UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Nov > Nov 21


From: David Kirby/ Karin Dostal <lbear@rmi.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 23:01:21 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 08:35:17 -0500
Subject: Re: HOT SPOTS

>Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:33:57 -0600
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: joel henry <jhenry@wavefront.com>
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Hot Spots

>>> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 05:11:24 +0100 (MET)
>>> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>> From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl>
>>> Subject: Hot Spots


>>An astronomer who gave a talk at a MUFON Ontario meeting recently
>>argued that UFOs cannot be extraterrestrial craft since they have
>>lights like aircraft which would make them too easy to detect at
>>night. But who is to say that this is actually the exception
>>rather than the rule and that the vast majority of UFOs are in
>>fact unlit objects.

>Most UFO's have lights. A bright single color or white is quite
>conspicuous. But if they try to imitate aircraft lights they would
>be largely ignored by the public who assume it is aircraft. they
>don't know common lighting patterns and even the military uses
>different patterns to identify specific craft from the ground.
>This is called "disguising" rather than hiding. People are getting
>more critical about what they see, so the reports of UFO's are
>more likely the real thing than misidentifications or natural
>phenomena. At Minnesota MUFON, we hardly ever get easily explained
>sightings. A light in the sky is not enough, it either has to do
>something extraordinary or be close enough not to look like anything

Joel Henry's assertion that:

"Most UFOs have lights. A bright single color or white is quite
conspicuous.", sounds exactly like the kind of ufological dogma
that keeps the study of this phenomenon mired in tail-chasing
fruitlessness. We'll assume that Henry meant that ufo cases
reported at night are characterized by the witnessing of a light
of some kind. That's fine.Plenty of reports involve daylight
sightings with no lights visible. Let us not venture into the
dangerous territory of characterizing what is or might be out
there. Unwitnessed ufo's are just as real as witnessed ones,
aren't they?

Airplanes use lights to identify themselves to other aircraft and
ground-based navigation agencies. If we assume that ufo's are
craft piloted by extra-terrestrials, externally visible lights
would seem a pointless feature, and a counter-productive one if
their surveillance of our planet is indeed clandestine.

As for the fact that different conventional aircraft use
different lighting schemes, so what? 98 potential observers out
of a hundred see a blinking light moving across the sky and
assume it is an aircraft of explainable origin, regardless of the
frequency, brilliance or duration of the lights visible. I have
often wondered, if these little rascals are determined to be as
invisible to Joe Mundane as they could be, why not turn on the
lights and pretend to be a Cessna? Are all aircraft that appear
to be earth-based really earth-based?

Then again, why not turn the lights off altogether?

Sniggling little point, and thanks to Joel for an otherwise
well-informed posting.

dave kirby

Search for other documents from or mentioning: lbear | jhenry | hvdp

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com