Talk:Paulding Light

Untitled

I did a little research and found that the lights that most people are looking at now are not in fact the paulding lights at all. The true paulding lights don't appear in the tree tops in the path of the power lines. They appear much lower, on the dirt road and in the forest. What you are seeing up in the power lines is nothing more than cars off in the distance, and you can prove it by taking a telescope or some high powered binoculars and looking at the site durring the day.

Try looking here for more information: http://www.unexplainedresearch.com/files_anomalies/paulding_light.html Looks to me like they had the same idea as me.

I've seen the real lights briefly on my one visit to the sight and I tried to chase them down. They disapeared just like the stories say, but my family swares that they were shinning the whole time I was looking for them. I have no explaination for this but it has planted a bug in me that will keep me going back to try and figure it out.

Tec54 16:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I am a former resident of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, and I have visited the site of the Paulding Light on two occasions, in 2003 and 2004. I have read that the light is caused by reflections of headlights and taillights from a nearby highway, but I have sound reasons for not believing that is the case, at least not for the light that I have witnessed.

Often the appearance of the light would begin in the distance and be very dim, and then move towards my point of observation. However, the movement was not always steady; often the light would pause completely or move quickly and erratically in three dimensions (up, down, sideways, forwards, backwards, etc.). The light would disappear in various ways - moving back into the distance and fading gradually away, or fading quickly while being quite close. I remember the color of the light ranging from orange to red to yellow to white to blue, with smooth transitions between these colors, and the brightness of the light varying widely as well, from very dim to very bright. The light appeared to have a spherical shape.

My primary objection to the headlight reflection theory is that in order to see light reflected, there must be a surface for the light to be reflected from. While there are power lines and tree limbs in the area, I can say with a high degree of certainty that the paths I have seen the light take do not match up with any objects in the vicinity. The light simply passes through open space. Nor, on the nights I visited, were there any atmospheric factors that could contribute to reflectivity, such as fog, and even if there were, the reflected light ought to appear diffused, not focused and bright like what I observed.

Furthermore, I have approached and come fairly close to the light. On one occasion, I went beyond the guardrail and down the hill a little ways, with the light seeming to be perhaps 100 feet ahead of me and approximately 10 feet above the ground. From my perspective, the light moved around a bit, and then faded away. I walked a bit further, and then, somewhat disappointed, walked back to where the people I was with were waiting. They excitedly told me that the light had been directly above me, but I had seen nothing. While differing perspectives could, in this instance, support the reflection theory, again comes the problem - there was nothing for the light to be reflected from above where I had been standing, only open sky.

Finally, I must mention some details that further support my conviction. The light moved at highly variable speeds and in such erratic manners that I would find it very difficult to imagine a path for reflected light to take from a source moving at more or less constant speed and direction that would create such an effect. Also, the light could be so bright! It appeared to radiate light in a spherical fashion, at times illuminating the trees and ground all around it. On such occasions it resembled nothing more than the sun in miniature, only not so bright as to prevent direct, extended observation.

I would urge interested parties to go and see it for themselves. While the phenomenon is highly variable and it is said it doesn't always show up every night, the light made its first appearance on each of my visits within 15 minutes of arrival.

Removed fanciful speculation

I've removed a lot of poorly sourced fanciful speculation about the cause of this quite underwhelming and prosaic phenomenon from this encyclopedia article. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

And a little more than a year later I have found it yet again filled with unsourced stuff, so have done a cleanup. Admittedly the Michigan tourism site isn't a great reference, but it's a lot better than the iffy ghost busting sites the article was referencing. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Grammar

People may have "cleaned up" references to the source of the phenomenon, but somebody needs to clean up the grammar. The very first sentence: "The legend of the light is that there was a railroad there and a signalmen on the track to stop an oncoming train about a stalled train on the tracks and that the second train had crushed him" is probably the worst confused, misspelled, run-on sentence anyone could dream up for a joke, let alone appear in a supposed definitive reference work. I would correct it, but it's impossible to be sure what the writer is trying to say. Billcito (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Since the original Michigan Backroads source link died, your best bet to sourcing the lead is something like this. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

What I'm not sure of is that it seems the Paulding light and the Dog Meadow Lights are two different things. The article says they are the same (and I didn't edit any of that) and it looks like the Michigan Tour site says the same, but Weird US has them as separate sightings. Besides the Paulding Light is in a valley and not a meadow, so what is correct? It seems this event is full of misinformation. Cyberia23 (talk) 06:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It's unfortunate, but most of the "Weird X" and "Legends of" books are gotten to market quickly by weaving together any and every anecdote the author can get their hands on, resulting in a lot of misinformation getting into print, which is then repeated and passed on by other authors and websites. However they come off like Harvard University Press compared to the "Backwoods Wisconsin" web site, which strikes me as a very poor quality source for this article: "Located in Watersmeet Michigan, the Paulding Light is a natural phenomenon which must be seen to be believed. ( a few beers help! )" - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

- LuckyLouie (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Electrical Arc

Recently watched the episode of Fact or Faked: Paranormal Files on the Paulding Light. IT seems painfully obvious to me that what people are seeing is an electrical arc of some kind. The road where you can view the light from has power lines running along it and from the looks of the videos showed on SyFy the light appears to be more or less in line the power lines. Seems to me that what might be happening is one of two things.
1) At some point during the night the voltage or current in the line gets switched and a component along the line is unable to handle the increased voltage/current resulting in an arc.
2) Same as the first with the exception that the arc does not "appear", it is there all along, it simply is not visible in the brightness of the day. - F3rret (talk) 9:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say that it's quite possible that the powerlines are producing the glow, but this light has supposedly been seen since the 1960s (and earlier) so you'd think the power company that maintains the lines would have investigated any possible arcing by now. I myself have seen high voltage lines spark, (I have a set running almost right over my house) but it's usually during bad windstorms or heavy rain. This Paulding light supposedly happens every night no matter the weather and it seems to appear as a steady glow. Electrical sparks flash like a welder's torch.Cyberia23 (talk) 15:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It's been reported since 1960, far as I am aware there is no reliable source saying that it's been seen earlier than that. It is much more likely that whatever wiring fault is causing the Paulding light occurred in 1960 (or thereabouts) and after that people started saying it had appeared earlier than that. As for why the utility company has not checked or fixed it yet, probably they don't know or don't care about it; from what I gather people jumped to the paranormal conclusion immediately and probably no one has thought to call the company that maintains the lines. I'd not be surprised if now that the light has been on SyFy they'll send someone out to check it.

As for the lack of flickering, well an electrical spark viewed from a distance, and especially though a camera will just look like a solid white dot on account of the bloom. The only way to properly test it would be to either follow the lines out to the arcing wire or point a highly directional antenna at the light and scan for a sustained buzz which would be produced by the arc.

- F3rret (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The only way to be sure is to check it out yourself I guess. I'm intrigued by it and would like to see it myself, but it's a bit outta my way, and to drive 500+ miles for what could just be a sparking powerline... not worth it. Cyberia23 (talk) 02:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Ripley's Rumor

I made a call today to Ripley's Believe it or not Corporate office and was told by a Mr. Meyers, President of Ripley's Archives & Footage, that the offer of $100,000 was NEVER made by Ripley's and that this is a common rumor circulating the internet. The current source on this article is extremely weak and is not directly linking the offer to any one episode or person of Ripley's of whom apparently made this offer. A search of the internet for originating sources of this rumor also turned up nothing. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiii98 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That's called "original research" because all we have are your claims that it isn't true because you made a phone call. Perhaps if Ripley's published on their website that the rumor was bogus then we'd have a source to link it to, but until then it's just going by your word and that's not good enough. Cyberia23 (talk) 01:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

i see you changed the phrase to "backwoods wisconsins website says...." well do a google search every kooky blog and comment filled website is also spewing this nonsense. Here is a link:

http://www.google.com/search?q=riplys+offer+100%2C000&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGLL_en#sclient=psy&hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-us%3AIE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7GGLL_en&q=ripley%27s+100%2C000+paulding&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=e58c26fa10861af6

what makes "backwoods wisconsin" any sort of authoritative newsource?? Why not quote the angelfire.com users blog as the main source for this extremely bold claim. Or why not simply pickup the phone yourself and make a simple 1 minute phone call? Here's the number and contact link... i already did all the work

http://www.ripleys.com/contact/ Phone: 407-345-8010

here's a hint, they will tell you to talk to Mr. Meyers in Archives —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.90.87.53 (talk) 04:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Fine, I'll remove it. JFC Cyberia23 (talk) 05:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Article cleanup

I fixed the "explanations" section because it was written as if paranormal mystery was the default with "skeptics" offering competing alternate explanations. I also moved the SyFy TV show material from the academic sources to a "popular culture" section, as it is a "paranormal investigation series" entertainment oriented show that tested the light for EVP, ghost voices, etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Scientific Investigation vs. Reality Television Coverage

Regarding this edit combining the Scientific Investigation section with the Paranormal Investigation section "in order to not start an argument as to the scientific validity of the experiments conducted," we can't as editors refrain from judging the reliability of our sources. A group of engineering students conducting a transparent, methodical, and well-documented investigation is simply not comparable to a group of reality television stars wandering around listening for ghosts, and presenting them on equal footing is misleading. It's a stretch to call the show an investigation at all, when really it is popular media coverage.--Trystan (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

COMBINE - I'm just saying and INVESTIGATION is an INVESTIGATION - "Paranormal" or "Scientific" doesn't matter, it should be in the same section. Labeling them as separate may be violating the NPOV. You're making the decision for the reader. Cyberia23 (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

And he's just saying you're wrong. See WP:FRINGE for an in depth explanation of why. 173.58.37.123 (talk) 22:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

When TV shows intentionally misrepresent events in order to enhance entertainment value, we don't need to remain "neutral" or "leave it up to the reader" to decide. See Professional wrestling. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

And you're all missing the point. Cyberia23 (talk) 06:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe I was being neutral and fair in labeling as I did. I used a moniker that is widely accepted and used by paranormal investigators themselves. FOF uses the moniker Paranormal already (and the FOF Wiki site you edit a lot at, opens with "Fact or Faked: Paranormal Files is a paranormal investigation series"), and of course the working title for FOF was "Paranormal Investigators". Types of investigations are different, so specifying the type is informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.67.193 (talk) 08:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

@Cyberia23 It's possible that the difference between a scientific investigation and a paranormal reality TV show doesn't matter to some readers, but to others, there is a tremendous gulf between them. It is not "making the decision for the reader" to label them accurately. On the contrary, by being more informative and not presenting them as two of the same thing, we are empowering the readers to decide for themselves whether they are equally reliable.--Trystan (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I do realized there is a difference on the approach of the investigations; whether one group did it to actually try and solve the mystery, or did it for television ratings, but in each case the group went out and conducted an investigation - so both are investigations despite their findings and should be under the same section, that simply being "Investigations." You all seem to think that I'm defending FoF's work over what the college did, and I'm not. I'm simply saying that even though the college may have showed it to be an illusion, you'll still have those who believe it's paranormal. Therefore, by separating them into two categories between what the writers of this article deem "mainstream" and "fringe" you're not taking a neutral stance on the subject. My suggestions, if you have to label it - the section should be "Investigations" and then maybe sub-category them into "Michigan Tech Investigation" and "Fact or Faked Investigation" or whatever. Cyberia23 (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I set it up the way I think it should be - I'm hoping this is acceptable, but you probably have the cross and nails ready for me regardless. Cyberia23 (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

No cross or nails. But have you read WP:FRINGE? It requires that we "deem things mainstream [or] fringe". And 'neutrality' does not mean we have to make fringe ideas seem plausible in order to avoid offending people who believe in them. Just saying. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Except in the article, we are not using the word fringe. Paranormal Investigation is an acceptable term to all paranormal investigators. If FOF didn't like the term, they wouldn't use it (or used it as a working title). I see no reason to object to have a term that is acceptable and used in the paranormal investigation community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.67.193 (talk) 04:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry for the confusion, I wasn't saying we should use the word 'fringe' in the article. Calling it a paranormal investigation does conform to WP:FRINGE by clearly indicating the 'fringe' view (investigation includes tests for ghost voices, etc) of the FOF effort. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Pro-fringe short description

@Graeme Bartlett: I don't like my short description much either, but the article needs one that isn't pro-fringe. These lights aren't "mysterious," and shouldn't be called that in Wiki-voice. Geogene (talk) 01:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I propose "Optical phenomenon near Paulding, Michigan."--Trystan (talk) 04:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

It should just say what class of thing it is. I changed it to "Mysterious light". Since it has been debated over years, just stick with what is certainly known all that time. Fringe would be saying it is a ghost or UFO. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing mysterious about it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it is not mysterious, and describing it as such is not neutral. At the same time, I don't think the version describing it as car headlights conveys to the reader what sort of thing the article is about. "Optical phenomenon" is still my preferred version, but I could also support "Previously unexplained light". All mainspace articles should have a short description, so not having one is not a viable option.--Trystan (talk) 14:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

If it was not mysterious then it would not have an article. Another adjective is "anomalous" but that sounds more fringy. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

We have plenty of articles about non-mysterious things. And "anomalous" sounds slightly less fringey to me. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

If it was not mysterious then it would not have an article. True, but the difficulty is that it was mysterious, then someone pointed a telescope at it, and now it is no longer mysterious. I don't think "anomalous" works, as that denotes deviation from the expected. "Ghost light" would work; despite the ostensible supernatural framing, that is the general name given to this class of thing.--Trystan (talk) 15:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

It is, or was, "mysterious" to some people, who didn't realize there was a line of sight to another road. This is a different matter from saying it is mysterious in Wikivoice. But I agree that "anomalous" has worse pro-fringe connotations in the common usage of the word. "Optical phenomenon" is better, though there still isn't much "phenomenon" there -- it's just people seeing car headlights in a place they aren't expecting to. Would "ghost light" be in scare quotes? Geogene (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

"phenomenon" sounds like it is something physical, like refraction. And "ghost light" certainly suggests a ghost is involved! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't interperet the label ghost light as making any supernatural claims; its like calling a place a ghost town.

How about something simple that avoids characterization: "Light that appears in a Michigan valley"?--Trystan (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)