I guess the Viezze source is not "scientific"? Oh well, believe what you so desire. You originally implied that such effects were rare. Hendry's study, as well as others, prove this to be completely false. People state they see stars do these things. Scintillation is one of those effects the create this impression.
All I am asking you is to provide some references to show just what effect “scintiallation” has on stars. As far as I can tell it has a very SMALL effect in
magnitude only and thus cannot account for the witness observations of jumping location, splitting apart, etc.. If however there is some
other mechanism involved – such as refraction – I want to know to what
degree these phenomena affect the light from stars, how far above the horizon, etc., etc.
I naturally assumed that you, being a self-proclaimed amateur astronomer, would have a better insight and access to more information on this than anyone else in this forum. I don’t understand why you refuse to provide such information and/or references to such information. It MUST exist, and as an amateur astronomer, you SHOULD be aware of it – so what’s the problem?
You are the one who proclaims you have a scientific education. Are you telling me you have been unable to use that scientific training to make a reasonable living and have to live off donations? I have no college degree and only my navy electronics training to rely upon. I make a reasonable living and helped raise four kids among other things. I can afford $20 for a book.
As for having no idea about the human condition, I think you forget who you are addressing. I spent over twenty years in the Navy serving on submarines working under adverse and stressful conditions. While you were obtaining your Dr. Science degree (which appears to have gotten you nothing), I was sacrificing my personal life away from my famly and friends actually working for a living (and not getting paid that well for it). After retirement, I went to work in the civilian sector right away to support my family. I continue to work today in a manufacturing job. So don't even PRETEND to lecture me about the human condition.
I am not sure if this is a peculiar product of American society and it’s “individualistic” nature or not, but the thrust of your points above seem to be
if I am alright (doing okay, etc), then there should be no reason for anyone else not to be alright (doing okay, etc).”
As I stated, you
obviously have no idea of the human condition or you certainly
would be able to imagine circumstances that might lead someone with a science degree NOT to be alright (doing okay, etc.)! According to your statements, you have lead a VERY privileged and sheltered life compared with the majority of the world’s population – but you seem not to recognise that and to actually consider that you have had a tough life. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am not lecturing, just pointing out a few home truths.
I guess Hendry's 360 UFO cases he investigated and discovered to be stars are not evidence but your unexplained cases are. Go figure.
Well if the criteria he used to assess those cases is in error, then it is NOT evidence. I am merely asking you to clarify those criteria by describing the atmospheric effects that are supposed to have been the cause for the misidentifications in the cases you refer to.
In other words you have no best case. So much for confidence in your UFO reports.
Precisely! Finally you get it. I HAVE no “best case”. However, I have a number of interesting cases that I consider support my hypotheses, and I consider those cases to be “good” cases for that purpose – but equally each has it’s own inadequacies. It is only via an open and honest discussion of these cases that we can sort out the good data from the rubbish. I thought that would have been something that you were interested in doing. I had hoped to get that type of discussion by coming to the JREF to see what the JREF had to say about the evidence in these cases – but primarily all I am getting is ridicule and abuse and obfuscation of the issues and very little exploration of the actual data and research that has been conducted. This is disappointing.
Re Betty Cash:
Actually it does not. The effects do NOT match the effects of acute radiation exposure, which we know about. As a result the radiation exposure explanation is not likey (aka implausible). Therefore, we have reason to doubt this is the source of her symptoms.
But this is simply not true… Her injuries and symptoms match very closely what we might expect from radiation poisoning. That the injuries reflect aspects of different radiation sources and that the dosages seem not to match with what we know about such radiation means that we cannot say for SURE that it was radiation poisoning, but the symptoms SUGGEST radiation – perhaps a combination of types?
Therefore, we have to look elsewhere. Chemicals come to mind. Maybe she took too much medication? I am not a doctor and don't try and pretend to be one. I can't identify a chemical but chemicals have been known to cause nausea, make hair fall out, and burn the skin. Does one specific chemical do that? Maybe it is something to be examined. Apparently nobody else examined it as they continue to suggest it is due to radiation.
Unfortunately, and as I have already pointed out to you, the “chemical hypothsis” suffers from the same problem that the “radiation hypothesis”…there is no single chemical that would produce all those symptoms at once. Perhaps something like Agent Orange might… but then HOW did she (and the others) get exposed to THAT if it wasn’t government negligence? Possibly some type of aviation fuel might cause similar injuries but again…HOW did she get so exposed to THAT…?
Gerstein's track record speaks for itself. Did you follow the link I posted before about him at UFOwatchdog.com?
Yes I did – AND I already noted (and told you) that Joe Nickel gets a right old serve in the Hall of UFO Shame as well! LOL.
I stated:
” The helicopter evidence is contained in the eyewitness statements. The witnesses saw them. The military denies them. It’s a mystery, but that is not the core of the UFO case. It is the UFO encounter that is the REAL mystery and the evidence of that encounter is in the injuries received by ALL of witnesses in the car at the time.”
Which witnesses saw the helicopter fleet and the UFO at the same time period as Cash? Can you give specifics and not some link to a wikipedia article? We know Walker's testimony is invalid for confirming the helicopter fleet. What about the others? How good are they?
What IS it with you and the helicopters…? In the one post you deny the existence of helicopters because the witness testimony is not strong enough to support the contention, yet at the
same time you propose that Cash et al. might have mistaken a helicopter for a UFO! (that would be post #4551, p. 114)
I have already stated that “helicopters” is NOT the basis of the case. I don’t really care if helicopters were present or not. YOU DO have to make up your mind on that one Astrophotographer.
Show me where I said the injuries/symptoms were not real. Stop exaggerating.
Oooo… how do you like being caught out?
The medical records are the key. This is why I stated this case is "incomplete" because it relies on the witness story and claims of being injured. There is nothing to back up the claims.
If you state there is nothing to back up the claims of being injured then I can only suppose you mean what you say!
Perhaps you would like to retract that “exaggerating” remark and apologise for it? Waiting…
My point is that without a medical record, any discussion of the injuries have to be considered suspect.
…and you immediately make a similar claim!
READ the interview. READ the reports made by various others. Does ANYONE question Cash’ injuries? Does the USAF?
We don't know what the doctors determined. We do not know the condition of Cash's blood. We don't know if her condition was pre-existing or caused by something else. Therefore, to draw any conclusions about what caused her conditions is invalid.
You are really making the claim that Betty Cash and Vickie Landrum (and Colby) and the USAF investigators and all the subsequent researchers are
lying? That is a conspiracy theory on a GRAND scale! LOL. And I thought UFO proponents were suckers for these types of things!
…and need I remind you about what Hendry stated about such attacks (if ad hominem attacks is the BEST a debunker can bring against a case… then it is likely to be a GOOD case!)?
The facts have not been verified. Yes. Cash says she saw something. Yes she got sick. Yes, they went down the road. However, we have yet to verify many facts beyond this. We can't verify the helcopters were present. We can't verify that the symptoms were caused by the event. We can't even verify the "cover-up" of the road actually happened.
Red Herrings! Helicopters are really of no consequence – interesting, but of NO consequence – Re-paving of the road has NO supporting evidence. Can you make a plausible case for thinking that the injuries were received elsewhere or at another time?
As far as the "dangerous UFO" comment, how many other UFOs have caused these same conditions? Is it just this type of UFO that created this? If so, does the lack of such symptoms in any other close encounter mean those cases are invalid?
There are many other cases. One in the UK where a reporter died! There was the Canadian prospector… I’ll need to find the links, but yes, there are other cases.
If it isn't YOUR BEST CASE, I am not going to waste my time. You obviously will shift to another case if that can not demonstrate what you desire.
I give you my word that we will stick to that case as long as you can discuss the research report rationally.
