UFO Skeptical Analysis: Light Pillars by Wim Van Utrecht

[sentry579]

Wim Van Utrecht is a Belgian skeptical investigator of "Unidentified Aerial Phenomena," better known as UFOs. He has a site:

CAELESTIA was initiated in 1994. Its purpose: to collect, investigate and document reports of unidentified aerial phenomena. The name CAELESTIA is borrowed from Latin and can best be translated as "affairs of the heavens". The general idea behind the initiative was - and still is - that reports of "Unidentified Flying Objects" deserve a more correct treatment, be it from the scientific community or from the UFO community itself.

Wim's special area of interest is what he terms "Light Pillars" a real phenomenon generally caused by light reflection of ice crystals in clouds. The more spectacular light pillars are caused by reflection of flames produced at chemical plants. Wim examined the famous UFO case, the Cash-Landrum incident in 2002, but his report was left unfinished until revived by UK researcher Isaac Koi. It was published at Blue Blurry Lines and instantly came under attack by believers and skeptics alike. Skeptic Tim Printy was among those who questioned the validity of light pillars in this case, and was interested enough to contribute historical weather data to be evaluated. There was a second piece reevaluating the weather records, and afterwards, Wim wrote a final piece which provided further cases for comparison and responded to the criticism.

It's a lengthy read, but a serious, skeptical look at genuine stimulus that can be reported as UFOs. Even if it doesn't provide the final answer for the Cash-Landrum case, the lessons can be applied to other cases, and perhaps some reports of supernatural or spiritual apparitions.

Cash-Landrum Theory & Analysis: Unpublished 2002 Wim van Utrecht Article

The Weather: Evidence in the Cash-Landrum UFO Case

Cash-Landrum: The Light Pillar Theory Revisited by Wim VAN UTRECHT

I think it's an outstanding work, but so far has only been seen by UFO buffs. Wim's work certainly deserves a wider audience.

 

[MrBooglemaumau]

I yet have to see "supernatural or spiritual apparitions" that are not results of photoshop.

 

[sentry579]

I yet have to see "supernatural or spiritual apparitions" that are not results of photoshop.

This phenomena of light pillars might explain some of the claims of seeing big, bright heavenly what-sits. Wim does give an example of where this kind of thing launched the viewers into a panic where they imagined what they were seeing was a flaming, almost demonic entity.

Some areas have conditions that favor the creation of light pillars, but other areas, such as the Houston, TX area only experience them fairly rarely.

In these places, it might be easily be mistaken as something otherworldly.

 

[mike3]

I yet have to see "supernatural or spiritual apparitions" that are not results of photoshop.

He did say "reports", not "pictures". I could see how someone of a more "mystic" bent could, upon seeing something like what is in those pictures and not knowing what it is, possibly interpret it that way. They certainly do look sort of ethereal, even though they are totally natural.

 

[Iamme]

Yawn. Back to the Bigfoot thread.
I lost interest right away when learning that these are already being caused by the result of things we know about.
That be like believing Bigfoot exists even though we know people can make big footprints and get into a gorilla suit, and see owls eyes in bushes shaped like apes, or bears on their hind legs. Oh wait! What did i just say?! Lol

 

[tuxcat]

Looks to me like aurora and reflections from inside the camera and it's lens to me. With such tiny and low-res photos it's very hard to tell if it's all or none of those. I am working on the assumption it's not trickery though.

Post no. 3 is light saturation of the photoreceptor in the camera again along with internal reflections and refractions of the light inside the camera itself. An analogy of this is an overflowing bucket where such a quantity of water (or light) enters the area that it overflows and spills. Again the photo is tiny and low-res. Every camera when pointed at a bright light will do this. It caused me quite a lot of shouting and turning the air blue when trying to take a picture of some fireworks from my office window (as there's a streetlight right outside).

But yes back to the OP: people do very often mistake natural phenomena for aliens/angels/demons/flying monkeys eating pancakes. I suppose it's human nature to make a mystery out of nothing. Not many people critically evaluate phenomena and avoid jumping to rash and fanciful conclusions.