Physiological effects from ufos

[Magical Realist]

There are many cases of ufo encounters leaving marked physiological effects on the bodies of the eyewitnesses. Here we begin with a noted case from 1980, the famous Cash-Landrum incident near Dayton Texas:

"On the evening of December 29, 1980, Betty Cash, Vickie Landrum and Colby Landrum (Vickie's seven-year-oldgrandson) were driving home to Dayton, Texas in Cash's Oldsmobile Cutlass after dining out.

At about 9:00 p.m., while driving on an isolated two-lane road in dense woods, the witnesses said they observed a light above some trees. They initially thought the light was an airplane approaching Houston Intercontinental Airport (about 35 miles away) and gave it little notice.

A few minutes later on the winding roads, the witnesses saw what they believed to be the same light as before, but it was now much closer and very bright. The light, they claimed, came from a huge diamond-shaped object, which hovered at about treetop level. The object's base was expelling flame and emitting significant heat.

Vickie Landrum told Cash to stop the car, fearing they would be burned if they approached any closer. However, Vickie's opinion of the object quickly changed: a born again Christian, she interpreted the object as a sign of thesecond coming of Jesus Christ, telling her grandson, "That's Jesus. He will not hurt us." (Clark, 175)

Anxious, Cash considered turning the car around, but abandoned this idea because the road was too narrow and she presumed the car would get stuck on the dirt shoulders, which were soft from that evening's rains.

Cash and Landrum got out of the car to examine the object. Colby was terrified, however, and Vickie Landrum quickly returned to the car to comfort the frantic child. Cash remained outside the car, "mesmerized by the bizarre sight," as Jerome Clark wrote. (Clark, 175) He went on,

'The object, intensely bright and a dull metallic silver, was shaped like a huge upright diamond, about the size of the Dayton water tower, with its top and bottom cut off so that they were flat rather than pointed. Small blue lights ringed the center, and periodically over the next few minutes flames shot out of the bottom, flaring outward, creating the effect of a large cone. Every time the fire dissipated, the UFO floated a few feet downwards toward the road. But when the flames blasted out again, the object rose about the same distance." (Clark, 175)'

The witnesses said the heat was strong enough to make the car's metal body painful to the touch—Cash said she had to use her coat to protect her hand from being burnt when she finally re-entered the car. When she touched the car's dashboard, Vickie Landrum's hand pressed into the softened vinyl, leaving an imprint that was evident weeks later. Investigators cited this handprint as proof of the witnesses' account; however, no photograph of the alleged handprint exists.

The object then moved to a point higher in the sky. As it ascended over the treetops, the witnesses claimed that a group of helicopters approached the object and surrounded it in tight formation. Cash and Landrum counted 23 helicopters, and later identified some of them as tandem-rotor CH-47 Chinooks used by military forces worldwide.

With the road now clear, Cash drove on, claiming to see glimpses of the object and the helicopters receding into the distance.

From first sighting the object to its departure, the witnesses said the encounter lasted about 20 minutes. Based on descriptions given in John F. Schuessler's book[2] about the incident, it appears that the observers were southbound on Texas state highway FM 1485/2100 when they claimed to have seen the object. The initial location of the reported object, based on the same descriptions, was just south of Inland Road, approximately at30.0926°N 95.1109°W."==https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash-Landrum_incident

Artist's depiction:

 

[Magical Realist]

"After the UFO and helicopters left, Cash took the Landrums home, then retired for the evening. That night, they all experienced similar symptoms, though Cash to a greater degree. All suffered from nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, generalized weakness, a burning sensation in their eyes, and feeling as though they'd suffered sunburns.

Over the next few days, Cash's symptoms worsened, with many large, painful blisters forming on her skin. When taken to a hospital emergency room on January 3, 1981, Clark writes, Cash "could not walk, and had lost large patches of skin and clumps of hair. She was released after 12 days, though her condition was not much better, and she later returned to the hospital for another 15 days."(Clark, 176)

The Landrums' health was somewhat better, though both suffered from lingering weakness, skin sores and hair loss.

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)

However, Brad Sparks contends that, although the symptoms were somewhat similar to those caused by ionizing radiation, the rapidity of onset was only consistent with a massive dose that would have meant certain death in a few days. Since all of the victims lived for years after the incident, Sparks suggests the cause of the symptoms was some kind of chemical contamination, presumably by an aerosol."====https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash-Landrum_incident

 

[Daecon]

If you say so.

 

[Magical Realist]

"Effects of UFOs upon the principal sensory organs have been explored elsewhere. It was found, in brief, that the visual experience involved images of metallic vehicles, including various structural details, which were sometimes surrounded by vivid displays in brilliant colors or dazzling halos. A study of their noises disclosed several distinct types and suggested the artificial stimulation of auditory sensations within the head. Finally, several unique odors noticed in the vicinity of UFOs were traced to specific chemical compounds that are formed in the atmosphere under the stimulus of radiant energy that is emitted by UFOs. Reception of signals by the eyes, ears, and nose have been accounted for, yet there remains a variety of ways in which the body responds to UFOs at short range.

Primary Symptoms

A sensation of body heating during a close encounter is a common complaint. A huge craft, 70
meters long, flew within 30 meters of two sheriffs in Texas causing a heat wave. (1) Six teenagers in Ohio experienced the same reaction as a disc-shaped
machine hovered overhead. (2) The intensity of this effect is, of course, variable and it may reach frightful proportions. Near the Capitan Curbelo Naval Air Station in Uruguay an experienced pilot flew his light plane to within 700 meters of a brilliant object shaped like a "musical top" that had come to a dead stop directly ahead on his flight path. "I saw that (the UFO) rocked twice in a balancing motion. Then it took off in the direction of the sea at a fantastic speed. It left a little trail in the form of water vapor....The temperature was greatly increased, so much that I had to open the windows and door of the plane, and take off my field jacket. I almost fainted." (3) A stronger heat wave in the cockpit of an F94 jet during a UFO chase became so unbearable that the pilot and his crewman had to bail out. The plane crashed in Walesville, New York, tragically killing four people and injuring others. (4) Actual burns of first and second degree, usually on the face and hands, have been the reward of unwary people who approached UFOs too closely or of others innocently minding their own business when one flew past at very close range. (5)

Sometimes the witnesses are temporarily paralyzed while the UFO is nearby, usually within 50 to 150 meters. (6) A farmer in San Pietro, Italy, became paralyzed when he approached to within 10 meters of a UFO that had landed in the village square. (7) Three figures moving around a landed UFO at Stratford-on-Avon held the attention of a man who could not move until they boarded the craft and flew away. (8) In at least seven other instances, witnesses were immobilized during the encounter, but their involuntary body functions, such as breathing, heart beat, and vision, were unimpaired. (9) Return to normalcy was usually immediate when the UFO left, but it took about 20 minutes for one victim to regain his muscular coordination. (10) Approximately the same amount of time was required by a French farmer to recover, although his paralysis was probably induced by some kind of a weapon. (11)

Loss of consciousness is also relatively frequent, being reported as either an isolated symptom or in association with other symptoms. (12) Quite significantly, about half of the people who were either paralyzed or who had lost consciousness also described feeling a prickling sensation or an electrical shock. As a man in Massachusetts explained, "My mind was not at all affected. I just could not move, felt like shock and numbness." (13)
===http://www.nicap.org/ufology/ufochap6.htm

 

[Magical Realist]

"Careful study of UFO case histories can reveal considerable detail on the sensory responses of witnesses. Furthermore, a parallel survey of scientific literature in a variety of subjects will sometimes disclose specific mechanisms that may be responsible for the reported effects. Finally, experimental data in the literature or obtained by the investigator can provide quantitative information about the physiological responses and the parameters of UFO fields. It has been found that most UFO effects on people can be attributed to a complex field consisting of two components, namely:

1. An electromagnetic field in the microwave region having a) frequency in the range of 200 to 3,000 MHz, b) pulse repetition rate of 50 to 100 sec–1 , and c) pulse width of 1 to 100, more likely 10 to 40 microsec. The onset of physiological responses begins with a humming sensation at an average power density of 0.4 mW/cm2 but field intensities many thousand times greater may be experienced.

2. A magnetic field that varies intensity slightly about every two seconds. The intensity at the witness is on the order of 1,000 gauss for close encounters. An extensive series of laboratory and field experiments could reduce the range of uncertainties in the field parameters, and eventually lead to a full understanding of UFO propulsion systems.

Reports of UFOs emphasize two major points: Firstly, they hover in the sky with no indication of a familiar propulsion system such as propellers, jets, or rockets. No momentum is transferred to the atmosphere and there is a notable absence of violent and noisy downwash. The objects appear to defy gravity. The other point is their strange manner of flitting about. Observers are frequently startled by a sudden acceleration far exceeding normal experience, also by instantaneous stops and right-angle turns at high speed. Not only do UFOs appear to be anti-gravitational, they behave as though they had no inertia.

In the General Theory of Relativity, Dr. Albert Einstein postulated the Principle of Equivalence. It states that the property of matter, called mass, is the same whether responding to gravitational forces or to accelerations. For the mathematically inclined reader, that means that the small “m” in the universal gravitational equation (F = GmM/r2 ) is identical to the small “m” in the inertial equation (F = ma). That identity has been demonstrated in satellite experiments to a precision of 1 part in 1014. So what does that mean? If a method should be developed to nullify the effect of gravity, it would automatically and necessarily nullify inertia! A hovering UFO that directly defeats gravity would have an inherent ability to fly without the familiar restrictions of inertia.

It is remarkable indeed that witnesses in all countries, languages, and educational levels from scholars to primitives have been describing the phenomenon correctly for 40 years although very few were acquainted with General Relativity. We have not listened well."====http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/ufoeffects.pdf

 

[Sarkus]

I thought there was a rule about not just quoting/posting vast swathes from other websites?
Is there a point to it all? A question you are asking?

 

[Magical Realist]

I thought there was a rule about not just quoting/posting vast swathes from other websites?
Is there a point to it all? A question you are asking?

A rule against quoting excerpts of articles? That's a new one on me. Perhaps you can quote it.

 

[Daecon]

Suppose we all suddenly (and without reason) started believing that aliens in spaceships are coming to Planet Dirt to abduct rednecks, terrorize schoolkids, and be photographed by poor quality cellphones and shakey webcams.

Now what? What do you think will happen, or what do you want to happen, next?

 

[Magical Realist]

Suppose we all suddenly (and without reason) started believing that aliens in spaceships are coming to Planet Dirt to abduct rednecks, terrorize schoolkids, and be photographed by poor quality cellphones and shakey webcams.

Now what? What do you think will happen, or what do you want to happen, next?

Is that an argument for covering up the truth? Keeping it under raps to prevent hysteria in the masses? I think the government is already doing that.

 

[paddoboy]

I thought there was a rule about not just quoting/posting vast swathes from other websites?
Is there a point to it all? A question you are asking?

Of course there is a point to all of this. MR sees it as a necessity to keep on keeping on, even in the face of lack of reasonable evidence, and to show that no one has any right to make him see common sense and that he can post whatever he likes. He wears that right as his badge of honour.
Irrespective though, although he certainly has the right to whatever opinion suits his fancy, [be it fairies, Bigfoot, or kidnapping, flitter in/flitter out Aliens] and no one is questioning that point, what is entirely delusional of him though, is his expectations that he is ever taken seriously by anyone else......well anyone other than river of course.

 

[Magical Realist]

Of course there is a point to all of this. MR sees it as a necessity to keep on keeping on, even in the face of lack of reasonable evidence, and to show that no one has any right to make him see common sense and that he can post whatever he likes. He wears that right as his badge of honour.
Irrespective though, although he certainly has the right to whatever opinion suits his fancy, [be it fairies, Bigfoot, or kidnapping, flitter in/flitter out Aliens] and no one is questioning that point, what is entirely delusional of him though, is his expectations that he is ever taken seriously by anyone else......well anyone other than river of course.

You have to admit I DO keep it entertaining around here, no?

 

[paddoboy]

You have to admit I DO keep it entertaining around here, no?

I don't mean to disappoint you, but no, not really.....at least as far as I am concerned.
I find mind blowing awesome joy and entertainment in science and how it is generally conducted, while I find amusement and plenty of incredulousness nonsense in the crap that you present.

 

[Magical Realist]

I don't mean to disappoint you, but no, not really.....at least as far as I am concerned.
I find mind blowing awesome joy and entertainment in science and how it is generally conducted, while I find amusement and plenty of incredulousness nonsense in the crap that you present.

I know better. You wouldn't be spending all day insulting me and arguing with me if it didn't entertain you.

 

[Daecon]

You're as entertaining as a ten-car pileup on the highway.

 

[Magical Realist]

You're as entertaining as a ten-car pileup on the highway.

Says the one who spends so much of his time following me around and dropping insulting one-liners in my threads.

 

[Bells]

A rule against quoting excerpts of articles? That's a new one on me. Perhaps you can quote it.

It's more a case that you are presenting huge blocks of text with little to no input from you. You haven't given any indication what you want to discuss. What it is you are presenting and why.

This is something I have brought up with you in the past.

In short, you should post in your own words and use quotes and links (small amounts quoted) to support your argument. Case in point, your OP has one line from you and the entirety of the rest of your post is what you quoted from a wiki page.

The second post also contains little to nothing of your own words, just another dump from the same wiki page.

In other words, we can't even tell it wasn't your own words until we get to the very end of the post and see the link. And it is only then that we know that your whole post is actually a giant quote from elsewhere. You have not indented it or put it in quote tags so that we know it isn't your own words. In fact, you have posted little to none of your own words in those posts.

Post 4 and 5 also contain zero of your own words. Just large blocks of text, with zero input from you and a link at the end and then on clicking it, we find out that you didn't write anything at all, just copied and pasted from elsewhere and put a link. Nothing at all from you. You didn't even bother to describe what you were linking or quoting, who the authors were and the date it was all published. Just copied and pasted large chunks of text.

From the rules:

8. When linking to other sites, include a description and/or meaningful link text – not just ‘Link’ or ‘Click here’.

[...]

13. Appropriate supporting evidence or explanations should be posted together with any opinion, especially on contentious issues. Sciforums is not your personal blog, and should not be used to promote your unsupported opinions.

14. Post coherently. The aim of writing anything is to communicate something to somebody else. Make your posts readable – use paragraphs, punctuation, correct capitalisation and correct spelling. Make your point clearly and succinctly.

15. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. If you’re claiming that Einstein was wrong, or that evolution does not occur, or that aliens are visiting Earth, be prepared to provide strong evidence in defence of your argument. If you only have an opinion, avoid posting on topics such as these.

16. Avoid using logical fallacies in arguments.

[...]

4. Under the laws of many countries, limited quotation of material is permissible in the context of comment, review and/or criticism. This does not in general permit the reproduction in full of complete works (e.g. song lyrics or news articles).

5. Where you reproduce part of a work in a post, you must include a link to the original source, along with appropriate acknowledgement – at a minimum the author’s name and the name of the original publishing source, but consider also supplying the original date of publication and other relevant information (e.g. ‘US shares fall further’ by A.Writer, New York Times, 11 September 2015.)

[...]

14. Plagiarism – the copying of another person’s writings and passing them off as your own – is a breach of copyright, as well as being intellectually dishonest. If you post something that somebody else wrote, you must name the author and appropriately reference the source (e.g. with a link). Posts that include material from elsewhere that is not properly acknowledged will be deleted.​

Your quotes and links are meant to bolster your argument. They are not meant to form the whole basis of what it is you are trying to convey. In other words, the content of your posts should be mainly your words and you use quotes and links to support your words and your argument. Not the other way around.

Then of course comes the fact that you are quoting large chunks of text from other sites and you are not doing anything to show that this is a quote. Posters regularly use indent, different font for what they are quoting, even italics or better yet, use the tags to show that what they are copying and pasting is a quote and not their words. You aren't doing any of that. So we have to sit there and weed out what may or may not be your words in what you are posting. This isn't acceptable.

I hope this clears things up for you. This site is not your blog. You need to post in your own words and frankly, what you are posting should be supporting your words. Your posts should not consist solely of a quote and a link and nothing at all from you.

Your OP should raise discussion points. Should explain what it is you are posting and why. What is it you want people to discuss? There is nothing like that at all. You also need to provide context. There is none. You should also be providing consideration for what else it could be. Raise discussion points. You don't do that either.

 

[paddoboy]

I know better. You wouldn't be spending all day insulting me and arguing with me if it didn't entertain you.

Whatever

 

[Magical Realist]

It's more a case that you are presenting huge blocks of text with little to no input from you. You haven't given any indication what you want to discuss. What it is you are presenting and why.

This is something I have brought up with you in the past.

In short, you should post in your own words and use quotes and links (small amounts quoted) to support your argument. Case in point, your OP has one line from you and the entirety of the rest of your post is what you quoted from a wiki page.

No. You never said I couldn't post excerpts of articles. You only whined and bitched that I was posting whole articles, which you accused as plagiarism. As for what is being discussed, I gave that in the OP. That's what I'm discussing, accounts of physical effects from ufos. I'm not arguing or asking a question, and there is nothing in the rules saying I have to be arguing or asking questions in a thread. At this point no discussions have taken place, as it takes two to have a discussion. I'm still waiting, ok? But hell, if you wanna go all Kittamaru on my ass and start micromanaging how I post new threads in this deadass forum and whether I'm indenting the articles? lol!, by all means lock the thread then. I'm used to that sort censorship here. Who's the moderator for this forum now anyway? You? James? Nobody?

 

[Daecon]

Do you want us to discuss how likely this story is that it really was aliens in spaceships?

 

[Magical Realist]

Do you want us to discuss how likely this story is that it really was aliens in spaceships?

If you don't believe their accounts, tell me why? What evidence do you have that it was something different that happened to them? Were they drunk or high? What accounts for this event?