Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by Magical Realist, Sep 27, 2015.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
And at the time and as I am telling you now, you need to post in your own words as well and use the excerpts to support your argument. At the moment, you are not making any argument at all. All you are doing is posting huge chunks of text and no one knows exactly what it is you wish to discuss. Look at your OP, the second post, post number four and five. In all of those, the only thing that is from you is one line in the OP. All of the rest of it is your pulling large chunks of texts from other websites and posting them and just putting a link.
You haven't provided anything else aside from those large chunks of text.
That is because it was plagiarism. You were not recognising or posting who or where you got the chunks of text from. Then and now, you are still to ensure that people can recognise that what you are posting are quotes. You are not distinguishing the quoted material from your own. To put it into some perspective, the only reason I knew that that one line in your OP was yours, was because I could not find it in the link you provided. No one can tell what are your words or what you are copying and posting. Understand now?
If you read a book, or a magazine or news piece, when they quote pieces of text, they use different font, indent it and/or use tags that ensure readers can distinguish what is quoted and what is the text of the author. In your posts, your whole post consists of a quoted text from a website. We cannot tell if they are your words or whether it is all quoted.
Worse yet, you are not using any of your own words. All you are doing is starting new threads and posting huge chunks of text with nothing else from you. No discussion points, nothing at all to allow readers or posters to be able to discuss anything.
As I noted above, the point of this forum is to have discussions. As the OP, it is your job to provide those discussion points. You are yet to provide or guide participants in this discussion as to what it is you wish to discuss.
You gave one line, describing the subject of the large chunk of a wiki page you were copying or pasting.
What is it you wish to discuss? You provide the chunk of text from the wiki page. Okay. So what in it do you wish to discuss? The chunk of text in the OP is not discussing the physiological effects. Your OP is all about the lights they saw. So do you wish to discuss UFO's? Or the physiological effects on the people who saw strange lights in Daytona on that night?
It isn't until your second post, which solely composed of a quote from the same wiki page, do you even touch on the physiological effects. In doing so, I notice you also leave out the fact that other witnesses saw something else entirely different to what the Landrum's and Cash claim they saw. Why did you leave out Detective Lamar Walker and his wife's account of what they saw at the same time as Landrum and Cash said they saw the lights in the same area? Is it because they saw chinook type of helicopters and it doesn't tie in with what you are trying to convey?
But your OP is not even touching on any physiological effects. The only thing you posted was one line that broaches the subject and then you just copied and pasted large chunks of text that does not even touch on what you think you described. Nothing else.
Your OP has no such thing about it. In the second post, your post consisted solely of a large chunk of quoted text.
So what about the physical effects of "ufo's" do you wish to discuss? What caused their symptoms? Why did they suffer the symptoms, but no other witnesses did, such as the police officer and his wife? And why were your posts mostly about what they saw instead of they actual physical effects?
And why is your second post contradicting you? For example, in your second post, the radiologist who examined them found that while it resembled ionized radiation, the sudden onset of their symptoms and their symptoms themselves pointed more towards their being contaminated by chemicals. Which would explain why they felt the burning. Is that what you wish people to discuss?
But you are expected to provide some discussion points. Thus far, you have provided nothing. One line from you and literally 4 posts worth of quoted text that you do not distinguish from your own comments. You have provided nothing at all. It's not a matter of your asking questions. It is a matter of your providing some sort of talking points about what it is you wish to discuss in what you posted. Do you want to discuss what they saw? Because that is what your OP is about. There is more about what they saw than there is about the physical reaction and their subsequent illness. There is nothing at all about how other eyewitnesses not seeing what they saw. Why not? Why did you leave that part out? There is very little about their actual physiological effects.
Well you may be waiting a while. Because no one really knows what it is you wish to discuss. Do you want to discuss what they saw? Or their physiological effects from what they saw? What about the fact that your are posting as though you believe they saw a UFO, since the title of this thread is "physiological effects from UFO's", but you fail to address the fact that Cash and Landrum sued the US Government for $20 million for their injuries. Why would they sue the US Government for their injuries if it was meant to have been UFO's that burnt them and injured them to begin with?
Eventually, Cash and Landrum contacted their U.S. Senators, Lloyd Bentsen and John Tower, who suggested that the witnesses file a complaint with the Judge Advocate Claims office at Bergstrom Air Force Base. In August 1981, Cash, Landrum, and Colby were interviewed at length by personnel at Bergstrom Air Force Base, and were told that they should hire a lawyer, and seek compensation for their injuries.
With attorney Peter Gersten taking on the case pro bono, the case wound its way through the U.S. Courts for several years. Cash and Landrum sued the U.S government for $20 million.
On August 21, 1986, a U.S. District Court judge dismissed their case, noting that the plaintiffs had not proved that the helicopters were associated with the U.S. Government, and that military officials had testified that the United States Armed Forces did not have a large, diamond-shaped aircraft in their possession.
Now you are being disingenuous and downright insulting, especially considering everything that happened.
I provided you with the rules to this site to guide you about how you should be posting. I would suggest that you heed that advice. It's not a matter of your indenting articles or not. It is a matter that you are pulling large chunks of text and just posting them with no input from you at all and you are not even distinguishing what you are quoting from your own words. You are not providing any discussion points or talking points. Hell, your OP isn't even about the physical effects. It was solely about the lights they saw.
If you want to use excerpts? That's fine. But don't just post excerpts and nothing else. Which is exactly what you are doing.
That's all you had to say. Like I said, I don't even read your longass flaming posts anymore. They're too OCD for me, and I like to post here as a relaxation, not like I'm being interrogated on a witness stand for murder. So go harass someone else. I'm not having it anymore.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I'm mad as Hell and I'm not going to take this anymore
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
So you are not able to answer why you failed to acknowledge that other witnesses did not see what Cash and Landrum saw and why your own link provides that their burns were consistent with chemical burns, because the radiation burns they are likened to happened too quickly to classify as radiation burns?
This is a thread about physiological effects from UFO's is it not? Why did no one else who saw the same lights at the same time, see a UFO?
This is a discussion forum. If you do not expect to have to have some discussion points or point out what it is you wish to discuss in your OP but just want to post articles or stories, then perhaps you should start a blog.
Asking you to abide by this site's posting rules and guidelines and having a basic expectation that someone will have the subject matter to be discussed in the OP is harassment now?
What is it, exactly, do you wish to discuss in this thread? What is the point of that OP if you actually wish to discuss physiological effects of UFO's, since your OP does not contain anything at all about the subject. The second post has a blurb you copied and pasted that discusses the injuries the two women suffered, from what appears to be chemical burns, for which they sued the US Government. Which does not make sense. Why are they suing the US Government for their injuries if their injuries were from a UFO?
Cash presented with fairly bad injuries from whatever it was that flew over them. They believe it was a UFO, yet why sue the US Government for the injuries they suffered by a craft that they (and now you) claim was alien? Can you explain why other witnesses to the 'event' never saw the diamond shaped craft they claim to have seen? Everyone else saw the helicopters, but they did not see the craft Crash and Landrum claim caused their injuries and they flew off surrounded by the helicopters? Why did other witnesses see the helicopters, but not the UFO Cash and Landrum claim they saw and which caused their injuries?
Most telling, these women supposedly suffered radiation burns. But an inspection of their car found no trace of radiation which had apparently melted the dash in the car and burnt them and made them so ill. In fact, there was no trace of radiation at the site or in the car either:
Shortly after Schuessler became involved in the Cash-Landrum case in early 1981, he began to suspect that the reported medical problems might be the result of gamma rays emitted by the UFO, and this has emerged as his current theory. (Seemingly, a U.S. atomic weapon being transported by air or a nuclear-powered ET craft accidentally exploded in the vicinity of Houston.) But when Schuessler inspected Betty’s car in early 1981 and used a geiger counter to check for radioactivity, he found none. Presum-ably he also checked for radioactivity when he visited the site of the (alleged) incident, and found no abnormal radiation.
In fact, the car had no external damage either. Remember, your link states that the dash was melting and the heat apparently burnt them. But the car came through unscathed:
MUFON official John Schuessler presented a detailed report on an incident that (allegedly) occurred on the night of Dec. 29, 1980, not far from Houston, Tex., involving Betty Cash, Vicki Landrum and her seven-year-old grandson, Colby. According to Schuessler, the three were driving home around 9 p.m. when they saw a giant diamond-shaped object which descended and hovered over the highway only roughly 150 ft. ahead of their car, belching flames and illuminating the area as if it were daylight. Betty reportedly stopped the car, but instead of remaining inside or turning around and driving away, the three of them got out for a closer look. Betty Cash, who reportedly spent up to 8-10 minutes outside viewing the UFO, even walked toward the fiery object—despite the intense heat the UFO was radiating. When Vicki and Colby decided to get back in the car, Vicki claimed the car’s roof was so hot that it burned her hand. And when Betty finally decided to get back in the car, she said she burned her hand touching the door handle. (But when Schuessler later inspected the car, he was unable to find any damage to the car’s paint finish, external plastic parts or its tires.)
So the heat was bad enough to cause severe burns, but there was no damage to the car at all? And no damage to the landscape around the car? Does this make sense to you?
Physiological effects from ufos.
Clearly one effect of ufos is they can cause some people to lose the ability to think rationally....
You need to take this up with your buddy Tiassa who quite literally crossposts from his own personal blog to the politics and morality forums on a regular basis. He also posts threads that include stories (god forbid!) and hardly ever asks questions in his posts, nevertheless providing interesting insights and information to this forum. I don't see you going spastic over that.
The diamond craft was going up by the time they drove away. And it was surrounded by helicopters, which explains why others may not have seen it. So what are you saying--these women poured chemicals all over themselves just to fake a story like this? What possible motive would they do this for?
They never said the car was melting. They only said the dash was so hot it received a handprint from one of women. Very plausible as plastic in a heated state can become pliable but will stretch back into shape once it cools off. The nature of the burns on the women do not suggest radiation exposure as much as they do exposure to ionization. My article went into that:
"A radiologist who examined the witnesses' medical records for MUFON wrote, "We have strong evidence that these patients have suffered secondary damage to ionizing radiation. It is also possible that there was an infrared or ultraviolet component as well." (quoted in Clark, 176)...
.....Other UFO researchers point out that high-energy ionizing radiation of the kind that can cause damage to human beings (e.g. gamma radiation) does not induce radioactivity in objects, and would not have left behind any residual radioactivity in the area."====https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash-Landrum_incident
More confirmation of the craft followed from another eyewitness and a pilot of one of the helicopters that night:
"A Dayton, Texas, oilfield worker Jerry McDonald saw a large UFO fly directly overhead while he was in his back garden. He thought it might be a blimp at first, but soon knew it was something more sinister. "It was kind of diamond-shaped and had two twin torches that were shooting brilliant blue flames out the back," he said. He saw that it had two bright lights on it and a red light in the center.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!In a freaky circumstance of luck, corroboration of the unknown object of that night would come in 1981. In April, a CH-47 flew into Dayton for the purpose of a public showing. This allowed local residents to view the machine, both inside and out. Colby spotted the helicopter as it was flying into town, and became very upset.
Vickie took him to the landing site, hopefully to allay his fears. As they reached the Chinook, a long line of locals had already formed, waiting to see the giant machine.
When their turn finally came, Vickie and Colby entered the helicopter.
Accompanied by another visitor in addition to Colby, Vickie began to recount her experience in the Piney Woods. Vickie and the other unnamed witness both claimed that the pilot said he had been in the air the night of the traumatic sighting.
He was sent to check on a UFO that was in trouble near Huffman!
Vickie began to discuss her injuries due to the burns and radiation poisoning. Upon hearing her confession, the pilot quickly clammed up, and moved them out of the craft. The pilot was later found by the UFO group VISIT.
He would only admit that he knew of the Cash/Landrum case, but refused to admit that he had been in the area the night of the sighting."====http://www.ufocasebook.com/Pineywoods.html
Ah, but is that a proven physiological effect, or is it merely a psychological problem? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
How are we supposed to investigate some anecdote that is over 30 years old?
How did you investigate it before you believed it was all gospel truth? Please tell us.
An aside: why is it that there's such a huge variety of shapes, sizes, behaviours etc. of these alien spaceships? Do you think we're being visited by many different alien species, all with different technology? Or what?
Separate names with a comma.