UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Nov > Nov 24

Re: Phoenix lights, FTs, whatever

From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 13:38:53 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 21:51:34 -0500
Subject: Re: Phoenix lights, FTs, whatever


>  Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 13:08:18 +0200
>  From: Jakes Louw <LOUWJE@telkom.co.za>
>  To: updates@globalserve.net
>  Subject: Phoenix lights, FTs, whatever:combined post in response to
>      replies


>  This is a combination of three replies, 2 posted to the list,
>  one a private post that I have kept anonymous as I haven't
>  specifically asked the mailer if I could use his/her name.

>  >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>  >From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
>  >Subject: re: UFO UpDate: Phoenix lights, FTs, whatever
>  >Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 12:23:00 -0800

>  >We don't know. There are some daytime sightings of triangular
>  >geometries, but not many.

>  Reference sites? Case studies?

There is a good case with AF officers observing 3 delta shaped
metallic objects in daytime, Ruppelt, p 24. This was an AF
unknown.

In most historical studies, triangular objects are a small
percentage of configurations (UFO Evidence, Blue Book); since
most UFOs are seen at night (Vallee, Fowler), daytime sightings
of triangular configurations are bound to be extremely rare.

>  >I suspect some percentage (size unknown) are mispercieved
>  >aircraft. I know that I have seen some video and photo material
>  >claiming to be FTs which are clearly aircraft.

>  >>  - Why fly something over Phoenix at night, with all
>  >>  the headlights on

>  >They can't turn them off.
>  >They don't care if we see them.

>  Have you proof of this? Why can't they turn them off?
>  If they don't care, why not fly during the day?

These were speculative alternatives. Why can't they turn them
off? Well, have you ever tried to make the exhaust coming out of
your car not be emitted, and still be able to have the engine
running? Doesn't work. Can a plane fly when its engines aren't
emitting blasts of hot air? Can't happen.

They do fly during the day. But as the studies cited above have
shown, not often. Maybe the UFO source is nocturnal. Maybe they
have a "prime directive" to be as little obvious as possible. Who
knows?

>  >>  - Why are these things mostly observed over high
>  >>  population density areas, and not small to medium
>  >>  settlements

>  >FT sightings have been in a variety of areas. The Hudson Valley
>  >sightings, for instance, were in areas ranging from high pop to
>  >rural. Also, don't forget, if there are no witnesses, or the
>  >witnesses don't report, you don't know what's being seen. We are
>  >far from having good national coverage of sightings.

>  Fair enough, but we need to base any theories on investigated
>  cases that have a fair chance of being "genuine" unidentified
>  FTs. Therefore, the role of MUFON or whatever other organization
>  willing to take up the role of international data
>  collector, is to categorize and sort any and all reports.
>  Field investigators, REGARDLESS of their organizational
>  allegiances, must contribute to this database.

I don't think anyone would allege that anyone is not contributing
to any database of reports. FUFOR, MUFON, and CUFOS all publish
both significant cases and studies. I'm not sure what you're
getting at.

We all know that there are places in the world that have 0 UFO
investigators per square mile. There are places that have 0
potential witnesses per square mile. We just don't know what's
happening in those places. Let's be realistic. Very rural
locations are places where the chances of sightings diminish
greatly,even if UFO activity were on par or more than that in
populated areas.

>  >>  If one flies at night to hide oneself, then the
>  >>  lights should be off, no?

>  >If the "lights" are not lights but are an ionization side effect
>  >of some part of the operation of the object, then perhaps not. We
>  >know that UFOs can shut down their luminosity for limited periods
>  >at least without falling out of the sky, but there is a clear
>  >connection between UFO luminosity and operation (see
>  >Moreland-1959, Selma-1957 in my website chronological catalog

>  >   http://www.geocities.com/~mcashman/ufochron.htm

>  >for more details).

>  We "know" this? We have tested said flying craft, and have
>  documented evidence that these craft produce some EM
>  effect that is in the incandescent light intensity range
>  of those seen in Phoenix? Have we testimony from an
>  electronics expert that can tell us at what voltage
>  these arc-light effects are produced?

Jakes, there are some things we can know without having to test a
captured UFO. If you checked the cases like the Selma case and
the Moreland case, you would see a clear correlation of manuvers
to luminosity. That, to me, means, we "know" that luminosity is
tied to UFO operation and manuvers. The Moreland case is one of
many, however, where, at least, visible light emanations from the
object are apparently "off" yet the object continues to fly.
Therefore there are only a few alternatives:

1) The luminosity is not a side effect of the system that
supports the UFO in the air.

2) The luminosity is a side effect of that system, but can be
shifted to non-visible frequencies (this is supported by photos
such as the Beaver Falls PA photos, which show a cone of
luminosity which was not visible at the time the photos were
taken, and which apparently was emitting UV or IR).

I think that in your comments about voltages, etc, you are still
thinking of UFO lighting as big bulbs and spotlights. Research,
including Bruce Maccabee's examination of the Gulf Breeze "blue
beam" , the observations in cases such as the Moreland and Seaman
cases, and many others, indicate that the lighting on UFOs is a
byproduct of atmospheric ionization. This may be caused by a
number of mechanisms, which may include the injection of
electrons into the neighborhood of the surface of the object, or
X-rays / gamma rays, or some other high intensity EM emissions.
Hill has done some calculations in this regard. Vallee has found
output from UFOs in the visible to be in the kilowatt to megawatt
ranges.

>  >>  If one flies at night with the lights on, so one
>  >>  can see where one is flying, I assume,

>  >This is probably not a likely reason for UFO luminosity. Again, see
>  >cases such as those mentioned above which suggest the luminosity
>  >is a side effect of the operation of the object.

>  See my queries as well. I much prefer to think they use the
>  lights as warnings.

You may think as you please. However, then you must answer the
question of why the luminosity is correlated to manuvering, why
close observations show luminosity, not light bulbs, and why UFOs
would be concerned about collisions when they clearly have the
performance to avoid any conceivable collision speed of man made
aircraft or missiles.


>  >Maybe they do. But maybe the big wing guys are nocturnal. I mean,
>  >really, any of this is speculation. We can't say why the UFO
>  >phenomenon behaves as it does without carefully examining the
>  >available information.
>
>  Aha! And there you say it yourself: "the available information".
>  Do we have info of the right quality to formulate informed
>  opinions? Shouldn't we do that first?

I think we have the information. I think the analysis remains
somewhat lacking, but there are tens of thousands of historical
cases, each of which can add a piece to the puzzle, falsify
hypotheses, etc.


>  Not at all, because NOTHING has been explained regarding the
>  phenomena!

I don't agree. There are many things which have been able to be
explained about UFOs. I would refer you again to Hill's book,
which puts much of what it known in solid and quantitative form.

I wish we had more people working at his level, but we don't.

Still, that's no excuse for ignoring the vast amount of
information at our disposal if we choose to look.

>  I'm sorry: nobody has started getting it yet: this FT phenomena
>  is predominantly an American/UK thing:
>  what we need to do is find the common denominator/s in each case
>  or sighting.

I don't know how to interpret the last part of that sentence, but
as far as I know, there is no study to support your conclusion.
In fact, a number of excellent triangle sightings are from
Australia and Belgium, among others.

------
Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at
http://www.geocities.com/~mcashman
- Original digital art, writing, and UFO research -
Author of SF novels available at...
http://www.infohaus.com/access/by-seller/The_Temporal_Doorway_Storefront
------



Search for other documents from or mentioning: mcashman | louwje

[ 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