UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[GeeMack]

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).

Evidence? Nope. It's an argument from incredulity and ignorance. When it comes to being evidence, it's crap. Pure, unadulterated crap.

 

[Sledge]

Let's try a couple of simple questions and see if our true sceptics can answer them.

I guess not. If Rramjet just wants to regurgitate UFO stories without discussing anything with anyone, you have to wonder why he doesn't just start a blog?

 

[Astrophotographer]

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.

I have numerous times with regard to Hendry's observations. If you were not paying attention the first time, I don't know why you would the second.

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.

These are ALL opinions and not PROOF. You are stating such a scenario is implausible but it is FAR MORE plausible than an alien spaceship that chose to smash a headlight, bend an antenna, and change the time on the clock/watch.

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:

Again, I ask for you to demonstrate the scientists are willing to drop their present line of work/study and pursue UFOs because they offer so much. Quoting some UFO proponents about how difficult it is to publish papers is because there is a lack of science involved with writing such papers. It won't get past peer review. You might as well get a paper on Bigfoot published in Nature.

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.

Answer the question. Is this your BEST CASE? I asked for a case to focus upon that can steer the discussion towards a conclusion. Therefore, I am asking for what you consider to be the best case that presents your views about UFOs. So, is it? I refuse to waste time going after each case only to see you say "That case is only a trial run but this case is better" because it is an endless cycle.

First, Betty Cash’s radiation burns are an established fact – disputed by no-one involved in the case.

That Betty Cash suffered from something is not in question. However, without the medical records, you can not say they were radiation burns. In fact, the symptoms are not consistent with exposure to ionizing radiation. To make one's hair fall out and cause burns to the skin would have been a heavy dose indeed and there would have been evidence of it in the car as it too would have been exposed to the same radiation.

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.

I am asking for PROOF that her burns were associated with the event. I want to see actual medical records. So far, it is a claim she received burns due to a UFO event. There is no evidence presented that it WAS due to a UFO event.

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!.

This is the rambling of somebody who has never served in the military. Air crews being summoned to service and fuel dozens of helicopters for a mission during a Christmas standdown is something that would not go unnoticed by families and friends. The flight of these helicopters over populated areas and roads would not go unnoticed. You seem to be suggesting the aircrews, despite being exposed to the UFO, would know nothing about it. As for Walker, he saw some helicopters with searchlights. Was there any police helicopter activity at the time?

BTW, if you think the military men keep secrets, I suggest reading "Blind man's bluff". The submarine service (in which I served) is noted for being exposed to some really top secret stuff. Somehow, the stories about the Seawolf, Halibut, and a bunch of other submarines was leaked out. I did not serve on those subs but did conduct exercises that were similar. Sometimes, we left on short notice at great discomfort for our families. It is my opinion that the helicopter air crews and their support group would have had a similar situation if they were sent to chase after a UFO in late December. Somebody would have noticed but nobody did.

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.

She died of heart failure. She was in her 80s from what I recall and it was 20 years later. If you want to proclaim the government killed her or the UFO did, I suggest you do a bit of research and produce the medical records. The Landrums have shown no ill effects except immediately after the claimed event. Can you demonstrate they still suffer and what effects they suffer from?

So, how about you directly addressing my rebuttals, and PLEASE resist the urge to merely repeat your assertions over again..

Why? This is what you want. An endless spiral where you proclaim that you are right and everyone else is wrong. You repeat yourself and I repeat myself because you do not want to see any other position than yours.

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).

A. The test did occur on the day in question.
B. If it did stray off the test range, then it is possible it may have been the source of the event.

Why are you so interested in NOT pursuing the idea that it might be the source? Where is your intellectual curiousity? Are you afraid that it MIGHT have been the cause? My point is it that it should be considered and might lead somewhere (although I am of the opinion that it is probably unlikely for the reasons I listed preveiously). I AM CURIOUS. I AM INTERESTED in looking at all possibilities. I THOUGHT that was what the scientific method was all about. Apparently, you failed that course or forgot all about it once they gave you your degree.

 

[Marduk]

this just shows that the UFO debunkers – including you – have absolutely NO interest in the EVIDENCE I present,

Thats fairly accurate in one area and a complete farce in another isn't it Rroger

no one here is a UFO debunker, you are supposed to be presenting evidence for Aliens, not UFO's, this has been pointed out to you so many times now I am surprised you still haven't got it, I can only presume that you are incapable of learning anything new at all.
no one here is even a debunker as you have yet to produce anything worthwhile to debunk

and yes, I think its fairly accurate to say that as you blew any credibility you had by about page 10 that no one here is interested in anything you have to say, you've so far failed to get anyone to agree with anything you've said that didn't suffer from the same delusion you had in the first place

Basically what I am saying is that you're way beyond the point where this is going to produce anything worthwhile at all, you are universally hated and pitied for being an obvious liar who cannot accept reality and a waste of everybodies time.

your faith based belief in Aliens is interesting though, why is it that you need to believe in them without evidence so badly that you would come here and make a complete fool of yourself so much, is your life that awful that you need the Galactic brotherhood to come rescue you ?

I think it probably is, I've seen how you conduct yourself here and in private and its not looking very good

 

[GeeMack]

I guess not. If Rramjet just wants to regurgitate UFO stories without discussing anything with anyone, you have to wonder why he doesn't just start a blog?

He's got a couple people here who are happy to talk all UFOish with him and argue minutia. It's fun for him. It validates his position to have people dissect his rants as if they actually contained any evidence. If everyone were to simply point out the fact that he is arguing from ignorance and incredulity, it would stop being fun for him and he'd leave.

 

[Marduk]

I guess not. If Rramjet just wants to regurgitate UFO stories without discussing anything with anyone, you have to wonder why he doesn't just start a blog?

Its quite obvious isn't it, he thinks he is some crusading savant attempting to inform the world of the reality of the Alien presence. That hes actually using a faith based belief is just par for the course with all fundementalist beliefs,
In his head it can't possibly be the vast majority of posters here who understand the scientific method better than he does and who have repeatedly shown a greater intellectual capacity than he can imagine who are right, only he is right, only he can prove his belief the correct one. Sound familiar. I expect he'd happily execute every last one of us if he could get away with it.

 

[chuck4842]

Thats fairly accurate in one area and a complete farce in another isn't it Rroger

no one here is a UFO debunker, you are supposed to be presenting evidence for Aliens, not UFO's, this has been pointed out to you so many times now I am surprised you still haven't got it, I can only presume that you are incapable of learning anything new at all.
no one here is even a debunker as you have yet to produce anything worthwhile to debunk

and yes, I think its fairly accurate to say that as you blew any credibility you had by about page 10 that no one here is interested in anything you have to say, you've so far failed to get anyone to agree with anything you've said that didn't suffer from the same delusion you had in the first place

Basically what I am saying is that you're way beyond the point where this is going to produce anything worthwhile at all, you are universally hated and pitied for being an obvious liar who cannot accept reality and a waste of everybodies time.

your faith based belief in Aliens is interesting though, why is it that you need to believe in them without evidence so badly that you would come here and make a complete fool of yourself so much, is your life that awful that you need the Galactic brotherhood to come rescue you ?

I think it probably is, I've seen how you conduct yourself here and in private and its not looking very good

no one here is a UFO debunker

I agree.

no one here is interested in anything you have to say,

I am, I thought the Whitesands report was awesome, and the Chicago Ohare with the shutting down of most of its services until the ufo was gone, lots and lots of verifiable ufo apparently with some intelligent maneuvering, great stuff! love it!

 

[Rramjet]

Before we start, let me get this straight. It is THE BEST CASE you can present that supports your position. You are not going to back out of this and proclaim that there are BETTER cases that support your claim? This way everyone can focus on YOUR BEST CASE to support the contention that UFOs are something that are truly exotic in nature, defy physics, and are indicative of ET visiting the earth.

So why on earth would you want to constrain a review of the evidence in this way? How are we to know if it is “the best case” when we have not examined it in any detail? There might be things that you can show that make it a “bad” case. All we can do as skeptics and scientists is to examine the evidence on offer. As such it is not up to us to place value judgements on a case before we have examined the evidence.

Further, the case does not contain “beings” (as might be indicative of ET or otherwise), so in that you will be disappointed. I do however contend that it IS “exotic” in nature and does “defy physics”. As the man said…”two out of three ain’t bad…”

But if you want beings, then let’s return to Father Gill or Lonnie Zamora. Your call.

I stated:
”Access Denied… Are you kidding me? A lunar surveyor with helicopter rig being tested 100 miles from the nearest military base - on the outskirts of town right next to a dynamite storage shack? Yeah…that’s plausible!”

No, that’s highly unusual. Also, you’re assuming it didn’t come from the Army’s Stallion Range Center further North near Socorro where Army Capt. Holder, the first military official to arrive on the scene came from.

[who, by the way, was contacted by FBI Agent Burns who was the first official to arrive and was also a friend of Zamora’s]

First, let’s get something clear here. WHERE was the “Lunar surveyor” tested? According to the Daily Range Schedule (http://www.nmsr.org/socorro.htm) it was at Holloman (“HAFB”) and Holloman is approximately 100 miles from Socorro! Please tell my WHY you think it is plausible to imagine that they would mount the surveyor on a helicopter and take it 100 miles and OFF the testing range and INTO a New Mexico town?

Second: If it IS as you say that ” The Surveyor tests were done with a small Bell helicopter…’ (http://www.nmsr.org/socorro.htm) (you say a 47G) yet your images DO NOT depict a full image of Bell 47G! See below for a comparative set of images.

This is what Zamora endorsed as an accurate representation of what he saw.

This is a Bell 47G that the UFO debunkers suppose Zamora actually saw...

...with the Lunar surveyor attached.

I ask again: is it plausible to imagine that Zamora failed to recognise a helicopter? From Quintanilla:

"There is no doubt that Lonnie Zamora saw an object which left quite an impression on him. There is also no question about Zamora"s reliability. He is a serious police officer, a pillar of his church, and a man well versed in recognizing airborne vehicles in his area. He is puzzled by what he saw, and frankly, so are we. This is the best-documented case on record, and still we have been unable, in spite of thorough investigation, to find the vehicle or other stimulus that scared Zamora to the point of panic." (emphasis mine. Rr.) (http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/zamora4.htm)

It is unclear how good of a look he got at it before he claimed he lost his glasses and there’s no question he was extremely startled and possibly disoriented. Also, it’s possible he was “coached” on some aspects of his report. For example, I’ve recently heard the (unsubstantiated) claim that Zamora was asked by his friend Agent Burns to change the symbol he drew so it would be easy to identify copycats. In any case, I have no doubt Zamora would have gone along with whatever was asked of him, especially if he was told it was a matter of National Security, and taken it to his grave…

Nonsense! See the above Quintanilla quote AND Zamora’s own quote below.

”Just before Sgt. Chavez got to scene, I got my pen and drew a picture of the insignia on the object.” (http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/zamora2.htm)

…and this assessment from Chris Lambright.

”Ever since the first report that Zamora had seen some type of symbol on the side of the craft there had been some confusion about just what that symbol was. He had drawn and described this symbol to several people soon after the incident, and what appeared to be discrepancies in the description had arisen from various sources. There does appear to be some support for believing that the symbol that was widely circulated early on may have actually been a variation of the actual one. The idea that a substitute might have been circulated by the investigative personnel from the Air Force or other governmental agencies as a way to guard against copycat reports has some merit. Though the actual shape may not be ultimately important to the overall case I did make an effort to try to obtain an honest description of just what Zamora saw. In one of our telephone conversations he clarified to me that he had never been told -not- to relate the actual shape and he gave me a description which I realized was slightly different from what I had heard and seen before. I was curious about this and shortly afterward I sent him several pages of small sketches which covered various details of his sighting. I included several variations of this symbol including one that matched what I had seen in other places and one that matched what I thought he had described to me. I asked him to merely place a check mark by whichever sketch matched his recollection. Below are several sections of the sheets I sent him, and his check marks are visible. But on the section showing the symbols, he was nice enough to actually redraw what he had seen.” (http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/zamora4.htm)

Please go to the website if you want to see the “symbols” mentioned in this paragraph.

First of all, you left out the part about the “roar” (which, by the way, reportedly changed pitch when it landed… you know, like a helicopter) being what attracted him to it in the first place and secondly, do you have any idea how loud a helicopter is at close range? I do, it’s on the order of 115 to 125 dB and have you ever heard of temporary hearing loss also known as a Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS)…

First: If you chance to read the Blue Book File (http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/zamora2.htm) you will note that the “roar” is definitely associated with the “flame.

” Saw flame about as long as heard the sound”

Also the “roar” stopped when the object was still very close to Zamora:

” Being that there was no roar, I looked up, and I saw the object going away from me. It did not come any closer to me. It appeared to go in straight line and at same height--possibly 10 to 15 feet from ground, and it cleared the dynamite shack by about three feet. Shack about eight feet high.”

So now it is a silent helicopter?

…but (of course) you HAVE thought of that

FAA: Effects Of Noise On Hearing
http://www.nonoise.org/library/ane/ane.htm#sect5.4

“After exposure to high noise levels for a short time, or moderate noise levels over a long time, the minimum level that the person can perceive may shift to a higher level. Temporary shifts of 20 to 30 dB are usual in healthy ears in noisy situations with a typical eight-hour exposure. This shift is only temporary, however; a 100% recovery of the pre-noise exposure hearing acuity usually occurs within several hours.”​

But this is a SHIFT in the range of hearing… NOT a TOTAL hearing loss… and Zamora NEVER describes that his HEARING was affected in ANY way, shape or form. IMMEDIATELY he is on the radio back to base:

” I picked up my glasses (I left the sun glasses on ground), got into the car, and radioed to Nep Lopez, radio operator, to "look out of the window, to see if you could see an object." He asked what is it? I answered "It looks like a balloon." I don't know if he saw it. If Nep looked out of his window, which faces north, he couldn't have seen it. I did not tell him at the moment which window to look out of. “

Nope…NO hearing loss or damage there!

Have you ANY evidence that people have lost their hearing after just a few second’s exposure to helicopter noise. No, of course you don’t have ANY such evidence – because there IS none! You are grasping at straws here.

Here’s a little comparison I put together between Zamora’s incredibly detailed sketch he drew for Capt. Holder and a Bell 47G…

You “comparison” is utterly disingenuous. See above images for a more genuine comparison.

Anyway, what does any of this have to do with “aliens”? There’s nothing in this case that can’t be explained by conventional means...

The please DO explain it by “conventional means”. Based on the evidence (as presented above), your “helicopter” hypothesis is totally implausible.

Finally…

“Saw two people in white coveralls very close to the object. One of these persons seemed to turn and look straight at my car and seemed startled--seemed to jump quickly somewhat.”

(…)

“These persons appeared normal in shape--but possibly they were small adults or large kids.” (http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/zamora2.htm)

So, we have at the very least small humanoid beings associated with a UFO…

 

[Akhenaten]

<snip>

I ask again: is it plausible to imagine that Zamora failed to recognise a helicopter?

<snip>

Yup. Easy.

Ancient Aircraft​

Helicopters? UFOs? Aliens?


Not so much.

Pharaoh's Helicopter​

 

[SusanB-M1]

You Fools,

<snip>
Childrenaresmall.web

Sesamestreet.com

I like (the whole of) your post! Since joining this thread some pages ago to ask a particular question, I have taken to dropping in occasionally.

I do not anticipate ever reading a rational response to the question about why aliens should travel across inter-stellar space just to damage a car, nor why, having the ability to come this far, they cannot remain invisible. Ah, well!!

ETA I note that there are quite a few pages between the one the quoted post was on and this one! (But I did not read them.)

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

It is amazing isn't it? After all of was presented, not a single bit of it has merit, none of the cases in 111 pages of debate , not even a maybe. (rest of the no doubt ferocious and terrifying rant snipped)

Yah, you got it in a nutshell. Should have stopped there, while you were ahead. Of course, you did discredit your aguments before you even posted by your little pre-post conference with Ramjet.

The basic argument against Ram's assertions is that even he admits that each and every case in his list is inconclusive and admits of multiple other explanations. The fallacy he persists in is to assume that a sufficiently huge pile of crap evidence somehow becomes good evidence. In fact, if there was good evidence, we'd all be believers. Real things have a way of leaving real traces. Fake things, not so much.


Since ya'all are so obviously colluding, I feel that I should just start addressing any and all commentary to 'RamChuckKing'.

A

 

[Rramjet]

I stated:
” 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.”

I have numerous times with regard to Hendry's observations. If you were not paying attention the first time, I don't know why you would the second.

Then it should be a simple matter of showing precisely WHERE you did provide that evidence. Will you now do so?

These are ALL opinions and not PROOF. You are stating such a scenario is implausible but it is FAR MORE plausible than an alien spaceship that chose to smash a headlight, bend an antenna, and change the time on the clock/watch.

Oh but I am NOT and never HAVE stated that an “alien spaceship” did all those things. I am merely noting that even after extensive investigation, NO plausible mundane explanation has been forthcoming. It is a mystery and as such is representative of MANY more cases like it. Strangely enough, when confronted with such mysteries, I feel that research into such things is therefore warranted. The White Sands research program is a pretty good exemplar here. They went looking for UFOs and what do you know – they found them!

Again, I ask for you to demonstrate the scientists are willing to drop their present line of work/study and pursue UFOs because they offer so much. Quoting some UFO proponents about how difficult it is to publish papers is because there is a lack of science involved with writing such papers. It won't get past peer review. You might as well get a paper on Bigfoot published in Nature.

Well then you obviously have not given much thought to what such a research program might consist of. I already mentioned White sands (http://www.nicap.org/ncp/ncp-brumac.htm). The Hoyt paper is another good example (http://www.narcap.org/commentary/ufocritique.pdf). Here is another… (http://voice.unimelb.edu.au/view.php?articleID=5319) so as you see, it is not impossible to get UFO related research proposals accepted, just (as I have pointed out) there is a serious lack of research funding and also we must couple that with the demonstrated fact that certain peer reviewed journals have an active policy of NOT publishing UFO related material… These are just the facts as represented by the evidence I gave you. Nothing more, nothing less.

Answer the question. Is this your BEST CASE? I asked for a case to focus upon that can steer the discussion towards a conclusion. Therefore, I am asking for what you consider to be the best case that presents your views about UFOs. So, is it? I refuse to waste time going after each case only to see you say "That case is only a trial run but this case is better" because it is an endless cycle.

Look, I’ll be as honest and open as I can. I do not know if this qualifies as a “best case’. I find it VERY difficult to single ANY case out as a “best case”. Each case has it’s own set of good and bad information and presents its own problems. If you do NOT wish to discuss this case, then that is your prerogative.

Besides, you totally misread my intentions here. IF you CAN reasonably show that a mundane explanation for the cases I am presenting is plausible, then I WILL admit it (I have done so on a number of occasions – for example most recently with the “balloon” video that Correa Neto reasonably showed was plausibly just that, a “star”-shaped balloon – I then admitted my mistake and formally withdrew any claims I might have made regarding it). So to merely suppose I am implacable in my position is, on the demonstrated evidence, to suppose wrongly. Present good evidence for your assertions and I will consider them in good faith.

That Betty Cash suffered from something is not in question. However, without the medical records, you can not say they were radiation burns. In fact, the symptoms are not consistent with exposure to ionizing radiation. To make one's hair fall out and cause burns to the skin would have been a heavy dose indeed and there would have been evidence of it in the car as it too would have been exposed to the same radiation.

Well, as far as I know, her symptoms did resemble those of someone who received a large (“heavy” if you will) dose of ionizing radiation. Vomiting, diarrhoea, hair loss, skin burns…

“Some of the harmful effects of ionizing radiation were apparent from the outset. Too much x-radiation caused recurrent reddening of the skin or loss of hair, hours or days later, often followed by painful radiation burns. By 1897, 69 cases of skin damage were reported. By 1902, hundreds of cases of x-ray injuries were documented. Surgery was often needed to repair the damage.” (http://www.ccnr.org/ceac_B.html#b)

Also there are different affects from different types of radiation (alpha, beta, gamma and x-rays to name the four most common). For example for alpha radiation exposure:

” Moderate (2–3.5 Gy of radiation) exposure is associated with nausea and vomiting beginning within 12–24 hours after exposure.[5] In addition to the symptoms of mild exposure, fever, hair loss, infections, bloody vomit and stools, and poor wound healing are seen with moderate exposure.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_poisoning)

So a moderate exposure to alpha radiation can account for some of Betty Cash’s symptoms.

As for the burns:

”Beta burns from shallow ionizing radiation (this would be from fallout particles; the largest particles in local fallout would be likely to have very high activities because they would be deposited so soon after detonation and it is likely that one such particle upon the skin would be able to cause a localised burn); however, these particles are very weakly penetrating and have a short range.

Gamma burns from highly penetrating radiation. This would likely cause deep gamma penetration within the body, which would result in uniform whole body irradiation rather than only a surface burn. In cases of whole body gamma irradiation (circa 10 Gy) due to accidents involving medical product irradiators, some of the human subjects have developed injuries to their skin between the time of irradiation and death.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_poisoning)

So her symptoms are specifically related to ionizing radiation! Thus you are simply mistaken in your assessment here Astrophotographer.

As for the car - Well obviously the occupants inside the car suffered MUCH less severe symptoms, so we can assume the car was somewhat protective but what of the car itself. What DO you expect the results to be in that direction?

Interestingly there is this article
(http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/19699/?a=f) but as for any supposed lasting affects of ionizing radiation on cars (as you seem to imply there might be) – I would have to do some more research. Obviously though YOU have some information that ionizing radiation does affect cars in a lasting fashion. Perhaps you can share that with us?

I am asking for PROOF that her burns were associated with the event. I want to see actual medical records. So far, it is a claim she received burns due to a UFO event. There is no evidence presented that it WAS due to a UFO event.

Well, the fact that she began to suffer symptoms that were consistent with having received ionizing radiation at the time she stated (as did the other witnesses) is STRONGLY suggestive that she received them when she (and the other witnesses) said they did. It would be difficult indeed – given the research on radiation poisoning on when and how the symptoms manifest – to make a case that she (and the other witnesses) received them at some OTHER time. Perhaps though you have information that we do not. You should then present it to support your contentions. Otherwise you are simply making (again!) unfounded assertions without supporting evidence!

This is the rambling of somebody who has never served in the military. Air crews being summoned to service and fuel dozens of helicopters for a mission during a Christmas standdown is something that would not go unnoticed by families and friends. The flight of these helicopters over populated areas and roads would not go unnoticed. You seem to be suggesting the aircrews, despite being exposed to the UFO, would know nothing about it. As for Walker, he saw some helicopters with searchlights. Was there any police helicopter activity at the time?

BTW, if you think the military men keep secrets, I suggest reading "Blind man's bluff". The submarine service (in which I served) is noted for being exposed to some really top secret stuff. Somehow, the stories about the Seawolf, Halibut, and a bunch of other submarines was leaked out. I did not serve on those subs but did conduct exercises that were similar. Sometimes, we left on short notice at great discomfort for our families. It is my opinion that the helicopter air crews and their support group would have had a similar situation if they were sent to chase after a UFO in late December. Somebody would have noticed but nobody did.

This is pointless. You assert many things here that are obviously false to any reasonable person. Of course to point out HOW false would take a great deal of time and research and THIS is what the UFO debunker relies on. The negative tactic is to get the UFO proponents searching out evidence to refute red herrings, thus wasting their time on useless and pointless endeavours. All the UFO debunker has to do is throw out a few lines of generalised and unfounded assertion, then sit back and watch the UFO proponent waste time on research that the debunker already knows the answer to.

IF you have ANY evidence that ANY of your assertions made above are true, then I challenge you to supply supporting evidence! If you CANNOT, then I am entitled to dismiss them for what they are, unsubstantiated assertions that belie common knowledge and logic.

Of course you will reply with the usual “You have dismissed my statements with the wave of a hand as usual”, but in fact, if you look at my statements and then yours – it is actually YOU who did that to MY statements on the matter!

She died of heart failure. She was in her 80s from what I recall and it was 20 years later. If you want to proclaim the government killed her or the UFO did, I suggest you do a bit of research and produce the medical records. The Landrums have shown no ill effects except immediately after the claimed event. Can you demonstrate they still suffer and what effects they suffer from?

Another red herring! I am NOT claiming that she died as a direct result of her injuries. It was YOU who raised the matter. I merely commented to the effect that YOU had no evidence either way! For you to attempt to turn that back on me… it is exasperating, illogical, unreasonable, irrational… but strangely, a tried and true UFO debunker tactic!

I stated:
”So, how about you directly addressing my rebuttals, and PLEASE resist the urge to merely repeat your assertions over again..”

Why? This is what you want. An endless spiral where you proclaim that you are right and everyone else is wrong. You repeat yourself and I repeat myself because you do not want to see any other position than yours.

Why? Because if you make an assertion, then I supply evidence in rebuttal, then you merely ignore that evidence to repeat your initial assertion – it is NOT a way to advance the debate. It is in however a way of positively stymieing debate! I recently gave you credit for trying to make your case using the evidence – I can now see that I was utterly and comprehensively incorrect in that assessment. I can see that you are not here to debate at all – in my opinion you are here to apply whatever methods you can to STOP rational debate. Shame on you Astrophotographer.

Re Zamora.

A. The test did occur on the day in question.
B. If it did stray off the test range, then it is possible it may have been the source of the event.

Why are you so interested in NOT pursuing the idea that it might be the source? Where is your intellectual curiousity? Are you afraid that it MIGHT have been the cause? My point is it that it should be considered and might lead somewhere (although I am of the opinion that it is probably unlikely for the reasons I listed preveiously). I AM CURIOUS. I AM INTERESTED in looking at all possibilities. I THOUGHT that was what the scientific method was all about. Apparently, you failed that course or forgot all about it once they gave you your degree.

Yes, I have looked at the possibility (see my reply to Access Denied (post #4448) and I have found the hypothesis entirely implausible for the reasons outlined in that post.

You abuse of me does not become you Astrophotographer. If you do not like my arguments, then you are free to state how and why, but attacking me personally does nothing to advance the debate.

 

[Access Denied]

How are we to know if it is “the best case” when we have not examined it in any detail? There might be things that you can show that make it a “bad” case.

All the “witnesses” are anonymous and the primary witnesses knew each other so we can’t rule out collusion. The tower didn’t see it and no other independent sightings were reported. No radar, no photos… (except hoaxed ones)

Yep, it’s “bad”…

Please tell my WHY you think it is plausible to imagine that they would mount the surveyor on a helicopter and take it 100 miles and OFF the testing range and INTO a New Mexico town?

All that matters is it's within the realm of possibilities. Please tell me why you think it’s plausible that aliens did it?

I ask again: is it plausible to imagine that Zamora failed to recognise a helicopter?

Zamora didn’t think it was aliens so why do you?

But this is a SHIFT in the range of hearing… NOT a TOTAL hearing loss… and Zamora NEVER describes that his HEARING was affected in ANY way, shape or form. IMMEDIATELY he is on the radio back to base:

Right, not a total loss, but you don’t know how far away it was when he stopped hearing it. A temporary shift would affect that but not necessarily his ability to use the radio.

“These persons appeared normal in shape--but possibly they were small adults or large kids.”

So, we have at the very least small humanoid beings associated with a UFO…

Of course you’d go with the possibility of them being “small”… even though he was far enough away he couldn’t be sure. Why not go with the equal possibility they were normal sized adults?

 

[Stray Cat]

Of course you’d go with the possibility of them being “small”… even though he was far enough away he couldn’t be sure. Why not go with the equal possibility they were normal sized adults?

A point well illustrated in this Father Ted clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmU_q5xrnto

 

[chuck4842]

chuck4842, do you deny that Rramjet is a liar in twisting my words and changing them to suit his own ends?

I thought my opinnion was irrelevent, why do you want it now? Maybe to promote YOUR agenda? I dont care if he did, report it to the proper personnel. Do I need to remind you how little my opinnion is regarded here? Take your whining to the pacifier department, I'm adult rated. LOL Also I'm very aware of why someone would want my opinnion posted on a thread instead of just contacting me personally, very , very, aware. What I'm not sure of is it relevent to the thread?

 

[chuck4842]

"Of course you’d go with the possibility of them being “small”… even though he was far enough away he couldn’t be sure. Why not go with the equal possibility they were normal sized adults?" And of course you'd consider your opinnion of there size , equal to the actual eyewitness. LOL! What an incredulous display!

 

[Rramjet]

All the “witnesses” are anonymous and the primary witnesses knew each other so we can’t rule out collusion. The tower didn’t see it and no other independent sightings were reported. No radar, no photos… (except hoaxed ones)

Yep, it’s “bad”…

There were witnesses to the UFO who did NOT know each other. Judging by the transcripts of the tower tapes, we cannot rule out that they did not see the UFO – their comments seem to indicate they might have. What do you mean by “independent”? Witnesses who did not know each other? They exist. Perhaps you have simply not examined the research? (http://www.narcap.org/reports/010/TR10_Case_18a.pdf)

All that matters is it's within the realm of possibilities. Please tell me why you think it’s plausible that aliens did it?

Sure, and it is also possible for me to fly to Jupiter. Is it likely that I do so? Is it plausible to suppose that I will?

I merely extrapolate from science and the lack of any plausible mundane explanation that existence MUST have a cause.

Zamora didn’t think it was aliens so why do you?

I merely extrapolate from science, the presence of beings and the lack of any plausible mundane explanation that existence MUST have a cause.

Right, not a total loss, but you don’t know how far away it was when he stopped hearing it. A temporary shift would affect that but not necessarily his ability to use the radio.

I asked if you had evidence that anyone had lost such a significant amount of hearing after being exposed to helicopter noise for a few seconds so as to render them incapable of hearing that same helicopter when it is mere 10s of feet from them (for the erstwhile hovering UFO was silent as it cleared the dynamite shack while accelerating away) – and especially when they seemed to have no trouble using a police radio immediately thereafter!

Of course you’d go with the possibility of them being “small”… even though he was far enough away he couldn’t be sure. Why not go with the equal possibility they were normal sized adults?

Zamora had clear impression that the “persons” were smaller than an adult human. Their small stature is not a “possibility” - that is a given in the case. Zamora was merely relating what he knew to be a common reference so that WE could understand the type of size that he was talking about.

 

[chuck4842]

Yup. Easy.

[qimg]http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/EgyptHelicopter.jpg[/qimg]

Ancient Aircraft​

Helicopters? UFOs? Aliens?


Not so much.

Pharaoh's Helicopter​

I really resent it when someone leads me astray to the rabbit hole leading nowhere. "You don't see a helicopter, its the ancient letter "I"after years of erosion and refilling." What are you , OB1 now?

 

[Akhenaten]

I really resent it when someone leads me astray to the rabbit hole leading nowhere. "You don't see a helicopter, its the ancient letter "I"after years of erosion and refilling." What are you , OB1 now?

Umm . . .


What?

 

[RoboTimbo]

I thought my opinnion was irrelevent, why do you want it now? Maybe to promote YOUR agenda? I dont care if he did, report it to the proper personnel. Do I need to remind you how little my opinnion is regarded here? Take your whining to the pacifier department, I'm adult rated. LOL Also I'm very aware of why someone would want my opinnion posted on a thread instead of just contacting me personally, very , very, aware. What I'm not sure of is it relevent to the thread?

I asked for you opinion about Rramjet's lying because you freely gave your opinion that he was being treated rudely. I was giving you an opportunity to defend your previous opinion.

I can understand if you choose to no longer do that. Rramjet himself isn't defending his lying ways so why should you?