A DEBATE ON ANOMALOUS LUMINOUS PHENOMENA AROUND THE POPOCATÉPETL

The clarifiying note written by Mexican Engineer Luis Ruiz Noguez, pointing to the absence of A.L.P. near or around the volcano has initiated a civilized debate with Dr. Massimo Teodorani, the Italian Astrophysicist who in his paper on “Local SETI” mentions the Popocatépetl as one of the many places on Earth where those Lights could be seen, at least, from time to time.

We welcome this exchange of opinions because precisely this is one of the reasons for the existence of this Group. An open, honest and intelligent debate about different issues that concern us would be always enlightening.

After reading the information provided by Eng. Noguez, Dr. Teodorani wrote the following considerations:

Dear Ing. Noguez,
very many thanks for your information, skills and considerations concerning Popocatèpetl, which I consider of extreme importance for a (maybe) constructive debate on the case.
Unfortunately, I am not still fully convinced that no anomalous lights are seen close to the Popo volcano and/or around the area nearby, including Mexico City or other important towns close to the area.

The reasons might be two, so far:

1. Some "fragments of incandescent rock" may not be necessarily all the times that, especially if they last a too long time and they manifest in distance from the volcano (but they can be seen also very close to the surface of the volcano, another notable feature of a variant of "earthlights" named: "seismic lights"). There is plenty of (theoretical and partly observational) scientific documentation showing that some strange light phenomena occurring near volcanoes or close to fault areas can be triggered by piezolectric and/or "tectonic stress effects" (P-hole theory, the most recent, by Dr. Friedman Freund, see also my book here: http://www.macrolibrarsi.it/libri/__sfere_di_luce.php). Of course we do not know fully yet the physics underlying these phenomena (in particular: the mechanism of long duration), but these phenomena are under study, which in itself is extremely difficult to conduct due to several practical reasons). 
2. The fact that some very well known "commercial ufology" popularizes so many "ufo" cases in the area (in particular the capital of Mexico and around), doesn't frankly mean (at least to me) that all of those cases (documented by videos mainly: many videos, anyway) are effectively all hoaxes or fakes. In reality it is quite not so easy to dismiss some of these videos (I mean here something documented over Mexico City, mainly, in 1991 and more recently) only because who publicized them is a TV commercial ufologist. Some prominent anomalous lights (prematurely interpreted as ET spacecrafts by ET believers), triggered by geophysical causes, may occur also many Km away from the source that caused them, especially during, after or before strong volcanic and/or seismic activity. Also dark and apparently structured objects seen at daylight, can be in reality a kind of low-energy plasma.
   

Your considerations and the information that you release are wise, professional and well accepted, but not sufficient yet to convince me to erase that reference from my paper. So far.

Regards

Massimo

PS 1. By the way, some 10 years ago I saw an (apparently) important video of light phenomena appeared over Mexico City in 1991 (if I don't mistake the date), which were seen by very many persons, and videoed by some. It was diffused by the usual famous commercial ufologist, and the lights were immediately and acritically interpreted as kind of "predicted alien intervention" by the Mayan calendar (an immediate way to ridicule a possibly true evidence). Is this naive interpretation a necessary and sufficient reason to dismiss the objectivity of those videos? I saw that some university researchers (image) analyzed the case and told that it's not a fake: is this another lie by J. M. ? Another, more recent, case of videoing strange lights in Mexico: Pedro Avila. Is he necessarily and sufficiently a liar or a hoaxer only because he publicized those videos on channels loved by ufo-philes and ET believers or because he expressed his own personal (and possibly naive) opinion on those cases? Apart from naive ufological manipulation (one of the TWO "noises" always present in our research), are those videos false or not? I put here another example: is the case of "flotillas" a hoax (or improbable birds or baloons in formation), only because the people who took those videos are believer in ET visitation and declared it publicly? And one more: Tepoztlan. Are all of those cases a hoax only because they were publicized by a certain C. D., the messenger of Deva-like "light airships"? Here I smell a truly serious problem of *double noise extraction* in order to study the signal that comes out from the data themselves (apart from naive, or commercially artful interpretation), if a signal exists indeed: a) elimination of true hoaxes, b) elimination of true anti-scientific prejudices affecting some badly understood objective reality, which doesn't escape our videocameras. (Might be also a form of terrestrial technology? maybe).

PS 2. Did really expert explorers and scholars such as E. P. Strand and P. Devereux went to Popo (full of instruments) only to magnetometrically hear volcano's murmurs?...