Reply to
Astrophotographer’s post found here:
Cash Landrum follow-up:
Since RRamjet brought up some specific points recently about the Cash-Landrum case…
(
IMPORTANT NOTE: In the following I have selected what I consider to be the relevant bits from his detailed and extensive post. His post provides a good deal of discussion and evidence – yes evidence(!) – before anyone reads the following post
if they have not already, they SHOULD now go and read Astrophotographer’s post!)
Astrophotographer provided an extensive detailed discussion about lack of evidence for helicopters which finally boils down to the following:
…I think the USS New Orleans theory, while remotely possible, is unlikely.
Oh dear, about as likely as… say… a blimp perchance? I’ll tell you what… based on this form of argument, I’ll concede no helicopters if you concede no blimp. Deal?
Randle then discusses the lawsuit:
The problem there, however, is that no indications of governmental responsibility could be proven. The searches of military organizations that would have had access to sufficient numbers of helicopters could find no records to suggest that they had participated in any sort of exercise that would demand the numbers required.
A second problem also developed. Medical records for the three, Cash, Landrum, and Colby, were not presented as evidence. If, according to these records, there had been no signs of preexisting ill health or any medical problems, then a good case could be made that the events of December 29 caused the trouble. If, on the other hand, there was a record of various medical pathologies, then no such conclusion could be drawn. (P. 213)
This was a big problem. Why weren’t the records presented into evidence? It raises questions. It is probable that Betty Cash suffered from heart issues before the incident (Klass reports a bypass operation in his SUN newsletter of 1999) and there may have been other health issues from which she suffered.
Of course Klass,
without access to the medical records,
would “report” such a thing!
The consensus seems to be that the blood results did NOT show radiation poisoning. Thus there is a GOOD reason WHY the plaintiffs would not have wanted to enter this into evidence – even if the medical evidence POSITIVELY showed that the witnesses received the injuries at the time they stated they did. The fact that the blood results were negative would have immediately closed the case on military negligence… ANYTHING the military could plausibly have been shown to have operating to cause such injuries as claimed WOULD also have affected the blood. No question. So that is reason enough for the plaintiffs not to enter the medical evidence.
But what about the defence? I find it interesting that the military did NOT subpoena the medical records for themselves (or if they did THEY did not enter them into the record) to show that the injuries were NOT caused at the time stated. THIS is a telling point in the OTHER direction. The military would not have been so negligent as to NOT have looked into the medical records. If they felt that their case was strengthened by those records, then they would MOST definitely have entered them. They did not! Why not…presumably the blood results supported their defence? It can only mean that other parts of the record supported the plaintiffs case!
So what are we left with? Simply that we cannot make a determination on the case based solely on the lack of medical report evidence. There are pros and cons for each side of the argument arising from the non-presentation of the records in a court case… that is we can imagine plausible scenarios why the evidence was not admitted by EITHER side.
As far as the symptoms or radiation exposure, I recalled reading something Brad Sparks wrote about radiation exposure. I found his article here:
http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/a1999/cash3.htm
He pretty much made the same points I made about radiation exposure. This comment was interesting though:
It is known that many chemical agents MIMIC IONIZING RADIATION EFFECTS even down to the cellular level, and can create such symptoms without regard to dose-onset-time relations and with considerable individual variability in response (which might obviate the need to suppose shielding by the car from exposure). The immediate contact dermatitis (skin burns) and conjunctivitis seem to indicate a chemical agent exposure.
Sparks is no expert on the subject but it is an informed opinion on the matter by a UFOlogist/UFO proponent.
Precisely, he is NO expert! Just because he is a UFO proponent does not make him correct. Please point to the chemicals that CAN do as Sparks suggests. Cuddles had a go… rocket fuel no less! But of
course rocket fuel IS just lying around the countryside waiting for anyone to accidently expose themselves to it!
Regarding Dr Peter Rank, the consulting radiologist:
In the December 1982 edition of the MUFON journal, Rank made some comments about an article describing the effects of radiation exposure in the Cash-Landrum incident. He seemed to be non-committal on the subject:
Mr. Stowe has made certain assumptions which may or may not be warranted. The first assumption is that the principals in this case suffered total body radiation. This is by no means clear. I do not believe that a general dosage level can be assigned to the Cash/Landrum case. My reasoning is based upon the observation, to the best of my knowledge, that ALTHOUGH BOTH WOMEN HAD SYMPTOMS OF RADIATION SICKNESS, THERE WERE NO WELL DOCUMENTED CHANGES IN THE BLOOD AND THE DIARRHEA REPORTED WAS NOT BLOODY IN NATURE (My emphasis).My analysis ASSUMED (my emphasis) that ionizing radiation, exact wavelength undetermined, was responsible for most of the symptoms. We also know that the women had exposure to light as well as to infrared waves. As Mr. Stowe points out, some of the erythema of the skin can be attributed to ultraviolet, and some certainly can be attributed to shorter wavelengths with higher energy and of an ionizing nature. The extent to which microwave radiation was involved is not clear, and I was unable to come to a position with regard to it. (P. 9)
(Bolding MY emphasis. Rr)
So this is pretty categorical. There are a number of experts arguing over the injuries and symptoms AS IF THEY WERE REAL! So we if we assume that the injuries WERE real, then HOW did the witnesses come by them?
To summarize all of this:
1) There is no evidence for the helicopter fleet other than the testimony of Cash and Landrum and one vague reference to a mystery witness who apparently was not sure of the date. The other witnesses saw their helicopters on different dates or at different times.
Well…obviously the helicopters COULD possibly have come from the USS New Orleans…
2) The medical records appear to have been closely guarded. Those that did see them seem to have reported that the bloodwork results were not what one would expect from radiation exposure.
True, but the FACT of the injuries remains.
3) No evidence has been presented (other than the symptoms) that radiation was involved.
Except that no other cause has been identified and multiple types of radiation might have been involved.
4) No evidence of any damage to the surrounding terrain or vehicle
You do NOT discuss this in your post… it is a mere restatement of unfounded, generalised assertion.
5) The UFO itself seems to have magically appeared and disappeared. Only one person besides Cash/Landrum seems to have seen it even though Cash/Landrum claimed it was visible for over 20 minutes!
UFOs tend to do that in case you had not noticed…
…And they DO NOT claim it was visible for over 20 minutes!
CJC: OK, and ah... how long did this sighting last, how long were you exposed to it?
BC:Well, I'd say about 15 to 16, 17 minutes, it seemed like hours to me, but it couldn't have been that long because when I got home it was ten minutes till ten, which is approximately a twenty minute drive from where this happened.
(
http://www.ufocasebook.com/CashLandrum1.html)
If this is an example of a BEST CASE, then what does it mean about all the others?
I have already stated there is NO “best case”. This is just a case that either stands or falls on the evidence.
