UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Jocce]

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.

*shrugs*
If you don't think it contains good evidence then why did you post it?

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

You have presented no data. You present a video of a geiger counter where you can't read the scale and tell us where in the video they claim there is other evidence (that is not presented).

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.

Why solid? All we have is a blurry video of something and someone who claims there exist physical evidence in the form of multiple radiation readings but he doesn't present the results of those readings. How can you claim that it is solid when you haven't even looked at the results and methodology of the data gathering?

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.

Seriously, there is not evidence presented other than the cellphone video. Anyone can claim there is evidence but unless they present it for evaluation there is no reason to take them seriously. Step one must always be to validate the data available. We can't even do that, so how do you expect to get a meaningful discussion?

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?

I have no idea.

Me neither. If we don't have that information we can just drop this case and move on to something else.

I merely note the presence of radiation and that, according to the evidence, this has been independently verified.

According to the evidence? I'm sure you mean "according to Maussan".

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.

You're glad I finally agree huh? I have continually said that the witness could have misinterpreted the shape. I have never said that I have a problem seeing that the drawing is meant to represent a disc. You know this although you pretend otherwise.

 

[Jocce]

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.

If you define alien as an adjective, why do you then use it as a noun? As in your opening post for example (where you pluralize it):

I stated that I would present the evidence, not only for UFOs, but also for “aliens”.

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.

Use the term as the adjective you define it as and I have no problem with it.

Oh, so then you (or anyone else) can imagine a mundane explanation for Rogue River that fits the evidence then?

Misidentified blimp would be one possibility although I realize that you disagree. Bottom line is that there's not enough objective data available to reach a conclusion. It could be mundane, or it could be alien but I leave it as unidentified.

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.

As I wrote above, then stick to your definition if you want other people to understand. I would recommend you to not redefine commonly used terms to mean something else though. It doesn't help your argumentation.

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

See your opening post for one example.

 

[zooterkin]

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).

No, it simply remains unidentified. And by 'not mundane', do you mean 'not of this world', or perhaps 'extra-terrestrial'?

I am actually making an attempt to get away from the “alien = ET” hypothesis – and obviously failing at that task.

Could be something to do with the normal meaning of the word 'alien', don't you think? How are you doing finding a better word than 'alien'?

 

[Evolved Wookie]

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.

For what it's worth; I work in a lab with significant possibility for radiological contamination, however controls are extremely tight. Out average dose at work is incredibly low. The only time there has been even a hint of concern over the dose rates was when I stupidly took my dosimeter home with me over a few weeks.

The natural background dose in my home town was far higher than the level at which our controls at work would demand a formal investigation into the failure of our radiation controls. We're not even on granite!

Radiation is a very natural and normal thing, at low levels. I admit that I have given little attention to the details of this discussion (life is short, after all) and I realise that the claimed dose rates are likely to be much higher still than natural background radiation. However, there is no need for special "explanation for a radiation reading of any amount at the place" - high rates may demand an unusual source, but "radiation" is all over the shop.

 

[wollery]

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.

The third sentence emphatically supports the second sentence.

But I have some more questions that should be asked by any serious scientist or investigator:

Exactly how long after the incident were the radiation levels tested?
What are the credentials of the tester and what equipment did they use? Were they trained or qualified to use that equipment?
What were the actual radiation levels?
What type of radiation was it? (yes I know I've already asked that, but it should be asked again)
Which other researchers checked the radiation levels?
If the radiation levels are that high (off the scale of the detector) have the government been informed and the area sealed off as a radiation hazard?
If not, why not?

Did you ask any of these questions?

 

[Rramjet]

I stated:
“You on the other hand claimed that there was no evidence to connect the radiation with the incident.”

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

Given the general debunking tone of your presence here, the implication of the following from you is clear…

Oh sorry, did you say that you had some evidence to tie this video (cause) to some radiation readings in the same location months later (effect)? You know, to show that they were related.

…that is, you are in effect (in meaning) claiming that there is no evidence to connect the radiation to the incident.

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.

Oh but I have provided all this information! For example my posts #7078, #7093, #7114, #7138, #7159, #7162, #7175, #7176 and #7178 all explore to varying degree the process of elimination! I find it hard to believe you could have missed ALL these posts.

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

LOL. No… I merely stated that it would be possible to argue in that direction if one was so inclined – and I indicated I was not so inclined.

I note no such thing. Please explain further.

Your definition 3 for “alien” was:
“3. outsider: somebody who does not belong to or does not feel accepted by a group or society”

I merely noted that this allows my descriptive definition of “alien: as in outside our concept of the natural or technological world” as being within the broad conceptual parameters of this definition. Thus not as illegitimate as you try to make out.

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?

This is what I mean by the UFO debunkers deliberately building strawmen in order to shoot them down. My contention stands. I have NEVER stated Rogue River was alien.

You claimed that mine was a “redefinition” of alien – meaning of course that your definition is “alien as ET”. I therefore naturally assume then that when you use the term “alien” you mean ET. Thus when you claim I contradict myself when I state - I have never said “Rogue River was alien” yet at the same time claim UFOs are “alien” - I merely note that I have NEVER claimed Rogue River to be ET (your definition and use of the term) but I have defined alien as “outside our concepts of the natural and technological world” – but that the two are not the same thing!

Thus when you state:

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

Means that you have not got it at all. I stated that “five-legged-dogs” are definitely within our concepts of the natural world by using the example of my observation of the birth of a five-legged calf and extrapolating that to mean that a “five-legged-dog” was then similarly not out of the question. Thus not alien even under my definition.

 

[Rramjet]

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

It is evidence! We are merely arguing about what it is evidence for. I say something “interesting” (I could probably go further to say “not mundane”), you say “hoax”.

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.

You don’t find it interesting? Why are you even commenting about it then if you do not find it interesting. You must have some interest in it to motivate your comments.

…and there are very good grounds for my defence of the case, as I have outlined recently on a number of occasions. All the investigation seems to have been conducted publically and given that Maussan caught the “second largest newspaper in Mexico” out in a fraud concerning the case, do you really think that if they could have produced evidence to show the case WAS a fraud, they would have let this go quietly without comment? Instead they were forced into a public retraction that made other newspapers! If they could have saved their face, they would have. The mere fact that they did not, lends veracity to the account.

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?

Huh? Sorry, you will have to explain your meaning here.

 

[Rramjet]

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).

You reply to Correa Neto but seem to address the bulk of your post me (especially the last paragraph – unless of course you are accusing Correa Neto of the “usual handwaving”). I suppose in this way you can avoid having to directly address the issues I raised in my last reply to you on this matter – simply handwaving them away as if they never existed. The points I raised in my last reply to you directly addressed some of the points you raise (again) in this post. Call the following points “handwaving” if you like - and ignore them as you will - but they are legitimate points and your ignorance of them will not make them disappear.

Regarding the radiation measurements: 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.

It is interesting to note however that all the investigation seems to have been conducted publically and given that Maussan caught the “second largest newspaper in Mexico” out in a fraud concerning the case, do you really think that if they could have produced evidence to show the case WAS a fraud, they would have let this go quietly without comment? Instead they were forced into a public retraction that made other newspapers! If they could have saved their face, they would have. The mere fact that they did not, lends veracity to the account.

I do also take some issue with the other 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.

You seem to suppose that anything that is not direct proof is “handwaving”, yet you indulge in some generally unfounded speculation about the case in your own post. By your own criteria that constitutes “handwaving”. So when will you cease your ‘handwaving” and directly address the issues I raise?

 

[Rramjet]

*shrugs*
If you don't think it contains good evidence then why did you post it?

I never stated that it was not good evidence either! I merely noted that you had erroneously read a meaning into my statement that was not there. I stated the case was “interesting”, nothing more, nothing less. You are the one attempting to read alternate meanings into that. Why can’t you just take my statements at face value without filtering them through some sort of “debunker” belief system - which obviously is leading you astray.

You have presented no data. You present a video of a geiger counter where you can't read the scale and tell us where in the video they claim there is other evidence (that is not presented).

Now you are playing with semantics. No data? The videos (the original and the presentation) IS data. Just as the statements of the people concerned in the case IS data. Just as the following links contain data relevant (or related) to the case.

There is a clearer video (sound and vision) of the incident here:
(http://freeonlinedocumentaries.blogspot.com/2008/03/jaime-maussan-and-santiago-garza.html) (from about 54:00)

Description of incident
(http://www.rense.com/general69/alien.htm)
Milenio Newspaper is forced into a public retraction of its “hoax” claims.
(http://www.ufoinfo.com/news/meridaalien.shtml)

So what are we to make of this? We have the video. The boys are sticking to their story. Investigation shows extremely high radiation at the site.

Interestingly a “multidimensional being” may not be out of the question!
(http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/05/freaky-physics-proves-parallel-universes/)
(http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/news.2010.130.html)
(http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080430/full/453022a.html)

But has anyone investigated this possibility? It seems so!
(http://www.spinvestigations.org/What_we_know.pdf)
(http://www.spinvestigations.org/)
(http://www.theparacast.com/podcast/now-playing-january-24-2010-david-m-rountree/)

Actually I think that the language barrier is holding back investigation in this thread. There are a number of sites in Spanish that refer to this sighting but I cannot read Spanish so I am stuck. Obviously there is a great deal more information out there than is written in English: for example I came across this statement…

“Dr. Jorge Guerrero, a professor of science, studied the case and discovered a series of energy measurements with a Geiger counter. He found that there was an energy field of very high frequency, close to 49 roentgens per hour, and the site at a radius of 4 and a half meters. He also found energy at such a low frequency that it was inexplicable. Eight weeks later there were by then, thirty measurements taken at the site, all of which have resulted in an energy-field presence. A timely check regarding each measurement has consistantly found the same results; the energy at the site has not decreased at all. Tests done in the lab showed nothing was contaminated by radioactive materials yet the Geiger counter measured radioactive activity. Upon returning to the site, Dr. Guerrero determined that, in reality, the center of the radioactive energy that was on the site does not comport with the surrounding elements but rather floats in the air. In other words, the energy is not indigenous to the site. The only possible explanation is that this energy is the residue of a dimensional field-- a portal-- that opened and closed. Another possibility is that this field was always there and continues to be open. Perhaps a camera should be placed between 14th and 16th Street in the division of the park of the city of Merida.” (http://www.esato.com/news/article.php/id=902)​

Obviously someone knows more than is available to us English speakers… I doubt however that the Spanish speaking UFO debunkers will give us any insights into what is contained on the Spanish speaking websites though…

Why solid? All we have is a blurry video of something and someone who claims there exist physical evidence in the form of multiple radiation readings but he doesn't present the results of those readings. How can you claim that it is solid when you haven't even looked at the results and methodology of the data gathering?

Why solid…because no-one to date has shown a hoax or refuted the radiation data.

Seriously, there is not evidence presented other than the cellphone video. Anyone can claim there is evidence but unless they present it for evaluation there is no reason to take them seriously. Step one must always be to validate the data available. We can't even do that, so how do you expect to get a meaningful discussion?

There are Spanish speaking people posting to this thread. Astrophotographer claimed he could read and speak Spanish. Perhaps these people can give us an indication of what the investigations revealed.

According to the evidence? I'm sure you mean "according to Maussan".

Obviously many more people were involved in the investigation that Maussan. If it was just him, then maybe I would not be bothering.

If you define alien as an adjective, why do you then use it as a noun? As in your opening post for example (where you pluralize it):

This has got out of hand. There is no advantage in playing these “word games”. Everyone knows (by now) what I mean when I use the term “alien”. …and it is NOT (necessarily) ET. If I meant ET (the common conception of the meaning of the term) I would never have placed “alien” in quotation marks in my OP. I did that to show my meaning was different to the common conception. I did this in my OP! So for people to now start arguing over it means they have run out of legitimate debating points against the cases I am presenting and merely want to distract from the main game.

Misidentified blimp would be one possibility although I realize that you disagree. Bottom line is that there's not enough objective data available to reach a conclusion. It could be mundane, or it could be alien but I leave it as unidentified.

There is good data (evidence) and good reason to suppose that the witnesses accurately observed and described the object. I have outlined the reasons for this. You have not addressed any of those reasons. You merely “hand wave” away those delineated reasons against misidentification as if they did not exist and merely persist with unfounded assertion.

 

[Rramjet]

No, it simply remains unidentified. And by 'not mundane', do you mean 'not of this world', or perhaps 'extra-terrestrial'?

Could be something to do with the normal meaning of the word 'alien', don't you think? How are you doing finding a better word than 'alien'?

*Sigh*… I mean “alien = foreign to our concept of the natural and technological world”. When mundane explanations fail and there is NOT enough evidence to conclude ET …what are we left with…?

Yes, people have “little green men” stuck in their minds as an a priori idea when they see the term “alien”. It seems beyond my powers to shake that concept loose. “Alien” is a concise word whose use I have defined (as above) for the purpose. Let’s move on.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

...I came across this statement…

“Dr. Jorge Guerrero, a professor of science, studied the case and discovered a series of energy measurements with a Geiger counter. He found that there was an energy field of very high frequency, close to 49 roentgens per hour, and the site at a radius of 4 and a half meters. He also found energy at such a low frequency that it was inexplicable. Eight weeks later there were by then, thirty measurements taken at the site, all of which have resulted in an energy-field presence. A timely check regarding each measurement has consistantly found the same results; the energy at the site has not decreased at all. Tests done in the lab showed nothing was contaminated by radioactive materials yet the Geiger counter measured radioactive activity. Upon returning to the site, Dr. Guerrero determined that, in reality, the center of the radioactive energy that was on the site does not comport with the surrounding elements but rather floats in the air. In other words, the energy is not indigenous to the site. The only possible explanation is that this energy is the residue of a dimensional field-- a portal-- that opened and closed. Another possibility is that this field was always there and continues to be open. Perhaps a camera should be placed between 14th and 16th Street in the division of the park of the city of Merida.” (http://www.esato.com/news/article.php/id=902)​

You regard this as worthwhile evidence? Really? Really, seriously?

Some anonymous dude on a cellphone forum claims someone has repeatedly measured a persistent radioactive source, and found it to be invisible and suspended in thin air a few feet above the ground. And yet somehow it appears every physicist on the planet has not rushed to witness this marvel.

Must be some sort of conspiracy of silence. Why do you think science is ignoring this astounding discovery?

 

[RoboTimbo]

I stated:
“You on the other hand claimed that there was no evidence to connect the radiation with the incident.”


Given the general debunking tone of your presence here, the implication of the following from you is clear…

…that is, you are in effect (in meaning) claiming that there is no evidence to connect the radiation to the incident.

Now that you have admitted that your assertion is a total fabrication on your part, are you going to retract it? Also, do you have evidence that shows cause and effect between the person reaching out to the boy from behind a post and the alleged radiation readings?

Oh but I have provided all this information! For example my posts #7078, #7093, #7114, #7138, #7159, #7162, #7175, #7176 and #7178 all explore to varying degree the process of elimination! I find it hard to believe you could have missed ALL these posts.

Nope. Those only explain your handwaving process. Try again. Show the process you have gone through to genuinely eliminate all mundane explanations. Then apply that process to Campeche.

Your definition 3 for “alien” was:
“3. outsider: somebody who does not belong to or does not feel accepted by a group or society”

I merely noted that this allows my descriptive definition of “alien: as in outside our concept of the natural or technological world” as being within the broad conceptual parameters of this definition. Thus not as illegitimate as you try to make out.

Nope, not my definition. That's from your favorite source, Encarta. But by defition #3, five legged dogs are "alien". By your "descriptive definition", five legged dogs are still "alien". Thus, fully as illegitimate as everyone else in the thread has been patiently explaining to you.

This is what I mean by the UFO debunkers deliberately building strawmen in order to shoot them down. My contention stands. I have NEVER stated Rogue River was alien.

You claimed that mine was a “redefinition” of alien – meaning of course that your definition is “alien as ET”. I therefore naturally assume then that when you use the term “alien” you mean ET. Thus when you claim I contradict myself when I state - I have never said “Rogue River was alien” yet at the same time claim UFOs are “alien” - I merely note that I have NEVER claimed Rogue River to be ET (your definition and use of the term) but I have defined alien as “outside our concepts of the natural and technological world” – but that the two are not the same thing!

Nope, not my definition. The generally accepted definition as you have seen above from your favorite reference, Encarta.

However, Rramjet, you are again being disengenuous. I've allowed you to redefine "alien" to suit your needs. The real problem is your redefinition of the term UFO. You don't put that term in quotes yet you have redefined it to include your redefined word "alien". That seems to be the crux of your bait and switch tactics.

Thus when you state:

Means that you have not got it at all. I stated that “five-legged-dogs” are definitely within our concepts of the natural world by using the example of my observation of the birth of a five-legged calf and extrapolating that to mean that a “five-legged-dog” was then similarly not out of the question. Thus not alien even under my definition.

Something must be out of the question to be "alien"? So leprechauns and fairies and dragons are "alien"? But by that definition, a person reaching out from behind a post to a boy playing with a ball is not out of the question and therefore would definitely not be "alien". A drawing of what is seemingly a blimp is definitely not out of the question and therefore not "alien".

When were you going to present the evidence for "aliens"?

 

[Astrophotographer]

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.

Either Maussan knows these are frauds or he is just a bad journalist. He has promoted some of the worst videos in UFOlogy. Examples:

1) The Solar Eclipse of 1991. Almost all of the videos showed the planet Venus. Any astronomer would have told him this and probably did. He rejected this. He states:

But let me tell you something, are the astronomers, the scientists who are 'qualified' to say if the sightings on earth are truthful, I think they are well prepared and trained to look through the universe, beyond the atmosphere, but the astronomers are not prepared to look inside the earth. Then, and I don't know why many times, they are asked if this is true and we want to know what they think about it, in reality they don't know more than the normal average person because this is happening here and not outside earth. (Chris Fowler interview with Jaimie Maussan (link now dead))

In other words, they tell me what I don't want to hear so I don't trust them.

2) The 1997 mexico city UFO video hoax. He chose to believe witnesses over the analysis that demonstrated it was a hoax. Bad Journalism.

3) The 2004 mexican AF video. He promoted this and did not bother to see if they could be oil well fires. Bad journalism again.

This is why he is in the UFO watchdog's "Hall of shame".

So, either Maussan is very sloppy in his work or he knows that he is promoting these videos as hoaxes for personal gain. I think it is the latter because I don't think Maussan is that stupid.

Once again, prove it is not a hoax by presenting the actual radiation surveys from the various universities and the one "scientist" in the videos.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Actually I think that the language barrier is holding back investigation in this thread. There are a number of sites in Spanish that refer to this sighting but I cannot read Spanish so I am stuck. Obviously there is a great deal more information out there than is written in English: for example I came across this statement…
“Dr. Jorge Guerrero, a professor of science, studied the case and discovered a series of energy measurements with a Geiger counter. He found that there was an energy field of very high frequency, close to 49 roentgens per hour, and the site at a radius of 4 and a half meters. He also found energy at such a low frequency that it was inexplicable. Eight weeks later there were by then, thirty measurements taken at the site, all of which have resulted in an energy-field presence. A timely check regarding each measurement has consistantly found the same results; the energy at the site has not decreased at all. Tests done in the lab showed nothing was contaminated by radioactive materials yet the Geiger counter measured radioactive activity. Upon returning to the site, Dr. Guerrero determined that, in reality, the center of the radioactive energy that was on the site does not comport with the surrounding elements but rather floats in the air. In other words, the energy is not indigenous to the site. The only possible explanation is that this energy is the residue of a dimensional field-- a portal-- that opened and closed. Another possibility is that this field was always there and continues to be open. Perhaps a camera should be placed between 14th and 16th Street in the division of the park of the city of Merida.” (http://www.esato.com/news/article.php/id=902)
Obviously someone knows more than is available to us English speakers… I doubt however that the Spanish speaking UFO debunkers will give us any insights into what is contained on the Spanish speaking websites though…

This is not a valid source. It is in the comments section of an article by an anonymous writer and they produce no source for where they got that information.

The claim once again defies the laws of physics. A reading of 49r/hr (which is the same as 49 Rem/hr since it is gamma radiation) at 4.5 meters indicates a reading of about 1000 r/hr at 1 meter (inverse square of the distance law for radiation point sources). This means that anybody standing next to the source spot would become ill almost immediately. The radiation levels quoted indicate a source of approximately 1000 ci (curie-meter-rem rule)! How they can have such high levels and nobody suffer from radiation sickness is “mind boggling” and defies the laws of physics. It is stating that there is an extremely high gamma radiation field that does not damage living organisms with no shield at all! It is simply not credible. There are no scientific papers produced that show this unique event by any of these “universities that verified the data, which brings into question the claim that the data was verified.

How about starting with the name Dr. Jorge Guerrero (professor of science or is it astronomy or is it mathematics or is it physics – it keeps changing)? Establish his credibility first. Where is he working? Is he a real professor or is he a professor the same way Adamski was a professor? I seriously doubt that he is a real scientist but prove me wrong.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Why do you think science is ignoring this astounding discovery?

I am curious as to why this area was not sealed off. Who knows when the radiation levels will actually start damaging living organisms? These levels are NOT safe and are DANGEROUS. People could die from these levels of exposure but they aren't. Exactly why is this the case and why doesn't science or the local civil defense authorities intervene?

 

[zooterkin]

*Sigh*… I mean “alien = foreign to our concept of the natural and technological world”. When mundane explanations fail and there is NOT enough evidence to conclude ET …what are we left with…?

Not enough evidence?

Yes, people have “little green men” stuck in their minds as an a priori idea when they see the term “alien”. It seems beyond my powers to shake that concept loose.

Well, what do you expect when you link to sites using 'alien' as a synonym for extra-terrestrial?

“Alien” is a concise word whose use I have defined (as above) for the purpose. Let’s move on.

So you've changed your mind about finding a better word, then?

 

[Jocce]

Now you are playing with semantics. No data? The videos (the original and the presentation) IS data.

Who is playing with semantics? You show a video where people claim that multiple tests has shown high radiation at the site, I ask you to provide the results from those tests. You have failed to do so.

Investigation shows extremely high radiation at the site.

It IS CLAIMED that extremely high radiation was found by investigation. Where is the proof???

There is good data (evidence) and good reason to suppose that the witnesses accurately observed and described the object. I have outlined the reasons for this. You have not addressed any of those reasons. You merely “hand wave” away those delineated reasons against misidentification as if they did not exist and merely persist with unfounded assertion.

I'm not handwaving away anything. I am asking you to present the results from the multiple investigations into radiation at the site. I can't really imagine a research article being accepted for publishing in say Nature that presents the data like this. Why does it have to be so sloppy when it comes to investigating UFOs and aliens?

 

[Jocce]

…that is, you are in effect (in meaning) claiming that there is no evidence to connect the radiation to the incident.

You say it like it would be a bad thing. There is no evidence to tie high radiation at the site 8 months after the video was taken. If you have any, by all means present it.

This is what I mean by the UFO debunkers deliberately building strawmen in order to shoot them down. My contention stands. I have NEVER stated Rogue River was alien.

But you are claiming that as RoboTim so clearly has shown. How can you deny it? Look again, here are your claims:

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!

A UFO is by definition alien AND Rouge river is a UFO = The Rouge river object is alien.

 

[Jocce]

Yes, people have “little green men” stuck in their minds as an a priori idea when they see the term “alien”. It seems beyond my powers to shake that concept loose.

Why would anyone think that it's within their powers to change the generally accepted meaning of any term? I don't go around being sorry that I can't change the meaning of "dog" to mean "not cat". I am pointing this out to you because it is one thing in your debating strategy that cause you trouble and makes it hard for the rest of us to understand.

Just face it. Aliens means ETI to most people of the world.

 

[Rramjet]

You regard this as worthwhile evidence? Really? Really, seriously?

Some anonymous dude on a cellphone forum claims someone has repeatedly measured a persistent radioactive source, and found it to be invisible and suspended in thin air a few feet above the ground. And yet somehow it appears every physicist on the planet has not rushed to witness this marvel.

Must be some sort of conspiracy of silence. Why do you think science is ignoring this astounding discovery?

Yes, it is worthwhile evidence... but just not evidence for what you want it to be for. I merely used it to point out that someone knows more about the case than we do… and I provided the quote from (http://www.esato.com/news/article.php/id=902) as evidence, not only that fact, but also that there must also exist reports of the results of the radiation data investigations (for where did the poster get the precise measurements from otherwise?). Unfortunately reports of these results are likely to be in Spanish - and as our Spanish speaking friends in this forum are keeping quiet on the matter of results of these investigations, and I cannot speak Spanish, then we are at an impasse.

There also seems no direct (email or website) method of contacting Maussan to ask him if he could kindly supply information about the details of the case we require (at least apparently none available to English speakers…).

That scientists have not “rushed to witness this marvel” is perhaps an incorrect assessment. According to Maussan’s presentation there has been scientific investigation – we just do not have access to the results.

Moreover, given the climate of ridicule and denial surrounding this subject, scientists are perhaps not ‘rushing” in simply because of that fact.