It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

An Unfashionable Explanation for UFO’s?

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 10:18 AM
link   
First I realise there are several threads on this topic but most seem to be quite dated so thought I would raise this especially for newer members.

Currently it would appear that many ‘physical’ UFO’s can be attributed to Chinese lanterns, highly reflective helium-filled balloons, increased commercial air traffic (usually on landing approaches), helicopters (doing whatever it is helicopters do but which is usually surveillance), black-budget aircraft and of course – birds, satellites and planets (especially where IR is being used.)

In parallel with these, there are the deliberate hoaxes (model aircraft, balloons fitted with lights) and the irritating CGI offerings (which are only likely to increase both in frequency and annoyance factor.)

Thankfully, along the way we seem to have dropped swamp gas, weather balloons (apart from around Roswell), the moon, meteors etc.

But we also appear to have dropped Earthlights and Earthquake lights.

I’ll be up front and state that after reading Paul Devereux’s book some time ago, I still maintain a firm belief that some of the unexplained lights may just be that – Earthlight caused by phenomenal friction in the Earth’s mantle (especially where it is composed of quartz). Similarly, the occurance of UFO around volcanoes could be atrributable to either Earthlights/Earthquake lights. It is not so much that volcanoes attract UFO’s but that they produce them.

At one point, Earthlights were a highly fashionable explanation for many (but not all) sightings and much research was done – certainly in the UK and France where sightings were mapped to the local geology. From memory there was quite a good correlation between quartz and sightings.

It seems strange that what I believe to be a plausible explanation is never mentioned these days and I ask fellow ATS members if they have heard that Earthlights themselves have been ‘debunked’ or is an explanation of Earthlights too little understood/too prosaic?

For anyone interested I have provided a few links below

Paul Devereux’s site

www.pauldevereux.co.uk...

Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org...

The Earth's Anomalous Lightforms
inamidst.com...

Peace!




posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Hi The Wave -I'm sure earthlights play a role in many UFO misidentifications (the Marfa lights being a good example) but there are also many unexplained UFO incidents which do not appear to fit this explanation - here are just four examples taken from the forum page today:


UFOs over Argentina ~ The Bariloche Incident.


The Coyne incident, Mansfield, Ohio, 1973


The Little Rissington UFO Incident - October, 1952.


*Above BlueBook* - Ohio UFO Chase , Portage County April 17, 1966


Cheers.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 10:55 AM
link   
I believe that in the vast universe we inhabit, there is definitley more life than what has evolved on our planet.

That being said, I also believe that UFO sightings can be explained in 99.9999% of the cases.

I can not think of any reason that "they" would want to visit our planet. We have no resource that is not abundently available through out the universe.

Why would they come unimaginable distances, and expend unimaginable amounts of resources to fly around flashing lights? It just doesn't make sense.

I've not heard of this theory but appreciate you bringing it to my attention. Its always good for the UFO community when smart people come out and give explanations that do not include anal probes, mutants and underground bases.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


Hi karl 12,

First - thanks for the links.

I'm open minded and really didn't mean to suggest that Earthlights explains all - just that this explanation never seems to be aired hese days.

Peace!



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Merigold
 


Hi Merigold,

Think we have the same view! Pleased that this is a new topic for you.

Peace!



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Merigold
That being said, I also believe that UFO sightings can be explained in 99.9999% of the cases.



I think it may be about 70% - and even then its worth pointing out that many 'official' explanations sound incredibly dubious.




"The opposite conclusion could have been drawn from The Condon Report's content, namely, that a phenomenon with such a high ratio of unexplained cases (about 30 percent) should arouse sufficient scientific curiosity to continue its study."
"From a scientific and engineering standpoint, it is unacceptable to simply ignore substantial numbers of unexplained observations... the only promising approach is a continuing moderate-level effort with emphasis on improved data collection by objective means... involving available remote sensing capabilities and certain software changes."

Ronald D Story - American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics UFO Subcommittee -New York: Doubleday, 1980


Thread


Cheers.

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   
firm believer that 99% of UFO's can or will be explained. I still think that WE need to be the aliens that visit other worlds.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by The Wave
 



Hi The Wave, thanks for the reply - as you said I certainly think 'earthlights' or 'ghostlights' explain some UFO reports but I agree the phenomenon fails to explain many UFO cases.

I don't know if you've seen it but Internos has made a great post in this thread about atmospheric phenomena and the work of the CIPH.

Cheers.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Wave
It seems strange that what I believe to be a plausible explanation is never mentioned these days and I ask fellow ATS members if they have heard that Earthlights themselves have been ‘debunked’ or is an explanation of Earthlights too little understood/too prosaic?


The Marfa lights have been debunked and I posted a link in the Marfa lights thread.

Marfa lights explained

The Hessdalen lights haven't been debunked AFAIK and I don't think they will be, I think they are real earth lights and may not have anything to do with earthquakes. Some suspect it has something to do with the mineral composition in the area.

I suspect some of the Earth lights do result in some sightings like the Hessdalen lights and some others are misidentifications like the Marfa lights.

This Wiki link is pooly documented and has the warning at the top about that, so I wouldn't take anything there as fact but it does give some insight regarding the global nature of some unidentified lights:

Will-o'-the-wisp



Originally posted by karl 12
Hi The Wave -I'm sure earthlights play a role in many UFO misidentifications (the Marfa lights being a good example) but there are also many unexplained UFO incidents which do not appear to fit this explanation - here are just four examples taken from the forum page today:


As I said the Marfa lights aren't Earth lights, but I agree with your point, Earth lights can only explain a small percentage of sightings.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Hi Arbitrageur,

Many thanks for the links - I agree that some are misidentifications (maybe I should have added car headlight in) whilst others could be earth phenomena that we don't yet understand.

Have a feeling that there may also be an atmospheic phenomenum based on sheer enegrgy of the sun beating on open crops - once felt this in Australia near a huge wheat field - the air felt totally electrically charged (no storm or lightning.)

Peace!



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
As I said the Marfa lights aren't Earth lights, but I agree with your point, Earth lights can only explain a small percentage of sightings.



Arbitrageur, thanks for the reply and I stand corrected -I was under the impression that a popular explanation was the piezoelectric effect through expanded quartz - now I see it's our old friend the superior mirage temperature inversion combined with car headlights:




The University of Texas sent the Society of Physics Students, a highly respected professional association, to investigate the Marfa Lights. Their official report, available at spsnational.org, found conclusively that when the lights appeared, they were precisely correlated with car headlights on Highway 67. The lights were completely predictable and the phenomenon was fully repeatable, based on cars on the highway. Quite a few photographs have been taken of the lights at night, which when superimposed upon a photograph from the same camera location during the day, show Highway 67 in the extreme distance, precisely in the same place as the light in the night photograph. The strange movement of the lights is attributed to the magnifying or shimmering effect caused by a so-called Fata Morgana mirage, a type of superior mirage, in comparison to the more common inferior mirage. Superior mirages, where objects appear higher than their actual position, can make distant objects — even those below the horizon — appear to hover in the air. Inferior mirages, where objects appear below their actual position, can make objects up in the air, such as a patch of sky, appear below the horizon, like the proverbial lake in the desert. Anytime the temperature gradients are suitable, the Marfa Lights should appear and behave predictably. Other independent investigations have also found the same correlation with cars on nearby Highway 90.

Link





As for the Hessdalen lights, maybe they are a result of the piezoelectric effect or ionized gas but they certainly do appear very strange - if you've not seen it before, there's some very interesting interviews in the short video below:



Cheers.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Earthlights? Maybe. What does Mr Deveroux really think they are? I like the eartlight thing, but these lights are intelligent, sure there is a theory that Planet Earth is a living creature itself, maybe these little intelligent spheres are like pollen, spawn or babies, emitted from from Mother Earths volcanoes? These things are from experience real and I personally go down the Muslim route, the Jinn, a life form just like us that acts just as we humans do, maybe they are just invisible to us most of the time and change dimensions every now and then.

[edit on 8-4-2010 by ufoorbhunter]



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ufoorbhunter
 


Hi Ufoorbhunter,

Maybe I'm not as advanced in my thinking as you.

I was thinking more along the lines (not ley lines) of something emitted from the earth (the piezoelectic effect) or even the atmosphere - something like ball lightning - a ball of plasma or even what is termed as an 'orb'?

Have read, however, that such an energy field could appear to move according to other very localised energy fields (including perhaps our brains?) and would, therefore, appear to be intelligent.

Peace!



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Wave
I was thinking more along the lines (not ley lines) of something emitted from the earth (the piezoelectic effect) or even the atmosphere - something like ball lightning - a ball of plasma or even what is termed as an 'orb'?



The Wave -here's some pretty freaky footage from over Hessdalen which was captured after a years constant filming in 1999 (see 04:20)



Cheers.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


Hi Karl 12,

Thank you for bringing me up to date!

Found the link really interesting and appreciate you posting it - seems there is still an interest in what I think of as 'pure energy'. And with more modern technology being applied, whatever this phenomena it is, will hopefully become better understood.

I especially liked the end where they stated that it appeared to be a solid (metallic?) object.

Peace!



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   
You may also be interested in Michael Persinger's papers. He wrote extensively about the psychological and physical effects of natural and artificial electromagnetic fields.

Among his published papers are :

"Tectonic strain theory of luminous phenomena"

"Prediction on Fortean event reports from population and earthquake numbers"

"Prediction of UFO reports by geomagnetic and seismic activity"

www.shaktitechnology.com...

Now that IS interesting.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by The Wave
 
Explanations for UFOs are only unfashionable depending where the explanation is suggested. The examples in your OP are all credible and will certainly account for the majority of reports. People need to accept that a very small percentage remain 'unidentified.' Of those that remain unidentified...who's to say that other observers wouldn't be able to identify them?

I'm a skeptic of some shade or other...far from debunker and even further from 'true believer.' Whilst trying to rely on facts and probabilities...speculation is more private.

A few years ago, friends and I saw a red light zig-zag from one horizon to the other in less than 4 seconds. That's pretty fast and unlike the behaviour of meteorites or conventional craft. Until a reasonable explanation, fashionable or otherwise, shows up...it's filed as an unidentified wtf/ ufo.

A few years earlier, friends and I took advantage of a clear night sky and looked for satellites or the Mir passing overhead. After a while we saw the steady movement of a light passing through the starry sky. We watched it and chatted as it passed across. Eventually, our attention was caught by another light as the satellite/Mir went by it. This light was the same size, but moved in a triangular pattern at the same speed as the satellite/Mir. Other than the triangular passage, it remained in the same area of the heavens. We spent a few minutes staring and wondering (lots of swearing) what the heck it could be? It didn't do anything more interesting and we got bored and walked away. Again, it's filed away as 'unidentified.'

There are explanations for every UFO...we just don't know all of them yet.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


Hi Kandinsky

As usual, a well thought out response. And in some ways, although parts of me wants an explanation for such sightings, there are other parts of me that certainly don't.

Again, just commenting that Earthlights seem to be out of fashion - except as has already been posted above, in a certain part of the world where a side effect apparently is to make most men grow beards. :-)

Personally I have only ever seen one thing that I couldn't be sure of but in the end put it down to a child's reflective helium balloon - it certainly was moving and reflecting.

Peace!



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by karl 12

Originally posted by Merigold
That being said, I also believe that UFO sightings can be explained in 99.9999% of the cases.


I think it may be about 70% - and even then its worth pointing out that many 'official' explanations sound incredibly dubious.


My guess is that if we had access to all the information on secret aircraft tests on Earth, weeded out all the hoaxes and hallucinations, and completely understood weather and geological forces everywhere, we'd be stuck with about 2% of UFOs that would still be unexplained, and very possibly beyond our ability to fully understand.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by The Wave
 


While the theory does cover some sightings, it does not explain the metallic disks that combat pilots have seen time and time again. It also does not explain the Summer of Saucer wave over Washington DC, and many other sightings.

The earthlights explanation is nothing new and has been shown on many programs as a possible explanation. There are a few who use it to explain abductions of people.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join