http://www.ncas.org/condon/text/case38.htm
One of the events in that series of sightings had the following description.
The woman is seeing an object which is spewing out green, white, and red beams . . . ." Additional comment indicated the object had emitted glowing red globs and was now hovering near the woman's home
Dr. Craig's description in the book was just as interesting.
Shooting out red globs is what I would consider "splitting apart". The object was the star Sirius. If you actually read Hendry, you will see similar descriptions about stars doing these things. So, it is NOT a rare phenomena and does occur when objects are well above the horizon.
Thank you for providing at least part of the information I requested – but I must note that, true to form, it is the LEAST part!
Some comments on Case 38.
First I think you should have provided the WHOLE quote AND the context. Thus:
” A few minutes later, a phone call reported another sighting. Mr. B spoke to the woman, and, after short conversation, excitedly handed the phone to a project investigator, declaring: "The woman is seeing an object which is spewing out green, white, and red beams . . . ." Additional comment indicated the object had emitted glowing red globs and was now hovering near the woman's home….”
It MUST be noted that “Mr B.” was in NOT in fact a trained investigator… he was merely an interested member of the public
at the time…
…AND his comments are (by now)
fourth hand (ie; women over phone tells Mr B who tells UFO investigator who tells Condon’s investigator who tells us)!
Now, I asked for EVIDENCE that “scintillation” can cause stars (or planets) to “jump” locations or “split apart”. Unfortunately THIS is NOT it!
You would chastise me mercilessly if I presented anything
fourth hand to you and pretended it was
evidence!
I therefore ask again. Please provide EVIDENCE that “scintillation” can cause observed stars (or planets) to “jump” locations or “split apart” to the extent that you originally claimed.
All you are doing is repeating the claim made by UFOlogists. How can you verify that Johnson did not wreck his vehicle and then use a UFO attack to cover-up his mistake? Wouldn't he get in some sort of trouble if he wrecked his car? Repairs would have to be made and he might have his pay reduced to pay for the damages. He may have wrecked a car previously and had been warned about not letting it happen again. This is why his personel record would be important in understanding the background. If you are not interested in this being a possibility, then you are just accepting the story as told. You have no curiousity in pursing the subject beyond what you read.
Remember, people do lie and it is a potential explanation. How do you prove he wasn't lying? I suggest you read the following:
http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...917215,00.html
First, the article you link states that people lie. I simply ask, do you apply that finding to ALL people in general as the Time “story” (a few
opinions strung together I might add) does, or just the ones YOU consider to have lied…
Second, we are dealing in the real world here. Explanations must be
plausible AND they must accord with the
evidence. Moreover, you act as if merely repeating your unfounded assertions over and over will make them true, and that is irrational. You have completely and utterly
ignored the EVIDENCE I presented against Johnson lying/hoaxing. You have FAILED utterly to acknowledge or comment on the evidence I presented in my last post and in dong so you have merely REPEATED your original unfounded (and quite frankly preposterous) assertions - as if the evidence did not exist. I can only therefore show you that evidence in the hope you will notice it this time around.
“Investigations occurred immediately, both by the sheriff's department and by investigators from the Center for UFO Studies. The police determined that Johnson's car travelled about 950 feet after the first damage occurred. No cause could be found for the event, including collision with another vehicle or a low-flying plane, a hoax on the part of Johnson, or anything else. In addition, experts from Ford Motors (the vehicle was a 1977 Ford LTD) and a team of engineers from Honeywell examined various portions of the damage.
(…)
Frankly, it is one of the most puzzling incidents in the history of ufology. This strong statement is partly because of the fact that the case involves a man who has been described as "the perfect witness." At the time, Johnson was a Deputy Sheriff in Marshall County, Minnesota, and is a trained observer as well as an experienced police officer.
(…)
He also was asked if the procedure of regressive hypnosis had ever been suggested to him. He replied that the National Enquirer had asked him to submit to a regression, and offered to pay him for the exclusive rights of the results. He had rejected their offer. He was then asked if he would agree to a hypnotic regression with a clinical hypnotist, for research purposes, and not for publication. He said no, and added that he was "not curious" about what had happened to him that morning.
(…)
When Val Johnson was found by Everett Doolittle, he was slumped forward over the steering wheel and in mild shock. ”
(
http://ufologie.net/htm/marshallcounty79.htm#cr)
“After interviewing numerous people in the Warren area who knew Johnson and spoke highly of his character, Hendry concluded that Johnson had not hoaxed the event.
(…)
In September 1980 Klass debated the case with Allan Hendry at a "UFO Symposium" held at the Smithsonian Institution. According to Klass, he had uncovered eyewitness testimony that "Deputy Val Johnson...likes to play practical jokes, especially late in the evening when he gets a little bored, as I learned...by talking with some of the people who have worked with him and know him very well." (UFO Book, 362) Hendry sarcastically replied: "I think that the sheriff and the six associates of Val Johnson were lying when they assured me of the integrity of their coworker. I think that Val Johnson is such a practical joker that he deliberately injured his eyes - as judged by two doctors - and he deliberately entered a phony state of shock for the ambulance driver who removed him from the scene of the accident." (Phil Klass vs. the UFO Promoters, Jerome Clark) According to Clark, Klass privately told Hendry after their debate that "everyone he interviewed in the course of his inquiry into the case spoke highly of Val Johnson."
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Val_Johnson_incident)
Jerome Clarke:
“On October 10, 1980, I spoke with Marshall County Sheriff Dennis Brekke who was Johnson's superior at the time of the episode. (Johnson is now chief of police at Oslo, Minn.) Brekke dismissed Klass' "practical joke" theory as absurd, saying Johnson was "too sincere" a man to create a hoax of this magnitude. He had spent time alone with Johnson not long after the incident and seen a man so distraught, confused and frightened that any suspicion of "acting" was out of the question. Nothing he uncovered during his department's investigation gave him the slightest reason to doubt Johnson's word. Klass, of course, had never met Johnson."
(
http://www.nicap.org/klassvufo.htm)
If THIS
evidence against your assertions does not satisfy you…then please indicate HOW and WHY it does not satisfy you.
Let's see, to bolster this claim, you quote the CUFOS website, which is always interested in donated money. Exactly what phD covers being a UFOlogist? How many UFOlogists are actual physcial scientists? Your claim that more scientists are studying the subject everyday needs some real proof. How many scientists were studying the subject in 1980? 1990? 2000? 2010? How many have actual programs designed to study UFOs? How many devote an effort FULL TIME on the subject? How many have examined the data you present and have dropped what they are studying and immediately began studying UFOs?
As for funding, Bigelow research just gave a huge donation to MUFON. So far, nothing has come of such donations. Instead of trying something new, they are just repeating the same old failed methodology of going to a sigthing area and interviewing witnesses. A complete waste of time. It does not matter if you get their an hour or a week after the event, you gather nothing more than a story told by the witness.
Then you IGNORE again the additional evidence I provided in support of my position… or perhaps somehow you missed it. For your benefit I will show it to you here:
Ed Komorak:
"I recently asked theoretical physicist Dr. Jack Sarfatti http://www.stardrive.org/ for suggestions as to how Ray Stanford might get his excellent scientific research on Anomalous Aerial Objects published in academic peer reviewed publications.
exopolitics.blogspot.com
Jack's response was forthright and to the point. Jack said, " No mainstream physics journal will accept a UFO article. It's too non-PC. Taboo topic in mainstream academia. That's a fact. He should put his data on the WEB and be done with it. It ain't gonna happen. Tell him not to waste his time and simply put all out there and hope for the best."
(...)
... For example, Physical Review has an explicit policy forbidding any such topic ..."(
http://www.ufodigest.com/news/0809/ufo-research.php)
Declaring yourself the winner again? This is why I try and move on and prevent the usual repeating back and forth. You are not interested in the other side of the debate. The problem is what you present is the SAME EXACT argument over and over again by simply listing various UFO cases with ABSOLUTELY NO INTEREST in pursuing it beyond what is listed on these various websites. When people present items of interest about the case you simply ignore it and still accept the story told by the witness.
I will let this paragraph stand for itself… I merely note also that YOU ASKED me if there was a case that we could discuss and I pointed you to the O’Hare case… yet you have provided NO comment on that case. If you really
were interested in “moving” on, you would discuss that case
as YOU requested and I provided.
Prove she was exposed at the time of the sighting. Until you can, it is gueswork. Support her claim. Prove where all these helicopters came from. If she was exposed to something, the helicopter crews, who were much closer, were also exposed. Therefore, there must have been a mass hospitalization of the air crews for all these helicopters. No records, no complaints, no stories, no rumors, nothing indicate this happened. The event was in late December 1980, which happens to be the holiday period. Most military bases go into a standdown mode over that period (unless there is war time) so the men can enjoy the holidays. To mobilize the helicopters probably would have to mean that hundreds of men (the aircrews and the ground support) would have been mobilized for the task. Again, no complaints from families and nobody mentioned being involved (it has been 30 years now). We also have the argument, I made before that CH-47's are noisy aircraft. A single CH-47 puts out roughly 80db at 10,000 feet (
http://www.volpe.dot.gov/acoustics/d...989/1982-2.pdf). That is above annoyance level of 65-75, which means people should have heard such a racket produced by at least a hafl-dozen or more of these items. Instead, we get a few hints of witnesses to the helicopters. Walker did not even see the helicopters at the time in question. All of this indicates there is a reason to question the story as told and more reason to question what Cash was exposed to and produced her symptoms. BTW, Cash did not die from her symptoms and the Landrums seem to have not suffered either. So, how about addressing the facts of the case for once instead of parrotting the usual UFO websites.
But AGAIN you are REPEATING unfounded assertion
to which I have already replied (AND replied to in the
very section you quote from me! This beggars belief!) You patently IGNORE my replies to the points you raise, merely to repeat over and over your assertions AS IF
mere repetition will make them true or valid.
First, Betty Cash’s radiation burns are an established fact – disputed by no-one involved in the case.
Second, if you dispute the
timing of her receipt of those burns, then YOU must show how and why you do so. Otherwise you are making unfounded, generalised assertion.
Third, the helicopters are as much a part of the mystery as the UFO and the radiation burns.
If you suppose that the military industrial complex cannot work in secret, then you are not acknowledging historical fact (and I really think that your “hundreds” of affected men is overblown - such personnel – operate on a “need to know” basis – as YOU well know – MANY operations are conducted where NONE of the people involved know the true object of the mission. Ground crews prepare and see off helicopters not necessarily knowing their mission and are told not to talk about it. Even the pilots involved might not know – all they know is that they go out to pick up a bit of “military hardware” gone astray and told not to talk about it. As for ALL of those pilots receiving radiation burns – that is highly unlikely – how many CH-47 helicopters can you
fit close enough to a relatively small object?
As for witnesses on the ground not reporting helicopters… how is this unusual? Do YOU report helicopters every time one or a group of them fly over or near your location? Walker saw some helicopters. It might not have been at the precise time… but it DOES indicate helicopters operating in the area at the same general time… it is merely another clue… another piece in the puzzle… to be noted and accounted for…
especially as the military DENY ANY helicopters at all!
So what if Betty Cash did not “die” from her “symptoms”… plus YOU do NOT know that to be true at all! You merely assume that her death many years in the future was NOT related… it MAY WELL have been. Radiation effects cause LONG LASTING damage that CAN be fatal MANY years after.
The Landrums patently DID suffer.
So, how about you directly addressing my rebuttals, and PLEASE resist the urge to merely repeat your assertions over again.
I found the idea interesting and I liked it because it is something worthy of being pursued. However, it is not compelling and I listed my reasons. Read the whole statement.
If it is “worthy of being pursued” then you will be able to tell me HOW and WHY you come to that conclusion. (I note with interest that NO-ONE has viewed the Zamora image I posted in my previous post – this just shows that the UFO debunkers – including you – have absolutely NO interest in the EVIDENCE I present, rather they just repeat their unfounded, faith-based beliefs over and over, without EVER accounting for the evidence I am presenting).
(Unfortunately time is against me – but I will get to your other posts as soon as I am able – apologies for the delay)
