“As to if they actually exist though, I do think that is pretty clear (e. g Teodorani 2004 re the Hessdalen phenomena)”
Yes, I know. I visited Hessdalen Valley in August of 2000 and together with Erling Strand took some nighttime photos of a luminous orb. It was a “flasher”. He got a time-lapse photo with his film camera and I got an image with my digital camera. It is one of the very few instances I know of where two cameras captured the same unknown at the same time, and the only one I know of where two different types of sensor were used. There is no question that the anomalous phenomenon(a) there is(are) real.
It is precisely the experience of having seen that orb that makes me skeptical of the “earthquake light” explanation. To go into that particular sighting would require an entire column by itself. If Kevin is up for it, I could send him a write-up on the incident and see if he would be interested in publishing it as a guest column……
“Per 1947...thought there were such reports going back into prehistory.”
There were. See for example, Vallee and Aubeck, “Wonders in the Sky”. The problem is that the average rate at which UFO reports were made—up to approximately the beginning of the 20th century—was about 1 per year, or less. Starting around WWII, the reporting rate went up to 1000 per year or more. For all practical purposes, that’s a square wave, or step-function increase. I’ve talked to Jacque about this, and he agrees that the step-function increase is a real phenomenon. In my mind, it is the single biggest obstacle that the psychosocial explanation for UFO reports has to face. In fact, I would say that the proponents of the psychosocial explanation never have really addressed it very well.
Earthquake lights are described and recorded as diffuse, temporary light more akin to auroras than highly discrete phenomena that are typically attached to the term "UFO".
I have been highly critical of Persinger and his TSL theories for some time for somewhat different reasons. He was proposing preposterously small fluctuations of the geomagnetic field having profound effects on the brain. You get more potent and patterned magnetic field fluctuations standing over an electric burner, using a hair drier, or shaving with an electric shaver. Tens of millions of people should be having abduction experiences every day. They're not.
Think some dinky refrigerator magnetic with a field fluctuation of less than 1%. That's the sort of tiny geomagnetic field fluctuations we're talking about. In one of his earlier papers he was claiming his epileptic lab rats mysteriously died overnight because of one of these tiny geomagnetic field fluctuations happened and they were unusually susceptible because they were epileptic. Again, correlation isn't causation. A far more likely cause of their deaths was disease or something in their food, none of which he checked for.
20 years ago I was involved in transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), which uses pulses of magnetic fields 7 or 8 orders of magnitude more potent than Persinger's fields, and it is still damned hard to get any sort of sensory response, in my case, simple flashes of light or simple patterns, much less highly organized and extended narratives (abduction scenario). No lab has ever been able to reproduce Persinger's claims with his "God helmet", which produces extremely minute, poorly penetrating magnetic fields, inducing currents in the brain below nerve noise levels.
I consider what Persinger does to be true pseudoscience, and nobody would give it much credence, except the debunkers love to cite his TSL theory as "explanations" for UFOs and CE4, when it is really total crap with no scientific basis at all.
The same goes for another recent theory that ball lightning was caused by induced TMS hallucinations from nearby lightning strikes. There are numerous things wrong with this theory, including the lightning having to practically strike you for the magnetic fields to be intense enough, the fact that people do not report ball lightning simultaneous with a nearby lightning strike, the fact that ball lightning is again a discrete phenomenon extended in time, not a fraction of a second, diffuse flash of light (what you REALLY get with TMS), and the fact that ball lightning can be photographed and seen by more than one person at a time, hardly a hallucination.
DR wrote:
“Earthquake lights are described and recorded as diffuse, temporary light more akin to auroras than highly discrete phenomena that are typically attached to the term "UFO".
Right; the good photos that apparently can be correlated pretty well in time and space with seismic activity do appear to be diffuse lights—which is exactly what you would expect if you somehow have a reservoir of charge stored underground and then release it. Freund described in his paper the idea that if you could somehow produce such a reservoir of stored charge underground and then suddenly trigger its release to the surface, you would expect the field strength at the interface between the ground and the sky to build up due to the impedence mismatch between soil and air. Unlike lightning, which starts with a charge reservoir in the air, the tectonically produce charge would not dissipate itself instantaneously—as in a lightning strike. Instead, when the field strength at the ground-air interface exceeds a threshold value, it starts bleeding off through the production of corona discharge and perhaps local ionization which produce flouresence—both of which are diffuse light sources, not concentrated.
“The same goes for another recent theory that ball lightning was caused by induced TMS hallucinations from nearby lightning strikes. There are numerous things wrong with this theory, including the … fact that ball lightning is again a discrete phenomenon extended in time, …and the fact that ball lightning can be photographed and seen by more than one person at a time, hardly a hallucination.”
About 10 or 12 years ago some visiting researcher came through the laboratory where I work and gave a lecture on the best knowledge available at that time on ball lightning. I know there has been a lot of debate in the scientific literature since that time on the process by which ball lightning is produced, the energy source that sustains it, etc. with which I have not kept up. However, he also presented statistics (based on an exhaustive evaluation of the witness reports) on the size and duration of ball lightning, when it occurs that I would not expect to have changed. The takeaway message I got from that lecture is that the 3-sigma value for size of ball lightning is somewhat less than a meter in diameter and the 3-sigma value for duration of ball lightning is about a minute. So, if a luminous orb UFO sighting has a size greater than a meter or a duration greater than a minute, or both (as in the Loring case), then the ball lightning explanation doesn’t fit.
Hi Larry and David
Really interesting and useful conversation. Thanks so much for your time and expertise on this topic.
I think we can all agree that Loring wasn't a TSL, given the data.
In terms of the step change in reporting from 1947 onwards, forgive me if I remain a little sceptical as to the extent that reflects a real underlying change - although it may do. The argument against would revolve around
a) the very high proportion of reports that are plausibly mis-identifications.
b) The presence of waves prior to 1947 such as the Airships wave, ghost fliers, foo gighters and ghost rockets etc.
c) documentary records going back at least a couple of millenia, if not more, of reports similar to what we would today think of as UFO reports (with many possible causes for them, of course)
d)The presence of mass media by 1947 to encourage / aid reporting
e) Social changes preparing people to think in technological terms about what they may be
the argument against includes Roswell's timing and the sheer scale of the remaining unknowns, I agree...open question in my mind at the moment
Should have added
A couple of other factors that do influence my thinking are:
e) the astronomical data - if current estimates are correct at 95% of planets are older than the earth, by an average of 1.85 billion years then it's far more likely that any advanced civilisation out there, if it exists, would be very considerably older than us and would have explored the galaxy many millions or even billions of years ago.
f) if I've understood it right the sustained public interest in UFOs after 47 had a lot to do with the leaking of the internal USAF intelligence community debate of their possible extraterrestrial origin to Keyhoe.
I do agree though that there do seem to be rather too many unknowns doing things like tracking aeroplanes, hanging around sensitive intallations etc. to sit all that comforatably with that set of ideas...quite prepared to seriously consider a step change in policy / behaviour by the 'boys topside' around 1947 (one of the reasons for my interest in the whole Roswell thing)
Larry wrote:
I visited Hessdalen Valley in August of 2000 and together with Erling Strand took some nighttime photos of a luminous orb. It was a “flasher”. He got a time-lapse photo with his film camera and I got an image with my digital camera. It is one of the very few instances I know of where two cameras captured the same unknown at the same time, and the only one I know of where two different types of sensor were used. There is no question that the anomalous phenomenon(a) there is(are) real.
It is precisely the experience of having seen that orb that makes me skeptical of the “earthquake light” explanation. ……
Hessdalen (and other reported "spook" lights) might be one of those rare instances where the "UFOs" might be some unknown, not understood geophysical/atmospheric phenomenon, akin to ball lightning (but not ball lightning). Part of what's baffling is the repetitiveness, duration, and discreteness of the phenomenon. Does electrostatic energy from seismic strain somehow figure into the energy source of the lights? I wouldn't know, but possibly, thus I shouldn't sweepingly condemn TSL theory for UFO's, but I just don't see any connection between seismic activity and abduction scenarios, a la Persinger, which I consider total pseudoscience.
Certainly such lights cannot explain the unexplained daylight sightings, particularly what Hynek called "daylight discs", UFOs seen at close quarters that seem to be quite solid and with features like domes or landing legs. Lonnie Zamora did not see earthquake lights, nor would ELs leave behind the physical evidence that the Socorro craft did.
And ELs would not exhibit intelligent control, such as formation flight and evasion upon pursuit, nor would they show a preference for our nuclear missile and storage facilities, such as Loring, and pull off various mischief, such as shutting down the missiles or initiating launch sequences. This is all far beyond any sort of natural geophysical phenomena.
DR wrote:
“Hessdalen (and other reported "spook" lights) might be one of those rare instances where the "UFOs" might be some unknown, not understood geophysical/atmospheric phenomenon, akin to ball lightning (but not ball lightning). Part of what's baffling is the repetitiveness, duration, and discreteness of the phenomenon.”
Exactly right. What we witnessed, for more than 15 minutes, was an extremely regular repetitive strobing light, with a very, very quick rise time and very high peak intensity. When we first saw it, I assumed it was probably an aircraft anti-collision strobe light on a tower, because we were near an airport. However, after minutes of observation, through magnifying optics, it was clear that it was not fixed to the ground. It was moving around, discontinuously, in a semi-random manner, while maintaining an absolutely constant strobe frequency (estimated by everyone present to be ≈ 1 Hz.
What it reminded me most of was an experience I had had a couple of decades previously, when I was a graduate student at Stanford. I was working on a research project in the Applied Physics department that utilized a pulsed, high-power Nd: YAG laser. The laser had a variable position mechanism that allowed the focal length to be controlled over about a cm or so. During the experiment, we would fiddle with the focus of the laser. When the focal length was decreased to a certain distance, the intensity of the laser pulse would exceed an electromagnetic field strength threshold value. At that field strength, electrons would be stripped from air molecule nuclei. After each laser pulse died out, the electron-ion pairs would recombine, there would be a very, very bright white flash, accompanied by a loud pop, which was the effect of heat being dumped into the atmosphere and causing a bubble of air to expand at supersonic velocity. So the combined effect was a very bright (but very small) ball of light appearing in the middle of nowhere (at the focus of the laser optics) accompanied by a “pop”, once per second.
This was the perception I had of the Hessdalen “flasher”, except that the apparent size of the flash was about 100 ft in diameter and there was absolutely no sound.
To a non technically-trained individual, I suppose the “flasher” would not seem particularly interesting or unusual. To me, I was trying to envision the energy source, the pulse train conditioning system, the transfer optics and the focusing mechanism that would have to have been present to produce such an effect in mid-air. I don’t see how it could not have been the signature of an artificial apparatus.
On the other hand, we have natural phenomena like Pulsars.
This one was right in the middle, as far as I’m concerned.
Larry, for you thoughts, from Wikipedia article on Hessdalen Lights:
"One recent hypothesis suggests that the lights are formed by a cluster of macroscopic Coulomb crystals in a plasma produced by the ionization of air and dust by Alpha particles during radon decay in the dusty atmosphere. Several physical properties (oscillation, geometric structure, and light spectrum) observed in Hessdalen lights phenomenon can be explained through the dust plasma model. Radon decay produces alpha particles (responsible by helium emissions in HL spectrum) and radioactive elements such as polonium. In 2004, Teodorani showed an occurrence where a higher level of radioactivity on rocks was detected near the area where a large light ball was reported. In fact, when radon is released into air, its solid decay products readily attach to airborne dust.[7] A new computer simulation shows that dust immersed in ionized gas (i.e., dusty plasmas) can organize itself into double helixes. The simulations suggested that under conditions commonly found in space, the dust particles first form a cylindrical structure that sometimes evolved into helical structures. Along some spirals, the radius of the helix was seen to change abruptly from one value to another and then back again, providing a mechanism for storing information in terms of the length and radius of a section of a spiral. Hessdalen Lights may take the helical structure. Surprisingly, dusty plasmas may also assume this structure."
"Another hypothesis explains HL as a product of piezoelectricity generated under specific rock strains (Takaki and Ikeya, 1998)[9] because many crystal rocks include quartz grains which produce an intense charge density. In a recent paper,[10] based in the dusty plasma theory of HL, it is suggested that piezoelectricity of quartz cannot explain a peculiar property assumed by the HL phenomenon – the presence of geometrical structures in its center. Paiva and Taft have shown a mechanism of light ball cluster formation in Hessdalenlights (HL) by the nonlinear interaction of ion-acoustic and dusty-acoustic waves with low frequency geoelectromagnetic waves in dusty plasmas. The theoretical model shows that the velocity of ejected light balls by HL cluster is of about 10,000 m s−1 in a good agreement with the observed velocity of some ejected light balls, which is estimated as 20,000 m s−1.[11] Why the ejected ball is always green-colored? Ejection of small green light ball from HL is due to radiation pressure produced by the interaction between very low frequency electromagnetic waves (VLF) and atmospheric ions (present in the central white-colored ball) through ion-acoustic waves (IAW).[12] Probably only O2+ ions (electronic transition (b4Σg- → a4Î u)), with green emission lines, is transported by IAW..."
Don't know if these explanations are correct, but finally someone is at least taking a serious stab at explaining it in a serious way. The take away lesson is, if a natural phenomenon, likely a very complicated one, but ripe with interesting physics behind it. The problem with broad-spectrum UFO debunkery and ignoring of the phenomenon by most mainstream science is some very interesting stuff can go unexplored, just like other geophysical phenomena like sprites were ignored for decades because of the stigma surrounding UFOs.
"The problem with broad-spectrum UFO debunkery and ignoring of the phenomenon by most mainstream science is some very interesting stuff can go unexplored, just like other geophysical phenomena like sprites were ignored for decades because of the stigma surrounding UFOs."
"UFOs" -- code for "alternative intelligences likely extant somewhere in an observable universe that challenges husbanded belief systems as erroneous as they are unimaginative and as cowardly as they are unscientific."
DR wrote:
"One recent hypothesis suggests that the lights are formed by a cluster of macroscopic Coulomb crystals in a plasma produced by the ionization of air and dust by Alpha particles during radon decay in the dusty atmosphere.”
Agent Kay, from Men In Black said:
“…. The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus. “
I would put both of those conjectures on the same level.
Larry and David
Could I ask a question?
Regarding the forms TSLs can take. Would you say it is secure that they can only form diffuse light effects? I had understood that at Hessdalen more crisp 'ball of light' type plasmas had been observed?
The reason I ask is my own single experience of something like this was of a pure white sphere, self luminous (I assume therefore I was looking at ionised air), minimum diameter, with the assistance of a convenient landmark it moved behind of >20m. It moved at a low but constant altitude from south to north over the Pennine ridge (UK) just east of a village called Denshaw. Speed estimate 100 to 200 mph altitude approx 500 to 1000 feet above the general hight of the ridge line, but in a flat trajectory with no variations in speed or altitude above sea level.
There were no variations in colour, luminosity or apparent shape (appeared as a pure white circle, over at least 60 degrees so I take it as a sphere).
Perhaps the dark helicopter following about 2 miles behind it ought to be telling me something (it certainly shook me up a bit at the time)but up to now I had two possible explanations left for this experience, one of which was a TSL. Hence my interest in the comment about them being diffuse. There was nothing diffuse about this one!
thanks for a most interesting conversation
Anthony:
Consider the statement “The object Anthony Mugan saw over Pennine ridge was a TSL “.
I say that conjecture is highly insecure because for it to be true all the conjectural intermediary physical processes by which tectonic strain underground supposedly turns into photons falling on your retina telling you that there is a luminous sphere in the distance would also have to have been shown to be real. One or two of those processes have been suggested and modeled, but not validated by experiment, others have been either discussed in a cursory manner, or ignored. A consistent, end-to-end physically realistic explanation of the phenomenon does not exist (to my knowledge).
On the other hand, consider the statement “The object Anthony Mugan saw over Pennine ridge was NOT a TSL “. That is equivalent to trying to prove a negative. In order for that statement to be considered categorically true, it would have been necessary for someone to have systematically considered ALL the possibilities by which a TSL could be created, have analyzied them and dismissed them on some rational basis or other. Clearly that has not happened.
As usual in science, there is no formal proof of “truth” as there is in mathematics, just an accumulation of evidence which can be more or less persuasive.
For what it’s worth, I had a very similar sighting in the Mojave desert in October of 1989 (but without the helicopter). It was a large apparent sphere. Like you, I saw it over probably 100 degrees of arc in azimuth and 30 degrees of arc in altitude and it always presented a circular cross-section. Therefore, like you, I inferred that it was a sphere. Like you, I saw it at one point in proximity to an object on the horizon, whose diameter I knew to be about 30 m, diameter. It was self luminous, so like you I assumed it was ionized. It was a red-orange color. At one point I was able to view it through magnifying optics in the same field of view as a sodium vapor traffic light in the foreground. They appeared equal in brightness, but of slightly different color. Knowing the distance from myself to the streetlight (≈ 100 m) and the unknown (≈ 4 mi) I was able to estimate that the optical energy output of the sphere was in the multi-Megawatt range. As I was driving almost due West on a straight highway, the object seemed to approximately keep pace with me over a period of about 50 minutes, sometimes at what looked to be within 10 m of the ground, sometimes about 1000.
Nothing about the sighting justified the conclusion that I had seen a Venusian scoutship, but likewise, nothing justified the conclusion that I had seen an "earthquake light", IMHO.
Thanks...a very logical response
Charles -
I have decided that I do not care to give him any publicity on this blog. For that reason, I have removed the link.
Charles -
I probably should have mentioned that I have never talked to the guy, never communicated with him via email and only know that I don't subscribe to his theories. In fact, I only learned of his existence a few months ago. If you put in credibility into what he claims, then shame on you.
Post a Comment