UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Marduk]

There's no question about your right to hypothesise, Rramjet.

And there's no question about our right to chortle at your floundering attempts to produce evidence where there is none.

See how that works?

bet ya money he doesn't

 

[amb]

Zamore saw a giant egg?

 

[Akhenaten]

bet ya money he doesn't

Well, it's not much of a bet, but just for fun . . .

What's the current conversion rate on deben to shekels?

 

[Akhenaten]

Zamore saw a giant egg?

I thought it looked like the east end of a westbound pig.

 

[Akhenaten]

Anyone else seen one of these IFOs?

I'm not tricking this time. This is a real aircraft.

 

[Marduk]

Well, it's not much of a bet, but just for fun . . .

What's the current conversion rate on deben to shekels?

12 gay rodeos for every blimp

 

[Akhenaten]

Done! Do I spit on my hand or something now?

 

[Marduk]

Done! Do I spit on my hand or something now?

if you like,
but I'm not gonna shake it till you clean it off

 

[Cuddles]

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?

Hydrazine

Symptoms of acute (short-term) exposure to high levels of hydrazine may include irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat, dizziness, headache, nausea, pulmonary edema, seizures, coma in humans. Acute exposure can also damage the liver, kidneys, and central nervous system. The liquid is corrosive and may produce dermatitis from skin contact in humans and animals. Effects to the lungs, liver, spleen, and thyroid have been reported in animals chronically exposed to hydrazine via inhalation. Increased incidences of lung, nasal cavity, and liver tumors have been observed in rodents exposed to hydrazine.

Dinitrogen tetroxide

highly toxic and corrosive

For those who don't know, that's rocket fuel. Just something to bear in mind given the previous speculation about lunar module tests.

 

[Jocce]

Yeah sure, these are assertions that scintillation can cause such effects, but I asked you to provide the scientific evidence (from research papers, articles on the subject, whatever documents you can) that show the physics involved that might CAUSE the effects.

I suppose that because you CANNOT do so, it must mean that there is absolutely NO evidence to support the assertions made by the people in these “UFO studies”. ...

Since you bring up the subject, I am still waiting for some evidence that alien ships can perform as observed and that there are alien bases within flying distance from the location.

You CLAIM that “stars” were the explanation and you BASE that claim on your alleged scintillation effects – yet you provide NO evidence that such effects ACTUALLY occur in the real world!

Noone is claiming that stars IS the cause. Just that it COULD BE. The reason being that it has happened before, as opposed to alien visits.

Sure, there are idiots, egotists, money-grubbers, hoaxers and liars in every field – but if you have evidence that relates to such in the Cash/Landrum case…then please present it, otherwise, your statement of mere unfounded and generalised assertions does not make such statements true!

You mean like when you claim that it's alien ships? Unfounded assertion at it's finest. Your whole argument boils down to "Since noone can conclusively prove a mundane explanation, it must be alien". Disingenious to say the least. Lack of data, conflicting data and inconclusive data is the explanation to why the observations you have presented has remained unidentified. Not that all mundane possibilities has been ruled out.

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.

Well, one thing is for sure. I haven't seen any presented in this thread anyway. Or maybe you still confuse what witness claim to have experienced with evidence?

There are simply to many verifiable references to many public offices (Police, Doctors, Hospitals, Government and private organisations)...

And yet, you can't substantiate anything that the witnesses say? Amazing.

…and “helicopter”… is not diamond shaped, spewing heat and flame from underneath…

I saw one exactly like that last week, it burned the paint of my car. Luckily enough I was able to have it repainted so it looks as good as new. I also got a terrible cough since then.

But none of your “potential” mundane explanations are plausible! You continue to make unfounded, generalised assertions based on your beliefs, yet provide no evidence to support such assertions. You merely ASSERT that the explanation was “X” (mundane object) – but never produce evidence that such an explanation is even plausible.

Replace mundane with alien

 

[RoboTimbo]

Then we have to look at other sources for her injuries....
No, I am stating that it is possible she received her illness from something else and not the UFO...
Cash saw something she did not understand and got sick for various reasons...

Show me where I said the injuries/symptoms were not real. Stop exaggerating. My point is that without a medical record, any discussion of the injuries have to be considered suspect. 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?

Do you simply enjoy being called a liar? Is that why you lie? When did acknowledging that she was ill and "we don't know how or why" become a claim of a coverup, other than in an internet scientist UFOlogist's conspiracy delusion?

If you can post where Astrophotographer said anything about them conspiring to lie, I will give myself a yellow card and absent myself from this forum for 3 days for calling you a liar.

Otherwise, you're a liar.

 

[carlitos]

Rramjet,

I applaud your effort to try and answer my question. I'm sure you find this theoretical talk, well, rather mundane. If you wish to convince me (I won't speak for others), you could please pick one case (maybe the O'Hare one, maybe the Zamora one, whatever).

1 - Pick one case. 2 - State your hypothesis. I gave some examples of a hypothesis. They don't have four or six options. Just a sentence.

More examples of hypotheses:

Aliens visited Chicago in the 70's
Aliens hit this poor guy's car with their craft
Aliens flew over LA last March 15 in a cigar-shaped blue tube

Those are testable hypotheses. In 115 pages, I don't believe that you have asserted one yet.

As stated by others, please pick your best case and assert your hypothesis. Very simple - one sentence. Then, we can talk. Until then, your arguments appear to be a complete mess.

And, as others have told you, I will as well. A whole bunch of unexplained stuff is not "proof" of anything. That's why science types want your best case.

 

[Astrophotographer]

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.

Gee, a Privileged and sheltered life? You are the one with the education and not me. Why can I do well and you fail to do so? I suggest you stop trying for the emotional appeal of "poor little me" because you can not buy one simple book (or for that matter attempt to get it on interlibrary loan at your local library, which costs nothing). It seems you are not interested in even attempting to educate yourself on the subject and are using poverty as an excuse.

I have a rather extensive library of UFO books (or UFO related materials). One would think that I have it mostly populated by books written by Klass and Menzel. Nothing could be further from the truth. I would gather that my collection is at least 2 or 3 to 1 in favor of UFO proponent books. At least I attempt to educate myself to the other side of the coin.

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.

So you are using the idea of piling on inadequate cases to make a good case. This is the same methodology used by proponents for over 60 years and it has gotten them no place. You act is if this is a new idea. The problem is "Twice nothing is still nothing". I suggest you do something different.

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.

You get ridicule simply because your presentation is bad and you dismiss alternative hypothesis as "implausible" without falsifying them. As a result, people find your attempts at being scientific a failure.

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?

You can't mix and match the symptoms. We know what happens to people when they recieve acute doses of radiation. Her symptoms do not match those for the dose indicated. Therefore, it is far more logical to look someplace else. The only reason you are sticking to the radiation exposure is because it is very hard to recieve an acute dose when sources for such exposure do not exist in the everyday community. Therefore, it indicates something exotic irradiated her. It is far more likely her symptoms were produced by something else that is more common.

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.

Have you examined pesticides? I was looking at some last night and they can make your hair fall out, cause nausea, and irritate the skin. Since we DON'T have the medical records, we are left grasping at straws. However, it is far more likely she was exposed to some chemical agent (perhaps a pesticide of some kind) than ionizing radiation.

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)

There is a difference between ONE helicopter and some two dozen helicopters.

If you state there is nothing to back up the claims of being injured then I can only suppose you mean what you say!

What I was referring to was the exact nature of the injuries but I can see how you interpreted it.

READ the interview. READ the reports made by various others. Does ANYONE question Cash’ injuries? Does the USAF?

Again, without the medical records, we do not know the exact extent of the injuries. I am interested in the facts. You are using the anecdote. What did the doctors actually determine?

The USAF refuses to even get into that game of questioning what somebody states happened. They do not like congressmen giving them difficulties.

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!

A. The USAF did not investigate their medical condition that I am aware of. Feel free to show where they did if I am wrong.
B. The medical records have not been made available and I am unaware of any UFO investigator examining them. Then again, they could have and ignored them since they are not doctors.

We are trying to establish FACTS and not claims. You want to believe them when they describe their symptoms. I want to see what the doctors actually determined. What is wrong with that?

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?

We need the medical records. Without evidence for the helicopters and all the other claims of physical evidence (the road, the surrounding vegitation, the vehicle), then the claims of the witnesses need to be examined closer.

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.

A UK reporter died from a UFO? That is news. Feel free to present that as BEST EVIDENCE.

If we are talking about the Canadian prospector in the Condon report, you should read Dr. Craig's take on the matter. Oh that's right, you can't afford books and have no apparent interest in expanding your knowledge on the subject.

I give you my word that we will stick to that case as long as you can discuss the research report rationally.

Since it is NOT your BEST CASE, then what is the point. We are already going around in circles on Betty Cash, Zamora, Red River, etc. Unless you want to toss out all the others in favor of this one, I am not going to expand this discussion any further.

 

[EHocking]

...I suggest you stop trying for the emotional appeal of "poor little me" because you can not buy one simple book...

For FSM's sake, you can pick up a copy of "The Ufo Handbook: A Guide to Investigating, Evaluating, and Reporting Ufo Sightings (Paperback) by Allan Hendry" for less than $10 including shipping from Amazon...

 

[Rramjet]

Hydrazine

(from your source):

“Hydrazine was first used as a rocket fuel during World War II for the Messerschmitt Me 163B

(…)

Hydrazine is also used as a low-power monopropellant for the maneuvering thrusters of spacecraft” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrazine#Safety)

Dinitrogen tetroxide

(from your source):

N2O4 is hypergolic with various forms of hydrazine, i.e., they burn on contact without a separate ignition source, making them popular bipropellant rocket fuels. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinitrogen_tetroxide)

So Betty Cash was exposed to rocket fuel? I already sated that there were aviation fuels that might cause the injuries… but I also stated that if so, HOW do you propose Cash (and the others) came into contact with it if it was not government (military) negligence?

I am sure the Cash family would like to hear your theories. If YOU think there is a strong case to be made here, perhaps on that basis they should mount another law suit?

As a note of interest:

” On August 21, 1986, a U.S. District Court judge dismissed their case, noting that the plaintiffs had not proved that the helicopters were associated with the U.S. Government, and that military officials had testified that the United States Armed Forces did not have a large, diamond shaped aircraft in their possession.​

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash-Landrum_incident)

Jocce
FYI: I have NEVER claimed alien spaceships, alien bases, alien visits, etc. You argue (to be polite) as if I have claimed these things. I have not.

Gee, a Privileged and sheltered life? How pompous can one be? You are the one with the education and not me. Why can I do well and you fail to do so? I suggest you stop trying for the emotional appeal of "poor little me" because you can not buy one simple book (or for that matter attempt to get it on interlibrary loan at your local library, which costs nothing). It seems you are not interested in even attempting to educate yourself on the subject and are using poverty as an excuse.

I have a rather extensive library of UFO books (or UFO related materials). One would think that I have it mostly populated by books written by Klass and Menzel. Nothing could be further from the truth. I would gather that my collection is at least 2 or 3 to 1 in favor of UFO proponent books. At least I attempt to educate myself to the other side of the coin.

I merely claimed I could not afford to buy the book. YOU then made a big deal out of it. Instead of saying “I am sorry to hear that” and leaving at it at that - YOU proceeded to try and justify MY situation with reference to your own comparatively privileged and sheltered life. You have no idea of my situation and by your comments have very little sympathy for the human condition in general – using the cover of “If I am okay, then I see no reason for others not to be so”. You sir are the “pompous” one, not I.

So you are using the idea of piling on inadequate cases to make a good case. This is the same methodology used by proponents for over 60 years and it has gotten them no place. You act is if this is a new idea. The problem is "Twice nothing is still nothing". I suggest you do something different.

You believe the cases to be “inadequate”, but that mere belief does NOT make them so. For over 60 years the UFO debunkers have held sway over public and media opinion. THAT mere fact also does NOT make the cases “inadequate”. I am presenting cases with strong evidence. So far the only “debunker” explanations have been implausible - like the “helicopter” for Zamora’s UFO, or the “blimp” from Rogue River. In other cases I have presented (Tehran, Father Gill, White Sands) the ONLY counter to them from the debunkers is ad hominem. I expected some evidence against my cases from JREF (or at least some sound arguments)… I got none…

You get ridicule simply because your presentation is bad and you dismiss alternative hypothesis as "implausible" without falsifying them. As a result, people find your attempts at being scientific a failure.

No, you are merely “playing to your audience” with unfounded assertion, hoping that if YOU say my presentation is bad, they will believe you!

Let us also hear what Chalmers has to say on the subject of falsification.

”New concepts of force and inertia did not come about as a result of careful observation and experiment. Nor did they come about through the falsification of bold conjectures and the continual replacement of one bold conjecture by another. Early formulations of the new theory, involving imperfectly formulated novel conceptions, were persevered with and developed in spite of apparent falsifications. It was only after a new system of physics was devised, a process that involved the intellectual labour of many scientists over many centuries, that the new theory could be successfully matched with the results of observation and experiment in a detailed way.” (Chalmers, A., F. (1976) What is this thing called science. Queensland University Press. Pp 74-75).​

So your “60 years” is but a blink of time in any effort at paradigm shift - and inductivism and falsificationism are not all they are cracked up to be. You have a naive inductivist’s view of science and scientific progress Astrophotographer (a folklaw view). You need to update your concepts for the modern world. Science has moved on, apparently you have not.

You can't mix and match the symptoms. We know what happens to people when they recieve acute doses of radiation. Her symptoms do not match those for the dose indicated. Therefore, it is far more logical to look someplace else. The only reason you are sticking to the radiation exposure is because it is very hard to recieve an acute dose when sources for such exposure do not exist in the everyday community. Therefore, it indicates something exotic irradiated her. It is far more likely her symptoms were produced by something else that is more common.

“Mix and match the symptoms”? No, it is YOU who is attempting to do that. You make me laugh sometimes Astrophotographer.

“More common”? Like Rocket fuel? Yeah, that’s common! What else you got… oh yeah “pesticides” … sorry, but exposure to those do not produce the specific injuries either… simlpy, Cash’s (and the other’s) injuries resemble MOST closely radiation poisoning… THAT is a FACT and no matter HOW many unfounded assertions you make, the fact will not go away merely on your say so.

There is a difference between ONE helicopter and some two dozen helicopters.

So you assert a diamond shaped helicopter that is spewing intense flame from beneath? The military denied all knowledge of helicopters.

What I was referring to was the exact nature of the injuries but I can see how you interpreted it.

You statement was categorical Astrophotographer. ”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.”

CLEARLY your were referring to the CLAIMS of being injured. No amount of slippery wording will get you off the hook here I am afraid. You owe me an apology.

The USAF refuses to even get into that game of questioning what somebody states happened. They do not like congressmen giving them difficulties.

Yes, Eisenhower was right! His warning was timely, yet the military/industrial complex did find its feet and has since, using its “black budget” billions, got off the table and walked away.

A. The USAF did not investigate their medical condition that I am aware of. Feel free to show where they did if I am wrong.
B. The medical records have not been made available and I am unaware of any UFO investigator examining them. Then again, they could have and ignored them since they are not doctors.

We are trying to establish FACTS and not claims. You want to believe them when they describe their symptoms. I want to see what the doctors actually determined. What is wrong with that?

Nothing at all. As I told you, I would like to see the medical reports. However, in EVERY POST you repeat this claim over and over (yet you stated that you did not like repeating yourself!). I keep answering you. Let us get more specific:

“A radiologist who examined the witnesses' medical records for MUFON wrote, "We have strong evidence that these patients have suffered secondary damage to ionizing radiation. It is also possible that there was an infrared or ultraviolet component as well." (quoted in Clark, 176)” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash-Landrum_incident)

And we know that he was Dr Peter Rank. So those ARE the facts as reported by the investigating radiologist.

Without evidence for the helicopters and all the other claims of physical evidence (the road, the surrounding vegitation, the vehicle), then the claims of the witnesses need to be examined closer.

HOW many TIMES do you have to be TOLD. Do you simply ignore my statements for fun – or do you have a darker purpose?

Red Herrings! Helicopters are really of no consequence – interesting, but of NO consequence – Re-paving of the road has NO supporting evidence. No-one is making claims about the “surrounding vegetation”… and the car… why it was not examined properly we probably will never know now… Can you make a plausible case for thinking that the injuries were received elsewhere or at another time?

A UK reporter died from a UFO? That is news. Feel free to present that as BEST EVIDENCE.

I have NEVER claimed BEST EVIDENCE for anything oh Master of the Red Herring. LOL. I said I would look for the reference to it. Patience Astrophotographer, patience…

Since it is NOT your BEST CASE, then what is the point. We are already going around in circles on Betty Cash, Zamora, Red River, etc. Unless you want to toss out all the others in favor of this one, I am not going to expand this discussion any further.

“Rogue River” Astrophotographer…Rogue River… You’re simply not even paying attention to the cases I HAVE presented… and I TOLD you I do NOT have a best case… I am not much into pseudoscientific categorisations, but you of course are used to that type of thing I suppose?

You refusal to discuss the O’Hare case is noted.

 

[Akhenaten]

<words>

No, you are merely “playing to your audience” with unfounded assertion, hoping that if YOU say my presentation is bad, they will believe you!


<more words>

Guess what.

 

[Sledge]

Rramjet, what is your hypothesis in this thread? What is your evidence for it? And what is your reasoning for insisting that cases that don't prove your point can be piled together to form evidence that does?

 

[GeeMack]

No, you are merely “playing to your audience” with unfounded assertion, hoping that if YOU say my presentation is bad, they will believe you!

Actually your presentation sucks, completely. You've proven yourself a liar. You've made unambiguous claims which you've failed to substantiate in any way. Your arguments are almost exclusively from incredulity and ignorance. And nothing you've said in over 800 posts has been compelling enough to sway anyone. Even your sycophants can't do any more than sashay in here, suck up a little, then leave you floundering on your own for pages at a time. Of course their understanding of science and logic and their ability to communicate effectively are similar to yours, which is below that of an average high school kid. Your arguments are disorganized and unfocused. Everything about your presentation has failed, 100%, to do what you claimed you would do according to your initial postings. That, by definition, is a bad presentation.

You see, the assertion that your presentation is bad is very well founded indeed. So you're wrong. Again.

​

 

[carlitos]

I TOLD you I do NOT have a best case…

Why is that?

 

[Astrophotographer]

Snipped emotional appeal.

You believe the cases to be “inadequate”, but that mere belief does NOT make them so. For over 60 years the UFO debunkers have held sway over public and media opinion. THAT mere fact also does NOT make the cases “inadequate”. I am presenting cases with strong evidence. So far the only “debunker” explanations have been implausible - like the “helicopter” for Zamora’s UFO, or the “blimp” from Rogue River. In other cases I have presented (Tehran, Father Gill, White Sands) the ONLY counter to them from the debunkers is ad hominem. I expected some evidence against my cases from JREF (or at least some sound arguments)… I got none….

In your opinion you received none. However, you are the one claiming that UFOs represent something exotic. You have openly dismissed alternate/rival hypothesis without even falsifying them. However, you are willing to accept the idea that these reports are from something truly exotic.

I laugh at your claim that debunkers have held sway over the public/media. Most UFO reports are publicized but no answers given even though the answers were available. Larry King regularly has all sorts of UFO proponents on his show that pump out all their stories with little or no questioning. Yep, the debunkers sure hold sway over this issue.

So your “60 years” is but a blink of time in any effort at paradigm shift - and inductivism and falsificationism are not all they are cracked up to be. You have a naive inductivist’s view of science and scientific progress Astrophotographer (a folklaw view). You need to update your concepts for the modern world. Science has moved on, apparently you have no.

Yes, science has moved on and pretty much rejected the idea that UFOs are something exotic. The problem is you are still stuck in the UFO proponent mentality. Try selling this to a real panel of scientists. I bet you will get a similar response.

sorry, but exposure to those do not produce the specific injuries either… simlpy, Cash’s (and the other’s) injuries resemble MOST closely radiation poisoning… THAT is a FACT and no matter HOW many unfounded assertions you make, the fact will not go away merely on your say so. .

Iti s NOT A FACT that it MOST closely resembles radiation poisoning. Do you have medical training? What have you elminated? You ignore all the other symptoms she SHOULD have had if she suffered an acute dose of radiation exposure. You ignore the FACT that if she received such exposure the car would have been activated too. You ignore the FACT that the surrounding vegitation would have suffered adverse effects as well. Instead none of this happened. Therefore, it is unlikely that radiation. Feel free to list her specific symptoms again. Tell me how much hair loss did she suffer from? What degree of burns did she suffer from? What time did she suffer from stomach ailments? Details....Details....Details....

So you assert a diamond shaped helicopter that is spewing intense flame from beneath? The military denied all knowledge of helicopters.

She says she saw a diamond shape. It does not mean it WAS diamond shaped and a bright spotlight might be interpreted as such. Who says it has to be a military helicopter?

CLEARLY your were referring to the CLAIMS of being injured. No amount of slippery wording will get you off the hook here I am afraid. You owe me an apology.

Again, feel free to interpret what I stated as you desire. I see no need to apologize for stating you exaggerate because you do.

And we know that he was Dr Peter Rank. So those ARE the facts as reported by the investigating radiologist..

So he was a radiologist who's expertise was in what? Was he a specialist in nuclear medicine or was he just a specialist in X-rays? What experience did he have in dealing with radiation exposure? Feel free to present the entire document as well.

Red Herrings! Helicopters are really of no consequence – interesting, but of NO consequence – Re-paving of the road has NO supporting evidence. No-one is making claims about the “surrounding vegetation”… and the car… why it was not examined properly we probably will never know now… Can you make a plausible case for thinking that the injuries were received elsewhere or at another time?

The helicopters are key to the story. No evidence for the helicopters indicate the testimony is flawed in some way.

You refusal to discuss the O’Hare case is noted.

Your refusal to bring up your BEST CASE is noted as well.