UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Jocce]

Sure it’s a “blurry” video – but what it does show is quite extraordinary.

I forgot to ask. What does it show?

 

[zooterkin]

Wilfully misconstruing what I have stated will get you nowhere. I have stated that by definition a UFO is “alien” – that is the characteristics of UFOs indicate something that is ‘foreign” to our concept of the known natural and technological world and if not mundane then “alien”.

Er, no, by definition, a UFO is simply Unidentified. Further analysis of the available data, or more information, may lead to it becoming identified.

I most commonly use quotation marks around the term “alien”. This indicates that it is NOT meant to represent ET or any other particular hypothetical explanation that has been commonly attributed to UFOs. That is, it seems whenever people hear the word “alien”, they seem to automatically assume ET – and I am trying to avoid leaping to that conclusion. I actually mean “alien to our common conception of reality”. That is, UFOs are “alien” to us because we have no mundane explanation for them. I know this has lead to confusion and debate and this is because people simply cannot (or will not) see past ET as an explanation for UFOs. My contention is that while UFOs may not have mundane explanations, we cannot assume this automatically means ET.

Ok, so how does that fit your use of 'alien' in the following?

Really... I'd like to hear of these "100s" of other events where an "alien" has reached out to attempt to pull a person toward itself - and it has been caught on film... Blurry or not, it captures a rather extraordinary event. You don't find that even a little bit interesting? And please tell me why you are posting in this thread at all if you're not interested?

As you say later, perhaps you should use a better word than "alien" in future.

 

[wollery]

Just one simple question Rramjet.

What sort of radiation was it that the Geiger counter detected?

I merely ask because they only detect three types of ionizing radiation and any competent scientist would be able to determine which of the three it was in a matter of seconds.

 

[RoboTimbo]

You (and others) know full well I have answered this question from you many times. If you mean by “alien” ET, then no, I am not defining UFOs as alien. If you mean that UFOs are ‘alien” because they are foreign to our concept of natural or technological reality, then yes UFOs are alien.

Any scientist would know that words have accepted meanings.

The Rogue River UFO is alien to our concept of reality because we cannot ascribe a mundane explanation to it (indeed it defys mundane solution based on its observed characteristics – simply it does not accord with any mundane solution we can imagine).

That you can imagine in your list of seven mundane things that you claim it is not.

It is quite apparent however that my definitional use of alien (as “foreign” to our concept of reality) is confusing the UFO debunkers. They seem to want to stick with the explanation “alien as ET” (or at the very least not want to accept the distinction I make). The whole point of my placing “alien” in quotation marks in the first place was to avoid the “alien as ET” conclusion. Unfortunately it seems that cannot be done in this forum - so therefore will try and avoid the use of “alien” in my statements from here on.

Nope. As you know full well, it's your deliberate misuse of words that causes you problems. Please cite a reputable online reference's definition of "alien".

Here's your favorite reference work (Encarta):
noun (plural a·li·ens)

Definition:

1. extraterrestrial being: a being from another planet or another part of the universe, especially in works of science fiction

2. noncitizen resident of country: a citizen of a country other than the one he or she is currently in

3. outsider: somebody who does not belong to or does not feel accepted by a group or society

I'm willing to allow you to make up your own definitions for things. I just want you to be consistent in your use of your made-up definition. Your problem is not your made-up redefintion of the word "alien", it's your then made-up redefition of UFO to be "alien" using your redefition of the word "alien".

Maybe you could start a thread about providing evidence that a dog has five legs and then go on to redefine "tail" to mean "leg".

 

[Astrophotographer]

Just one simple question Rramjet.

What sort of radiation was it that the Geiger counter detected?

I merely ask because they only detect three types of ionizing radiation and any competent scientist would be able to determine which of the three it was in a matter of seconds.

I know I stated I terminated my participation but this is a new section and I have expertise in this area (I spent over twenty years in the nuclear navy where we used such devices and received extensive training on different types of radiation). After watching the video, I could not see the scale and I could not determine what type of radiac he was using. In the section where, he keeps looking through a little "spyglass" and puting in on another box, I can identify this device. This is what is called a Self-reading Pocket dosimeter (SRPD). When he places it on the box, he is zeroing the device and then looking at it to see if it deflects due to radiation. We used these when entering potentially high radiation areas. You would check the SRPD every few minutes to see if you were receiving too much radiation (you also had another montioring device attached to your body, which could not be read on the spot and was more accurate - it would be read later in a lab). This presentation is ridiculous because it would take some time for it to increase unless the levels were so high that deflection was almost immediate. In that case, the individual would be heavily exposed.

The "geiger" counter was placed down with the scale pegged. I did not see it deflect to pegged and I saw no battery/source check performed on the device to see if it was operating correctly. Was it a Beta-Gamma detector or was it an alpha detector? An Alpha detector could peg on a source that is an alpha emitter. Alpha is only a problem if it enters through a cut, ingested, or enters the lungs. It would not affect the SRPD because it was a Gamma detector (gamma radiaton has a longer range/pentration ability). I don't recall the SRPD being able to detect Beta radiation but Beta radiation also has a low penetration ability (only a few mms will block it).

So, the question's regarding these measurements are:

1) Was the radiac working correctly? I did not see it go through its deflection but I might have missed it. Did it show the operator performing a normal battery check and source check (if it had one) prior to use? If not, then it could have been a faulty radiac.

2) What are the individuals credentials? I see he is listed as a physicist and astronomer. That is a hefty qualification but I could not find his credentials anywhere doing a quick check. This brings into question who he claims to be.

3) Where are the actual survey readings from the event? A scientist of this caliber would have done a full radiation survey using the various radiacs (Beta/Gamma/Alpha/Neutron) to map out the source of radiation. I did not see it in this video.

4) Where are the supposed other universities and their scientific papers regarding these surveys? Certainly, they would have produced something of this nature.

Bottom line:

1) We have a suspect video by Maussan, who has promoted this kind of nonsense before.
2) We have suspect radiation readings in this video, which we might be able to explain if we had more information.
3) No scientific papers are presented.
4) No radiation survey maps presented.
5) A person presented as a scientist but we really don't know if they were actually a scientist.

Present BETTER evidence concering this event other than some video on line and maybe it can be discussed. Otherwise, it has the earmarks of a hoax by a well-known tabloid journalist, who likes to show videos of ufos (many of which are hoaxes and mundane objects) because it gets him the attention he desires.

 

[Jocce]

if it was pointed out to the observer (of the drawings) that the two drawings were a three-dimensional representation of a circular object, then they should have no problem in seeing them for what they are.

Great, one of few things we can agree on then which was exactly my point. With a priori knowledge one can see a disc.

I have however provided detailed explanations of how the draftsman (Mr C) intended us to see his drawings. If you cannot get that by now, then I am sorry.

I have no problem whatsoever of interpreting the drawings as discs and has never had any since I first saw them so I'm not sure why you think I don't "get that". Your detailed explanations about how the draftsman intended the drawings are quite unnecessary.

 

[wollery]

2) What are the individuals credentials? I see he is listed as a physicist and astronomer. That is a hefty qualification but I could not find his credentials anywhere doing a quick check. This brings into question who he claims to be.

A few posts ago Rramjet described him (presumably from the video or the video's source) as a "Master of Science in physics, mathematics and astronomy". If that's an accurate description of his credentials then it's singularly unimpressive. That title would indicate someone who has a taught masters degree in general physical science, i.e. someone who has no real research experience, and certainly no research credentials.

The reason I say it indicates a taught masters degree is that a research masters would be more focused on one or two research projects in a tight field of study. Also, the title "Master of Science" is the long version of the standard "MSc", which is always a taught degree, as opposed to the MPhil degree, which would be a Master's by research. An MSc degree should involve a small research project as part of the assessment, but it certainly wouldn't be up to peer review publishable standards.

Of course, that doesn't mean that he doesn't know what he's doing, he may work in a radiation laboratory as a technician, and they tend to know more about how to work the instruments correctly than the actual scientists who use the equipment, but as far as his credentials go, they are extremely unimpressive.

Calling him a scientist is either disingenuous or generous, depending.

 

[Astrophotographer]

OK, A bit more research reveals that he was probably using a CDV-715 (http://www.civildefensemuseum.com/southrad/cdv715.html) gamma radiation detector set on the highest scale of 500r/hr. With it pegged, I am beginning to question the reading. If I were doing a survey and saw my radiac pegged at 500 r/hr, I would beat a hasty retreat and have cleared the area of people. If the reading were accurate, in less than an hour you would probably have received a lethal dose.
The CDV-715 is an old civil defense geiger counter built in the 1950s and one has to wonder why a top of the line scientist would be using such an archaic piece of equipment. Most of these can be purchased in Army-Navy surplus/e-bay. In my opinion, the zero is adjusted way off to give full deflection or the instrument's internal detector appears to have been broken. We see no second radiac brought in to verify the readings and we are missing the survey results. Garza says other universities verified the results but I don't see a single document or name of these universities mentioned. I still want to see if the "scientist" is who they claim he is and what papers he presented on the subject. Of course, Maussan says they are going to write a book on the matter. Hmm.....a scientist makes an earth shattering discovery (Gamma radiation that does not affect anybody) and chooses to write a book with Maussan on the subject instead of submitting a scientific paper that would be his legacy. You can claim he is a scientist but I think otherwise.

 

[Correa Neto]

Ah… “The boy who cried wolf” scenario. But you forget, the boy was right at least once!

I take from this you agree Maussan is not a reliable source. A person with real scientific formation would agree that data from such a source are not reliable.

Wolves coming from Maussan, Meier, Friedman, the UMMO planet folks, etc. are a threat only for the pockets of gullible UFO buffs.

 

[Correa Neto]

Real radioactivity, lack of skill or foul play?

Astro, I'm not familiar with that specific model. I used one where the sensitivity can be quickly changed by adjusting a knob. It can create a hell of a noise out of nothing (say, a small crystal of mineral with traces of a radioactive element), as if people around are about to become radioactive mutant zombies. Do you think its possible that the "elevated readings" were actually created by nothing but manually increasing the counter's sensitivity level?

 

[Rramjet]

I have none. You're the one making the claims. Are you claiming the source of radiation is someone hiding behind a pole and reaching out to a boy?

Kindly remember you have been called out before for attempting to switch the burden of proof.

So, you are exposed in making claims you are not qualified to make (the behaviour of the boys in the video) and you are caught out in making false statements (attributing quotes to Maussan he did not make) and now you try to make a false claim that I am shifting the burden of proof?

I am making no claims at all about the radiation. I am merely noting that, according to the evidence, a radiation “hot spot” was apparent at the location of the incident and that the presence of this radiation was independently tested by research scientists from a local university.

You on the other hand claimed that there was no evidence to connect the radiation with the incident. I merely asked then if you had any thoughts on alternative explanations for what could have caused the radiation if it was not linked to the incident. That is not “shifting the burden of proof”, that is merely asking for your opinion.

 

[Rramjet]

I interpreted your first post as you thought the video was interesting in the way of "this seems to be good evidence of aliens". I told you that I disagree with that because there is no unambiguous data to look at. In that sense "not interesting" and "I'm not impressed" conveys the same meaning. Now, we can either keep arguing about semantics or you can present some data about this case for evaluation.

All I originally stated was that the video was “interesting”. I made no further judgement or value statement (neither directly nor implied) about it whatsoever. If you took my “interesting” to mean something other than its literal meaning, then I am sorry. I do however note that this seems to be a definite trait of the UFO debunkers, to read one thing but interpret its meaning as another.

As for the data, I presented it, but you waved your hand and dismissed it as follows:

Ok, I interpret this as; you don't have any data but choose to believe whatever they say in the video. It's ok with me if your standard of evidence is not higher than that but you won't convince me.

At the outset I stated it was “interesting”. I made no claims about the quality of the evidence. On the face of it the evidence is solid. We have the video. We have the radiation readings. According to the evidence presented in the Maussan presentation video(s), subsequent investigations have been unable to expose the “alien” video as a hoax, nor have they been able to refute the existence of radiation at the place. I then merely note that given the “second largest newspaper in Mexico” was exposed in a fraud concerning this case, that if they were able to subsequently themselves expose any of this as a “hoax” or in any other way unverifiable or fraudulent, then they most certainly would have done so to save their own face and reputation. That fact alone makes the case of “interest” rather than just some crazy, possibly hoaxed, story.

How high was the radiation? Why do you think it was a "hotspot"? How big was the "hotspot"? What's the ambient radiation at the site?

AND

Just one simple question Rramjet.

What sort of radiation was it that the Geiger counter detected?

I merely ask because they only detect three types of ionizing radiation and any competent scientist would be able to determine which of the three it was in a matter of seconds.

I have no idea. It is outside my area of expertise. I do note however that there would seem to be no mundane explanation for a radiation reading of any amount at the place.

I had a look again and as the scientist says, there was a distortion in the space and time in the place. A dilational vortex that open and close. Sounds credible to me...

I place no value on the speculations of the scientist in the video. I merely note the presence of radiation and that, according to the evidence, this has been independently verified.

I forgot to ask. What does it show?

It seems to show some boys fooling around with a soccer ball and when one of them goes to retrieve the ball from further down the alley, something humanoid reaches out from behind the pole and grabs the boy by the arm as if to pull him toward the pole. The boy jumps backward away from the humanoid and pole and runs yelling back toward his comrades, ostensibly alarmed and indicating something alarming had just occurred and inquiring if his fellows had witnessed the event and wanting the boy with the camera to notice it especially with his camera.

I have no problem whatsoever of interpreting the drawings as discs and has never had any since I first saw them so I'm not sure why you think I don't "get that". Your detailed explanations about how the draftsman intended the drawings are quite unnecessary.

The implication of your arguments to this point have been that the drawings represent a blimp-shaped object. I am glad you finally agree that the drawings actually represent a circular object.

 

[Rramjet]

I agree; you just air quote the word alien to make it appear like you aren't really talking about "aliens" but the question comes up, why does not watching a video have to do with you talking about "aliens"?

I placed “alien” in quotation marks to indicate that this was a quote from the title on the site of the video (“attempted alien abduction”) and that “alien” was in no way representative of my views on the matter. It is a common literary device used for that exact purpose.

Also seriously using Jose Jaime Maussan's work as evidence? Why not just go for it and use Billy Meier's(sp) photos as evidence. Because like you said, "there's no bad evidence" is there?

I stated the video was “interesting”, nothing more or less. I then noted that there are statements made in Muassan’s presentation video that lend veracity to the report (particularly surrounding the actions of the media and what they did – commit a fraud - and have subsequently not been able to do – expose Maussan in a fraud).

...and yes, strictly speaking there is no such thing as "bad" evidence. Evidence is evidence - we just have to work out what it is evidence for.

 

[Rramjet]

Er, no, by definition, a UFO is simply Unidentified. Further analysis of the available data, or more information, may lead to it becoming identified.

Yes, a UFO is by definition unidentified. However, if further analysis reveals no mundane explanation, then by definition it also becomes “alien” (meaning “not mundane” - that is, "foreign" to our concepts of the natural or technological world). That is all I am pointing out. I am actually making an attempt to get away from the “alien = ET” hypothesis – and obviously failing at that task.

As you say later, perhaps you should use a better word than "alien" in future.

Yes, I agree.

 

[Rramjet]

Any scientist would know that words have accepted meanings.

Actually, any scientist should (and usually does) recognise that words positively do not have “accepted meanings”. That is why in any publication, some time is usually spent in defining the terms used so that there is no confusion on the part of the reader as to what the terms actually mean in the context.

The only thing happening here is that you (and other UFO debunkers) do not accept this as a legitimate process - and when I define a term (eg: “alien”) for use in a specific context, you argue that I cannot do that. Simply you do not accept my legitimate right to do so and that is flying in the face of scientific tradition.

You should either just accept the term as I define it, or argue against such definition of the term I make. Merely stating that my use of the term as I define it is not legitimate does not make it illegitimate.

I stated:
“The Rogue River UFO is alien to our concept of reality because we cannot ascribe a mundane explanation to it (indeed it defys mundane solution based on its observed characteristics – simply it does not accord with any mundane solution we can imagine).”

That you can imagine in your list of seven mundane things that you claim it is not.

Oh, so then you (or anyone else) can imagine a mundane explanation for Rogue River that fits the evidence then? And I note here again you make a false claim. “Seven” mundane things? I rule out ALL mundane things!

Nope. As you know full well, it's your deliberate misuse of words that causes you problems. Please cite a reputable online reference's definition of "alien".

I assert my right to define any word as anything I want it to mean. As long as I can make logical use of that meaning in a legitimate argument, then I am entirely within my rights to do so.

Here's your favorite reference work (Encarta):

Your persistence in making unfounded assertions, in my opinion, is typical UFO debunker behaviour. That is, UFO debunkers seem to leap to unwarranted conclusions based on no evidence at all. If I have previously cited from the source you mention, that does not make it a “favourite”. It is this type of unfounded assertion that gets the UFO debunkers into trouble (IMO).

noun (plural a•li•ens)

Definition:

1. extraterrestrial being: a being from another planet or another part of the universe, especially in works of science fiction

2. noncitizen resident of country: a citizen of a country other than the one he or she is currently in

3. outsider: somebody who does not belong to or does not feel accepted by a group or society

You will note that definition 3 allows my definition of “alien” (as “foreign”) to be within accepted definitional parameters.

I'm willing to allow you to make up your own definitions for things. I just want you to be consistent in your use of your made-up definition. Your problem is not your made-up redefintion of the word "alien", it's your then made-up redefition of UFO to be "alien" using your redefition of the word "alien".

Ah… you finally get it… (almost) but if you can point to anywhere I have used the term inconsistently, be my guest.

Maybe you could start a thread about providing evidence that a dog has five legs and then go on to redefine "tail" to mean "leg".

I could, but of course I won’t because “five-legged dogs” is not an area that interests me (I would note that I have seen a five legged calf – albeit stillborn - and by corollary it is not impossible therefore for a five legged dog to exist).

 

[Rramjet]

So, the question's regarding these measurements are:

1) Was the radiac working correctly? I did not see it go through its deflection but I might have missed it. Did it show the operator performing a normal battery check and source check (if it had one) prior to use? If not, then it could have been a faulty radiac.

2) What are the individuals credentials? I see he is listed as a physicist and astronomer. That is a hefty qualification but I could not find his credentials anywhere doing a quick check. This brings into question who he claims to be.

3) Where are the actual survey readings from the event? A scientist of this caliber would have done a full radiation survey using the various radiacs (Beta/Gamma/Alpha/Neutron) to map out the source of radiation. I did not see it in this video.

4) Where are the supposed other universities and their scientific papers regarding these surveys? Certainly, they would have produced something of this nature.

Bottom line:

1) We have a suspect video by Maussan, who has promoted this kind of nonsense before.
2) We have suspect radiation readings in this video, which we might be able to explain if we had more information.
3) No scientific papers are presented.
4) No radiation survey maps presented.
5) A person presented as a scientist but we really don't know if they were actually a scientist.

Present BETTER evidence concering this event other than some video on line and maybe it can be discussed. Otherwise, it has the earmarks of a hoax by a well-known tabloid journalist, who likes to show videos of ufos (many of which are hoaxes and mundane objects) because it gets him the attention he desires.

Welcome back! Somehow I knew you would not be away for long...

You pose some legitimate questions. Obviously these are questions that deserve answers. I don’t have the answers to these questions at the present (and the language and distance barriers makes investigation difficult), which is why I place a value of “interesting” only on Muassan’s presentation.

I do however take some issue with the conclusions you reach. As far as I can tell, Maussan has always been serious in his presentation of cases. That is, he has never deliberately set out to hoax or deceive. That some of the cases he has presented in the past have turned out to be alleged hoaxes would seem to be “par for the course” in the field of UFO investigation – an unavoidable consequence of involvement in the subject.

That Maussan is a “showman” should not disqualify him, for if it does, then we can also discount the pronouncements of the “amazing” Randi on similar grounds – and I am sure you would not countenance that as an outcome of your objection to Maussan on these grounds.

 

[RoboTimbo]

You on the other hand claimed that there was no evidence to connect the radiation with the incident. I merely asked then if you had any thoughts on alternative explanations for what could have caused the radiation if it was not linked to the incident. That is not “shifting the burden of proof”, that is merely asking for your opinion.

This is another outright fabrication on your part. Kindly quote my post where I claimed that or you may retract it.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Oh, so then you (or anyone else) can imagine a mundane explanation for Rogue River that fits the evidence then? And I note here again you make a false claim. “Seven” mundane things? I rule out ALL mundane things!

List all the ones you've eliminated and, as I've asked before and you've failed to do, show your work. Explain your process for eliminating each mundane explanation.

I assert my right to define any word as anything I want it to mean. As long as I can make logical use of that meaning in a legitimate argument, then I am entirely within my rights to do so.

So a tail is a leg to you. Got it.

Your persistence in making unfounded assertions, in my opinion, is typical UFO debunker behaviour. That is, UFO debunkers seem to leap to unwarranted conclusions based on no evidence at all. If I have previously cited from the source you mention, that does not make it a “favourite”. It is this type of unfounded assertion that gets the UFO debunkers into trouble (IMO).

You will note that definition 3 allows my definition of “alien” (as “foreign”) to be within accepted definitional parameters.

I note no such thing. Please explain further.

Ah… you finally get it… (almost) but if you can point to anywhere I have used the term inconsistently, be my guest.

Well, you still don't get it. Post #7226 where I showed your posts that say you never said Rogue River was alien, it was a UFO. Then the post where you said UFO meant alien. I didn't really think it would be this difficult for you. Here, I'll list the steps for you as simply as I can.

RR: I never said Rogue River was alien!
RR: I have always said Rogue River was only a UFO!
RR: A UFO is by definition alien!

You really don't see any conflict in that series of statements? Really?

I could, but of course I won’t because “five-legged dogs” is not an area that interests me (I would note that I have seen a five legged calf – albeit stillborn - and by corollary it is not impossible therefore for a five legged dog to exist).

They should interest you, they're alien by definition.

 

[Frying Dutchmen]

I placed “alien” in quotation marks to indicate that this was a quote from the title on the site of the video (“attempted alien abduction”) and that “alien” was in no way representative of my views on the matter. It is a common literary device used for that exact purpose.

Then why use the video at all? I thought you were here for The Research, the Evidence... for UFO being alien in origin

I stated the video was “interesting”, nothing more or less. I then noted that there are statements made in Muassan’s presentation video that lend veracity to the report (particularly surrounding the actions of the media and what they did – commit a fraud - and have subsequently not been able to do – expose Maussan in a fraud).

Then why use it? It's bad enough that you think it's "interesting" yet you are still defending it, also just because a reporter tried to make it out as a hoax doesn't make it a genuine sighting.

...and yes, strictly speaking there is no such thing as "bad" evidence. Evidence is evidence - we just have to work out what it is evidence for.

Say I have evidence of "aliens" I present you a video of a "seal" balancing a ball on his nose, can you still tell me that the video of the seal that it was just evidence for seals?

 

[Astrophotographer]

Astro, I'm not familiar with that specific model. I used one where the sensitivity can be quickly changed by adjusting a knob. It can create a hell of a noise out of nothing (say, a small crystal of mineral with traces of a radioactive element), as if people around are about to become radioactive mutant zombies. Do you think its possible that the "elevated readings" were actually created by nothing but manually increasing the counter's sensitivity level?

I never used this model either. It was a civil defense model and there is no actual detector probe (in this unit, it is inside the case - meaning it will only monitor Gamma radiation, neutron detection requires something very different). However, they all function essentially the same. I used the standard A/N models (army/navy). This is equivialent to the AN/PDR-27 (without the probe and beta-window).

As I stated, there is no place in the video that I saw, where we see the battery check performed, the zero setting adjustment, or any reading other than where they show it being pegged. I did not even see a calibration sticker on the unit (all units operated by a reputable organization have their radiacs calibrated from a lab on a regular basis, which would include that calibration sticker). To me, that indicates this was shown this way for a reason. That being to deceive the viewer into thinking something is happening that is not. I have seen this kind of response when the probe is damaged and I think it is also possible to turn the zero adjustment potentiometer to a value, which would create a pegged reading.

There is absolutely no way that the meter could be "pegged" by gamma radiation of over 500 r/hr and nobody received a significant dose of radiation. It is just not possible unless you want to throw out the laws of physics (oh, this has to do with "aliens" which means we are allowed to do this but only when it supports the "alien" argument). The radiation levels would decrease using the inverse square of the distance. This means that 6 feet away, the levels would be tolerable (assuming the levels were only 500 r/hr) but still be considered a concern for anybody loitering in the area for a few hours. It definitely would have registered on the SRPD.

The idea that unnamed universities verified these readings seems more like grandstanding and exaggeration. Perhaps they did not find anything that indicated a potential threat and that is what he is stating. However, I would like to see the radiation surveys of this area conducted by this "scientist" and the ones conducted by these "universities". Until that is produced, this video of the radiation readings and the claims made by Maussan/Garza is typical UFO promoting. There is a reason that nobody in UFOlogy (outside of the Maussan crowd) is pitching it as good evidence and it probably has to do with the radiation data never being produced in a way that can be verified. Until we can get better evidence, I am of the opinion it is a hoax. Prove me wrong, show me it is not a hoax with good evidence (and not a lot of the usual hand waving).