UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[wollery]

wollery, I am not about to embark with you on a RoboT-esque “mindgame” of “Guess what I am thinking of” and then, no matter what I say, you will reply “Nope, try again”. I’ll simply wait until you explicitly name “what you are thinking of” - as you have promised to do - thank you (I have my doubts that you will, RoboT never did).

According to my count there are only 4 things that Cowgill said that do not rely on their story (although we could also add the final state of their injuries, since he does not contradict this), and only one of those could possibly be seen as affecting the likelihood of their veracity, so I fail to see what your problem is. Oh, wait, yes I do.

Moreover, I am sure you are familiar with the child’s game of “Twenty Questions” (sometimes called “Animal, Mineral, Vegetable”)? This game illustrates the process of elimination admirably. In fact you could say the process works so well that even a child can understand and carry it out. It is a rare occurrence indeed if the “thing that is being thought of” has not been identified within twenty questions. It is a simple matter of the direct application of the process of elimination that allows this to happen. Yet here we have a group of self proclaimed academics (wollery, Jocce, Stray cat) who, it seems, claim that they cannot apply the process in the real world. Why is that I wonder? If a child can do it…

Then why don't you apply the process of elimination to Cowgill's letter? Either the fact I'm talking about is there, in which case it should be child's play for you to find (since you are so good at assessing the contents of things like letters and applying the process of elimination), or it isn't there, in which case you can reveal me to be a liar. Either way you win.

In general I simply considered that the questions you posed were answered in my replies to the others and therefore I did not want to repeat myself unnecessarily. Possibly you might not be reading over those replies? I recommend you do so. If you then have any outstanding questions you might like to ask, put them forward and I will consider my replies (understanding of course that I am in no way obligated to reply…)

How could you possibly have answered my questions in response to others, when they haven't asked the same questions, or made the same statements.

To whit, I asked why your reason for dismissing the burns hypothesis didn't also refute the radiation hypothesis. After all, the hair fell out on the "side that was underneath at the time". How does radiation do this where burns can't?

I also pointed out that scientific journals do accept data with large errors, and even gave an example of a peer reviewed, published data set which resulted from a large, high publicity, NASA funded project, and contained errors in excess of 100%.

Nobody else brought up these points, and you have not addressed them. I have to wonder why that is.

As for your “direct challenge”, I presume you mean this little exchange:
I stated:
Your original argument was that we should dismiss these things because we don’t have an explanation for them.”
You replied:
” Please show where I said that or retract it. I never said we should dismiss anything. That's your (incorrect) interpretation of my statements.”

You originally stated:

I would simply ask you to consider the meaning behind that statement. That is, if I don’t “explain” UFOs, what are the consequences? - and you did imply a definite consequence with “You need to…” – so what is that consequence if it is not a dismissal of the conclusion of “UFO”?

You know, there are times when people say things that simply make your jaw drop. This was one such instance.

I've told you before about your complete inability to interpret my statements (or indeed, anyone's statements), and yet, here you are, offering an interpretation of one of my statements as evidence that I said something that I never said.

To make matters worse, it's an interpretation of a quote mine! In context it quite clearly refers to your methodology and not to the cases themselves.

The implied consequence is that you are wasting your time, and that this entire thread is pointless. It does not imply that we should dismiss the cases, or any of the evidence - that is simply your incorrect interpretation. Of course they are UFOs. They were UFOs before we started, and most of them are UFOs when we finish, and in no single case have you demonstrated that there are definitively no potential plausible mundane explanations. You have eliminated one or two potential mundane explanations, but as has been pointed out to you, that doesn't prove anything beyond that, and certainly it doesn't prove that the objects in question can't be mundane in nature. That, in a nutshell, is the problem with your methodology - you can't prove a negative.

So without a positive theory, you are wasting your time, and will prove, and discover, precisely nothing. That's the consequence. Nothing is dismissed. Nothing needs to be dismissed. They remain UFOs.

So, show where I state that the conclusion or the evidence should be dismissed (no interpretations, show where I state it) or retract the claim.

 

[Rramjet]

Re Venezuela (http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG)

You can't think of the mundane explanation I'm thinking of because you can't think of everything in an unknown and unlimited set.

First: You keep saying you are “thinking of a mundane explanation, but so far you have offered no evidence whatsoever to support that unfounded assertion. I do find it interesting however that when presented with such a case, that you do claim to know of a mundane explanation, yet will not divulge that explanation to the world at large in order to (perhaps) clear up the mystery once and for all - It is not possible for me to speculate on why that might be so.

Second: I have never proposed an “explanation”. I have merely noted that the reported cause (a brilliant light, no heat, loud humming), coupled with the symptomatology (swellings, black blotches turning to virulent sores after nine days, hair falling out) in conjunction with the lack of property damage (the house was “uninjured”) seems to suggest some form of radiation.

Third: The whole point of the exercise was to demonstrate that such mysteries as these have been occurring for a very long time and cannot be simply dismissed as a product of the “UFO age” (post 1940s).

 

[Rramjet]

Then why don't you apply the process of elimination to Cowgill's letter? Either the fact I'm talking about is there, in which case it should be child's play for you to find (since you are so good at assessing the contents of things like letters and applying the process of elimination), or it isn't there, in which case you can reveal me to be a liar. Either way you win.

I think I will wait until tomorrow when you promised reveal “what you are thinking of” and thereby save myself the time and effort thank you.

How could you possibly have answered my questions in response to others, when they haven't asked the same questions, or made the same statements.

If you did not find the answers you were looking for I invited you to post the relevant questions for consideration.

To whit, I asked why your reason for dismissing the burns hypothesis didn't also refute the radiation hypothesis. After all, the hair fell out on the "side that was underneath at the time". How does radiation do this where burns can't?

Simply because there is no evidence of “burning” whereas there is evidence for a radiation source (brilliant light, no heat).

I also pointed out that scientific journals do accept data with large errors, and even gave an example of a peer reviewed, published data set which resulted from a large, high publicity, NASA funded project, and contained errors in excess of 100%.

That’s mere unfounded assertion and entitled to be dismissed as such.

Nobody else brought up these points, and you have not addressed them. I have to wonder why that is.

I don’t suppose my answers have made you any happier?

You stated:
” You need to provide a positive explanation of what UFOs are, rather than eliminate what they aren't.”

…yet, here you are, offering an interpretation of one of my statements as evidence that I said something that I never said.

I asked you to consider the meaning behind your statement. If you did not like my interpretation of it, perhaps you should have made your meaning clear.

To make matters worse, it's an interpretation of a quote mine! In context it quite clearly refers to your methodology and not to the cases themselves.

Again, I simply asked you to consider the meaning behind your statement. If you did not like my interpretation perhaps you should have made your meaning clear.

The implied consequence is that you are wasting your time, and that this entire thread is pointless.

That’s merely your opinion… not a consequence of the meaning behind your statement. ”(I) need to provide a positive explanation of what UFOs are…” – or what?

It does not imply that we should dismiss the cases, or any of the evidence

Perhaps it does – at least that was my interpretation… feel free to explain your meaning.

…that is simply your incorrect interpretation.

Okay, then what is your meaning?

Of course they are UFOs. They were UFOs before we started, and most of them are UFOs when we finish…

Yes…?

…and in no single case have you demonstrated that there are definitively no potential plausible mundane explanations.

I have merely presented cases where we have no plausible mundane explanation.

You have eliminated one or two potential mundane explanations…

That is merely an unfounded opinion, especially considering I have eliminated all plausible mundane explanations in most of the cases I have presented (do you want me to list those cases again?).

…but as has been pointed out to you, that doesn't prove anything beyond that…

I am not out to “prove” anything at all, merely to point out that UFO cases exist for which we have no plausible mundane explanation.

…and certainly it doesn't prove that the objects in question can't be mundane in nature.

Indeed. Got any plausible mundane explanations for them then?

That, in a nutshell, is the problem with your methodology - you can't prove a negative.

According to the sceptics, that statement is unprovable (and if it was it wouldn’t be true). However, the statement actually represents a logical fallacy (see here: http://strikingthoughts.wordpress.com/2008/03/02/myth-you-cant-prove-a-negative/ , and here: http://goosetheantithesis.blogspot.com/2006/01/you-cant-prove-negative.html for example).

Moreover, I am not attempting to “prove a negative” (whatever that means in the context), all I am doing (as I have already pointed out) is pointing out that UFO cases exist for which we have no plausible mundane explanation. UFOs exist (and that is a positive claim).

 

[RoboTimbo]

Re Venezuela (http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG)

First: You keep saying you are “thinking of a mundane explanation, but so far you have offered no evidence whatsoever to support that unfounded assertion. I do find it interesting however that when presented with such a case, that you do claim to know of a mundane explanation, yet will not divulge that explanation to the world at large in order to (perhaps) clear up the mystery once and for all - It is not possible for me to speculate on why that might be so.

First: the exercise was to show that you are incapable of eliminating all mundane explanations and in that it succeeded admirably. Pat yourself on the back for being instrumental in that. Nor was it an exercise in you switching the burden of proof. I pat myself on the back for foiling that attempt again.

Second: I have never proposed an “explanation”. I have merely noted that the reported cause (a brilliant light, no heat, loud humming), coupled with the symptomatology (swellings, black blotches turning to virulent sores after nine days, hair falling out) in conjunction with the lack of property damage (the house was “uninjured”) seems to suggest some form of radiation.

If you aren't proposing this as evidence of your "aliens" or UFOs, it is off topic for this thread.

Third: The whole point of the exercise was to demonstrate that such mysteries as these have been occurring for a very long time and cannot be simply dismissed as a product of the “UFO age” (post 1940s).

So is it evidence of "alien" or evidence of UFOs? Or is it something you just threw against the wall?

 

[RoboTimbo]

I think I will wait until tomorrow when you promised reveal “what you are thinking of” and thereby save myself the time and effort thank you.

Of course you will. When called on your abilities to use a process of elimination that would be open for everyone to see, you don't deliver. wollery gave you a chance to use your process of elimination with a finite and known set available to all. Bringing your awesome "process of elimination" ailities to bear, you decide to... pass.

It's only when the set is infinite and unknown that you proclaim your success and when questioned about it, your response is that we should take your word for it.

As for your document analysis abilities, when you examined the Venezuela document, did the handwriting slant to the left or to the right?

 

[TjW]

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

I have merely presented cases where we have no plausible mundane explanation.

Campeche, and the Mexico City hoax were on your original list. There are plausible mundane explanations for both of those.

What you have done is thrown mud at the wall to see what sticks.
As with the first hundred thousand or so pages, no one here is claiming that UFOs don't exist.
You still have not provided evidence for "aliens".

 

[Marcus]

I must note however, in the cases I am presenting, I am not proffering any “explanations”.
http://

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

Carry on.

 

[Rramjet]

Campeche, and the Mexico City hoax were on your original list. There are plausible mundane explanations for both of those.

I presume you mean this case…

The Campeche Incident (5 Mar 2004)
(http://brumac.8k.com/MexicanDOD5mar04/)
(http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/mexico/mexico.dwt)

…but I am not sure what your “Mexico City hoax” refers to.

As for Campeche, there probably was a genuine UFO (or UFOs) involved. You have simply been blinded by the ubiquitous FLIR video of the “oil wells” (a plausible mundane explanation for that video) into not seeing that. I don’t expect you to read Dr Maccabee’s analysis above, but it is all in there.

What you have done is thrown mud at the wall to see what sticks.

What I am doing is presenting cases for which there seems to be no plausible mundane explanation…

As with the first hundred thousand or so pages, no one here is claiming that UFOs don't exist.

Sure – however, to you and the UFO debunkers a UFO is simply something that the observer cannot identify at the time. The phrase that is often repeated by the UFO debunkers in this context is ”People see things in the sky that they cannot identify all the time. So what?” (or words to that effect).

If that were all there was to it, then we could shrug and say ‘Perception is easily mislead. Even Venus rising has been mistaken for a UFO. Balloons, birds, planes, meteors …all these things have been mistaken for UFOs. People make mistakes. It’s that simple.’

But of course that is not all there is to it. In many cases there exists other kinds of supporting evidence (multiple eyewitnesses, radar, photographs or film and physical trace evidence), and the observations themselves often contain information that can be analysed. Time of sighting for example. At the time were there any aircraft, balloons, rockets, satellites, meteors, etc in the vicinity? The characteristics of the sighted object can also be analysed. How big was it, how fast was it moving, what shape was it, what did it do (etc and so on) and do any of these characteristics match anything mundane?

After analysis, many “UFOs” do resolve themselves into mundane objects. People do make mistakes. But equally there exists a consistent body of sightings that cannot be resolved. Where the evidence is of such quality that even after years of research and years of “debunking” effort, the sighting remains a UFO. And it is simply not the case that there is not enough information (or data) in the case to come to any firm conclusion – as with many of the cases I have presented in this thread – the information is there and that information is of such quality that it rules out mundane explanation – it simply defies mundane explanation.

To a UFO debunker, a UFO is simply something that cannot be identified by the observer at the time (thus they can claim that "UFOs exist”). To a serious UFO researcher however, a UFO is something that remains a UFO even after a concerted research effort by many independent researchers over time.

That is why I coined the term UFMO (Unidentified Flying Mundane Object) to characterise the belief of the UFO debunkers. The UFO debunkers simply believe that “UFOs” are mundane objects that people cannot identify at the time. But everyone else knows there is more to it than that.

You still have not provided evidence for "aliens".

Of course to repeat (and to keep repeating) this “accusation” (this unfounded assertion) is to ignore a critical observation (and the reason for those quotation marks) - That is, “aliens” does not necessarily mean “ET” (hence the quotation marks around “aliens”). The UFO debunkers spend much of their effort in “debunking” ”Little Green Men in spaceships from another world” In my opinion this is a straw man argument. There is no direct evidence for ET. The ETH is of course a very compelling hypothesis – beings are seen, “intelligent control” of UFOs is noted, given what we know, life on other planets certainly could exist and “getting here” does not break any known laws of physics – but are they really “from another world”? We just don’t know.

 

[R.A.F.]

I don’t expect you to read Dr Maccabee’s analysis above...

Maccabee is biased...just as you are.

What I am doing is presenting cases for which there seems to be no plausible mundane explanation…

"No plausable mundane explanation to you. You seem to keep forgetting that what you have presented is your opinion.

When will you actually be presenting credible evidence instead of opinion??

 

[RoboTimbo]

After analysis, many “UFOs” do resolve themselves into mundane objects. People do make mistakes. But equally there exists a consistent body of sightings that cannot be resolved. Where the evidence is of such quality that even after years of research and years of “debunking” effort, the sighting remains a UFO. And it is simply not the case that there is not enough information (or data) in the case to come to any firm conclusion – as with many of the cases I have presented in this thread – the information is there and that information is of such quality that it rules out mundane explanation – it simply defies mundane explanation.

But you must remember that your process of elimination is fatally flawed, as you have proved. Remember your Debri^WP Debacle? I only bring it up again because you continue to claim that you can rule out all mundane explanations as if you wish these fatal flaws didn't exist. Remember your inability to guess the plausible mundane explanation I was thinking of, despite your most ardent attempts? Remember your inability to apply your process of elimination to Cowgill's letter per wollery's challenge? The one where there was a known and finite set to choose from? Where you could display your abilities in an open and transparent manner yet backed down?

To a UFO debunker, a UFO is simply something that cannot be identified by the observer at the time (thus they can claim that "UFOs exist”). To a serious UFO researcher however, a UFO is something that remains a UFO even after a concerted research effort by many independent researchers over time.

Well, no. A UFO is an Unidentified Flying Object. In other words, it is something that appears to be an Object, appears to be Flying, yet is Unidentified. To UFO creduloids, a UFO is an alien flying machine unless someone can prove it is mundane. Even then, the hardcore creduloids will still "believe" it's "aliens".

That is why I coined the term UFMO (Unidentified Flying Mundane Object) to characterise the belief of the UFO debunkers. The UFO debunkers simply believe that “UFOs” are mundane objects that people cannot identify at the time. But everyone else knows there is more to it than that.

That is why I coined the term UFAO (Unidentifed Flying Alien Object) to characterise the belief of the UFO creduloids. The UFO creduloids simply believe that UFOs are alien objects that people cannot identify as mundane. But the creduloids have never shown that it's more than that.

Now we're even. Where would you like to go from here?

Of course to repeat (and to keep repeating) this “accusation” (this unfounded assertion) is to ignore a critical observation (and the reason for those quotation marks) - That is, “aliens” does not necessarily mean “ET” (hence the quotation marks around “aliens”). The UFO debunkers spend much of their effort in “debunking” ”Little Green Men in spaceships from another world” In my opinion this is a straw man argument. There is no direct evidence for ET. The ETH is of course a very compelling hypothesis – beings are seen, “intelligent control” of UFOs is noted, given what we know, life on other planets certainly could exist and “getting here” does not break any known laws of physics – but are they really “from another world”? We just don’t know.

And yet you still pretend to know that it's "aliens" without providing compelling evidence for them.

 

[wollery]

So, Wednesday is here.

I'll start by going through the letter and analysing what is factual content, i.e. things that Cowgill could have first hand knowledge of, assuming that he is telling the truth. We're not interested in their story, just Cowgill's statements of fact.

So;

The following brief account of a recent strange meteorological occurrence may be of interest to your readers as an addition to the list of electrical eccentricities:

Nothing but introduction, no factual content.

During the night of the 24th of October last [1886], which was rainy and tempestuous,

Well, the letter was written more than 3 weeks after this date, but we can assume that he either remembered the night in question, or could check the weather reports, so we can safely say that it is a fact that the night was "rainy and tempestuous".

a family of nine persons,

We can assume that he knows the difference between a family group and a group of individuals, so that's most likely factual.

sleeping in a hut a few leagues from Maracaibo [Venezuela],

Now, here's where we get to the hearsay. We can safely assume that he wasn't in the hut with them, so this is dependent on their story, and cannot be taken prima facie as factual.

were awakened by a loud humming noise and a vivid, dazzling light, which brilliantly illuminated the interior of the house.

Again, hearsay, therefore not "factual".

Most of the rest of the letter is his retelling of their account, and is therefore hearsay, so we can ignore this since it isn't relevant. Remember, we're only concerned with facts that Cowgill relates first hand, not their story, which is hearsay. We get back to his first hand knowledge right at the end of the letter.

I have visited the sufferers,

So he has in fact seen them.

who are now in one of the hospitals of this city;

They are in a hospital in Maracaibo.

and although their appearance is truly horrible,

They look like crap.

yet it is hoped that in no case will the injuries prove fatal.

Nothing factual, just a wish for their recovery.

(Signed: Warner Cowgill, U.S. Consulate, Maracaibo, Venezuela, November 17, 1886.)

He signed and dated the letter.

It should be noted that the date is 24 days after the alleged incident took place, 15 days after their skin supposedly erupted in to sores, and he makes no mention of what date he visited them, so we cannot know whether he saw the full extent of their injuries. We can however assume that they still had extensive sores and that their hair hadn't grown back, because he doesn't contradict this claim, so we can assume that the end result of their injuries were as described in their account.

So, what facts do we have?

1. The night in question was "rainy and tempestuous".
2. They were a "family of nine persons".
3. Cowgill visited them himself.
4. They were in a hospital in Maracaibo when he saw them.
5. They looked "truly horrible".
6. The end result of their injuries were as described in their story.

That's it, everything else is hearsay. So, the question is, which of the above facts speaks to their veracity?

Well, the weather on the night in question only tells us what the weather was like, not whether or not their story is true. That Cowgill visited them says nothing about their veracity, nor does the fact that they were in hospital - we know that they were injured, that isn't in question. Their appearance likewise is uncontested, as are their final injuries. So that leaves us with the fact that they were a "family of nine persons".

Now why would that speak to their veracity? We can assume (as I said earlier) that Cowgill knows the difference between a family group and a bunch of individuals, and his use of language is interesting. He uses the term "persons", which indicates that there were both male and female, and the fact that they were a family would generally indicate a range of ages. This suggests that some of them were children and some were relatively elderly.

So the question is, why does that suggest a higher probability of truthfulness?

Well, the hypotheses put forward to explain why they might lie depend on all of them doing something that they wouldn't want the authorities to know about (i.e. illegal), and that is far less likely to be the case if some of them are old or children. If they were going to engage in a criminal activity they would most likely leave the children at home with their grandparents or the female adults. The result would be that only a small number of them would have been injured. Of course, that depends on the ages of the children and the older family members, which we don't know, but it does add weight to the assumption that they were telling the truth about the incident.

So there it is. It's hardly conclusive, but it is the only direct fact that speaks to their veracity, and it is something that Rramjet has not once mentioned as possible evidence to support the idea that they were telling the truth.

Any competent forensic psychologist would have pointed to it as the keystone for any assumption of veracity in their story, yet Rramjet, with his self-proclaimed ability to dissect a document in the search for motivation, completely failed to spot it. This raises the question, what else has he missed in documents from other cases?

What it shows, in simple terms, is that his ability to analyse documents is not as great as he claims, and that any claims he makes in terms of motivation gleaned from documentation must be viewed with great caution.

 

[wollery]

Right, having just written a post that shows it's more likely that the family in the Maracaibo incident were telling the truth, I'd like to revisit Rramjet's radiation hypothesis.

So, let's examine the symptoms as described, and match them up to relative dosages of radiation poisoning, and the other attendant symptoms that should be expected from those dosages.

We'll start with the later symptoms, for reasons that I hope will be apparent when I get to the earlier symptoms.

Assuming it was radiation poisoning, there was a period of nine days between exposure and the appearance of painful raw sores, which we can take to be some form of haemorrhaging. This delay period suggests moderate exposure, a dose of about 3 Grays. However, this sort of dosage would normally be accompanied by cognitive impairment, which isn't reported in any of the nine, and blackening of the skin (I assume purpura) would also be delayed by about the same time, but in their story it appeared the next morning after the swelling had subsided. Immediate swelling is not mentioned in any description of radiation sickness that I could find, although swelling of the throat and mouth is a symptom that's mentioned in some places as a long term effect.

Next, we'll examine their loss of hair. This again would indicate a dosage of at least 3 Grays, and would have a similar delay time to the other long term symptoms, although it should be noted that it would be all body hair, not just exposed patches, since it is due to systemic damage, and in this case only hair on one side of the head fell out, and body hair isn't mentioned.

Also, at a dosage of 3 Grays vomiting would not be expected to start until about 1.5 hours after exposure, but they described almost instant vomiting. Remember, they thought the world was ending, fell to their knees to pray, and almost immediately vomited, all of them. However, at a dosage of 3 Grays not all of them would experience vomiting.

Such rapid onset of vomiting would require a dose in excess of 10 Grays, and more likely higher than that, which is why I've left it until last. A radiation dose in excess of 10 Grays would rapidly incapacitate them, their later symptoms would appear within a day or two (probably less), and most of them would be dead within a week. At a dosage of 10 Grays the mortality rate is almost 100%.

In summary, the symptoms don't fit radiation poisoning. The instant vomiting by all of them would only occur in cases of high exposure, in which case they'd be dead within days, hair loss is systemic, not site specific, and they showed no sign of cognitive impairment, which would be expected even at the lower exposure limits required to produce their other symptoms.

In other words, we can dismiss the radiation hypothesis, because it simply doesn't fit with their symptoms.

By the way, one of the sites I used to compile this post was the Mayo clinic site that Rramjet introduced us to.

 

[Jocce]

Rramjet, how come you...

1. ignore anything that doesn't fit with your predetermined conslusions?
Example: Venezuela where the most badly hurt side of the victims was facing down. That's not consistent with radiation poisoning.

2. repeat unfounded assertions many times after being shown that they are untrue?
Example: Venezuela, where you repeatedly claim that a bright light and loud humming noise is indicative of ionizing radiation. It is not.

3. constantly mischaracterize the position others
Example: I say "alien" and you argue that I mean ET. I have told you many times that I mean it as per your definition.

4. continue to claim that you can use a process of elimination where the set of possible solutions are infinite and unknown. You have been shown that this is not true.

5. constantly try to shift the burden of proof.

It does not reflect well on you.

 

[Rramjet]

wollery I thank you for being true to your word. I appreciate it. I basically concur with your analysis of the case but I would make a couple of notes:

You quoted:
” The following brief account of a recent strange meteorological occurrence may be of interest to your readers as an addition to the list of electrical eccentricities:” (http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG)

Nothing but introduction, no factual content.

…except that Cowgill thought the cause of the injuries to the victim’s to be related to an “electrical eccentricity” – in other words some hitherto unexplained mundane phenomenon (on which SciAm was doing a “series”) - which he then also thought of presenting to SciAm for the information of (to inform) and the general consideration of the readership (and presumably the wider world). That in turn indicates Cowgill was a “scientifically” minded person and intent on presenting the facts in the case (presumably) to the best of his abilities. This in turn speaks to the veracity of his account.

As to the veracity of the victim’s story, you have pointed out:

…the hypotheses put forward to explain why they might lie depend on all of them doing something that they wouldn't want the authorities to know about (i.e. illegal), and that is far less likely to be the case if some of them are old or children. If they were going to engage in a criminal activity they would most likely leave the children at home with their grandparents or the female adults. The result would be that only a small number of them would have been injured. Of course, that depends on the ages of the children and the older family members, which we don't know, but it does add weight to the assumption that they were telling the truth about the incident.

Well spotted wollery. Your investigative result does indeed add weight to the veracity of the victim’s story.

So there it is. It's hardly conclusive, but it is the only direct fact that speaks to their veracity…

Indeed, so here we have a prima facie case for both Cowgill and the victims telling the truth about what occurred. We must however, (as you point out – at least by implication) be wary of the minutia of the detail in the case from both Cowgill and the victims. On the victims side, the location, the brilliant light without heat, the terror experienced by the victims, their subsequent devotions, the general nature of their injuries, the lack of injury to the house and the peculiar injuries to the vegetation and the period of some days before their injuries became serious enough to warrant a trip to hospital we can take as substantially correct. We must however be wary of such detail as “immediately” interrupted by “violent vomitings” as causally related (terror alone can produce that effect). On Cowgills side we must in turn be wary of statements such as “upon the side which happened to be underneath”. With a group of nine people, given their circumstances and generally “panicked” state of mind at the time, it would be remarkable indeed if they could all accurately remember on which side they were lying at the time of injury. It is however interesting to note that intense radiation injuries do cause the side facing the source to be more seriously injured (eg: http://history1900s.about.com/library/photos/blyhn8.htm)

…and it is something that Rramjet has not once mentioned as possible evidence to support the idea that they were telling the truth.

Interestingly, you were the one who first hypothesised the victims were lying, and you pursued that hypothesis for some time. So you (along with myself and I suspect everyone else) “missed” (at least for some time) the above mentioned “facts” about the case you reference well.

Any competent forensic psychologist would have pointed to it as the keystone for any assumption of veracity in their story, yet Rramjet, with his self-proclaimed ability to dissect a document in the search for motivation, completely failed to spot it.

I never claimed I was competent at forensic analysis – all I ever claimed was that it was possible to conduct a forensic analysis on the document to determine facts about it that would add weight to the veracity of the story.

This raises the question, what else has he missed in documents from other cases?

This goes to another reason why I am presenting the cases in this forum (I am under no illusion that I will “convert” anyone here and that is not my intention). Obviously I will “miss” things about a case or cases according to my own particular biases and mindset, that is just part of the human condition, it happens to everyone, so by presenting the cases in this forum I was pretty sure to have any potential biases directly confronted by people whom I could be sure would interpret things quite differently – and as wollery has demonstrated, pick up on things I have not even thought of.

What it shows, in simple terms, is that his ability to analyse documents is not as great as he claims, and that any claims he makes in terms of motivation gleaned from documentation must be viewed with great caution.

Again, I have never claimed any special competency and indeed, I would also urge people to consider my statements in a cautious and sceptical light. All along I have been urging people to examine the evidence for themselves. I often provide links to evidence that I have “uncovered”, but again, I urge people to search more broadly and whatever evidence they uncover, they in turn should also view in a similar sceptical light. As far as anyone’s individual competency will allow, it is about scepticism, a forensic examination of the evidence, an application of the process of elimination, considering the weight of evidence, taking nothing at face value, determining underlying motivations (and if an underlying motivation is not obvious – bet on self interest), it is about the application (wherever possible) of the scientific method. It is about a search for answers.

Right, having just written a post that shows it's more likely that the family in the Maracaibo incident were telling the truth, I'd like to revisit Rramjet's radiation hypothesis.

So, let's examine the symptoms as described, and match them up to relative dosages of radiation poisoning, and the other attendant symptoms that should be expected from those dosages.

We'll start with the later symptoms, for reasons that I hope will be apparent when I get to the earlier symptoms.

Assuming it was radiation poisoning, there was a period of nine days between exposure and the appearance of painful raw sores, which we can take to be some form of haemorrhaging.

Well here is where you leap to an unfounded assumption immediately. There are many different types of particles that can cause many different types of radiation burn (see here for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_burn - yes I know but expediency sometimes gets the better of me…)

This delay period suggests moderate exposure, a dose of about 3 Grays.

This is an unfounded assumption for which you have provided no reference, nor which particular type of radiation you are referencing.

However, this sort of dosage would normally be accompanied by cognitive impairment, which isn't reported in any of the nine, and blackening of the skin (I assume purpura) would also be delayed by about the same time, but in their story it appeared the next morning after the swelling had subsided. Immediate swelling is not mentioned in any description of radiation sickness that I could find, although swelling of the throat and mouth is a symptom that's mentioned in some places as a long term effect.

Again you have not provided your reference sources. You also seem to make the assumption of specific particle types (and perhaps swap between them) and discount a combination of types of varying intensities.

In the rest of your post you make similar assumptions and also provide no reference sources for the assumptions you do make. We are therefore entitled to dismiss your thoughts and opinions on the matter as unfounded.

In other words, we can dismiss the radiation hypothesis, because it simply doesn't fit with their symptoms.

For the sake of argument, even if you could show an inconsistency in the radiation hypothesis, no other mundane hypothesis stands up either and we are left with a genuine mystery – which after all is what UFO cases are!

 

[H'ethetheth]

For the sake of argument, even if you could show an inconsistency in the radiation hypothesis, no other mundane hypothesis stands up either and we are left with a genuine mystery – which after all is what UFO cases are!

Can I just observe that it seems that you are talking straight past everyone.

Everyone seems to agree that some UFO cases are indeed very mysterious.

However, by proffering possible mundane explanations the skeptics are not claiming that that is what must have happened.
They are simply pointing out that there are conceivable mundane explanations for most, if not all of them, rendering speculation on hitherto unknown phenomena premature, if not completely pointless.

 

[Cuddles]

Can I just observe that it seems that you are talking straight past everyone.

Everyone seems to agree that some UFO cases are indeed very mysterious.

However, by proffering possible mundane explanations the skeptics are not claiming that that is what must have happened.
They are simply pointing out that there are conceivable mundane explanations for most, if not all of them, rendering speculation on hitherto unknown phenomena premature, if not completely pointless.

Welcome back to page 1 of thread.

 

[Rramjet]

Can I just observe that it seems that you are talking straight past everyone.

You may, but the mere expression of that statement does not make it true and moreover, people have the choice – to read or not to read…

Everyone seems to agree that some UFO cases are indeed very mysterious.

You seem to have missed that most posters here believe: “People see things in the sky that they cannot identify all the time. So what?” (or words to that effect). In other words according to most people contributing to this thread, there is no mystery. People make mistakes. What we have here are UFMOs (Unidentified Flying Mundane Objects). So what?

Of course people do make mistakes, however, that is not all there is to it. In many cases there exists other kinds of supporting evidence such as multiple eyewitnesses, radar, photographs or film and physical trace evidence and the observations themselves that often contain information that can be analysed. Simply there exist a large number of cases (up to 21% or more of cases according to the Battelle study - http://www.ufocasebook.com/specialreport14.pdf), that even after extensive investigation, defy mundane explanation. There is a genuine mystery here, but most contributors to this thread don’t believe so.

However, by proffering possible mundane explanations the skeptics are not claiming that that is what must have happened.

Of course they don’t contend ’This IS the mundane explanation!” (well, actually, often they do …but leaving that little fact aside…) they just settle on a mundane explanation and thereafter keep reiterating that it is possible for it to be true. However, in doing so, they conveniently forget that any explanation also needs to be a plausible explanation.

They are simply pointing out that there are conceivable mundane explanations for most, if not all of them…

Of course “conceivable” simply means “capable of being imagined” and one could therefore (for example) imagine that UFOs are unicorns in disguise - but the mere conception and expression of that idea would not make it true. That is why the competing hypothetical explanations must also be plausible (and thus also supported by evidence).

Moreover, such a statement simply flies in the face of the evidence. As I pointed out above, there are a large number of cases (eg; the Battelle study) wherein there simply is no plausible mundane explanation.

…rendering speculation on hitherto unknown phenomena premature, if not completely pointless.

Oh, speculation is pointless? I think it was Roger Bacon who stated “Experimental science is the queen of sciences and the goal of all speculation.” (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sciquote.htm) and Charles Darwin: “I am a firm believer, that without speculation there is no good & original observation.” (http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2192)

 

[wollery]

…except that Cowgill thought the cause of the injuries to the victim’s to be related to an “electrical eccentricity” – in other words some hitherto unexplained mundane phenomenon (on which SciAm was doing a “series”) - which he then also thought of presenting to SciAm for the information of (to inform) and the general consideration of the readership (and presumably the wider world). That in turn indicates Cowgill was a “scientifically” minded person and intent on presenting the facts in the case (presumably) to the best of his abilities. This in turn speaks to the veracity of his account.

As I said, I assume his account to be truthful, since there is no apparent reason for him to make up such a story.

We must however be wary of such detail as “immediately” interrupted by “violent vomitings” as causally related (terror alone can produce that effect).

In every single one of them, at the same time? That is, as you would say, implausible.

On Cowgills side we must in turn be wary of statements such as “upon the side which happened to be underneath”. With a group of nine people, given their circumstances and generally “panicked” state of mind at the time, it would be remarkable indeed if they could all accurately remember on which side they were lying at the time of injury.

And thus one of your main objections to the burn hypothesis just disappeared. Did you really mean to do that?

It is however interesting to note that intense radiation injuries do cause the side facing the source to be more seriously injured (eg: http://history1900s.about.com/library/photos/blyhn8.htm)

As do burns, which you discounted largely because of the detail that you now tell us to be wary of because it damages your radiation hypothesis.

Do you not see the double standard here? You proclaim vehemently that the burn hypothesis can't be right because the damage was to "the side that was underneath at the time", but when it's pointed out that this makes the radiation hypothesis implausible you tell us to be wary of that detail.

Interestingly, you were the one who first hypothesised the victims were lying, and you pursued that hypothesis for some time. So you (along with myself and I suspect everyone else) “missed” (at least for some time) the above mentioned “facts” about the case you reference well.

Indeed, which just proves that none of us are qualified to analyse such a document reliably. there are probably other things in that letter that we've all missed.

I never claimed I was competent at forensic analysis – all I ever claimed was that it was possible to conduct a forensic analysis on the document to determine facts about it that would add weight to the veracity of the story.

Your clear implication was that you could do so reliably. That has been shown to be false.

This goes to another reason why I am presenting the cases in this forum (I am under no illusion that I will “convert” anyone here and that is not my intention). Obviously I will “miss” things about a case or cases according to my own particular biases and mindset, that is just part of the human condition, it happens to everyone, so by presenting the cases in this forum I was pretty sure to have any potential biases directly confronted by people whom I could be sure would interpret things quite differently – and as wollery has demonstrated, pick up on things I have not even thought of.

And what about the things that we miss as well? How does that affect your process of elimination? How do you know that we haven't all missed blatantly obvious mundane explanations for some of these cases?

I know I keep asking this, but you've never given a satisfactory answer - how do you know?

Again, I have never claimed any special competency

And yet your statements are often made with the certainty of one who believes they speak from authority.

and indeed, I would also urge people to consider my statements in a cautious and sceptical light.

Don't worry, we do.

All along I have been urging people to examine the evidence for themselves.

And yet you dismiss any opinion of that evidence other than those that broadly agree with yours.

I often provide links to evidence that I have “uncovered”, but again, I urge people to search more broadly and whatever evidence they uncover, they in turn should also view in a similar sceptical light. As far as anyone’s individual competency will allow, it is about scepticism, a forensic examination of the evidence, an application of the process of elimination, considering the weight of evidence, taking nothing at face value, determining underlying motivations (and if an underlying motivation is not obvious – bet on self interest), it is about the application (wherever possible) of the scientific method. It is about a search for answers.

Application of the scientific method? Can you please make up your mind whether or not what you are doing is science. You have claimed recently that it isn't science, and now you're urging us to apply the scientific method, which means it is.

Well here is where you leap to an unfounded assumption immediately. There are many different types of particles that can cause many different types of radiation burn (see here for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_burn - yes I know but expediency sometimes gets the better of me…)

Well, let's examine that then. First off let's remind ourselves of the situation. The family are inside their hut asleep, when they are woken by a bright light and a loud humming noise coming from outside (which you suppose to be the radiation source). So, they are inside and the radiation source is outside.

So, what types of radiation are there?

Let's start with UV, since you have mentioned it. They are inside the hut and the source is outside. Since UV is stopped completely by wood (which we must assume the hut was made of) then unless they had very large windows it's unlikely that they will all be burned in the same way or by the same amount, which is what the letter suggests happened. So UV is implausible.

Next up - Infrared, since it can cause burns. Three things against this one, there was no damage to the hut or trees, which there would be with IR, the IR would have been blocked by the walls of the hut, just the same as for UV, and they would have felt heat, which they didn't. So IR is implausible.

Okay, alpha particles. These are both very large and charged which means that a thin layer of cardboard will stop most alpha particles, and we have a wooden wall and glass in the way. So alpha particles are actually impossible, not just implausible.

Beta radiation consists of electrons, which although small are charged, and therefore have a fairly large collisional cross section for most materials. Their penetrating power is better than alpha particles, but a decent thickness of wood would stop a large proportion of beta radiation. So beta radiation is implausible. The same would hold for positrons.

Proton radiation has a collisional cross section somewhere between alpha and beta radiation, so it too can be discounted as implausible.

X-rays would be shielded a little by the wood, but not a lot, so they would be a reasonable candidate.

Gamma rays would barely notice the wood was there, so again, a reasonable candidate.

Neutrons would notice the wood was there, but would hardly be affected by it, so again, a reasonable candidate.

Your link also mentions radio waves and microwaves, however these would mostly cause internal rather than external damage, so they are also implausible, given the injuries described.

So our only plausible candidates are X-rays, gamma rays and Neutrons.

You suggest that the fact that the worst damage was on the side that was underneath at the time should be taken with a pinch of salt (despite earlier using it as an argument against the burn hypothesis), so I'll do that. Let's assume that they got up and whatever side was facing towards the radiation was the side that was most damaged.

According to the letter the swelling was around the upper body and most noticeably around the face and lips. Yet we have people probably standing up, wearing (one assumes) relatively thin clothing, and being bombarded by either X-rays, gamma rays or neutrons. Their clothing would be all but invisible to the radiation, and we should expect the same swelling effect over the whole body, not just the upper body. That, of course, assumes that swelling is an immediate symptom of any of those types of radiation, and I've found no mention of that being the case.

Next up we have the vomiting, which you claim can be caused by fear and shock. Well, this is indeed true, but as you should know, different people react differently to the same situation, so to suggest that they would all vomit at the same time in reaction to the same shock stimulus is far fetched at best, and frankly pretty implausible. We do however know that vomiting is a symptom of radiation poisoning, which is the hypothesis you are putting forward, so it seems more likely that the radiation would cause the vomiting, and we would expect the reaction to be the same for all of the family since they are all being irradiated by the same dose, giving the same delay time for each and every symptom. For that to be the case the dosage must be almost identical in each individual.

So we are left with a large dose exposure to X-rays, gamma rays or neutrons. A dose most likely in excess of 10 Grays in order to induce rapid vomiting.

Feel free to look up the penetration powers and dosage information of the various types of radiation for yourself.

This is an unfounded assumption for which you have provided no reference, nor which particular type of radiation you are referencing.

Again you have not provided your reference sources. You also seem to make the assumption of specific particle types (and perhaps swap between them) and discount a combination of types of varying intensities.

I've examined the plausibility of the various types of radiation above. If you can think of any other types of radiation then let us know. As for the references, look this stuff up for yourself, don't just take my word for it. You say that you want to investigate this stuff skeptically, but then dismiss things that disagree with your point of view without looking into them. Hardly "scientific".

For the record, the astronomical data with errors in excess of 100% that I referred to in previous posts is the Hipparcos catalogue, and it was sponsored by ESA, not NASA (sorry for the confusion). Don't take my word for it, and don't just dismiss it. Look it up for yourself. It's available free online. Look up the parallax and proper motion data, and you'll find errors well in excess of 100% for some stars.

For the sake of argument, even if you could show an inconsistency in the radiation hypothesis, no other mundane hypothesis stands up either and we are left with a genuine mystery – which after all is what UFO cases are!

Yes, we are left with a mystery. Which tells us what?

Oh yes, it tells us absolutely nothing, beyond the fact that we don't know what it is.

 

[Rramjet]

I stated:
”We must however be wary of such detail as “immediately” interrupted by “violent vomitings” as causally related (terror alone can produce that effect).”

In every single one of them, at the same time? That is, as you would say, implausible.

It could, as you admit, have been a hysterical reaction, or a noxious gas - and here it must also be noted that there was a "smoky appearance and a peculiar smell" - so not so implausible - there is more than one plausible mundane explanation available.

And thus one of your main objections to the burn hypothesis just disappeared. Did you really mean to do that?

I just follow the evidence where it takes me wollery. I don’t have a preconceived notion or foregone conclusion that I must make the evidence fit into - I merely note the plausible conclusions from whatever information is available – no matter where that takes me.

However, it was not my main objection to the burns hypothesis – that would be the brilliant light, no heat, no evidence of heat damage - and the fact that the evidence points toward the victims telling the truth.

Do you not see the double standard here? You proclaim vehemently that the burn hypothesis can't be right because the damage was to "the side that was underneath at the time", but when it's pointed out that this makes the radiation hypothesis implausible you tell us to be wary of that detail.

No, the burns hypothesis was raised in the context of damage to one side of the body only. I merely pointed out the hypothesis was inconsistent with what the victims stated. You are simply trying too hard to be contrary to whatever I state – my further thoughts on the matter actually remove that initial objection to the burns hypothesis … as you stated...

However, the bottom line is that the (non-IR) radiation hypothesis seems to have a much better fit with the evidence than any other hypothesis (despite some seeming inconsistencies) at this point.

And what about the things that we miss as well? How does that affect your process of elimination? How do you know that we haven't all missed blatantly obvious mundane explanations for some of these cases?

Most of the cases I have been presenting have been pretty thoroughly analysed by many others even before getting to this thread. Then they get another thorough going over in a very sceptical forum. It is all about the attempt to gain knowledge, and that is never a “perfect” process – no matter how much you would like it to be. We are all human and make mistakes and are biased according to our own belief systems – often in ways we do not immediately recognise. A large part of my rationale here has to do with attempting to weed out biases in my own opinions by having very sceptical people examine the cases to see if they view the evidence in the way I do – and if not, why not.

I know I keep asking this, but you've never given a satisfactory answer - how do you know?

How does anyone know anything? There is simply is no satisfactory answer to that question wollery. I could talk to you about what constitutes “knowledge” – for example perhaps a true, justified belief might count as knowledge? But even then we cannot be certain that we have knowledge. For example, driving along you see what you think are sheep in a field. You say ‘Oh look, there are sheep in that field’. Your statement is true, it is justified and you believe it to be true. That is, you hold a true, justified belief. Do you have knowledge that there are sheep in the field? No! Because what you are actually looking at are goats. The sheep are out of sight behind a tree.

And yet your statements are often made with the certainty of one who believes they speak from authority.

One is not able to present as well without knowing something about the subject one is presenting on and the language available to present it with - and probably a great deal about other things as well.

And yet you dismiss any opinion of that evidence other than those that broadly agree with yours.

No, I merely dismiss opinions where they contradict the evidence.

Application of the scientific method? Can you please make up your mind whether or not what you are doing is science. You have claimed recently that it isn't science, and now you're urging us to apply the scientific method, which means it is.

One can use the principles of science as a guide to how one should approach the analysis of the available evidence. One should also be aware of logical forms of argument and of the many logical fallacies that are attendant. One should also have a sound knowledge of human motivation and behaviour and perceptual and memory capabilities. Finally one should have a philosophical perspective on how we come by - and what constitutes - knowledge. Science is just a part of a bigger picture.

Well, let's examine that then. First off let's remind ourselves of the situation. The family are inside their hut asleep, when they are woken by a bright light and a loud humming noise coming from outside (which you suppose to be the radiation source). So, they are inside and the radiation source is outside.

Sure…

So, what types of radiation are there?

Now we are talking. I applaud your effort to actually try and inform us all here. THAT is what it is all about wollery!

(See the linked post in the quotes to explore wollery's radiation analysis)

However you fail to mention the full range of radiation types:

Electromagnetic: (Photons - Gamma, Xray, UV, infrared…)
Alpha (2 protons+2 neutrons - Helium nuclei)
Beta (electron equivalent)
Other atomic particles (protons, neutrons, neutrinos, heavier atomic ions)
Sub-atomic particles (leptons, quarks - mesons, fermions, bosons…)
Antiparticles (negative equivalents of the above).

Sources:
(http://www.darvill.clara.net/nucrad/sources.htm)
(http://trshare.triumf.ca/~safety/EHS/rpt/rpt_2/node5.html)
(http://theoncologist.alphamedpress.org/cgi/content/full/11/1/62)
(http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/HighSchool/Radiography/subatomicparticles.htm)

Now we know the source of the radiation in 1886 Venezuela was a brilliant light associated with a loud humming - and while we therefore know for certain that at the very least electromagnetic radiation was involved - we cannot rule in or out any other radiation type merely based on what we know about the source.

The other thing we know is that the victim’s injuries resemble those found in ionising radiation poisoning - while at the same time not as closely matching any other mundane hypothesis (such as Infrared radiation burns – where also no heat or property damage was apparent).

In ruling out some of the radiation types that you do mention (UV, Alpha, Beta and protons) you do so merely based on an assumption that the radiation was not able to stream in through a window (or windows). It seems to me that a window (or windows) would be the obvious entry point.

So our only plausible candidates are X-rays, gamma rays and Neutrons.

So our plausible candidates are any of the above (possibly in some sort of combination and probably with the exception of infrared).

Let's assume that they got up and whatever side was facing towards the radiation was the side that was most damaged.

A plausible assumption.

According to the letter the swelling was around the upper body and most noticeably around the face and lips. (…) We do however know that vomiting is a symptom of radiation poisoning, (…) That, of course, assumes that swelling is an immediate symptom of any of those types of radiation, and I've found no mention of that being the case.

This actually supports a “window” hypothesis. The lower body might have been partially shielded by the woodwork below any windows. Moreover, acute radiation poisoning can cause both vomiting (http://www.cdc.gov/search.do?queryT...chButton.x=24&searchButton.y=11&action=search) and swelling (http://www.cdc.gov/search.do?queryT...rchButton.x=36&searchButton.y=5&action=search)...

So, after all, we find out that you have not informed us as well as you might have and certainly not as well as I expected you to if you were really conducting an objective analysis.

I've examined the plausibility of the various types of radiation above. If you can think of any other types of radiation then let us know.

See above.

As for the references, look this stuff up for yourself, don't just take my word for it. You say that you want to investigate this stuff skeptically, but then dismiss things that disagree with your point of view without looking into them. Hardly "scientific".

Funny how you don’t actually provide references or links to the sources of any of your information – this even after I dismissed much of your previous post on the basis that it merely comprised unfounded assertion. You say “look it up yourself” – yet when I do, I find you have perhaps not been as forthcoming and objective as your lead in to the radiation analysis indicated.

For the record, the astronomical data with errors in excess of 100% that I referred to in previous posts is the Hipparcos catalogue, and it was sponsored by ESA, not NASA (sorry for the confusion). Don't take my word for it, and don't just dismiss it. Look it up for yourself. It's available free online. Look up the parallax and proper motion data, and you'll find errors well in excess of 100% for some stars.

Again you do not provide a source or a link to a source. You know, way back in this thread I had the same problem with astrophotographer. He, like you, simply refused to source any material and only grudgingly and sparingly did so after much prompting and argument by me. Am I really going to have the same problem here?

Looking up the catalogue you cite (here is the actual reference: http://archive.ast.cam.ac.uk/hipp/) I simply cannot find what you are talking about. Perhaps you can provide an example of the stars you are talking about and the search parameters you used?

Yes, we are left with a mystery. Which tells us what?

Oh yes, it tells us absolutely nothing, beyond the fact that we don't know what it is.

It tells us that there are things about this world that we simply do not understand and that we cannot explain in terms of what we think we know about science and all that science has shown us to this point - and this in turn indicates that we should not become too comfortable and complacent in thinking that what we think we do know is actually correct. It seems to me that many in this forum have succumbed to that arrogance of “I know science and what you are telling me does not fit with what I know, so it cannot be true”. You asked a question before: “How do you know”? Perhaps none of us really do.

 

[wollery]

I stated:
”We must however be wary of such detail as “immediately” interrupted by “violent vomitings” as causally related (terror alone can produce that effect).”

It could, as you admit, have been a hysterical reaction, or a noxious gas - and here it must also be noted that there was a "smoky appearance and a peculiar smell" - so not so implausible - there is more than one plausible mundane explanation available.

Yes, there's more than one potential plausible explanation, and now you're trying to use two at the same time.

I just follow the evidence where it takes me wollery. I don’t have a preconceived notion or foregone conclusion that I must make the evidence fit into - I merely note the plausible conclusions from whatever information is available – no matter where that takes me.

However, it was not my main objection to the burns hypothesis – that would be the brilliant light, no heat, no evidence of heat damage - and the fact that the evidence points toward the victims telling the truth.

And yet, when the burn hypothesis was mentioned you repeatedly objected to it on the basis of the "fact" that it was the side that was underneath at the time that was the most damaged. And now you tell us to be wary of that fact. Why weren't you wary of it when you were using it as an argument against a counter hypothesis?

No, the burns hypothesis was raised in the context of damage to one side of the body only. I merely pointed out the hypothesis was inconsistent with what the victims stated. You are simply trying too hard to be contrary to whatever I state – my further thoughts on the matter actually remove that initial objection to the burns hypothesis … as you stated...

I'm not trying to be contrary, simply pointing out inconsistencies in your argument. Your radiation hypothesis is inconsistent with what the victims stated, unless you are "wary" of some of the things they said, but not others. The immediate vomiting is another case in point. You proffered it as evidence of radiation poisoning, until it was pointed out that such a rapid reaction would indicate a dose so high that they would have all been dead inside a week.

However, the bottom line is that the (non-IR) radiation hypothesis seems to have a much better fit with the evidence than any other hypothesis (despite some seeming inconsistencies) at this point.

But not a very good fit at all.

Most of the cases I have been presenting have been pretty thoroughly analysed by many others even before getting to this thread. Then they get another thorough going over in a very sceptical forum. It is all about the attempt to gain knowledge, and that is never a “perfect” process – no matter how much you would like it to be. We are all human and make mistakes and are biased according to our own belief systems – often in ways we do not immediately recognise. A large part of my rationale here has to do with attempting to weed out biases in my own opinions by having very sceptical people examine the cases to see if they view the evidence in the way I do – and if not, why not.

How does anyone know anything? There is simply is no satisfactory answer to that question wollery. I could talk to you about what constitutes “knowledge” – for example perhaps a true, justified belief might count as knowledge? But even then we cannot be certain that we have knowledge. For example, driving along you see what you think are sheep in a field. You say ‘Oh look, there are sheep in that field’. Your statement is true, it is justified and you believe it to be true. That is, you hold a true, justified belief. Do you have knowledge that there are sheep in the field? No! Because what you are actually looking at are goats. The sheep are out of sight behind a tree.

So your answer is that not only do you not know, but in fact you can't know. Thank you for your honesty.

One is not able to present as well without knowing something about the subject one is presenting on and the language available to present it with - and probably a great deal about other things as well.

I have no idea how you think that answers the question. Language is important, and if you aren't certain of something it is only honest to say "I think that", or "My understanding is". But you don't say that. Remember when you tried to teach me how parallax and proper motion work?

No, I merely dismiss opinions where they contradict the evidence.

In your opinion.

One can use the principles of science as a guide to how one should approach the analysis of the available evidence. One should also be aware of logical forms of argument and of the many logical fallacies that are attendant. One should also have a sound knowledge of human motivation and behaviour and perceptual and memory capabilities. Finally one should have a philosophical perspective on how we come by - and what constitutes - knowledge. Science is just a part of a bigger picture.

I agree generally with all of that, and yet your attempts to apply your knowledge of human motivation and behaviour have been shown on more than one occasion to be inadequate to the task.

However you fail to mention the full range of radiation types:

Did I really? Well, yes, I missed one or two, largely because they are totally irrelevant.

Electromagnetic: (Photons - Gamma, Xray, UV, infrared…)

Analysed all of those, and microwaves and radio waves as well.

Alpha (2 protons+2 neutrons - Helium nuclei)

Included them.

Beta (electron equivalent)

And them.

Other atomic particles (protons, neutrons, neutrinos, heavier atomic ions)

I Included protons and neutrons. Heavier atomic ions would be worse than alpha particles at passing through the walls of the hut, and as for neutrinos, every person on the planet is being bombarded by millions of neutrinos every second of their life. Neutrinos are chargeless particles with so little mass that nobody is even sure if they actually have any mass at all! The best neutrino detector in the world detects about one out of every trillion trillion neutrinos that passes through it, and it's buried a mile underground! Neutrinos simply do not interact with normal matter in any meaningful way.

Sub-atomic particles (leptons, quarks - mesons, fermions, bosons…)

Leptons are electrons and positrons, muons, tauons and neutrinos. I covered electrons, positrons and neutrinos (above) and muons and tauons have lifetimes of tiny fractions of a second, about 2 microseconds for muons and the tauon has a lifetime on the order of 10^-13 seconds. Quarks don't exist on their own, only in combination as baryons or mesons, and mesons have lifetimes of around 10^-8 seconds.

Antiparticles (negative equivalents of the above).

All suffer from the exact same problems as their particle counterparts. The positron is just like an electron, only positively charged, an antiproton is a negatively charged proton and there is no anti neutron, because a neutron has no charge. The analysis for each of these would be identical to their particle counterpart. In other words, none of the radiation types you list that I didn't cover are anywhere near plausible in the context.

Sources:
(http://www.darvill.clara.net/nucrad/sources.htm)
(http://trshare.triumf.ca/~safety/EHS/rpt/rpt_2/node5.html)
(http://theoncologist.alphamedpress.org/cgi/content/full/11/1/62)
(http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/HighSchool/Radiography/subatomicparticles.htm)

You might want to consult slightly more detailed or scholarly information than basic GCSE and CME introductions if you want to discuss their properties and plausibility to the case in hand.

Now we know the source of the radiation in 1886 Venezuela was a brilliant light associated with a loud humming

No, we know that there was a brilliant white light, but we don't know that it was a source of ionizing radiation.

and while we therefore know for certain that at the very least electromagnetic radiation was involved - we cannot rule in or out any other radiation type merely based on what we know about the source.

Actually, apart from X-rays, gamma rays and neutrons (which I noted in my last post were candidates) we can rule out all other forms of radiation. I just did so.

The other thing we know is that the victim’s injuries resemble those found in ionising radiation poisoning - while at the same time not as closely matching any other mundane hypothesis (such as Infrared radiation burns – where also no heat or property damage was apparent).

And yet they don't match radiation poisoning that well at all. If their immediate vomiting wasn't the result of radiation poisoning and they did in fact only get a low dose then they should have experienced more vomiting after a couple of hours, as well as cognitive impairment and bloody stools within a few days. These symptoms are from the Mayo clinic website that you introduced, as well as other sources such as wikipedia. And yet none of these symptoms were reported.

In ruling out some of the radiation types that you do mention (UV, Alpha, Beta and protons) you do so merely based on an assumption that the radiation was not able to stream in through a window (or windows). It seems to me that a window (or windows) would be the obvious entry point.

And then do what, spread out like water? These are beams of EM radiation or high velocity particles. They travel in straight lines, and if they hit something they either pass through it or stop dead imparting energy to that object.

Furthermore, it was a stormy night, so the windows would have been closed, and since glass is denser than wood it would be better at stopping particle radiation than the wooden walls.

So our plausible candidates are any of the above (possibly in some sort of combination and probably with the exception of infrared).

No, our plausible candidates are X-rays, gamma rays and neutrons.

This actually supports a “window” hypothesis. The lower body might have been partially shielded by the woodwork below any windows.

So how big was this window that nine people of different ages could all stand in front of it and receive (supposedly) identical injuries? Maybe it was a French window.

Moreover, acute radiation poisoning can cause both vomiting (http://www.cdc.gov/search.do?queryT...chButton.x=24&searchButton.y=11&action=search)

Assuming a dose of about 3 grays to cause the other symptoms the vomiting should start 1 to 2 hours after exposure and last up to two days. No such symptom was reported.

and swelling (http://www.cdc.gov/search.do?queryT...rchButton.x=36&searchButton.y=5&action=search)...

From your link:

Cutaneous Radiation Syndrome (CRS): the complex syndrome resulting from radiation exposure of more than 200 rads to the skin. The immediate effects can be reddening and swelling of the exposed area (like a severe burn), blisters, ulcers on the skin, hair loss, and severe pain. Very large doses can result in permanent hair loss, scarring, altered skin color, deterioration of the affected body part, and death of the affected tissue (requiring surgery).

They reported swelling, but no immediate blistering, ulceration, burning or pain. So, no.

So, after all, we find out that you have not informed us as well as you might have and certainly not as well as I expected you to if you were really conducting an objective analysis.

And we find out that either you don't read your own links or you don't tell the whole truth about what they contain.

Funny how you don’t actually provide references or links to the sources of any of your information – this even after I dismissed much of your previous post on the basis that it merely comprised unfounded assertion. You say “look it up yourself” – yet when I do, I find you have perhaps not been as forthcoming and objective as your lead in to the radiation analysis indicated.

So what was missing from my analysis? A few particles that don't even come close to being possible, let alone plausible, and a couple of symptoms that weren't reported.

Again you do not provide a source or a link to a source. You know, way back in this thread I had the same problem with astrophotographer. He, like you, simply refused to source any material and only grudgingly and sparingly did so after much prompting and argument by me. Am I really going to have the same problem here?

You seem capable of finding all sorts of links by yourself, and yet you don't seem capable of actually following them up in order to report fully on what they contain.

Apart from the small number of irrelevant types of radiation that I didn't include you haven't shown any error in my analysis of the plausibility of the radiation types. Nor have you shown any error in my analysis of the symptoms of radiation poisoning, which was largely sourced from your own Mayo clinic link.

Looking up the catalogue you cite (here is the actual reference: http://archive.ast.cam.ac.uk/hipp/) I simply cannot find what you are talking about. Perhaps you can provide an example of the stars you are talking about and the search parameters you used?

You need to set your search radius to be quite large, at least 3 degrees, and type in an RA and Dec for the search. I entered an RA of 15 00 00 and Dec of +20 00 00, and ticked the boxes for Parallax, PM(RA), PM(Dec) and their errors, with a search box of 03 00 00. That returns 20 results, the 16th of which has a parallax of 0.87 with an error of +/- 1.21, which is a far greater than 100% error. Do it with a larger search box, or change the RA and Dec. You'll find loads more examples. The errors on the PM tend to be smaller, but still sometimes in the region of 50%.

Now try it with the Tycho catalogue, that's where the real fun starts! With the same input coordinates as I gave you above the first star on the list has a parallax of -12.3 +/- 44.7!!!! Ignoring the error (almost 400%) for a second, do you understand what a negative parallax implies?

It tells us that there are things about this world that we simply do not understand and that we cannot explain in terms of what we think we know about science and all that science has shown us to this point - and this in turn indicates that we should not become too comfortable and complacent in thinking that what we think we do know is actually correct. It seems to me that many in this forum have succumbed to that arrogance of “I know science and what you are telling me does not fit with what I know, so it cannot be true”. You asked a question before: “How do you know”? Perhaps none of us really do.

Exactly. As a professional scientist it's my job to question what we think we know. The history of science is littered with examples of our "knowledge" being completely wrong. In 1908 Sir Robert Ball (the Astronomer Royal) published a book in which he concluded that the Sun was powered by the friction of the rocks which comprised it rubbing against each other. He was "certain" of it.

But the bottom line of that argument is that just because we don't understand something doesn't mean that it isn't perfectly explicable. of course, it may prove to be inexplicable, but we can't know which it is a priori.