UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Rramjet]

ETA: We do not know that the victims did not die from their injuries. They could easily have done so. Considering their "truly horrible" state, Cowgill merely "hoped" that they would not die from their injuries. No further information is available.

 

[Toke]

A few months and lots of pages, I guess there are still no aliens?

Have Thor in his chariot been ruled out?

 

[wollery]

Welcome back – and my condolences. Are you in Beijing perchance? I will be there in April – perhaps we can meet up? Send me a PM if you’re interested.

I'm about as far away from Beijing as it's possible to get without leaving China.

You will note that immediately before presenting the dosage/symptom table the Mayo Clinic states:

” In general, the greater your radiation exposure, the more rapid and more severe your symptoms will be.”​

You will also note that the dosage/symptom table was “adapted” from information that originally came from Merck:
The damaging effects of radiation depend on several factors:
• The amount (dose)
• How rapidly the dose is received
• How much of the body is exposed
• The sensitivity of particular tissues to radiation
(…)
Symptoms depend on whether radiation exposure involves the whole body or is limited to a small portion of the body. At high doses, whole-body exposure causes acute radiation illness, and partial body exposure causes local radiation injury.

So far so good, and at least there's some detail in this website.

(…)
The hematopoietic syndrome is caused by the effects of radiation on the bone marrow, spleen, and lymph nodes—the primary sites of blood cell production (hematopoiesis). Loss of appetite (anorexia), lethargy, nausea, and vomiting may begin 1 to 6 hours after exposure to 1 to 6 Gy of radiation. These symptoms resolve within 24 to 36 hours after exposure, and people feel well for a week or more. During this symptom-free period…

Note that vomiting begins 1 to 6 hours after exposure and lasts up to 36 hours, a symptom that none of them reported. But wait, what comes after the ellipses?

the blood-producing cells in the bone marrow, spleen, and lymph nodes begin to waste away and are not replaced, leading to a severe shortage of white blood cells, followed by a shortage of platelets and then red blood cells. The shortage of white blood cells can lead to severe infections. The shortage of platelets may cause uncontrolled bleeding. The shortage of red blood cells (anemia) causes fatigue, weakness, paleness, and difficulty breathing with physical exertion. After 4 to 5 weeks, if people survive, blood cells begin to be produced once more, but people feel weak and tired for months.

Severe infections, uncontrolled bleeding, fatigue, weakness, paleness, shortness of breath from exertion. Not one of these symptoms was mentioned. And what's that last sentence again?

After 4 to 5 weeks, if people survive, blood cells begin to be produced once more, but people feel weak and tired for months.

If people survive? What's the mortality rate? Oh well, none of the victims in this case died, so it must be very low.

Or maybe it wasn't radiation poisoning.

(…)
The gastrointestinal syndrome is due to the effects of radiation on the cells lining the digestive tract. Severe nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may begin in less than 1 hour after exposure to 6 Gy or more of radiation. The symptoms may lead to severe dehydration, but they resolve within 2 days. During the next 4 or 5 days (latent stage), people feel well, but the cells lining the digestive tract, which normally act as a protective barrier, die and are shed.

No ellipses this time, but that's only because you finish with a full stop. There is more to this section,

After this time, severe diarrhea—often bloody—returns, once more resulting in dehydration. Bacteria from the digestive tract may invade the body, producing severe infections. People who have received this much radiation also develop the hematopoietic syndrome, which results in bleeding and infection and increases their risk of death. After exposure to 6 Gy or more of radiation, death is common. However, with advanced medical support, about 50% of people may survive.

Severe (often bloody) diarrhoea, severe infection, about 50% mortality rate (depends on dosage). No reporting of these symptoms, and not one of them had died about two to three weeks after exposure.

(…)
Local Radiation Injury: Radiation therapy for cancer is one of the most common causes of local radiation injuries. Other causes produce similar symptoms. Symptoms depend on the amount of radiation and the area of the body treated.
Nausea, vomiting, and loss of appetite may occur during or shortly after irradiation of the brain or abdomen. Large amounts of radiation to a limited area of the body often damage the skin over that area. Skin changes include hair loss, redness, peeling, sores, and, possibly eventual thinning of the skin and dilated blood vessels just beneath the skin's surface (spider veins).
(…)
The early symptoms of acute radiation illness–nausea, vomiting, and tremors–can also be caused by anxiety. (http://www.merckmanuals.com/home/sec24/ch292/ch292a.html) [/INDENT]
So we find that the victim’s symptoms:

Violent vomitings
Extensive swellings
Virulent sores
Loss of hair

And the course of those symptoms – including a symptom free period are entirely consistent with radiation poisoning. No matter how you spin it wollery, that fact will always remain. All you really have to do is go to the primary and scientific sources for your information (and I would avoid Wikipedia in that respect if I was you ).

So, again, you use only some of the source material to make it look as though their symptoms are consistent, but conveniently fail to include the parts that show the inconsistencies. Lots of typical symptoms that not one of them reports, and mortality rates that would lead us to wonder how it is that not one of the victims died.

Let's see if there's more info on the likelihood of any of them dying;

Prognosis

The outcome depends on the radiation dose, dose rate (how quickly the exposure occurs), and the parts of the body that are affected. Other factors include people's state of health and whether they receive medical care. In general, without medical care, half of all people who receive more than 3 Gy of whole-body radiation at once die. Nearly all people who receive more than 6 Gy die. Nearly all those who receive less than 2 Gy fully recover within 1 month, although long-term complications such as cancer may occur. With medical care, about half of people survive 6 Gy of whole-body radiation. Some people have survived doses of up to 10 Gy.

Remember I calculated, from their symptoms and the latency period, that they received a dose of about 3Gy. And remember that that dose would almost certainly have been X-Ray, gamma ray or neutrons, because they would have to pass through glass and wood. That means that they received about 3Gy of full body radiation in a short time period. So we would expect about half (maybe fewer) of them to die.

Ah, you say, but they got medical care, they were in hospital. Well, we have no idea when they actually went to hospital, but from Cowgill's phrasing, "I have visited the sufferers, who are now in one of the hospitals of this city..." Who are now in one of the hospitals of this city. That suggests that they had only gone to the hospital at a late stage in proceedings, probably only after the more serious symptoms occurred, since they report that there was no pain or discomfort from the morning after the incident until 9 days later.

And remember;

This is 1886, Venezuala we are talking about here wollery, not New York city.

What sort of medical care would they have received a few leagues from the city in Venezuela in 1886? Certainly not the sort of medical care that the Merck site is referring to. They wouldn't even have got that in the Maracaibo hospital.

So, to summarise. There are several other symptoms that are typical of radiation exposure that we would expect at least some of them to exhibit, but not one of them did. There was no pain or discomfort associated with their swellings, which we would expect. Given the sort of dosage required to produce the symptoms and the length of the latency period we would expect about half of them to die, and the time of death after exposure depends on which syndrome they have.

The cerebrovascular syndrome is fatal within hours to a few days. The gastrointestinal syndrome generally is fatal within 3 to 10 days, although some people survive for a few weeks. Many people who receive proper medical care survive the hematopoietic syndrome, depending on radiation dose and their state of health. Those who do not survive typically die within 4 to 8 weeks after exposure.

So, anywhere from days to weeks.

Maybe some of them died after Cowgill saw them. Maybe you're right and it was radiation. But, given the inconsistencies between the reported symptoms and the typical symptoms, I find it hard to understand why you're clinging so tightly to radiation as the cause? Why is it that you seem to have such a vested interest in it? After all, it's fairly implausible, and there's no need for it to be radiation for your point (that the injuries were caused by something that was non-mundane in 1886 Venezuela) to be valid.

Whatever the cause, and assuming that everyone was telling the truth, we still have no explanation for what happened.

 

[H'ethetheth]

I stated:
” It is interesting that you should note that statement from Mr Elliot. It means of course that instead of allowing Elliot to simply relate his observations without bias (as any good scientist would and should have done), it is obvious that Clarke positively pushed an explanation on Elliot!

(Imagine the outcry from the debunker's if a Ufologist had similarly pushed an "explanation" onto a witness...)”

Yes …there is that.


Not nearly to the same extent as Clarke did in positively pushing a specific explanation onto the witness, however I will concede that neither side acted in the manner that they should have in eliciting a witness statement - and that is why I withdraw the case on the grounds that it does not supply enough quality evidence for us to conclude that the sighting defies mundane explanation.

Fair enough.

In my opinion such a statement represents a “cheap shot”

Yes it was, sorry. My point is that Pope eliminated military aircraft, and apparently told Mr Elliot that it could not have been an aircraft, because he checked that.
This obviously forces Elliot to the conculsion that it wasn't an aircraft, even though Pope had not actually eliminated all aircraft.

“Convinced like that”? Mr Elliot ... was not “convinced” by Pope of anything at all except that his observations may have represented something anomalous. Mr Elliot’s observations were not affected:

As per my above explanation, yes he was. He was convinced by Pope that Pope had "ruled out" aircraft, whereas Pope had actually only ruled out military aircraft.

 

[Rramjet]

I'm about as far away from Beijing as it's possible to get without leaving China.

I’ll be visiting places other than Beijing - but a simple “Thank you, but no” would have sufficed. Oh well… one can but enquire. Let’s say no more about it then.

Note that vomiting begins 1 to 6 hours after exposure and lasts up to 36 hours, a symptom that none of them reported.

We must also note that ” Severe nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may begin in less than 1 hour after exposure to 6 Gy or more of radiation.” while remembering also that Cowgill stated that ”…their devotions were almost immediately interrupted by violent vomitings…”, so there was at least some delay - and considering the victims were “terror stricken” - the delay might have seemed to them on later retelling “almost immediate”.

But wait, what comes after the ellipses?

Severe infections, uncontrolled bleeding, fatigue, weakness, paleness, shortness of breath from exertion. Not one of these symptoms was mentioned. And what's that last sentence again?

Apart from the specific symptoms Cowgill mentions (which there can be no denying are listed symptoms of radiation poisoning) – as to their general state (fatigue, weakness, etc) - we only have Cowgill mentioning that their appearance was “truly horrible”. However, they were obviously debilitated enough to end up in hospital in that “truly horrible” state.

”After 4 to 5 weeks, if people survive, blood cells begin to be produced once more, but people feel weak and tired for months.

“If people survive”? What's the mortality rate? Oh well, none of the victims in this case died, so it must be very low.

Or maybe it wasn't radiation poisoning.

So large doses are survivable! Not only that, we do not know that the victims did not die from their injuries. They could easily have done so. Considering their "truly horrible" state, Cowgill merely "hoped" that they would not die from their injuries. No further information is available.

So maybe it was radiation poisoning!

Severe (often bloody) diarrhoea, severe infection, about 50% mortality rate (depends on dosage). No reporting of these symptoms, and not one of them had died about two to three weeks after exposure.

Cowgill was not a doctor, nor was he their nurse. Such symptoms would not have been obvious to him even if the victim’s suffered from them (and the victims would hardly have been likely to report them to him… (“Oh, by the way I also have diarrhoea…”)

But once again we must note that large doses are survivable.

So, again, you use only some of the source material to make it look as though their symptoms are consistent, but conveniently fail to include the parts that show the inconsistencies. Lots of typical symptoms that not one of them reports, and mortality rates that would lead us to wonder how it is that not one of the victims died.

What “inconsistencies”? As far as I can tell their symptoms were entirely consistent with radiation poisoning and so far you have failed to counter that.

Let's see if there's more info on the likelihood of any of them dying;

Remember I calculated, from their symptoms and the latency period, that they received a dose of about 3Gy.

The latency was (ostensibly) 9 days. Given you have no idea of the exposure time, the extent of exposure to their bodies or any individual symptom differences in the victims (and in consideration that the listed symptomatology, course and durations are only a “general” guide) this “calculation” by you was probably built on a number of potentially error filled assumptions. You do know about error margins don’t you – of course you do… can you supply them for your calculations?

And remember that that dose would almost certainly have been X-Ray, gamma ray or neutrons, because they would have to pass through glass and wood. That means that they received about 3Gy of full body radiation in a short time period. So we would expect about half (maybe fewer) of them to die.

Perhaps you might expect that – in the real world we cannot be certain.

Ah, you say, but they got medical care, they were in hospital. Well, we have no idea when they actually went to hospital, but from Cowgill's phrasing, "I have visited the sufferers, who are now in one of the hospitals of this city..." Who are now in one of the hospitals of this city. That suggests that they had only gone to the hospital at a late stage in proceedings, probably only after the more serious symptoms occurred, since they report that there was no pain or discomfort from the morning after the incident until 9 days later.

Yes, there was a latency period. So note the following carefully. There were the initial symptoms of vomiting and swelling, etc., then a latency period, then hospital and the virulent sores, etc. Now what does that sound like? Radiation poisoning perchance?

What sort of medical care would they have received a few leagues from the city in Venezuela in 1886? Certainly not the sort of medical care that the Merck site is referring to. They wouldn't even have got that in the Maracaibo hospital.

Right – and they were in a “truly horrible” state and it was “hoped” that none of them would die… (perhaps some of them or all of them did die… we just don’t know).

So, to summarise. There are several other symptoms that are typical of radiation exposure that we would expect at least some of them to exhibit, but not one of them did.

You do not know that at all. Cowgill reports the major symptoms, but as for the other symptoms he would have needed to be a doctor or one of the victim’s carers to note them.

There was no pain or discomfort associated with their swellings, which we would expect.

What? Swelling, blackened skin turning to virulent sores…etc …and they were not in pain or discomfort. I think it goes without saying …well Cowgill does say - they were in a “truly horrible” state.

Given the sort of dosage required to produce the symptoms and the length of the latency period we would expect about half of them to die, and the time of death after exposure depends on which syndrome they have.

Again ...perhaps some (or all) of them did die …but even Merck notes that there is only a 50% motality rate – even at large doses.

Maybe some of them died after Cowgill saw them.

Now you are getting it.

Maybe you're right and it was radiation.

The symptoms closely match radiation poisoning – right down to a latency period! (and there existing a latency period in this case is quite telling in regards to the plausibility of the radiation hypothesis).

But, given the inconsistencies between the reported symptoms and the typical symptoms…

You have not demonstrated that at all. ALL the symptoms they had (that Cowgill noted) are listed radiation sickness symptoms – right down to a latency period!

I find it hard to understand why you're clinging so tightly to radiation as the cause?

I know you do…

Why is it that you seem to have such a vested interest in it?

Because… ALL the symptoms they had are listed radiation sickness symptoms – right down to a latency period!

After all, it's fairly implausible…

Oh, you are absolutely spot on there! Radiation poisoning in rural Venezuela in 1886?

…and there's no need for it to be radiation for your point (that the injuries were caused by something that was non-mundane in 1886 Venezuela) to be valid.

No – the case simply defies mundane explanation!

Whatever the cause, and assuming that everyone was telling the truth, we still have no explanation for what happened.

Right – the case simply defies mundane explanation.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Right – the case simply defies mundane explanation.

You thought that about Delphos Kansas also.

Would you care to discuss where you went wrong with Delphos? I think it's important to show how your version of a process of elimination is flawed so that you don't continue to make the same fatal errors.

Don't you think that's important if you want to claim to conduct objective investigations? I'm sure you wouldn't want to be known for making unfounded assertions, would you?

 

[SOdhner]

Right – the case simply defies mundane explanation.

I've already shown that that isn't the case.

Rramjet, I see you still haven't responded to MY POST. Does this mean you are conceding that the letter being factually inaccurate (for example, due to a hoax) is a plausible explanation?

 

[Jocce]

So maybe it was radiation poisoning!

Only if you completely ignore the progressive development of symptoms. Like you do.

 

[Jocce]

No matter how you spin it Jocce, that is the bottom line here. There IS a difference between the KNOWNS and the UNKNOWNS

And, as the authors write, it's not big enough to confirm or deny that UNKNOWNS are primarily unidentified KNOWNS, considering the quality of the data. Read page 68 for two possible mundane reasons why the groups might look different in the chi square analysis.

With regard to your “subjectivity of data” statement we must note that the more reliable the report, the more likely it was that it would be categorised as UNKNOWN

Unidentified objects are found in equal proportion in poor and excellent reports: ~38%.
Unidentified objects are found in equal proportion in doubtful and good reports: ~28%.

With regard to your question about the statistical significance of the trend in the data (that the more reliable the report, the greater the percentage of UNKNOWNS), I noted that such a question was literally senseless. That is, it makes no sense in any statistical or practical terms to ask such a question.

Yawn... is it a random variation or statistically significant? Just answer the question. It's kinda boring to ask the same thing over and over again and just get the same nonsense replies.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Right – the case simply defies mundane explanation.

This is the same mistake you keep making - I can only assume wilfully. "We still have no explanation for what happened" is a very different statement from "the case simply defies mundane explanation". They're not the same thing at all, and you do yourself no favours whatsoever by consistently conflating the two.

 

[Rramjet]

Rramjet, I see you still haven't responded to MY POST.

I have responded to that issue raised in your post. Your post is a long and rambling one that repeats its ideas endlessly over and over… with the only substantive point being that the Venezuelan case is a hoax. It contains nothing else of substance. However as you obviously have not read my replies to others on that issue (and their replies in return - showing how it is not a hoax), and lest I be accused of making a mere unfounded assertion here, let’s see what your post really contains.

First up I point to a number of my posts that address your issues and you reply:

Those all link to the same post...

Ooops, I made a mistake in linking – sorry – nevertheless you could have addressed yourself to the first linked post.

…which has no evidence whatsoever that the letter is a genuine account of events and which I already replied to. Insisting that that post contains evidence doesn't somehow make it true.

It does contain evidence and points you in the direction of more. Have another look. HERE.

You need to show what TYPE and DOSAGE of radiation would cause these symptoms if you want anyone to accept this theory

All I have noted is that the symtptomatology of the victims matches the listed symptomatology of radiation sickness (right down to a latency period) – and have provided the evidence to support that contention (for example in THIS post and THIS post).

A good plausible explanation is that the letter is not factually accurate.

I have directed you to at least one post that counters that argument and points you toward more evidence to counter it.

SOME of the symptoms were similar, but there are more differences than similarities.

This again is mere unfounded assertion. You need to support your claims with evidence or they will be dismissed as unfounded. See also THIS post and THIS post.

…you don't believe that aliens of some sort have been visiting us, but you will argue that they are in this and other threads?

Unfounded assertion. I have never proposed that the ETH is the correct hypothesis.

Saying that it defies MUNDANE explanation makes no more sense than saying is defies NON-MUNDANE explanation.

I am not contending it defies “non-mundane” explanation – and as far as I know no-one has ever (until you came along) used such a phrase. Perhaps you can explain its meaning?

So to say that I have somehow eliminated all mundane explanations is an act of total arrogance…

Eliminated all plausible mundane explanations…

…it presumes that I can somehow be confident that I have accurately accounted for and assessed a nearly unlimited field of unknowns

Not unlimited. The world is finite and indeed our knowledge of it is finite – which is why the child’s game of Twenty Questions (Animal, Mineral, Vegetable?) – using the process of elimination - works so well.

Either it has been explained, or it has so far defied explanation. I don't understand why you insist on putting extra words in there.

I say the case simply defies mundane explanation. It is a factual statement that has so far stood the test of time.

It is possible to write letters that contain inaccurate information, and in fact has been done many times.

Possible yes. Plausible in Cowgill’s case? No.

It is possible to make up stories about lights and smells and people getting sick, and similar stories have been made up many times.

This is the same point as above, so see above.

Made-up stories can take the same form as this letter (that of a second-hand account with no specific explanation given for the event), and have done so many times

This is the same point as above, so see above.

There is no corroborating evidence.

We have the evidence that has been outlined in this thread extensively. Read back over it. All previous contributors to this debate have concluded the letter is genuine and they have done so on the evidence. The evidence is available in this thread over the last number of pages (if memory serves beginning on page 199, post #7940 is the first listing of the case). I can only suggest you go back and bring yourself up to speed with the debate.

I could speculate on specific motivations, but I don't know enough to do so with any certainty and so it would be pointless.

Then I suggest you go back and bring yourself up to speed on the debate before making further comment.

If Cowgill wrote the letter (as it seems he may have) I would have to try and find primary sources about his personality and I'm not sure any exist, nor do I have the time and resources to track them down.

It does exist – in this thread (begin at page 199, post #7940) so please go back and follow the debate through.

You then go on to list possible reasons for a hoax and conclude:

The fact is, Rramjet, that the letter or testimony or whatever being a hoax or otherwise inaccurate will always be a plausible explanation unless you have some corroborating evidence.

Please …go back and bring yourself up to speed on the debate. All who have examined the letter have concluded it is genuine (bar none) even on the broader internet outside this forum… The simple fact is that all the evidence points to it being genuine and none toward a hoax. We have acted and concluded on the evidence here – not idle and unfounded speculation.

Those quotes from you (admittedly taken out of context for this point) are all accurate and true. We don't have evidence for "aliens". We don't know what the explanation for these cases are. In all these cases, the answer is "I don't know".

Not exactly. We don’t have direct evidence for the ETH as being the correct explanatory hypothesis. We have lots of circumstantial evidence, but that is not enough to draw the positive conclusion. We can however draw a different conclusion and that is: The cases I have presented simply defy mundane explanation.

I can show that my THEORY is both possible and plausible, but it's not likely that I will be able to conclusively prove that the letter was a joke or a hoax or something.

Indeed and all the evidence points toward the letter not being a hoax. Please go back and bring yourself up to speed on the debate.

For "aliens" to be the answer, we would need to first show that they are possible and plausible and you haven't done either…

I have never claimed the ETH to be the explanation. Nevertheless it is a possible explanation and it is certainly plausible to imagine that if an advanced ET civilisation existed, then they could visit earth.

…but even if you had you would want to show that it is MORE plausible than the letter being, simply, wrong

You have been flipping back and forth between disconnected ideas here, until finally I am not sure if this one actually makes sense.

My explanation requires someone to be lying. People lie all the time.

It is possible. In the case of Cowgill and the letter however it is not plausible. All the evidence points toward the letter being genuine. Please go back and bring yourself up to speed on the debate.

Yours requires some sort of "alien" presence that wasn't described in the letter…

I have never claimed ET as an explanation for the Venezuelan incident. Please go back and bring yourself up to speed on the debate.

… and that we know nothing about such that it still fails to explain the symptoms in any way. Which one makes more sense? Which one is more plausible?

I presume you mean my reference to the Cash/Landrum case in which a UFO did produce similar symptoms? I was merely showing that the link to a UFO in the Venezuelan case is therefore a possibility. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Rramjet, your posting style largely consists of quoting things endlessly. To say that suddenly you are unable to do so seems suspicious.

I am not going to repost 20 pages of various posts and argument on the case when all you have to do is read back over them. Please go back and bring yourself up to speed on the debate.

 

[Rramjet]

This is the same mistake you keep making - I can only assume wilfully. "We still have no explanation for what happened" is a very different statement from "the case simply defies mundane explanation". They're not the same thing at all, and you do yourself no favours whatsoever by consistently conflating the two.

I contended the case simply defies mundane explanation (to be precise I should have stated that it simply defies plausible mundane explanation) however, my point stands. If you can come up with a plausible mundane explanation that would falsify my contention - then feel free.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I contended the case simply defies mundane explanation (to be precise I should have stated that it simply defies plausible mundane explanation) however, my point stands. If you can come up with a plausible mundane explanation that would falsify my contention - then feel free.

No, you are incorrect. You made an unfounded assertion that it defies mundane explanations, plausible or not. As has been proven (by you!), your version of a process of elimination is fatally flawed. You have no way of ruling out mundane explanations.

You still have the burden of proof. Try again.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I contended the case simply defies mundane explanation [..]

Something you've not demonstrated, and something which wasn't said by wollery who you quoted as agreeing with you.

[...](to be precise I should have stated that it simply defies plausible mundane explanation)[...]

Something you've also not demonstrated.

[...]however, my point stands.

Your point was that wollery agreed with you because he had said that we didn't know the explanation at this time. He doesn't, and he didn't say the words you attributed to him. Your point, therefore, was wrong.

If you can come up with a plausible mundane explanation that would falsify my contention - then feel free.

Whether I know what the explanation is is an entirely different question as to whether a mundane (or "plausible mundane", if you prefer) explanation exists. The same goes for everyone and everyone - not knowing a mundane explanation doesn't mean that a mundane explanation doesn't exist - just that we don't know what it is. Jumping from one to another is a huge leap, one which is not warranted and which makes you look either credulous or dishonest.

 

[Toke]

I would like to introduce a new case for study, in particular I would like to study RR's ability/willingness to accept mundane explanations.

http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/virginia/video-blue-colored-ufo-in-centreville-110410

 

[SOdhner]

However as you obviously have not read my replies to others on that issue (and their replies in return - showing how it is not a hoax),

A link would be great, I've been asking for one for quite a while now. I've read through multiple times, as so far as I can tell the evidence you keep referring to simply isn't here. Is it possible you are thinking of some other case or a different conversation?

Ooops, I made a mistake in linking – sorry –

No problem! Which posts did you intend to link to? Possibly those will be more helpful.

nevertheless you could have addressed yourself to the first linked post.

I did. You even quoted me pointing that out. It's the second post after the one you linked.

It does contain evidence and points you in the direction of more. Have another look. HERE.

Okay, I read it yet again. It still doesn't contain any evidence that the letter wasn't a hoax. It links to two people discussing the case, one of which says he's prepared to believe that Cowgill wrote the letter but then says "it can still be a hoax", and the other says that addresses claims in the letter "assuming that he is telling the truth." Neither gives any evidence that the letter is factually accurate, they just show a willingness to avoid the issue for sake of discussion.

All I have noted is that the symtptomatology of the victims matches the listed symptomatology of radiation sickness (right down to a latency period)

What specific TYPE and DOSEAGE?

I have directed you to at least one post that counters that argument and points you toward more evidence to counter it.

You've directed me repeatedly to a single post of yours that refers to two posters who, as I showed in my reply and again above, don't actually suggest any reason that the letter can't be factually inaccurate.

Unfounded assertion. I have never proposed that the ETH is the correct hypothesis.

You've said, in the OP and elsewhere, that you are presenting evidence for "aliens" of whatever sort. If I say I'm going to present evidence for elephants and then point to an unexplained sighting of something in the woods, it is clearly implied that I'm saying the unexplained thing was an elephant.

I am not contending it defies “non-mundane” explanation

Nobody said you were, Rramjet. You may want to re-read what I wrote.

Eliminated all plausible mundane explanations…

Still the same problem, even if you add that word in.

Not unlimited.

That's why I said NEARLY unlimited.

The world is finite and indeed our knowledge of it is finite – which is why the child’s game of Twenty Questions (Animal, Mineral, Vegetable?) – using the process of elimination - works so well.

Bolding is mine. With your limited knowledge you cannot rule out all plausible mundane explanations. I've given examples to show why in the post you are responding to, but you seem to have ignored them.

I say the case simply defies mundane explanation. It is a factual statement that has so far stood the test of time.

Demonstrably false.

Possible yes. Plausible in Cowgill’s case? No.

This is an unfounded assertion.

All previous contributors to this debate have concluded the letter is genuine and they have done so on the evidence.

This is also demonstrably false:

Hoaxed letter. Your process failed.

The evidence is available in this thread

No, it's not.

Then I suggest you go back and bring yourself up to speed on the debate before making further comment.

That comment implies that you think Cowgill's specific motivations for writing the letter are contained in this conversation. That's not the case, however, so telling me to re-read doesn't help.

All who have examined the letter have concluded it is genuine (bar none) even on the broader internet outside this forum…

As already shown, that's wrong.

We have acted and concluded on the evidence here – not idle and unfounded speculation.

There is evidence of the letter itself having been written, and there is evidence of Cowgill being a real person. Taken together, it is highly plausible that he really was the author of the letter.

You have ZERO evidence that the letter is factually accurate. For that, you merely have idle speculation.

Indeed and all the evidence points toward the letter not being a hoax. Please go back and bring yourself up to speed on the debate.

You keep saying variations on this (some of which I haven't bothered to quote so as to keep this reply at a reasonable length). I've asked you for evidence, any evidence at all, of the claims that you have made - namely that there is evidence for the letter being factually accurate. You have not produced this evidence, and keep acting like the burden of proof is on me. It's not. I've read through multiple times, and the evidence you refer to is quite simply not contained in this thread. Telling me to read everything for a fifth time won't change that.

it is certainly plausible to imagine that if an advanced ET civilisation existed, then they could visit earth.

Meh. Too little information. You're going from an assumption that is wholly unproved (an ET Civilization exists at the same time as ours) and further assuming that they would have the means and the inclination to visit us, and then further assuming that they would make the trip successfully. That's a heck of a stretch. Possible? Sure. Plausible? Not particularly.

You have been flipping back and forth between disconnected ideas here, until finally I am not sure if this one actually makes sense.

It does. What I'm saying is that even if your theory was plausible, since it isn't backed by any kind of evidence it might still be less plausible than other theories. If I have no evidence for the letter being inaccurate and you have no evidence for the letter being both accurate and the result of a UFO (something not even mentioned in the letter) then while we both have no solid evidence to support us mine is still far more plausible.

I have never claimed ET as an explanation for the Venezuelan incident.

Then it's off-topic in this thread, since it doesn't ever mention a UFO. Why would you even bring it up?

I presume you mean my reference to the Cash/Landrum case in which a UFO did produce similar symptoms? I was merely showing that the link to a UFO in the Venezuelan case is therefore a possibility. Nothing more. Nothing less.

The symptoms weren't that similar. It's an incredibly weak link. I wouldn't actually call it a link at all.

So... I'm still waiting for this evidence you insist exists that shows the letter is factually accurate, or some other explanation of why that isn't a plausible mundane explanation.

 

[Rramjet]

Your point was that wollery agreed with you because he had said that we didn't know the explanation at this time. He doesn't, and he didn't say the words you attributed to him. Your point, therefore, was wrong.

LOL. I directly quoted him… and my point was that wollery agreed that the letter was, on the evidence, not a hoax. He agreed with nothing more, nothing less.

Whether I know what the explanation is is an entirely different question as to whether a mundane (or "plausible mundane", if you prefer) explanation exists. The same goes for everyone and everyone - not knowing a mundane explanation doesn't mean that a mundane explanation doesn't exist - just that we don't know what it is. Jumping from one to another is a huge leap, one which is not warranted and which makes you look either credulous or dishonest.

When I state that a case defies plausible mundane explanation - I mean the observed characteristics do not fit with anything we know about the natural or technological world. In the Venezuelan case this simply means that we have a description of injuries that closely matches radiation sickness (right down to a latency period), ruling out any other cause, yet how could that be possible in 1886 Venezuela? It should not be possible – yet there are no other plausible mundane explanations that fit the evidence. The case therefore simply defies plausible mundane explanation.

I would like to introduce a new case for study, in particular I would like to study RR's ability/willingness to accept mundane explanations.

http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/virginia/video-blue-colored-ufo-in-centreville-110410

A blue light in the sky on Fox news? That does not really meet my criteria of defying plausible mundane explanation. I mean perhaps someone got a radio-controlled plane with a blue light on it up there as a hoax or something – it didn’t really do anything unusual except glide about a little. In fact I would contend it’s movement was not at all typical of a genuine UFO. It seems to me however that it was typical of some fool attempting a hoax – and working from that plausible mundane hypothesis I mean fool as in what if he had lost control of the thing and it caused an accident… (say the blue light failed and he lost sight of it and it fell and seriously injured someone)? There’s just no accounting for the dangerous idiocy of some people.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

LOL. I directly quoted him… and my point was that wollery agreed that the letter was, on the evidence, not a hoax.

Firstly, no that was not your point. Your point was that he had agreed that the case "defies mundane explanation". Which he had not.

Secondly, even if you were now telling the truth - which you are not - then your point would also be wrong, as wollery didn't even come close to agreeing that the letter wasn't a hoax.

Honestly, I wonder why you try debating like this. It's not as if your posts aren't there for everyone to read. Seriously, who do you think you're going to fool?

When I state that a case defies plausible mundane explanation - I mean the observed characteristics do not fit with anything we know about the natural or technological world.

A conclusion which is not warranted for any of the cases you have thus far presented.

 

[Jocce]

When I state that a case defies plausible mundane explanation - I mean the observed characteristics do not fit with anything we know about the natural or technological world.

It doesn't fit anything YOU know about the natural or technological world, which is the problem of your process of elimination in a nutshell.

In the Venezuelan case this simply means that we have a description of injuries that closely matches radiation sickness (right down to a latency period)

A lie doesn't become true by repeating it. This has been show incorrect so many times now that it's laughable that you even continue with the same claim.

 

[Toke]

A blue light in the sky on Fox news? That does not really meet my criteria of defying plausible mundane explanation. I mean perhaps someone got a radio-controlled plane with a blue light on it up there as a hoax or something – it didn’t really do anything unusual except glide about a little. In fact I would contend it’s movement was not at all typical of a genuine UFO. It seems to me however that it was typical of some fool attempting a hoax – and working from that plausible mundane hypothesis I mean fool as in what if he had lost control of the thing and it caused an accident… (say the blue light failed and he lost sight of it and it fell and seriously injured someone)? There’s just no accounting for the dangerous idiocy of some people.

RC-planes do not move like that, but I am glad to see you are willing to consider other options that aliens.

That does not really meet my criteria of defying plausible mundane explanation

I take your criteria is that it have appeared on a ufo-site?