You probably know that a UFO is an Unidentified Flying Object, but sprites may be UACs—unfamiliar atmospheric concepts. Sprites are brief flashes of dim red light very high up, at the edge of space, that are triggered by intense lightning far below. I started writing about them here on About.com 10 years ago, and I have a list of resources where you can learn more. So they really aren't new, except to a press-release writer at Tel Aviv University. "A sprightly explanation for UFO sightings?" he asks. A moment's thought would tell you no. Sprites are barely visible, even when you're watching for them, and they last a small fraction of a second. UFOs, whatever they are, are steady and appear to be objects. They're something that's visible enough to thoroughly convince (or utterly fool) people. But About.com's UFOs Guide, Billy Booth, has noted that "some of the lesser known online newspapers and magazines have seen a large increase in Internet hits by reporting on UFOs." So watch where this item starts turning up.
UPDATE: It's starting to spread; as of Thursday afternoon it's reached FOX News.
Sprite — ILAN Science Team photo
Comments
If the same science logic where applied to the recent acquisition of Comet Lulin ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Lulin ) in an imaginary world doubtful of the reality of comets claiming that a “Green Flash” ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_flash )was the explanation, we would have a similar bad science association and explanation.
I am more interested in the motivation for the statement from Prof. Price. UFO’s are not associated with thunderstorms anymore than anything else we can experience in our atmosphere. The devil might indeed be in the details.
That the world press would elevate such a statement to such levels of exposure is quite telling in our culture’s “reaching for straws” to deny the reality of UFOs, that astronomers, scientists, military and civic in uncounted numbers have said are real. Not to mention a majority of public opinion in the positive for the existence and reality of UFOs.
I agree this is classic overreach. How it achieves such status for a proposed explanation is much more curious a question.
Bringing together unassociated sciences can foster discovery, but this method can also be misused or incorrectly incorporated to actually do damage to the science as well.
It might be best to ignore such bad science thinking than to broadcast it and assume there is any relevancy to it.
I don’t think anyone is denying the existence of UFOs, but scientists are universally unsure of the nature of UFOs.