From: Tim Shell <tshell.nul> Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 08:38:30 -0600 Fwd Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:50:36 -0500 Subject: Re: New Zealander First To Explain UFOs - Shell >From: Rod Brock <humble98225.nul> >To: ufoupdates.nul >Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 23:46:01 -0800 (PST) >Subject: Re: New Zealander First To Explain UFOs >From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul> >To: - UFO UpDates Subscribers - ufoupdates.nul> >Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 19:05:50 -0500 >Subject: New Zealander First To Explain UFOs >>Source: Scoop - New Zealand >>http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/SC0403/S00064.htm >>17 March 2004 >>New Zealander First To Explain UFOs >What it comes down to is this: I'm not saying vortice-related >fireballs don't happen; I think they may happen, especially in >tornadic vortice breakdown (where you have the added "oomph" of >a tornado ripping up a gas line) But as a "unified" theory of >"nocturnal lights," Coleman's idea is practically worthless. I've never been much of an enthusiast for LITS, anyway, since they are so inherently easy to misinterpret. They're the "bargain basement" of UFOs. But I doubt that any votrex theory can still adequately explain lights that change color and then back again, lights that repeat patterns and so on. Even something as simple lights that flash on and off are a little hard to explain since it would require a fuel buildup, burn, then re-buildup, over and over again. But, hey. I have an open mind. If this dude can definitively prove that a specific UFO sighting was the result of this process, I'll buy it. Of course, it won't mean that another UFO was a result of the same thing. Theories. I've got some, too.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp