Those are reports of the observations, not explanations of what they are. So...you are agreeing with me?
No..that's an explanation for the phenomena. Read the article again:
"The mechanism that causes the phenomenon occurs only in specific and rare conditions, said Friedemann Freund, a professor of physics at San Jose State University and senior scientist at NASA Ames Research Center in Mountain View, Calif.
Rocks such as basalt and gabbro, created deep in the Earth's mantle, contain tiny defects in their crystals. When such rocks are stressed, those defects momentarily generate electrical charges, said Freund, one of the paper's authors.
"When a powerful seismic wave runs through the ground and hits a layer of such rocks, it compresses the rocks with great pressure and speed, creating conditions under which large amounts of positive and negative electrical charges are generated," he said. These charges can travel together, reaching what's called a plasma state, which can burst out and shoot up into the air.
Another necessary component for earthquake lights to be produced in nature are deep vertical faults in the Earth's crust, some of which can reach down 60 miles and more. Magma that solidifies to become gabbros or basalts has risen along these faults, forming dikes often tens to hundreds of feet thick.
"We speculate that the dikes act as a funnel, focusing the charges until they become an ionized solid-state plasma," said Robert Thériault, lead author on the paper and a geologist with the Quebec Ministry of Natural Resources in Canada.
"When the plasma bursts out into the air, it produces light," he said."
In other words, unknown, right? Because just "exhibiting characteristics" doesn't prove what they are, right? Otherwise, if it proves what they are, then say it!
LOL! No. Not unknown. I quote again:
"A ufo is an extramundane anomaly that exhibits the characteristics of an advanced craft by flying and maneuvering at extraordinary speeds, emits powerful energy levels, and has been witnessed even landing at times, leaving physical traces on vegetation and soil and physiological effects on eyewitnesses."
How does that even remotely equate to "unknown".
Given that that directly contradicts what you just read, that's a clear, slanderous - not to mention stupid - lie.
It's the truth. It's what you pseudoskeptics demonstrate here everyday. I provide the evidence, and then go thru 10 pages of explaining how it is evidence. You could not display a more biased attempt of denialism if you actually tried.
MR, I'll be blunt: the issue here is that you think everyone else is your mirror image. You think - despite the things that we say - that everyone unreasonably rejects everything because that's exactly the opposite of what you do: unreasonably accepting everything. The fact of the matter, though, is that you what you think you see -- what you started this thread to discuss -- just plain doesn't exist.
Such is the deliberate blindness of the pseudoskeptic, always more sure of his position that there is no phenomena after seeing the evidence for it than before seeing the evidence!