Not only is that merely an unfounded assertion and as such may be dismissed, it is also false assertion. For a start you have to explain how every member of the family got burned in the same way and then felt fine for maybe a week… and that latency period also rules against heavy metal poisoning – even if you could find a source – which of course is non-existent.
Really? Most heavy metal poisoning has a latency period, ranging from a few hours to several years. For instance, Methyl Mercury poisoning can be latent
for several months. So, umm, no.
But we’ve been through all this already. I have to ask then, in the discussions of the cases I have been presenting, how it is that when we get to the point where all plausible mundane explanations have been exhausted, the UFO debunkers simply turn around and begin over again from the beginning, re-asserting things that have been dismissed, as if the discussion that lead up to the point had not occurred at all… (of course we actually know how it is…the UFO debunkers simply must obfuscate if they are to maintain their belief system in the face of the evidence)
All I said is that other causative factors can produce the overt symptoms described. This is demonstrably true.
“Just wow?” LOL. I have already explained how the timing could be in error. For example:
As long as an hour? Please explain how their actions, as described, could possibly, or even plausibly, take more than a few minutes.
I dare you to try.
You are the one positing “such high doses” and who knows? Perhaps some (or all) of them did not survive. We have no information one way or other.
I only mentioned high doses because otherwise the timing of vomiting doesn't fit. Of course, the rest of the symptoms and the timing then don't fit.
Again with the false assertions? I have never suggested any specific dose! In fact some of the UFO debunkers have been complaining that I have not done so - and have been exhorting me to do so! LOL.
You're right, that was my mistake, but you did ask about higher dosages that could cause earlier onset of vomiting, which is why I looked at the results of 6 Gy and 8 Gy dosages, neither of which fit the other evidence.
In fact the dosage “calculations” are all your own doing wollery – and I merely noted two things in that respect. First that such a calculation from you is founded on many potentially error filled statements (for which you have no way of knowing the error margins) and second, your “calculated” (and I use the term advisedly because you have shown none of your workings and none of the error margins surrounding the assumptions that you found your alleged calculation on) seems to have gone from 3 to 6 to 8Gy over the course of the past few pages.
The dosage calculations were, as I stated, educated guesses based on the descriptions of the overt symptoms and the latency period, things that you insist are relatively reliable and point to radiation poisoning. The higher doses I mentioned are simply the doses required for the rapid onset of the vomiting. I've backed these numbers up with reference to data from sources that
you introduced. Moreover, you cannot point to anything that specifically refutes the dosage information that I have supplied. You simply obscure the evidence (something that you have recently accused a lot of other people of doing) by talking about "error filled statements" and asking for numerical calculations, something that you know (or should know) is not possible. Perhaps calculation is the wrong word, but the essential point I am making remains - the actual symptoms described and specifically their timeline do not fit with radiation poisoning.
Furthermore, if the statements are
error filled then what can we be certain of?
I stated:
”Indeed. Radiation poisoning in 1886 Venezuela is certainly not a mundane explanation. Nor does it seem plausible.”
I am not arguing for it! This is where you seem to have got the wrong end of the stick wollery. All I have been doing is pointing out that the victim’s symptomatology seems to closely match those of radiation poisoning and subsequently I have merely been pointing out the false and misleading sections in your own (and other’s) statements - as you scramble to falsify the radiation hypothesis!
I'm not
scrambling to falsify anything, I'm simply pointing out inconsistencies, that you seem intent on ignoring or obscuring.
I also stated:
” All I am noting however is that radiation sickness is an explanation that best fits the evidence.”
Sure it may not be a perfect fit – but then my statement simply means that out of all the mundane explanations we can think of – it is the closest fit.
And I ask again, if the best fit doesn't fit then what good is it? Why posit it at all? You're very good at dismissing all the other explanations, why not dismiss radiation poisoning as well?
I stated:
”If you cannot see that vomiting, swelling, a latency period, damaged skin turning to virulent sores and hair falling out resembles radiation poisoning, then I don’t know what more I can add except perhaps that the case defies mundane explanation.”
But it only resembles it at a superficial level. Even if we allow for reasonable errors in the amount of time before they vomited it still doesn't fit with the latency period or the lack of other typical symptoms.
And what if the “timeline” is not that accurate? And I noted that all we really have to go on in regards to accuracy is Cowgill’s first hand observations and anything else is potentially inaccurate - unless we can show evidence or a plausible logical reason why we should accept the statement.
But what exactly were Cowgill's first hand observations?
I also find it rather ironic that it is the UFO debunkers who now seem to want an anecdotal tale to be so accurate in such details as to enable precise calculations of specific doses…
Well, that's kind of the point. The tale is indeed just anecdotal, yet you seem to want to use it to suggest something more.
I am assuming the first hand accounts from Cowgill are reasonable accurate - and other things like the “macro” symptomatology and detail that could hardly be mistaken for anything else - like the swelling, the vomiting, the blackened skin, etc.
Again, I ask, what were Cowgill's first hand observations?
He observed the virulent sores and the hair falling out - and the victim’s “truly horrible” appearance.
That's not much to go on really. Those could be caused by literally hundreds of things. Also, he didn't observe the hair "falling out" he could only observe that it had
fallen out. That may seem like nitpicking, but it's an important distinction. All he saw was the end result, well after the fact.
No, but the victims or a doctor telling Cowgill about the swelling would seem to be acceptable to accept swelling occurred. It is the type of symptom that is not likely to have been mistaken for anything other than it was.
What sort of swelling? Mild or severe? Painful, itchy or no discomfort? When exactly did it happen, and when did it subside? Was it localised in several different areas, or general swelling across the whole upper body? If the culprit was beamed radiation then why was not the lower body not affected, or less affected?
He certainly would have been able to observe the virulent sores – but as to the “9th day” - we cannot be sure about the accuracy of that – we don’t know when the victims arrived at hospital (or indeed how many days after the incident they began to feel ill enough to attempt to get to a hospital) and we don’t know when Cowgill observed them there in their “truly horrible” state.
Precisely. So all we have to go on is Cowgill's version, possibly repeated through a doctor, with all the inaccuracy that entails.
He would certainly have been able to observe a loss of hair. As to the specific timing, as above, who knows if it is accurate?
Indeed.
Good question.
Another good question (although one can assume that he must have spoken to someone at the hospital - but we don’t know if that person was an administrator, a doctor, a caregiver, or the victims themselves, or any combination of the above).
And again, how many people did this account go through before it got to Cowgill? You're describing a game of Chinese whispers and asking us to believe selected parts of the results.
I wouldn’t go so far as “mangled” but simply - we cannot – explicitly - except for the first hand observations by Cowgill and the “macro” symptoms and details that could not really be mistaken for anything other than what they were (like the swelling, the vomiting, etc)
After going through the Chinese Whispers filter, how can we be sure of those symptoms? You've already suggested that the timing of the vomiting could have been altered, why not the severity, or the number of victims that experienced it. The same applies to the swelling.
You are possibly correct. But do keep going, you are making my point for me quite admirably. There is a set of things that we can be reasonably sure about: The cause (bright light, no heat, humming sound), the general symptomatology (vomiting, swelling, blackened skin, a latency period, virulent sores and loss of hair) and also probably (although less certain) the “uninjured” house and the later “withering” of the trees. Other things may or may not be accurate – we just don’t know.
Can we be sure about the bright light, no heat, humming sound. You've already pointed out how a simple phrase can be altered in transmission from one person to the next. Maybe the doctor misunderstood their description. Maybe they said a bright light that lit up the room, the doctor said a very strong light that brightly lit up the room, and Cowgill gives us "vivid, dazzling light, which brilliantly illuminated the interior of the house". Maybe they were asked if there was any noise and one of them said, "Well, there was a sort of humming noise", and this ends up being a loud humming noise.
If we're supposing that some of the account was altered in the retelling then we can't trust any of it to be accurate.
Once again you make my point admirably.
And my point. There's very little, if anything, in this account that can be taken as accurate. So why did you include it at all?
And this raises yet another point. One of the most typical symptoms of radiation poisoning is infections with high fever. If Cowgill got his information from a doctor why would that not be mentioned? Why not mention bloody diarrhoea? After all, the doctor has nothing to be ashamed about in that respect.
Precisely. However I am taking the first hand observations of Cowgill to be reasonably accurate as well as those details that could hardly be mistaken for anything other than what they were (see above). Anything else, given all the considerations you have pointed to, is up for debate.
Even some of those symptoms that "could hardly be mistaken for anything else" must be taken with a pinch of salt.
First, in response to Jocce, I pointed out that the symptomatology resembled radiation poisoning – while being a lesser fit with the heavy metal and burns hypotheses.
I then pointed out that Jocce’s statement (“hair that has fallen off on one side of the head, blackened blotches on the body that has turned into sores when the skin peeled off on the same side of the body as the hair was missing on”) was a complete fabrication by pointing to the totality of what the article itself stated in that regard (”The hair of the head fell off upon the side which happened to be underneath when the phenomenon occurred…”) and as an aside I merely noted that statement also happened to be inconsistent with his “burns” hypothesis. In the face of Jocce’s then persistent misrepresentations - I merely reiterated my points in two subsequent posts.
Then later you asked why I thought the burns hypothesis implausible - and I replied to you that there was a brilliant light but no heat (note I did not use the statement in question to justify a rejection of the burns hypothesis to you). I then indicated that we actually had to be wary of (the statements in question) because we don’t know (for example) that “underneath” is an accurate reflection of reality.
Since I have actually quoted you directly, and your posts show the record, I have difficulty believing that you can post that with a straight face.
But feel free to prove me wrong. Post the relevant quotes, in context, that show that you used the example of "a brilliant light but no heat" in response to my questioning about the burns hypothesis.
I've already quoted the section of your response to me and where you specifically use the phrase;
”The hair of the head fell off upon the side which happened to be underneath when the phenomenon occurred…”
And to Jocce, where you say;
I have just demonstrated the inconsistency in the “burns” hypothesis (”The hair of the head fell off upon the side which happened to be underneath when the phenomenon occurred…”)
So denying that you did so is just a lie.
That is simply a false and misleading assessment. In the first instance I was using the statement to correct Jocce’s false assertions - and when you began questioning me on it you will note that I did not use that statement to support my rejection of the burns hypotheses at all.
Except you did, and I've quoted the relevant section of your post where you did. See my previous post on this subject, with all the relevant quotes in chronological order.
Sticks and stones wollery … but perhaps you should have simply read over my quotes more carefully - in their original context - without a preconceived bias in your mind concerning what you wanted them to indicate?
I read them very carefully, but perhaps you would be so kind as to demonstrate, with all relevant quotes, and no omissions, where I am wrong.
I stated:
” The case defies plausible mundane explanation. It is a true mystery.”
I think it is rather obvious who is doing all the “twisting” around here… just look to your following statement for a prime example…
Again we have a false and misleading statement from you. I have never dismissed anything on the grounds that it is not mundane. What was that you just said about twisting..?
No, I dismiss hypothetical explanations when they do not fit the evidence.
If you haven't dismissed any explanations on the basis of them being non-mundane then maybe that's because nobody has offered any non-mundane explanations. You have, however, stated that non-mundane explanations are purely speculative, so if a non-mundane explanation were to be offered I have absolutely no doubt that you would dismiss it, and rightly so. As for dismissing things that are "implausible", that was
your phrase, that
you introduced to the discussion, to describe things that
you consider do not fit the evidence, regardless of other people's opinions on whether or not they fit the evidence.
“Pushing” is a misleading characterisation wollery – of all the hypothetical mundane explanations, the radiation hypothesis best fits the evidence – nothing more, nothing less. Yet how can it be possible? Radiation sickness in 1886 Venezuela? The case simply defies plausible mundane explanation.
As I've said before, if the best fit doesn't fit, then what good is it?
And more to the point, if, as you have now said more than once, the radiation explanation is non-mundane and implausible, then why do you keep arguing that it fits the evidence?
