🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1045@ius1.cs.cmu.edu> edw@ius1.cs.cmu.edu (Eddie Wyatt) writes:
>In article <1869@cci632.UUCP>, mark@cci632.UUCP (Mark Stevans) writes:
>> My patience is non-existence when it comes to matters such as these.

>   The matter is not totally religous!!  If the phenomenon can be explained
>totally by the physical properties of the enviroment, then the topic
>of the descussion is science.  What I've seen are a  few people offering
>political  and pyschological explanations for the event which are
>not totally orthogonal to science.  Scientists have been fooled before,
>so checking out the posiblity that the event is a hoax is a reasonable
>search path to take in investigating the event.
>
>  Besides, if you don't like it, you know where the 'n' key is!!
>
>-- 
>
>					Eddie Wyatt

Thankyou Eddie!! I was going to send Mister Stevans a hot spout of flame
for his retort, but then I figured the guy wasn't worth the effort if he
can't take an objective view peoples curiosity. I wasn't trying to slam
anybody....I was looking for a rational explaination of the posted article.

Speaking of rational explanations - I've gotten several email replies on
this subject that seem to be pretty plausible.. but none that can totally
explain why people see the blood as a liquid. I'm sure that there were 
witnesses that were close enough to the event that they could differentiate
between a mobile liquid and a mobile powder that APPEARS liquid. A liquid
would coat the ampule whereas a powder would not (or would it?).


-- 
Jim Kendall                      jimk@iscuva.ISCS.COM
ISC Systems Corp.
E. 22425 Appleway
Liberty Lake, WA   99019