Earthlights, telluric lights, amber gamblers, spook lights, ghost lights are a natural phenomenon. The best theory to explain them is that there are locations of seismic (or tectonic) stresses on Earth where the stresses on the rocks is so intense that it creates lights due to piezo-electric effect, particuarly when the rocks contain quartz.
Earthlights are highly localized, reappearing over and over again in basically the same locations.
Places where such phenomenon is observed are Marfa, Texas; a sector near near Joplin, Missouri; Uinta Basin, Utah, and at Brown Mountain, North Carolina, Sedona, Arizona, and of course in places of other countries than the US also. All these locations are quite seismic, sometimes isolated in non seismic surroundings.
On the other end, strange lights are sometimes reported in non seismic regions on a similar regular pattern: Pine Bush, New York; Newcastle, Wyoming (near "Devil's Tower", which was made famous by the movie Close Encounters of the Third Kind); Saratoga, Texas and so on.
Actually the locations where such phenomenon occur are not always seismic regions, so the theory of their origin by tectonic stress is not bulletproof yet. There are several other clues indicating that this theory is not yet proved:
The Technotic Stress Theory to explain the earthlight phenomenon has been proposed by Paul Devereux, a reasearcher, Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, Full Member of the Society for Scientific Exploration (USA) Member of the Scientific and Medical Network, Member of the Folklore Society, Member of the Traditional Cosmology Society, Member of the Society for the Anthropology of Consciousness (USA), Member of the Society for Psychical Research (UK), Research Fellow of the International Consciousness Research Laboratories Group.
He has authored books such as THE SECRET LANGUAGE OF THE STARS AND PLANETS , EARTH LIGHTS REVELATION, PLACES OF POWER SECRETS OF ANCIENT AND SACRED PLACES, SYMBOLIC LANDSCAPES, SHAMANISM AND THE MYSTERY LINES.
His web site www.acemake.com/PaulDevereux/ indicates that his topics include ANCIENT SITES & WORLD-VIEWS COGNITIVE ARCHAEOLOGY CONSCIOUSNESS RESEARCH ECOPSYCHOLOGY PHENOMENA "EARTH MYSTERIES"/ANCIENT MYSTERIES GEOMANCY
They have probably caused legends of ghosts, spirits of long-dead Indians.
It may be possible that there is no one single explanation for Earthlights, but several: bizarre electrical phenomenons, glowing methane (swamp gas) created by the decay of dead plant material, unusual atmospheric conditions may cause mirages that reflect and magnify light from extremely distant sources.
Some say that all reported UFOs are earthlights - generally in attempt to dismiss the extra-terrestrial origin of UFOs hypothesis. Of course Paul Devereux does not claim this at all, but of course skeptics, debunkers and people not sufficienly informed about the various aspect and high richness of the UFO phenomenon quickly jumped to the conclusion that all UFOs are actually Earthlights.
Actual laboratory experiments by Brian Brady of the U.S. Bureau of Mines showed that the luminosities produced by the piezo-electric effect in fracturing rock cannot, in Brady's words, account for 'discrete' light forms seen at high altitude. In fact, Brady's experiments, according to Greg Long in Examining the Earthlight Theory, actually seem to eliminate the piezo-electric effect as a source of earthlights or UFOs because the energy output from piezo-electricity is simply too weak to account for anything more than momentary, diffuse glows of light. As in many other so-called "explanation of all these UFOs", quantitative factors are often simply ignored.
Moreover, no valid statistic corrleation between eartquakes and seismic events has been established: sure enough, some authors have tried to, but rather than use valid UFO case data collections such as the list of "unknowns" of Project Blue Book, they have used news items from Fate Magazine and database such as the U database which does not constitute a valid statisical data set. They have also strechted the time period of seismic activities, for example by considering that if a UFO is sighted long before an earthquake occurs, then the UFO was an Earthlight. Even distances and locations have been stretched in an unnacceptable manner. Worse, UFO reported over non seismic zones have been ignored.
Because the Tectonic Stress Theory does not explain anything else than maybe some repeating well known and precisely luminous phenomenon such as the Marfa lights, Dr. Michael Persinger, the theory's main proponent, has added a sequel to the theory, which obviously pleased debunkers:
If tectonic stress cannot directly explain UFOs, then it creates them in the brain of the UFO witness.
Canadian scientist Chris Rutkowski put the idea in its formal logic order (and pointed out that the theory cannot explain all UFOs):
- Strain is produced in the Earth's crust,
- Strain produces an electromagnetic discharge,
- The electromagnetic discharge affects human perception,
- This discharge makes a person believes that he or she has seen a UFO.
The theory doesn't stop with UFO sightings. It also claims that these electromagnetically induced hallucinations may be responsible for alien abduction experiences, religious experiences and ghosts.
The theory says that parts of the brain (alternatively, the temporal lobes and the hippocamus have been indicated), when hurt or diseased such as in epilepsy, these symptoms occur:
- Paranormal/mystical experiences
- Enhanced imaginings (especially from childhood)
- Widening effect
- Vestibular (floating, low frequency vibration) sensations
- anomalous smells
- Intense episodes of personal meaning
Indeed these symptoms are very similar to those that are sometimes produced by hallucinogenic drugs, such as LSD, psilocybin, mescaline, etc. They are also similar to effects reported by some people who have had religious experiences.
But they are not at all experienced in a great number of solid cases where the witnesses were numerous, a whole city, or two different radar operator teams and pilots and ground witness simultaneously observing a UFO.
It becomes also very difficult to explain how a reported UFO can be photographed if it is not a real physical phenomenon.
Again we have a theory that may account for some borderline reports of various phenomenon, but it only makes sense if one ignores an essential part of the UFO phenomenon: its physical evidence.
Who is Dr. Michael Persinger? Dr. Persinger is a professor at Laurentian University in Sudbury, Ontario, Canada who has been studying the effects of electromagnetic fields on the temporal lobes for years. According to an article no longer on the Internet, Persinger's studies have been partially financed by the U.S. Navy through Dr. Eldon Byrd. Also according to that article, Persinger has been, if not a member of the Aviary himself, close friends and associates with at least two purported "Aviary" members: Jack Vorona and C.B. Scott Jones. He is said to have done... research on the effects of electromagnetic radiation on the brain for a Pentagon weapons project. Persinger, although his work on the Tectonic Strain Theory involves the disciplines of geology and neurology, is neither a geologist nor a neurologist. He is a psychologist, according to his autobiographical sketch. Also from his autobiographical sketch is Dr. Persinger's statement of the purpose of his research:
As a human being, I am concerned about the illusionary explanations for human consciousness and the future of human existence. Consequently after writing the Neuropsychological Base of God Beliefs (1987), I began the systematic application of complex electromagnetic fields to discern the patterns that will induce experiences (sensed presence) that are attributed to the myriad of ego-alien intrusions which range from gods to aliens. The research is not to demean anyone's religious/mystical experience but instead to determine which portions of the brain or its electromagnetic patterns generate the experience. Two thousand years of philosophy have taught us that attempting to prove or disprove realities may never have discrete verbal (linguistic) solutions because of the limitation of this measurement. The research has been encouraged by the historical fact that most wars and group degradations are coupled implicitly to god beliefs and to the presumption that those who do not believe the same as the experient are somehow less human and hence expendable. Although these egocentric propensities may have had adaptive significance, their utility for the species' future may be questionable.
In order to test the effects of magnetic fields on the brain, Persinger and associates have devised a helmet outfitted with solenoids that are attached to a computer in order to magnetically stimulate the brain of the wearer. The helmet/computer combination can selectively stimulate different parts of the brain of the wearer with predefined patterns of magnetic field stimulation.
In a CNI news story, Jay Ingram of the Canadian Discovery Channel relates how he went to Persinger's lab to try the helmet. Ingram didn't see aliens, he merely felt a "presence."
In fact, most people who wear the helmet DON'T see aliens. They merely "feel a presence". The ones who DID see "aliens" saw them under special circumstances: a particular pattern of magnetic stimulation was applied to their frontal lobes, and with their eyes closed, a flashlight was pointed at their eyes and slowly lowered, then later the flashlight was raised. This very specific set of stimuli produced an abduction hallucination.
The Tectonic Strain Theory and the research that has been conducted leave me wanting the answers to several questions:
In order to obtain an abduction-like response from the subjects, researchers had to direct a particular pattern (computer-controlled) of magnetic stimulation to a particular part of the brain. Even if seismic activity or tectonic strain does indeed release magnetic energy that reaches the surface in sufficient strength to affect someone's behavior, it certainly does not beam it into that person's frontal lobes in a particular pattern. So, how does the helmet prove anything about abductions? The answer is that it doesn't. It doesn't prove anything about them. What it proves is that a combination of sensory isolation and a helmet that directs magnetism in specific patterns to specific areas of the brain can produce some psychological effects. We know that some drugs can do the same, and that sometimes sensory deprivation alone can also produce such effects.
In order to obtain an abduction-like response from their magnetically stimulated subjects, researchers had to shine a flashlight at them and slowly lower, then raise it. Who's shining a flashlight at abductees?
Are TST proponents claiming that abductees have more magnetically sensitive temporal lobes than other people? TST researchers have not verified that abductees are being exposed to magnetic fields at the time of their abduction experience. In fact, they seem to be doing little actual study of the abductees themselves. We are all regularly exposed to magnetic fields of even greater strength than those used in the helmet experiments. Magnetic fields/EM fields are generated by every power line and every electrical appliance in our homes and even stronger ones are generated by machines in many workplaces. If electromagnetic fields from far underground can cause abductees to hallucinate, then why don't stronger and nearer electromagnetic fields cause abductees to hallucinate? (See how the Sagan quote above applies here...) To say that these everyday electromagnetic fields aren't the "right kind" won't suffice as a response to this unless you prove that tectonic strain DOES produce the "right kind" of electromagnetic fields (If, indeed, there is a "right kind".).
There must be tectonic stress release with accompanying EM fields when abductees are in the presence of others, at work or at play. Why no effects at those times?
On the other hand, if abductions are merely temporal lobe hallucinations of those with sensitive temporal lobes, how is it that there are sometimes multiple abductions, such as Betty & Barney Hill, or the three women who were abducted in Kentucky, or the four men in Maine? In these multiple abduction cases, everyone had the experience. If our premise is that some people have abduction experiences because their temporal lobes are more sensitive to magnetic stimulation, then we would expect there to be cases where some people in a group (Those with sensitive temporal lobes...) would have an experience, yet others (Those with less sensitive temporal lobes...) would not have any experience at all.
Seems to me that the way to test the TST's possible relationship to the abduction phenomenon would be:
Show that the temporal lobes of abductees are more sensitive to magnetic fields than those of "normal" people. (Test them for unusual temporal lobe electrical activity. Expose them to EM fields while they are hooked up to an EEG.)
Show that these people are being exposed to unusual electromagnetic fields when their abduction experiences are occurring by monitoring their environment.
Show that the source of these magnetic fields is tectonic strain by correlating seismic activity at the location of the abductees' homes with the magnetic field monitoring that was done in #2.
Show that exposure to the type of electromagnetic fields that tectonic stress generates causes these people to have an abduction experience by recreating the same type and intensity of EM field in the laboratory. (An abduction experience, not just a feeling of a "presence"; Not a test using a computer-generated "pattern" of magnetic stimulation; No flashlights, either.)
Do these same things with a control group of individuals who have never reported being abducted by aliens.
All in all, the Tectonic Strain Theory is certainly not a good explanation for most UFO sightings, and if the same type of "science" was used by the defenders of the extra-terrestrial hypothesis, it would of course not be called "science" by the debunkers of that theory.
In order to help you to visually distinguish both phenomenon, check this table. On the left, Earthlights, on the right, UFOs.
Lenticular cloud: | Other phenomenon: |
---|---|
There are some other factors to take into account if you think you have observed a UFO and if you wish to be sure that the observed UFO is not an Earthlight. Here is a short table of some of the possible differences for your help:
Earthlights: | Other phenomenon: |
---|---|
Appear regularly at the same place (for example, Marfa, Texas, reported there since 1880). | There are good UFO reports from all across the worls, all countries, all types of landscapes and places, seismic or non seismic. UFOs rarely reappear at the same location. In almost all good UFO cases, no futher UFO reports were made at the same place later.. |
No demonstrated intelligent behaviour (with exceptions, where witness feel that the lights are following them or eluding them). | There are good UFO reports in which the UFO clearly demonstrated an intelligent control or an intent (chasing a plane, putting weapons systems to halt, firing rays at people, etc.) |
Random appearance. | There are good UFO reports in which several UFOs are flying in formation. |
Short-lived. Earthlights as far as we know do not last long, certainly not hours. | There are good UFO reports where the UFO was seen or detected for a long period of time. |
Near the ground. Earthlights are seen above the ground, up to a certain height, but absolutely not at heights such as 10.000 feet. | There are good UFO reports where the UFO was seen or detected at very high altitudes. |
They always appear out of nowhere and disapear into nothing. | They sometimes appear out of nowhere and/or disapear into nothing, but generally they are seen flying through the sky, or crossing a section of the sky, or landing and then flying away in the distance. |
They are lights, not solid objects. | UFOs are reported as lights particularly at night, but many UFO reports describe solid object, metallic looking, or of changing appearance, or metallic inside a glow, with defined shapes of all sorts (spheres, saucer shaped, cigar shaped, triangluar and many complex shapes). |
When interrogated, radar personal say nothing was detected. | There are clear and sharp radar records showing a material object corresponding to your observation. |
Nothing particular happens. | The phenomenon lands and humanoid or uncommon beings get out of it and maybe do something. |
PAUL DEVEREUX, the world's leading writer and researcher of Earth Lights, has spent years researching the lights, and has badgered the scientific community into taking this phenomenon seriously. And although UFOs have traditionally been the domain of irrationality and pseudo-science, there is now increasing evidence of a real light phenomenon that mainstream science is prepared to look at seriously. There are now enough credible sightings of sufficient reliability for science to begin to wonder what these lights might be.
Marfa: It's not for lack of trying. In recent years there have been a number of scientific examinations, including an exhaustive study by a team from Japan. For weeks at a time the Japanese, using sophisticated cameras and instruments, studied the skies. They filmed the lights, formulated theories, but didn't prove much. There are no phosphor deposits in the area, ruling out glowing phosphorescent minerals. No methane or swamp gas. Static electricity is another theory but, again, one without much supporting evidence. The bottom line is that virtually no one disputes that the Marfa lights exist, but every scientific theory thus far proposed to explain them is seriously flawed.
Piezo electric doesn't explain reports of traveling lights a few feet above the ground. St. Elmo's Fire and ball lightning seem to be good candidates, though.
Seeing The Lightsby Paul Devereux Unusual lights in the sky may be related to activity deep within the earth - and an advance team of scientists is checking it out. One of the many crazy things I'm up to is to go to places around the world where people are reporting unusual lights in the sky (which they only sometimes call UFOs). These places are often remote and wild, such as the Australian Outback. I go on behalf of ICRL, the International Consciousness Research Laboratories (soon to have its own Web site), and I am usually accompanied by a scientist or technical expert of some kind, and one or two other colleagues. When we get to a destination, we question everybody in the vicinity, including (indeed, especially) local indigenous people such as Aborigines and Indians. It is important we get enough information to assess whether or not there really is something unusual going on, or if the preliminary reports we received were incorrect or exaggerated. Sometimes we find that there is no basis to those reports, but on the occasions when we think there is a genuine possibility of some unusual, unexplained phenomenon taking place, we set ourselves up at what we learn are the most suitable locations for skywatching, and deploy our equipment. This might consist of a widespread array of still cameras so that if anything is seen, we get shots from different angles and thus are able to calculate the distance and size of the object. We will have a video camera, too, and we will have another still camera fitted with a diffraction filter. This produces a rainbow spectrum from any light source photographed and records it on film. Experts can often determine what gases are contained within a light-producing phenomenon by examining such spectra. We usually have a magnetometer on hand to check if there are any odd fluctuations in the Earth's magnetic field, and perhaps also a spectrum analyzer so that if we do see anything, we can check what radio frequencies might be being emitted from it. Our aim is always to confirm whether or not unexplained phenomena are actually occurring, and, if they are, to bring back a range of scientifically useful data and observations. These field trips are of a pilot, exploratory nature designed to see if a more substantial scientific presence is required. In August this year, I found myself near the foot of Popocatapetl, a great, steaming volcano 100 km or so east of Mexico City. I was accompanied by the Norwegian engineer, Erling Strand, director of Project Hessdalen. This project started life in the early 1980s, when people in the remote Norwegian valley of Hessdalen began reporting strange lights. Strand was one of those who formed a field research unit which undertook prolonged observations in the snowy, craggy valley. Dozens of photographs of bizarre lightforms were taken, radar contact made with some of them, and other instrumental data obtained. Some of the lights were visible for an hour or more, slowly floating back and forth in front of mountain precipices, sometimes touching down lightly on rocky ridges where they became transparent, then floating upwards again when they assumed more brilliance. But after a couple of years, the incidence of light phenomena decreased, and the team was disbanded. Strand was disappointed that the world community of scientists did not take greater notice of these remarkable events, or of the evidence Project Hessdalen had managed to collect. On the other hand, the ufological community was so besotted with the idea of ET craft, they didn't really want to know about unexplained flying objects. A couple of years ago, however, reports of lights started to come out of Hessdalen once more (though not on the scale of the previous decade), and Strand set up a second Project Hessdalen. The creation of specialist automatic equipment is being conducted as work projects in Strand's engineering college at Ostfold, and slowly, as and when funding allows, the Hessdalen valley is being fitted out with automatic monitoring stations. The aim is to have the whole, six-mile-long valley "wired" so that remote observations can be made to spot and monitor any unusual lights that may appear. This will eventually be on the World Wide Web, so you can log in and watch for light phenomena in real time from the comfort of your own computer! Right now, you can find out about Project Hessdalen at Web site http://www.hiof.no/crulp/prosjekter/Hessdalen/. I had been involved with the investigation of these strange lights -- which resemble ball lightning and earthquake lights but have their own characteristics, too -- for about the same length of time as Strand. I call them "earth lights" and have written two books on the subject -- Earth Lights, Turnstone, UK, 1983, and Earth Lights Revelation, Blandford Press, UK, 1989. The Ley Hunter journal (leyhunt@aol.com, soon to have its own Web site) also carries update reports on the subject area, and issue 114 was a special issue on earth lights. So Strand and I team up for fieldwork whenever we can and whenever the funding is available. On this Mexican trip, we were also accompanied by physicist David Fryberger from Stanford and a TV crew from Britain's Channel Four flagship documentary series, Equinox. We had been making a documentary on earth lights for some time, and as a climax to the show, the TV people wanted to film us actually on one of our expeditions. We had heard rumors emerging from the Valley of Mexico about UFOs, so picked that area to see what was going on. We encountered problems both human and natural. As we investigated the Mexican UFO "flap," which had been going on for a few years, we realized it was as much or more a sociological phenomenon than an anomalous natural one. On 11 July, 1991, there had been a solar eclipse visible from central Mexico, and many people filmed it with their video cameras. Much of this footage showed an apparent glowing object in the sky as the moon eclipsed the solar disk, darkening it and, without the solar glare, rendering things in the sky more visible. It was later conclusively shown that Venus was in exactly this part of the sky at that time, and, moreover, people filmed the thing from locations separated by as much as 150 km, so it wasn't some local object hovering over Mexico City. Yet many people were convinced that the videos were proof of a UFO in the skies above Mexico City, and a huge UFO wave developed. This was inadvertently aided and abetted by Jaime Maussan, a TV producer, who had been impressed with the eclipse films, and invited all and sundry to look out for UFOs in the Mexican skies and to video them and send him the footage, on the understanding that he would broadcast the better pieces. When we spoke to Maussan, he had received some 6,000 video sequences! This process had in itself created a huge surge of interest in things seen in the sky, and so the reports we had heard before arriving in Mexico were undoubtedly an artifact of this media-sociological interest. But was there a real phenomenon buried in all this hype? We looked at some examples of footage that had been received by Maussan, who is a pleasant and sincere man who clearly believes there is a lot of UFO activity over Mexico. We felt, however, that he was less than discriminating about the material he had received. We were not impressed by most of the video sequences we saw, but a few were difficult to explain, and one or two really did seem to show unusual phenomena. So perhaps there was something going on down Mexico way.... There was another reason for suspecting that there might be something in it all -- Popocatapetl. The name means "the smoking one," and the mountain had been known to all the ancient cultures of the Valley of Mexico. Its occasional eruptions had destroyed some of them. El Popo is becoming active again, and is under intense scientific scrutiny. As recently as April, 1996, five climbers where killed in one of its eruptions. A Popocatapetl monitoring geologist told us that there were many mini-quakes around the volcano every day, that it was producing 10,000 tons of sodium dioxide daily. El Popo was stirring again. This was potentially significant, because the appearance of earth lights often seems related to seismic activity. Earthquake lights can sometimes appear just before, during or after a major earthquake, but it seems earth lights can appear with just relatively minor stressing of the Earth's crust. Also, light phenomena have been seen (and even filmed) in association with volcano eruptions on numerous occasions. It is worth bearing in mind that Kenneth Arnold's 1947 sighting of glittering flying disks, the event which gave rise to the term "flying saucers," occurred along the Cascade range in Washington state, which is a chain of volcanoes -- and where years later, Mount St. Helens would erupt with such fury. So we realized that the growing activity of El Popo might be the "motor" driving an increased appearance of light phenomena, which may well be submerged within the general Mexican "uforia." On one occasion, we went part of the way up the 16,000-foot volcano and marveled at its awesome beauty. Its snow cap glistened and white steam and wisps of blue-tinged smoke lazily drifted out of its crater. We finally set up our observation station about 10 km from the base of the El Popo. But our observational work was hampered by bad weather for much of our ten-day stay: a hurricane in nearby Vera Cruz brought low clouds and terrible electrical storms on numerous occasions, blotting out sight of the volcano all together. We got pretty wet and despondent, but we also found that the local people saw lights quite regularly, and they didn't place then in a UFO context. In one village, the lights are fairly frequently seen coming down the valley and are interpreted as being the spirits of night-flying witches. This type of interpretation is common among traditional peoples. The Penobscot Indians of Maine, U.S.A., for instance, claimed that balls of light seen in the night sky were shamans flying out on nocturnal battles, the exact same explanation given to mysterious lights by the Saami people of Lapland. So we became pretty sure that there were real light phenomena taking place in the region, but on what scale or frequency, we could not determine. Moreover, the monitoring geologist on El Popo told us that he had himself seen strange flashes of lights off the peaks and ridges around the volcano. Our luck changed on the last day we were in Mexico. The weather cleared up and the day was vividly clear and bright. But we had a shock -- El Popo's snowcap had disappeared overnight! By the afternoon, the wispy steam emissions had changed to rolling clouds of smoke. The great volcano was putting on a show for us. We observed and monitored eagerly that evening as darkness fell. Our magnetometer picked up what seemed to be bizarre fluctuations in the magnetic field around the volcano (tests at many miles distant showed nothing unusual). But no lights. The TV crew left Fryberger, Strand and myself to our monitoring as they trekked back the good distance to the hotel to pack their equipment. We stayed but saw nothing, so I packed my cameras, and Strand was starting to pack away his instruments. Then we suddenly saw flashes of light on the lower slopes of El Popo. Clear and distinct, and rapidly flashing. In excited mayhem, we tried to pull out our cameras in time to catch the phenomenon, and did manage a few blurred pictures and snatches of video footage. None of us thought we were seeing earth lights proper, but we agreed that it did look like some extraordinary discharge phenomenon, indicating unusual conditions. When we got back to the hotel and informed the crew, the director got up and calmly announced he felt ready to commit suicide! Murphy's law rules, even on earth lights expeditions! Anyhow, you can see how it all came out for yourselves. The film screens on Channel Four in Britain on one of the first two Sundays in November, and it will appear on Discovery Channel in the U.S.A. a little later. Don't miss it! |
The following is a long treatise and analysis of the Tectonic Strain Theory. The TST is widely purported to explain UFOs, ghosts, psychic events, religious ecstacy, spontaneous combustion and pretty well anything else you might name. Literally hundreds of papers have appeared in scientific journals, assuming its real existence and reality. However, there have been very few critical works about the TST, and when such works have surfaced, the critics have been dismissed with commentary or discussion about how complicated the issue is and why it cannot be quantified easily. In short, its proponents appear to invoke almost identical reasons as defendants of the reality of psychic phenomena, and this in itself raises concern among some researchers.
This paper was originally written as a geophysical thesis in 1983, and although more than 10 years old, is still relevant as a critical look at the TST which is still being invoked as a scientific explanation of purportedly paranormal phenomena.
The paper has recently been converted into ASCII by David Thacker of AUFOSG and provided online by Chris Rutkowski.
The Tectonic Strain Theory of Geophysical Luminositiesby Chris A. Rutkowski Winnipeg, Manitoba, 1984 AbstractA new hypothesis, explaining unidentified luminosities, has been proposed which has received wide attention and gen- eral acceptance. It incorporates both geophysical and physi- ological mechanisms in an attempt to explain the wide vari- ety of characteristics of the phenomenon. This study examines the feasibility of the theory from an objective standpoint, and tests the tenability of the interrelations of its interdisciplinary mechanisms.< - ii - CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. THE TECTONIC STRAIN THEORY AND UFOS . . . . . . . . 4 Crustal Strain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Strain-Produced Radiation . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Luminosity From Electromagnetic Discharge . . . 12 UFOs as Fracture-Related Luminosities . . . . . 13 Electromagnetic Effects on the Human System . . 15 Temporal Lobe Experiences . . . . . . . . . . . 18 III. STATISTICAL CORRELATIONS OF THE TST AND UFO OBSERVATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 IV. ANALYSIS OF THE TST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Energy Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Geographical Implications of UFO Sightings . . 29 Earthquake Lights and Dilatancy Hypotheses . . 36 Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 V. OTHER TST-RELATED THEORIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Vestigia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Earth Lights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 VI. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Appendix A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 -- ii -- Chapter I INTRODUCTION Since their entry into the scientific and lay literature in the late 1940's, few topics have caused such controversy as that of UFOs (Unidentified Flying Objects). While tradi- tionally ignored or lightly treated by the scientific commu- nity, the persistence of the phenomenon over 30 years has led some researchers to consider them more seriously (Ja- cobs, 1976). It is recognized that the phenomenon has drawn to it a large contingent of unscientific and unprofessional "believ- ers", many of whom fail to objectively view UFOs without bias. This is not necessarily surprising, given science's stance on the matter, but a Catch-22 situation has resulted. Because the subject is not "reputable", few scientists have spent adequate time considering the problem in detail. This has left the study of the phenomenon to laymen, and often to cult believers. This has kept the "reputation" of UFOs at a low level, and the circle has been completed. But probably because of the relatively long history of UFO reports, some scientists have proposed theories to ex- plain them. Some scientists advocate the ETH (Extraterres- - 1 - trial Hypothesis), which states the most popular UFO expla- nation: that they could be spacecraft from extraterrestrial civilizations. Unfortunately, though most astronomers be- lieve that extraterrestrial civilizations exist, there is no scientifically-acceptable evidence that such civilizations have in fact contacted mankind (Hendry, 1979). Other explanations proposed for UFOs include: "lost" ter- restrial civilizations; "secret" terrestrial devices; spir- itual entities; "natural" phenomena; and mass hallucinations (Jacobs, 1976). None have withstood scrutiny as of this date. It should be noted at the outset that one of the few facts known about UFOs is that about 90 to 95 percent of all UFO reports are misidentifications of conventional or natu- ral phenomena (Hendry, 1979). It is the remaining, signifi- cant percent that is regarded when discussing UFOs - the "real unknowns". It is generally felt by skeptics that this percentage of UFOs can be explained if strong effort is made, or it can never be explained other than in terms of a "background noise" of spurious data. Proponents of the UFO phenomenon as a much more complicated mystery disagree with the skeptics. They argue that the remaining percentage of reports is unexplainable even after attempts to explain them have been made. This disagreement is the prime focus of the UFO controversy. - 2 - Natural phenomena have been suggested as an explanation for UFOs many times (e.g. Klass, 1966). The main drawback to natural phenomena theories is that UFO reports offer such a wide variety of characteristics that natural phenomena fall short of explaining all UFO traits. Recently, however, a theory has been proposed which seems capable of explaining many UFO characteristics based on a mixture of mechanisms and processes. This theory, called the TST (Tectonic Strain Theory), begins with the suggestion that strain fields with- in the Earth's crust can produce an electromagnetic dis- charge that may manifest itself in one of two basic ways. One way is by the electric discharge becoming visible as a moving body of light. The other way is by the discharge af- fecting the human brain so that the observer will "believe" he or she is viewing a moving body of light. Both scenarios are consistent with the theory, and are used to explain the reported appearances of UFOs. So far, only statistical evidence has been presented in support of this theory. This has been in the form of covari- ation of the number of reported UFOs in an area and the lev- el of seismic activity in that area. Whether this is a "real" relationship or an artifact is not clear at the pres- ent time. - 3 - Chapter II THE TECTONIC STRAIN THEORY AND UFOS The Tectonic Strain Theory (hereafter referred to as the TST) is a relatively new explanation for the reported ap- pearance of inexplicable luminosities, sometimes UFOs. Papers dealing with certain aspects of the theory have been published in several journals, covering various disciplines (Persinger, 1975, 1976, 1979a, 1979b, 1980a, 1981, 1982, 1983a, 1983b, 1983c, 1983d, 1983e, unpubl, un- pub2). The proposed mechanism is interdisciplinary in na- ture, and carries with it some necessary qualifications to enable it to cope with a poorly-understood phenomena in terms of better-known phenomena. The theory is best ex- plained by its major proponent, Michael A. Persinger: "Essentially,...normal geophysical processes applied in unusual space-time configurations are responsible for electromagnetic phenomena that have direct physi- cal and biological consequences. These processes in- volve normal alterations in tectonic (structural) stresses within the Earth's crust and are mediated by - 4 - piezoelectric-like effects. The primary natural analog of this putative phenomena would be earthquake light- ning...Whereas earthquake-related luminosities appear contingent upon large releases of structural strain (seismic activities), the luminosities and electromag- netic correlates of alleged close encounters with UFOs are associated with HIGHLY LOCALIZED, less intense changes in crustal structures not necessarily involv- ing major seismic activity." (Persinger, 1979b) (author's emphasis) The TST draws upon several processes for its mechanism, and it is best to examine each of them in some detail. The physical processes are linked implicitly by logical argu- ments, although the basis for these arguments needs careful examination. The major steps involved are: 1) Strain is produced in the Earth's crust. 2) Strain produces an electromagnetic discharge. 3A) The electromagnetic discharge produces a luminosity. 4A) The luminosity is observed as a UFO. Alternatively, steps 3A and 4A may be replaced by: 38) The electromagnetic discharge affects human per- eption. 4B) A person believes that he/she has seen a UFO. - 5 - In order to understand the TST, each of these steps will be considered in systematic sequence, in effect testing the links in the chain. 2.1 CRUSTAL STRAIN Through various processes, strain can be built up in the Earth's crust. These include tectonic activity, tidal action and human activity. Strain is described in terms of dilational and distor- tional strain tensors, as it is a vector in three dimensions (Bath, 1973; Kasahara, 1981; Richter, 1958). The strain ten- sor is defined by the equation: [NOTE: In this ASCII version, CX represents the Greek symbol alpha, ^2 means squared, _u represents mu, _[ is the integration symbol, pi is the pi constant, _B is the symbol for beta.] E(i,j) = e(i,j) - (1/3)e(k,k)CX(i,j) and similarly, the stress tensor is: P(i,j) = p(i,j) - (1/3)p(k,k)CX(i,j) where the arrays e(i,j) and p(i,j) each consist of nine com- ponent vectors which define the stress and strain across any small plane area containing the point in question. The re- lease of tectonic elastic strain energy is the cause of ma- jor earthquakes. This energy can be expressed in a function and form such that: U = _[_[_[_uE^2(i,j) dV - 6 - where _u is the rigidity modulus (the measurement of the re- sistance of an elastic solid to shearing deformation) and U is the distortional strain energy, taken through the volume (Bullen, 1963). The stress tensor is defined as: P(i,j) = 2_uE(i,j) Now, we can also define the stress tensor in terms of the Mises function: P^2(i,j) = (CXS)^2 where S is the value P would have if the material was near the breaking point. CX is a constant that has a value between 0 and 1, and sometimes assigned a value of (sqrt(3))^-1 We can then find E in terms of S such that: E(i,j) = (CXS)/(2_u) we can substitute into our equation for U and find: 4_uU = CX^2S^2Q where Q is the volume of the strained region near breaking point. The total energy released in an earthquake can be roughly calculated by a modified Gutenberg-Richter formula: log E = 11.8 + 1.5 M - 7 - The total energy released in an earthquake of magnitude 8.9 (the greatest on record) is thus about 5 x 10^24 ergs (Bul- len, 1955; Kasahara, 1981). The strain energy, U, will be some fraction of the total energy, E, since there are other forms of energy release such as the dilational strain energy, heat and sound, etc. Thus, we can replace U by qE, where q lies between 0 and 1. Our new equation is then: z_uE = S^2Q where z = 4q (= approximately 2). Experimental results have provided estimates for _u and S: 0.4 x 10^12 dyne cm^-2 < _u < 1.5 x 10^12 dyne cm^-2 S is approximately equal to 10^9 dyne cm^-2 We can then use our equation to calculate Q. The volume of the region near breaking point prior to an earthquake is therefore about 10^19 cm^3, with a radius of about 20 to 50 km in extreme cases (Bullen, 1953, 1955). But this radius is only for the overloaded crustal re- gion. The actual volume of rock in which significant strain exists is obviously much greater than this, but can not be known precisely. - 8 - However, reasonable estimates of the size of the total strained region can be made by comparing the distances be- tween earthquake epicentres and precursory effects, indi- rectly using the magnitudes and energies involved (Brown and Reilinger, 1983). It is extremely difficult to judge the ac- tual extent of precursory effects, since they will intui- tively vary in type, depth and strength for each earthquake. The determination of the size of the strained region will be discussed further, at a later point in this paper. 2.2 STRAIN-PRODUCED RADIATION There are many types of reported Earthquake precursors on record, including ground deformation, change in the levels and chemistry of well-water and the unusual behavior of ani- mals (Buskirk et al., 1981; Rikitake, 1976; Wyss, 1983). A form of precursor that has received relatively little atten- tion is that of the emission of electromagnetic radiation. Although many such reports are spurious or represent other natural or man-made causes, a significant number are well- documented, and the existence of earthquake-related EM ef- fects must be seriously assessed. - 9 - On 31 March, 1980, anomalous EM emissions were recorded thirty minutes before a deep-focus (depth = 480 km) magni- tude 7 earthquake 250 km from an observatory near Tokyo (Gokhberg et al., 1982). These emissions were widely-sepa- rated at 10 Hz and 81 kHz. Other similar emissions were re- corded for a magnitude 7.4 earthquake in Iran, 1200 km from the epicentre, at 27 kHz and 1.63 MHz. Other examples of such emissions have also been reported (Gokhberg et al., 1980; Sadovskiy et al., 1979). It has been known for some time that the strain loading of rocks and minerals produces electromagnetic emission. The strength of the emission varies with the different types of substances; the strongest emission arises from quartz and other minerals with a high crystal lattice energy, while rocks such as sandstone have a very low ability to produce emission under strain. It has been reported that there is a shift to high frequency with an increase in grain size. The actual mechanism for the production of the emission is not definitely known, although several theories have been pro- posed (Lockner et al., 1983; Mizutani et al., 1976). It has been shown that a rapid drop in the piezoelectric field when stress is released (i.e. when fracturing occurs) can produce EM emission. Experiments have shown that the peak frequency for such a piezoelectric pulse is at about 1.7 kHz, and that the energy release from the fracture of a - 10 - small rock specimen with a volume of 50^3 cm is about 10^-18 J. However, there is some doubt that piezoelectricity can produce earthquake lights because of its rapid decay and the possibility of its self-cancelling nature (Finkelstein et al., 1973; King, 1983). An alternate theory for EM emission during fracturing is that of RF (radio frequency) emission caused by a charge buildup across microcracks. During strain processes, there will be discharges between walls of the microcracks which can give not only RF emission, but also IR (infrared) and visible light as well. The energy released by these small cracks has an average spectral range of between 1 and 10^3 MHz (Perel'man and Khatiashvili, 1981). The most plausible proposed mechanism involves the propa- gation of an elastic wave within rock, following fracture. Demin et al., (1981) have speculated that the wave would in- duce the growth of microcracks, and, in the case of semicon- ducting and piezoelectric minerals, the cracking would pro- duce electrical discharges. But the piezoelectric field might also create transistors within the rock, using as bar- riers the layers of semiconducting minerals occurring natu- rally in the ore. These transistors could be coupled into circuits, and an EM emission caused by the formation of mi- crocracks could be amplified, in theory, by these piezoelec- tric and semiconducting minerals. It is immediately obvious - 11 - that in this mechanism the frequency of the amplified EM wave would be dependent on several variables, especially the composition of the rock. This frequency could, depending on these variables, be represented at many points in the EM spectrum, including radio, infrared, visible and x-ray wav- elengths. As a point of note, it has been shown that ultra- sonic pulses can also be generated by rock fractures (Demin et al., 1981). 2.3 LUMINOSITY FROM ELECTROMAGNETIC DISCHARGE As was mentioned in section 3.2, EM emission by rock fracture will probably also include visible wavelengths. The actual size of the luminosities thus produced is difficult to ascertain. While luminescence has been reported in the literature, this has only been in the form of "comet tails" and sporadic outbursts detected on photographic film in close proximity to the rock outcrop undergoing fracture. However, it has been claimed that small, luminous bodies have been detected on the film of the fracturing of a core sample in the laboratory (Brady, private communication).{1} __________ {1} A description of the experimental conditions under which the luminosities were observed is given by Brady et al(unpub). - 12 - These bodies have the reported appearance of sparks caused by the impact of rocks upon one another, but are believed to be fracture- and not impact-related. It has been suggested that if the processes which produce EM emission during rock failure are scale invariant, then in nature, luminosities will be produced by the strain and fracture of large or bod- ies beneath the Earth's surface (Brady et al., (unpub)). These luminosities produced outside the laboratory will, it is thought, be much larger than those observed in the labo- ratory, perhaps reaching 1 m or more on diameter. 2.4 UFOS AS FRACTURE-RELATED LUMINOSITIES If it is indeed possible that large luminosities can be produced in nature by crustal stress, then it would seem likely that they would have been observed and reported. Many reports of seemingly inexplicable lights in the sky have been made throughout history, many given the name "UFO" by default (Jacobs, 1976). But there do exist rare, natural phenomena that appear as lights in the night sky. These in- - 13 - clude ball lightning and earthquake lights, both of which are still not fully understood by scientists, but progress is being made in unravelling their mysteries (e.g. Charman, 1979). In general, earthquake lights are luminous hemispheres, 20 to 200 m in diameter, with a duration following an earth- quake of 10 seconds to 2 minutes. In addition, radio inter- ference is reported to occur after the luminescence, strong- est at about 15 kHz, which is an order of magnitude from the peak emission for strain release under laboratory conditions (Derr, 1973,1977; Finkelstein and Powell, 1970). It has been suggested that the release of stress before an earthquake could generate large electric potentials, cre- ating fields of 10^5 V/m (Demin et al., 1981). If rocks can possess a high enough resistivity (about 10^9 ohm - m), then earthquake lights might be explainable in this manner (Gokh- berg et al., 1980). Ball lightning has been reported infrequently, but enough cases are on record that some characteristics have been de- termined (Barry, 1968). It is spherical, with a diameter of about 30 cm, and may have a contained energy of 10^3 to 10^7 J (with an average of about 10^5 J) and an energy density be- tween 10^2 and 10^3 J cm^-3. - 14 - 2.5 ELECTROMAGNETIC EFFECTS ON THE HUMAN SYSTEM Rather than creating a physical luminosity through the production of visible photons, an alternate method to pro- duce a UFO in the TST is the direct effect of EM radiation upon the human brain. It has long been understood that both electric and mag- netic fields affect physiological systems in various ways. Effects range from dizziness and irritation in weak fields to severe disruptive effects such as induced epilepsy in strong fields. Basically, it appears that the electrochemi- cal responses within the body are interfered with by exter- nal fields, causing the confusion of signals received and originating from the brain. Experimental tests have shown that headaches are frequently reported by individuals ex- posed to electric fields of 15-25 kV/m for extended periods of time (Sheppard and Eisenbud, 1977). As well, fatigue and sleepiness are also reported to be symptoms of prolonged ex- posure to electric fields, although other studies fail to support this, possibly due to differing experimental condi- tions. Medical examinations of individuals exposed to elec- tric fields have found changes in blood composition and car- diovascular function (Persinger, 1973). Since the human body behaves as a conductor, external electric fields will be internally attenuated except in the upper-layers of the skin. - 15 - The perception of electric and magnetic fields by human beings has been a topic of interest for many years. Elec- tric fields of 50-60 Hz, of >10 kV/m can be consciously de- tected by humans, probably by the erection of body hairs. Weaker fields of <5 V/m are claimed to produce behavioral effects, although the physiological mechanism for this is not fully understood (Sheppard and Eisenbud, 1977). The problem of magnetic field exposure is not an easy one, as few studies have been conducted on this topic. So far, the actual effects are not known, although the strength at which magnetic fields are thought capable of influencing biological functions may be as low as 1 Gauss. Magnetic fields are not attenuated within the body, and also will tend to induce currents within the body, so their effects might be construed as being of more significance than elec- tric fields. Experiments have shown that magnetic fields may be perceived as low as 10 Gauss in strength (Becker, 1969). It has even been proposed that the detection of weak magnetic gradients can explain the "art" of dowsing in humans (Ro- card, 1964). Actual changes in the electrical activity of the brains of animals have been found using low-frequency electric fields of 100 kV/m. Biological cycles (circadian rhythms) have also been reported as being affected by exposure to electric fields, and there is evidence of effects on blood - 16 - cell counts in humans following exposure.{2} In all probabili- ty, the mechanism for the changes is due to the production of stress from the influence of electric and magnetic fields upon the human metabolism, encouraging an increase in the production of steroids within biological systems. There is also some evidence that electric fields may operate directly upon the central nervous system, interfering with the normal transmission of information to and from the brain (Beal, 1974). Interestingly, there are phenomena known as magnetic phosphenes which may be relevant to the subject of UFOs. Un- der the influence of an alternating magnetic field with a strength >100 Gauss and at frequencies between 10 and 100 Hz, an individual will observe flashes of light. The peak frequency for this effect is at about 20 Hz. Whether this has any bearing on the reporting of UFOs is not known (Shep- pard and Eisenbud, 1977). __________ {2} Because of the potential danger in exposure to EM radia- tion, limits were recently proposed for the maximum recom- mended level of human irradiation (Cahill, 1983). - 17 - 2.6 TEMPORAL LOBE EXPERIENCES Under extreme conditions, it has been speculated that at high voltages, individuals might experience rather severe alterations in normal brain functions (Persinger, 1983c). "Dreamy conditions" and temporary paralysis might be experi- enced. Other suggested sensations are out-of-the-body expe- riences (OOBEs), religious "awakenings" and feelings of "cosmic significance", since these emotions can be produced by stimulating the limbic structures of the brain (including the hippocampus) with electric currents. Such stimulation apparently may induce "false" memories of dreamed events, making a person "believe" he or she has experienced some- thing which has not occurred. These "artificial hallucina- tions" would seem "real" to the individual thus influenced. In this way, the "bizarre" aspects of UFO experiences such as seeing an alien entity, conversing with it, etc., might be explained in terms of an interference in brain functions (Persinger, 1983e). The stimulation of the temporal lobe is perhaps the most interesting of all the effects noted. This stimulation could produce disorientation and epileptic-like experiences that might include actual seizures and loss of consciousness. Upon recovery, the individual might well have amnesia re- garding certain parts of his or her experience, all due to electrical interference within the brain (Persinger, 1979b). - 18 - The suggestion is that the behavior of the individuals is not unusual in any way. Rather, it is the interpretation of the experiences which is unusual, and thus, the UFO phenom- enon can be reduced to a poor interpretation of the experi- ences of individuals who have actually been in contact with geophysical electromagnetic emissions. However, the reasons for the consistent description of such experiences in terms of UFOs are not elaborated upon in the TST. The TST includes some consideration of the separation be- tween the observer and the geophysical luminosity. At a dis- tance, only the optical effects would be reported. As a per- son approached the emission, it would have increasingly greater effect upon the human system, until finally, in the event an actual physical contact was made, the unfortunate individual might be electrocuted, and death would be attrib- uted by an unsuspecting coroner to lightning or contact with power lines (Persinger, 1979b). - 19 - Chapter III STATISTICAL CORRELATIONS OF THE TST AND UFO OBSERVATIONS In several papers on the TST, its major proponent offers statistical arguments in support of the theory. The conclu- sions reached by some authors (e.g. Persinger 1983a, 1983b, 1983c) seem to show that the variations in numbers of UFO reports vary with numbers of earthquakes: "In general, UFO report numbers [tend] to increase two to three years after decreases in geomagnetic activity and the year after increases in the number of local, low intensity earthtremors." (Persinger, 1981) The disquieting aspect of the TST is that the correlation is said to be due to "as yet unspecified processes associat- ed with tectonic strain (Persinger, 1981)", but the factors creating the variance are described as existing YEARS before an actual detectable seismic event. While this might be true in the sense that stresses leading up to an earthquake build over long periods of time, this suggests characteristics for the "unspecified processes" without clearly understanding the processes themselves. - 20 - In one paper, yearly totals for UFO "flaps" were taken from Fate magazine, tabulated earlier by the author (Per- singer and Lafreniere, 1977). Yearly totals for earthquakes of various intensities (MM:References:
|