UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2004 > Mar > Mar 18

Re: New Zealander First To Explain UFOs - Shell

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


>>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 Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com