UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[RoboTimbo]

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.

What 20 questions did you ask and who provided the answers? I think if we work together, we can determine where you went wrong.

If you'd prefer to start with Delphos Kansas, we can do that one instead. You seem to have dropped that one like a hot potato. Did you learn some new information that caused you to revise your "There is not plausible mundane explanation" stance?

 

[Rramjet]

I stated:
”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?

First, it is you who seem to be drawing a link between ET and UFOs, not I. In this thread I have actually been trying to break that (seemingly automatic) link in people’s minds made between UFOs and ET. We have no direct evidence that the ETH is the correct hypothetical explanation for UFOs.

Second, I raised the case to demonstrate that anomalous reports pre-date the UFO debunker inspired “popular/cultural” explanation for UFOs post the late 1940’s. That is, here was a case that resembled UFO reports in many aspects, yet did not even mention UFOs or consider them as likely factors. It was the very fact that UFOs were not mentioned (and therefore could not have been inspired by popular culture) that was the reason I cited the case. I also noted that the victim’s symptoms resembled those of victims in a later case (the Cash/Landrum incident) where a UFO was noted as the causal factor.

I stated:

“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.

Anyone following this debate would immediately recognise that statement as false: That is:

…I have neither the time nor inclination to argue this Venezuelan thing with you all over again, The case has been debated extensively and recently in this thread over the last few pages - and of those who have been most closely involved in that debate the consensus is that the letter is not a hoax. For example:

Fwiw, I do belive that the letter is genuine based on the discussions of it and the author in other places. F ex. http://genforum.genealogy.com/cowgill/messages/348.html

To whit, I read Cowgill's letter again, and I noticed something very interesting - a simply stated fact that potentially gives far more weight to them telling the truth than anything you've argued.

There are many reasons for both myself and these good people coming to those conclusions (that the letter is not a hoax) - and these reasons are outlined in the previous few pages in this thread (beginning on page 199). The best advice I can offer you at this point is to go back and follow the debate through and then draw your own conclusions.

Now wollery went on to state (in a subsequent post after outlining his reason why he surmised the letter not to be a hoax:

Right, having just written a post that shows it's more likely that the family in the Maracaibo incident were telling the truth…

So both Jocce and wollery had reasons for taking the letter as genuine – what they disagreed with me about was that the case defied plausible mundane explanation (and they disagree that the symptoms match those of radiation sickness).

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?

Strange, I was thinking the very same thing – perhaps I am psychic! LOL.

I stated:
”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.

Oh not just me, the cases I have been presenting have been around for quite some time and have been extensively researched and examined by many people over the interval since and no-one has yet been able to come up with plausible mundane explanations for them. Perhaps though …you can?

I stated:
”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.

To demonstrate the false nature of that statement form you I will simply present the evidence. First:

Symptomatology and progression of same in the Venezuelan case(http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG):

Violent vomitings
Extensive swellings
Large black blotches
Virulent sores
Loss of hair​

Among other symptoms, from the University of Maryland Medical Centre we have under "Radiation sickness - Symptoms":

(…)
• Nausea and vomiting
• Inflammation of exposed areas (redness, tenderness, swelling, bleeding)
• Skin burns (redness, blistering)
• Open sores on the skin
• Hair loss
(…)
(http://www.umm.edu/ency/article/000026sym.htm)​

Now there are many other symptoms in that list I have not included and while cases of radiation sickness may vary in specific symptom presentation - depending on dose and level of exposure to different parts of the body and even individual differences (and various websites will list differing combinations of symptoms and doses – leaving some out – including others) – the point is that the specific symptomatology and general progression of same experienced in the Venezuelan case ARE recognised radiation poisoning symptoms!

To contend otherwise (as you obviously do) is to simply deny the well established scientific evidence! However, at this point it no longer surprises me that a UFO debunker would do that.

Second:

...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.
(…)
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…
(…)
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.
(…)
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)​

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.

Oh, and before I let you go, I really should directly counter another false statement of yours Jocce:

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%.

I stated:
” 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.

Or is it simply the case that no matter what I say – even if I come up with a plausible mundane explanation (as I have done in this case) – the UFO debunkers will simply oppose it with unfounded assertion? RC-planes do not move like that? Please… what is your explanation for the case then?

I stated:
”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?

This case has appeared on numerous “UFO sites” – so immediately your statement is falsified.

If you'd prefer to start with Delphos Kansas, we can do that one instead. You seem to have dropped that one like a hot potato. Did you learn some new information that caused you to revise your "There is not plausible mundane explanation" stance?

LOL. Not me:

Perhaps if you cease asking questions I have already answered I might be able to present some new information. Perhaps if you actually addressed yourself to the substance of my replies, then we might be able to move forward with the debate (Instead of merely replying “No, it does not work”, perhaps you can actually explain why you think it does not so that we have some substance in the debate to work with?).

In the interests of injecting some new material into the debate, lets; try a little process of elimination on this case:

The Delphos Kansas UFO Landing (11 Feb 1971)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/Kansas.html)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case192.htm)

Did it have wings? Obviously not an aeroplane then. What about its size? Six to eight feet in diameter! Obviously not a helicopter, hot air balloon, dirigible or blimp… and what about manoeuvrability? Can’t conclude much from that …small military experimental hovercraft perhaps? But then why would this guy (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-447317/The-flying-saucer-snapped-US-army.html) win a contract with the US government in 2007 if they already had them in 1971?! (and why the excitement over this little number - http://news.ninemsn.com.au/glanceview/144164/new-firefighting-tool-could-save-lives.glance ?) And what about the brightness of the light… Okay, so what about a hoax? But then you have to account for the physical trace evidence – the “ring” on the ground, the glowing substance… the ring was ”vegetal in nature and belonged to an organism of the order of Actinomycetales…” ” Actinomycetaceae is a family of bacteria in the order that contains the medically important genus Actinomyces.” (http://zipcodezoo.com/Key/Bacteria/Actinomycetaceae_Family.asp) and “morphologically Actinomyces colonies form fungus-like branched networks of hyphae (…) Actinomyces are known for causing disease in humans, and for the important role they play in soil ecology” (http://zipcodezoo.com/Key/Bacteria/Actinomyces_Genus.asp#cite_note-Holt_1994-0). So rings? And what of the nature of that ring? ” The circle was still very distinct and plain to see. the soil was dried and crusted. The circle or ring was approximately 8 feet across, the center of the ring and the outside area were still muddy from recent rains. The area of the ring that was dried was about a foot across and was very light in color. (…) Further experimentation showed the ground under the ring to be dry to a depth of one foot. The ring itself was composed of a whitish substance, which was sent to a laboratory for analysis.” (http://www.ufocasebook.com/Kansas.html), yet ” One of those ingredients turns out to be bacteria with a pretty unpronounceable name - actinomycetes. These bacteria flourish in damp, warm soils. (…) Actinomycetes bacteria mean healthy soil and healthy people. Researchers have isolated several antibiotics from ordinary garden dirt. Something to think about the next time you take a stroll after a rainstorm.” (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12716163). This ring was hardly “healthy soil” and Actinomycetes have never been noted to grow into a ring of dry, hydrophilic soil such as was noted. So very strange indeed.

All this tends to rule our plausible mundane explanations as a cause. Perhaps though I have missed something? If so, I have no doubt someone will be able to inform me…

I might also note that, consideration of the 8ft diameter UFO “landing” ring, how do you explain that, on investigation, it was dried out to a depth of about one foot? Did the family get their mother’s hairdryer out? Remember also there had also been some significant rain – yet the ring remained dry – it was positively hydrophilic – and remained dry for an extended period – even after subsequent snow falls….

"The inside and outside of the ring was damp from a rain shower, but the exterior of the ring was amazingly dry. The ring had a crusty appearance, as though the rain had simply ran off, leaving it bone dry.

Slightly over a month later, after a snow fall, the white ice had melted both inside and outside of the ring, but the ring itself maintained the snow drift. Investigators experimented with the ring by removing snow from a section of it, and pouring water on the exposed part. The soil would not allow the water to pass through."
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/Kansas.html)​

 

[RoboTimbo]

LOL. Not me:

I might also note that, consideration of the 8ft diameter UFO “landing” ring, how do you explain that, on investigation, it was dried out to a depth of about one foot? Did the family get their mother’s hairdryer out? Remember also there had also been some significant rain – yet the ring remained dry – it was positively hydrophilic – and remained dry for an extended period – even after subsequent snow falls….

"The inside and outside of the ring was damp from a rain shower, but the exterior of the ring was amazingly dry. The ring had a crusty appearance, as though the rain had simply ran off, leaving it bone dry.

Slightly over a month later, after a snow fall, the white ice had melted both inside and outside of the ring, but the ring itself maintained the snow drift. Investigators experimented with the ring by removing snow from a section of it, and pouring water on the exposed part. The soil would not allow the water to pass through."
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/Kansas.html)​

Yes, it was a fairy ring of a known fungus.

How did you eliminate hoaxing on the boy's part? Or did you eliminate that?

 

[wollery]

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.

I'm perfectly happy to meet up with you. You said you were going to Beijing, and I live more than 3 hours flight from Beijing (3 days by train!), which would make meeting impossible. Of course, if you're going to be travelling around then that's different. If you're going to be in my neck of the woods (Kunming, Yunnan) then pm me.

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”.

So, now you are suggesting that they received 6Gy or more of radiation?

Okay, let's run with that idea. Remember, they were almost certainly exposed to Gamma, X-ray or neutron radiation, and it was almost certainly whole body exposure. There's no other way they could all have been exposed in such an equal way inside their hut when the source was outside.

What does UMMs website have to say about such a dosage?

Total body exposure of 400 roentgens (or 4 Gy) causes radiation sickness and death in half the individuals. Without medical treatment, nearly everyone who receives more than this amount of radiation will die within 30 days.

Doesn't sound good.

How about the Merck site?

hematopoietic syndrome.......
nausea, and vomiting may begin 1 to 6 hours after exposure to 1 to 6 Gy of radiation.

gastrointestinal syndrome........
Severe nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may begin in less than 1 hour after exposure to 6 Gy or more of radiation.

After exposure to 6 Gy or more of radiation, death is common. However, with advanced medical support, about 50% of people may survive.

Prognosis........
Nearly all people who receive more than 6 Gy die.

With medical care, about half of people survive 6 Gy of whole-body radiation.

That sounds pretty grim. But look, with medical care about half of people survive 6Gy exposure. So what medical care would that be? Well, you can read it for yourself, but it includes; intravenous fluids, antibiotics (orally and/or intravenously, depending on type of exposure), antiemetics, blood growth factors....

Were any of these available in 1886 Venezuela?

And from the Merck website, on a different page;

http://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/sec21/ch317/ch317a.html#CHDCIEIA

Onset of vomiting with whole body doses of 6 to 8 Gy is

10-60 min

Which means that the lower dose should correspond to the longer time period. Would you describe about 60 minutes as "almost immediate", even in a confused state?

How long does the initial bout of vomiting last?

< 48 h

i.e., up to 48 hours.

And there's more;

The GI syndrome is the dominant manifestation after whole-body doses of about 6 to 30 Gy. Prodromal symptoms, often marked, develop within about 1 h and resolve within 2 days. During the latent period of 4 to 5 days, GI mucosal cells die. Cell death is followed by intractable nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, which lead to severe dehydration and electrolyte imbalances, diminished plasma volume, and vascular collapse. Necrosis of intestine may also occur, predisposing to bacteremia and sepsis.

A latency period of 4 to 5 days, not the nine days that were reported in Venezuela.

And what's the mortality rate without appropriate medical treatment (which wouldn't have been available to them)?

95–100%

Even with appropriate treatment it's 50–100%

And what's the life expectancy from exposure?

2–4 wk

That's 2 to 4 weeks after exposure.

And the overt symptoms after the latency period include high fever, disorientation, and vomiting.

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.

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.

Large doses are survivable if you have immediate appropriate treatment, which includes antibiotics, intravenous fluids, antiemetics and blood growth factors. Any chance they got any of that?

So maybe it was radiation poisoning!

And maybe it wasn't.

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…”)

High fever and disorientation are pretty obvious, even to an untrained eye, and since he didn't visit them until well after the end of the nine day latency period, and didn't write the letter until a full calendar month after the incident, a dose of 6 Gy would have probably killed at least one of them by the time he visited and would almost certainly have killed at least half of them well before he sent his letter. And why wouldn't they mention that they'd started vomiting again, which is common in GI syndrome.

So, a dose of 6 Gy is utterly implausible.

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

And again I note, only with appropriate and immediate medical treatment, which they wouldn't have got.

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.

The latency periods and the symptoms don't marry up. They should have been vomiting for at least 24 hours, but only mention one bout of vomiting immediately after exposure, despite talking about the symptoms they experienced following day.

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.

It was educated guesswork, using the wiki table (which is copied wholesale from the Merck table I linked to above), and based on the description of the symptoms and the latency period. Note that hair loss requires about 3 Gy, and the minimum latency period (for, we assume 6 Gy is 7 days).

You do know about error margins don’t you – of course you do… can you supply them for your calculations?

Of course not, because I don't have access to any sort of high quality information. Everything about this case is guesswork based on vague second-hand descriptions. Even your conclusions.

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

In the real world they wouldn't have received any appropriate medical attention.

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?

Apart from the fact that the latency period doesn't fit with the timing of the vomiting, that they reported that the swellings didn't cause discomfort until the sores erupted and that we have no idea when they entered 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).

With a dose of 6 Gy the life expectancy is 2 to 4 weeks.

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.

High fever, disorientation, vomiting.....

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.

There was no discomfort associated with the swellings until they erupted into sores. Radiation induced swellings are painful, like a bad sunburn. Ever had sunburn? Would you describe it as giving "no discomfort"?

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.

With immediate and appropriate medical treatment.

Cling to the idea that it was radiation if you want, but I think that I've demonstrated that it's an implausible explanation.

 

[wollery]

For the record.

I never said that the evidence showed that the letter wasn't a hoax.

I said that assuming Cowgill was telling the truth then the evidence within the letter suggested that the family's account was not made up.

 

[Toke]

Ramjet,
I am a bit curious about your "meet my criteria of defying plausible mundane explanation".

You write off this blue light rather quickly, without coming up with any plausible explanation. I guess you suspect (correctly) that since I brought it up there is a good mundane explanation, even if it does not involve RC-planes or blimps.Why don't you apply this cursory dismissal, or just willingness to consider the mundane, to other strange sights in the sky?

 

[Jocce]

So both Jocce and wollery had reasons for taking the letter as genuine – what they disagreed with me about was that the case defied plausible mundane explanation (and they disagree that the symptoms match those of radiation sickness).

Just to clarify, here's what I wrote before:
"Fwiw, I do belive that the letter is genuine based on the discussions of it and the author in other places. F ex. http://genforum.genealogy.com/cowgill/messages/348.html

Of course, it can still be a hoax but I'm prepared to believe that Warner actually wrote this."

Oh, and before I let you go, I really should directly counter another false statement of yours Jocce:

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%.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=654&pictureid=4308

How is that a false statement and exactly how does linking an image refute it?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I stated:

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

I must have misunderstood you. When you said "right - the case simply defies mundane explanation", I read the "right" as indicating that you thought wollery agreed with you, rather than just a general exclamation. I see now that you use "right" in that context a lot. I apologise.

 

[SOdhner]

In this thread I have actually been trying to break that (seemingly automatic) link in people’s minds made between UFOs and ET. We have no direct evidence that the ETH is the correct hypothetical explanation for UFOs.

You keep doing this thing where I refer to "aliens" as mentioned and defined in your first post, and then in your reply you change it to ET and say you never said that had anything to do with anything. If this is because you think ET and "aliens" are equivalent that's fine although I will once again point you to your own first post where you suggest that these cases are evidence for "aliens". If you don't think they are the same thing, then this is some sort of bizzarre straw man argument.

That is, here was a case that resembled UFO reports in many aspects, yet did not even mention UFOs or consider them as likely factors.

This is true of anything with a strange light, though. There are so many different UFO stories out there that anything where the tale can be boiled down to "I saw something strange at night" can (by this standard) be used as either a UFO story or an "alien" story. The fact remains that the letter never described or even implied any object at all, let alone a flying one.

This is quite simply not a story about an unidentified flying object.

But you know what? I don't care about that - I think it's strange that you and so many others count this as a UFO story, I don't think that that is warranted, but it doesn't really make much of a difference to me since the most likely explanation is that the letter itself is not factually accurate. You haven't replied to that part of my post, however, so until you do so that part of the discussion can't continue.

So both Jocce and wollery had reasons for taking the letter as genuine

I've pointed out to you twice now that that is not correct. They both set the issue aside to discuss other aspects of the case, but included qualifiers that clearly indicated they had not ruled out the possibility that the letter was not factually accurate.

I look forward to you replying to the rest of my post.

 

[Rramjet]

I'm perfectly happy to meet up with you. You said you were going to Beijing, and I live more than 3 hours flight from Beijing (3 days by train!), which would make meeting impossible. Of course, if you're going to be travelling around then that's different. If you're going to be in my neck of the woods (Kunming, Yunnan) then pm me.

Sincere apologies, I mistook your statement for an outright rejection. Unfortunately (because I really would have been interested to meet you) Kunming is not on the agenda (HK is the closest I get - and that for just two nights). I knew it was a long shot – China’s a big place after all - but still, no harm in asking.

So, now you are suggesting that they received 6Gy or more of radiation?

wollery, I appreciate your point-by-point fine-grained analysis, and I am not meaning to dismiss it, but I think we’re getting too bogged down in the minutia of this where the quality of information in the letter does not warrant it.

All I am contending is that the victim’s symptomatology resembles radiation sickness. The vomiting and swelling, the latency period, the blotches turning to sores, the hair falling out… and even the stated cause (a brilliant light, a loud humming sound) …and in the absence of any other plausible explanation, then that’s all we have to go on. I know of no other poisoning or illness which has that symptomatology.

Now you can argue that the dosage/symptom mix doesn’t precisely match with current knowledge – but equally we must also allow some latitude for (at least) a second-hand account (I think we can agree however that the letter is, on the balance of evidence, not a hoax and does represent a genuine attempt by Cowgill to relate a specific and mysterious event as best he can).

It must also be noted also that Cowgill was not a doctor nor one of their caregivers, he merely visited them in hospital, and symptoms (you say he failed to mention and are therefore absent) such as discomfort, fever, disorientation, fatigue, weakness, vomiting, diarrhoea, etc, given the victim’s “truly horrible” appearance to him, might simply have all been encapsulated in that “truly horrible” statement. You cannot really conclude that just because he did not list such specific symptoms that they were absent.

Cling to the idea that it was radiation if you want, but I think that I've demonstrated that it's an implausible explanation.

I am not “clinging” to the idea at all. I am merely noting that the victim’s symptomatology closely resembles that of radiation sickness and in the absence of any other plausible explanation what else are we to conclude? Of course radiation sickness in 1886 Venezuela should be impossible. It therefore is an implausible mundane explanation. That is, the case simply defies plausible mundane explanation.

But where can we go from there? We cannot conclude it was UFOs or ET. There is no direct evidence that would warrant that conclusion. However, I do note that there was a later case where the symptoms resembled those of the Venezuelan case – the Cash/Landrum incident - and in that case there was a UFO noted as the cause (and I don’t think it is illegitimate to draw parallels between cases – after all the UFO debunkers do go on about the seeming lack of repeatability in UFO cases – so I am simply noting such a parallel for the record).

Finally I do note the “splitting of hairs” that you an Jocce have now indulged in. That is, “assuming” Cowgill was telling the tuth (you) – and - I “believe” Cowgill actually “wrote” the letter (Jocce – somewhat of a backdown from “I do belive that the letter is genuine”). Of course we can never 100% rule out a hoax, but simply on the balance of evidence we assess the letter to be genuine. I think both of you (on the balance of evidence) at least suspect the letter is genuine and on that basis have attempted to refute the content.

 

[Rramjet]

Ramjet,
I am a bit curious about your "meet my criteria of defying plausible mundane explanation".

You write off this blue light rather quickly, without coming up with any plausible explanation.

How is a radio controlled aircraft of some sort not a plausible mundane explanation?

I guess you suspect (correctly) that since I brought it up there is a good mundane explanation, even if it does not involve RC-planes or blimps.

Perhaps you can enlighten us then?

Why don't you apply this cursory dismissal, or just willingness to consider the mundane, to other strange sights in the sky?

I do. That is the thing though, the cases I have been presenting are not merely “strange lights in the sky”. They are much more than that (not to mention many of them are actually daylight sightings). If it were a simple matter of “strange lights in the sky” then plausible mundane explanations abound – and I do not have to list them all specifically in this case to conclude that it does not defy plausible mundane explanation. I am sorry you find my dismissal of the case in such terms “cursory” – but I am merely recognising that mere “lights in the sky” (of whatever colour) do often have plausible mundane explanations and I see nothing in this case that would defy a plausible mundane explanation.

So if you do have such a plausible explanation that does not involve RC craft, then please put it forward for assessment.

I must have misunderstood you. When you said "right - the case simply defies mundane explanation", I read the "right" as indicating that you thought wollery agreed with you, rather than just a general exclamation. I see now that you use "right" in that context a lot. I apologise.

Please don’t quote me incorrectly and out of context and then claim to have misunderstood. It was quite clear what was meant:

Wollery stated:
” Whatever the cause, and assuming that everyone was telling the truth, we still have no explanation for what happened.”
I replied:
” Right – the case simply defies mundane explanation.”

My “Right -” obviously refers to wollery’s “we still have no explanation for what happened.” And the statement as a whole certainly does not indicate that wollery agrees with me!

Moreover, I believe it is the only the second time in this whole thread I have ever used the terminology as expressed. So please do not make up false and unfounded assertions and then “apologise” on the basis of them.

You keep doing this thing where I refer to "aliens" as mentioned and defined in your first post, and then in your reply you change it to ET and say you never said that had anything to do with anything. If this is because you think ET and "aliens" are equivalent that's fine although I will once again point you to your own first post where you suggest that these cases are evidence for "aliens". If you don't think they are the same thing, then this is some sort of bizzarre straw man argument.

You stated:
” 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".

I replied:
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.”

My definition of “aliens” as something outside our present knowledge of the natural and technological world simply does not make sense in the context of your statement (above). If you meant my definition, then you would not have opposed it with “We don't know what the explanation for these cases are. In all these cases, the answer is "I don't know" – because my definition means that very thing. Yet you opposed “aliens” with your statements on the matter. Therefore we can only conclude that you meant ET – and I responded accordingly.

I stated:
” That is, here was a case that resembled UFO reports in many aspects, yet did not even mention UFOs or consider them as likely factors.”

This is true of anything with a strange light, though. There are so many different UFO stories out there that anything where the tale can be boiled down to "I saw something strange at night" can (by this standard) be used as either a UFO story or an "alien" story. The fact remains that the letter never described or even implied any object at all, let alone a flying one. This is quite simply not a story about an unidentified flying object.

This is what happens when you “omnilash” instead of rationally analyse. To put the quote back into context:

I raised the case to demonstrate that anomalous reports pre-date the UFO debunker inspired “popular/cultural” explanation for UFOs post the late 1940’s. That is, here was a case that resembled UFO reports in many aspects, yet did not even mention UFOs or consider them as likely factors. It was the very fact that UFOs were not mentioned (and therefore could not have been inspired by popular culture) that was the reason I cited the case. I also noted that the victim’s symptoms resembled those of victims in a later case (the Cash/Landrum incident) where a UFO was noted as the causal factor.

But you know what? I don't care about that - I think it's strange that you and so many others count this as a UFO story, I don't think that that is warranted, but it doesn't really make much of a difference to me since the most likely explanation is that the letter itself is not factually accurate. You haven't replied to that part of my post, however, so until you do so that part of the discussion can't continue.

If you believe that, then we do indeed end the discussion here.

 

[Rramjet]

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%.

How is that a false statement and exactly how does linking an image refute it?

Because, regarding the “image” ([qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=654&pictureid=4308[/qimg]) you have conflated the “Insufficient Information” categories with the “Unknown” categories.

The UNKOWN category was reserved for cases that defied mundane explanation. In other words they were not KNOWN.

However, the INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION category was reserved for sightings that – due to lack of information - could not be categorised either as KNOWN or UNKNOWN. That is, they could all be KNOWN cases for all we know – there is just not enough information to decide.

Thus it is not correct (it is false and misleading) to conflate the two categories (as you did) and to call them all UNKNOWN.

 

[wollery]

Thus it is not correct (it is false and misleading) to conflate the two categories (as you did) and to call them all UNKNOWN.

He didn't, he called them unidentified.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Please don’t quote me incorrectly and out of context and then claim to have misunderstood. It was quite clear what was meant:

Wollery stated:
” Whatever the cause, and assuming that everyone was telling the truth, we still have no explanation for what happened.”
I replied:
” Right – the case simply defies mundane explanation.”

My “Right -” obviously refers to wollery’s “we still have no explanation for what happened.” And the statement as a whole certainly does not indicate that wollery agrees with me!

Moreover, I believe it is the only the second time in this whole thread I have ever used the terminology as expressed. So please do not make up false and unfounded assertions and then “apologise” on the basis of them.

Way to accept a sincere apology. Noted. I'll never apologise to you again.

 

[SOdhner]

My definition of “aliens” as something outside our present knowledge of the natural and technological world simply does not make sense in the context of your statement (above). If you meant my definition, then you would not have opposed it with “We don't know what the explanation for these cases are. In all these cases, the answer is "I don't know" – because my definition means that very thing.

No, it doesn't. "I don't know" and "It's something that is outside our present knowledge of the natural and technological world" are two different statements. The first one includes things both inside AND outside our current knowledge of nature and technology. It might be ET, it might be a 747, it might be time travelers, it might be a blimp.

This is what happens when you “omnilash” instead of rationally analyse. To put the quote back into context:

The term is "omnislashing", and that's not what I was doing anyway.

Also, I stand by my statement. If you include something as a UFO case on the basis that it bears some partial resemblance to some other UFO case even though there's no UFO mentioned, it applies equally to far too large a range of stories to be at all useful.

If you believe that, then we do indeed end the discussion here.

If I believe what? That you haven't responded to my post? That's just a fact. You only replied to a very small part, which wasn't even relevant to the central point we were discussing.

I look forward to your reply to my post.

 

[Jocce]

Because, regarding the “image” (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=654&pictureid=4308) you have conflated the “Insufficient Information” categories with the “Unknown” categories.

Both are groups of unidentified objects. It's a clear trend in the data. No matter poor or great reports, the portion of unidentified objects stays the same.

 

[Rramjet]

He didn't, he called them unidentified.

Jocce's intention was clear - no matter what he "called" them - to conflate the two categories was false and misleading.

 

[Rramjet]

No, it doesn't. "I don't know" and "It's something that is outside our present knowledge of the natural and technological world" are two different statements. The first one includes things both inside AND outside our current knowledge of nature and technology. It might be ET, it might be a 747, it might be time travelers, it might be a blimp.

You are correct - neither a 747, a blimp nor time travel are “outside our present knowledge of science and nature” (and to an extent neither are ETs – as they are at least theoretically possible if not outright statistically probable – not to mention circumstantially evident). You are also correct in that it is possible for all those things to fall under your “I don’t know” category. In that latter case then I would contend that the cases I am presenting fall into the category of defying plausible mundane explanation, which is then distinguishable from your mere “I don’t know” (which includes mundane explanations).

Also, I stand by my statement. If you include something as a UFO case on the basis that it bears some partial resemblance to some other UFO case even though there's no UFO mentioned, it applies equally to far too large a range of stories to be at all useful.

I hate to disillusion you but I specifically did not include the Venezuelan case as a UFO case. In fact I was at pains to point out that no UFO was mentioned in the case. I did however note a parallel between it and another, later, UFO case. Whatever conclusions you draw from that are your own. I specifically drew none.

If I believe what? That you haven't responded to my post?

That’s what I meant: If you believe I have not responded to your post, then by your own ultimatum, the discussion should have ended.

I look forward to your reply to my post.

Your post seemed to me to be a mere stack of unfounded assertion (for example):

I've given examples to show why in the post you are responding to, but you seem to have ignored them.

Demonstrably false.

This is an unfounded assertion.

This is also demonstrably false:

No, it's not.

(...)

As already shown, that's wrong.

…etc and so on.

A repetition of your unfounded “hoax” claims (for example):

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

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.

…etc and so on. Which has already been discussed at some length.

Misrepresentations of my position (for example):

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.

…etc and so on. So I merely concluded that it really was not worth my time to respond directly to all that.

I did however respond directly to one point you did make (that the Venezuelan case was “off topic”) – but was it worth my while to have done so when you seem to have ignored that response?

If however you feel that there is a substantive point you need or wish to make that I have not addressed (in direct reply to you or others), then please make it and I will consider my response.

 

[Jocce]

Finally I do note the “splitting of hairs” that you an Jocce have now indulged in. That is, “assuming” Cowgill was telling the tuth (you) – and - I “believe” Cowgill actually “wrote” the letter (Jocce – somewhat of a backdown from “I do belive that the letter is genuine”).

What backdown? I posted a direct quote of my previous post:

Fwiw, I do belive that the letter is genuine based on the discussions of it and the author in other places. F ex. http://genforum.genealogy.com/cowgill/messages/348.html

Of course, it can still be a hoax but I'm prepared to believe that Warner actually wrote this.

As you surely see, there is no "backdown" here.

Genuine: actually produced by or proceeding from the alleged source or author
Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genuine

 

[H'ethetheth]

All I am contending is that the victim’s symptomatology resembles radiation sickness...


...in the absence of any other plausible explanation what else are we to conclude?

I don't mean to speak for wollery, but seems fairly obvious what we conclude:
Assuming that the letter is genuine, we conclude that we don't know what caused the symptoms Cowgill described, but it very probably wasn't ionizing radiation.