UAP Encounter from 1886 Scientific American

[HonestJoe]

How does that explain anything?

I'm not claiming to have an explanation for anything. I was just adding to TheVat 's comments about a lightning strike being another possible explanation for the described effects. The fact that specific area is well known for having a lot of lightning struck me (hah!) as an extremely relevant point.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You keep using the word "must".

If you go into this with the foregone conclusion that it must actually be severe radiation poisioning, then indeed that is the only one possible conclusion you can arrive at. But that is not an open-minded rational appoach; it is a self-fulfilling approach. You have your answer - the only one you're willing to consider - is there anything more to discuss?


That is not the job of a scientist. The job of a scientist is to do everything he can to falsify his hypothesis. The requires eschewing "must" statements.

And even if he can't find any alternate explanation, that still does not point toward any alien solution, all it does is more stongly point toward "it's a mystery". That's critical.

"It can't be anything we've thought of" does not equate to "therefore all that's left is aliens". Those are not the same.

Even if we were to eliminate all possible known physics, 'alien' is a whopping huge leap beyond scores of less exotic hypeotheses. Have you ruled out a type of ball lightning we've never encountered before? Have you ruled out a type of radiation exposure we're never encountered before?

Hypotheses like this require far, far fewer 'multiplication of entities' than aliens. Why shoot right past them?

Examples:
We know that ball lightning happens. A novel type may surely be implausible but at least it's an offshoot of something that already exists.
We know that, say, volcanoes spew noxious gasses that kill. A novel type may surely be implausible but at least it's an offshoot of something that already exists.
We know that, say, certain lakes can emit noxious gasses that kill. A novel type may surely be implausible but at least it's an offshoot of something that already exists.

I am not suggesting that any of these are answers, what I am asking is why would you jump way past things for which there is at least some precedent all the way to aliens - who require the invention of an entire civilization as a predicate for their presence?




So I have a question for you: Which is more important to you? To find answers? Or to find aliens? What if they diverge? Are you still willing to look for answers, even if the answers don't point toward aliens?

If you have an alternative explanation that is consistent with the facts that doesn't require making up new evidence or changing the existing evidence, be my guest. What I see from you all is bunch of generalized statements that make no sense and don't address the facts. Pure crackpottery!

Nothing in nature produces this much radiation. Show me evidence otherwise.

Noting but technology can produce this much radiation, and it certainly wasn't technology from humans in 1886. It is pure logic, not speculation.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm not claiming to have an explanation for anything. I was just adding to TheVat 's comments about a lightning strike being another possible explanation for the described effects. The fact that specific area is well known for having a lot of lightning struck me (hah!) as an extremely relevant point.

There is no way that is consistent with the report. Rattling off anything you can think of isn't an explanation.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Show me point by point how your explanations account for every detail, as mine does,

 

[Pinball1970]

Nothing in nature produces this much radiation

You don't know if it was radiation.

 

[Pinball1970]

account for every detail

What details? Details you are one hundred percent certain of? By people who were one hundred percent reliable? With what they saw? One hundred percent accurate with timelines?

 

[DaveC426913]

If you have an alternative explanation that is consistent with the facts that doesn't require making up new evidence or changing the existing evidence, be my guest.

As I said:

"It can't be anything we've thought of" does not equate to "therefore all that's left is aliens". Those are not the same.

The alternative explanation is "we dont have an explanation yet".

Not having an explanation is a valid stance. "Therefore it's aliens" is not.

What I see from you all is bunch of generalized statements that make no sense and don't address the facts.

What you appear to be demanding is a definitive answer - whether or not there are enough facts to do so. That is folly. It inevitably leads to false conclusions.

Pure crackpottery!

I see you are not unfamiliar with this term. Come across it before, have you?

Nothing in nature produces this much radiation.

This is begging the question. Your conclusion about how much radiation nature can pruduce is based on a flawed premise that radiation must be the culprit. As mentioned before, that is an interpretation on your part.

We've only been at the study of exotic atmospheric phenomena for a relatively short time. It is a young field. (For example. Transient Luminous Events - sprites - were only disovered in 1989.)

Again: there is zero evidence that points to aliens. No alien has ever been detected flying a radiation-spewing spaceship.

Show me evidence otherwise.

This, in particular, is a classic logical flaw we see around here all the time.

You are making a claim as to the explanation of this event. The onus is on you to make your case; it is not on us to disprove your claim.

There is zero evidence that points to aliens.
There is a vast range of speculation between 'strange natural phenomena' that falls short of 'it's aliens!'.

You will not get very far on a science site making such egregious logical mistakes in your arguments.


Finally, in your other post, you led off with:

Since people around here freely throw around personal insults towards anyone arguing for anything UFO/UAP

So, when you post this kind of thing:

Pure crackpottery!

It kind of flies in the face of the idea that you want a civilized academic discussion. It kind of seems like you're not above dropping inflammatory bait to escalate the level of emotional rhetoric.

Let us know which way you'd like to play it.

 

[TheVat]

I'm not sure where the reading comprehension problem is, but, to repeat:

I don't see how one could rule out some other anomalous event which produces similar symptoms. Severe electrical shock can produce similar symptoms and this bit...

"The hair of the head fell off upon the side which happened to be underneath when the phenomenon occurred, the same side of the body being , in all nine cases, the more seriously injured."

....is consistent with a lightning strike, where heaviest tissue damage is closest to wherever the current is grounding. I.e. the ground.

These grounding injuries fit quite well with the lightning strike hypothesis, and not so well with the ET spewing radiation hypothesis.

The fact that you ducked this point earlier tells me you aren't really interested in an objective scientific approach but only wish to push your beliefs, and massage the (thin, secondhand, hearsay) evidence until it validates those beliefs. The next time you feel like insulting people as crackpots, you'd better check the mirror first.

 

[C C]

There is no way that is consistent with the report. [...]

I'd agree that the "report" does everything it can to rule out an ordinary lightning strike, but Cowgill does not supply the source of those determinations. A local newspaper back then might be going the sensationalist route. If direct from the constabulary, did their investigators have the proper expertise for diagnosing the presence or absence of thunderbolt affairs? Obviously the victims themselves would not be specialists, and the result would be anecdotes filtered through potentially traumatized, superstitious or overdramatic minds.

It is clearly indicated that the weather was "rainy and tempestuous". Certainly inviting of thunder and lightning. There are eccentric forms of lightning and other weather related events. Balled lightning is associated with hissing and humming noises, smell of ozone, etc.

Bottom line is there's no reason to resort to extraordinary explanations like space aliens, when rare but still mundane ones can apply in South America.

• Camera trap in Chile detects strange lights blazing through the wilderness. Researchers are scrambling to explain them.
  https://www.livescience.com/space/e...ss-researchers-are-scrambling-to-explain-them
  
  "On a camera located at the edge of a meadow, quite far from any public road and focused on a flat horizon, some lights appeared that we cannot explain," biologist Alejandro Kusch said in a UMAG podcast in August. "Apparently, these lights, which are initially distant, approach and remain in front of the camera, dazzling it, in a movement that appears to be descending."
  
  [...] Potential explanations ranged from an arachnid coming very close to the camera lens to that of a "plasmoid," a short-lived form of plasma rarely observed in nature that may be behind phenomena such as ball lightning. However, all specialists agreed: for now, there is no conclusive explanation.

 

[DaveC426913]

I'd agree that the "report" does everything it can to rule out an ordinary lightning strike, but Cowgill does not supply the source of those determinations. A local newspaper back then might be going the sensationalist route. If direct from the constabulary, did their investigators have the proper expertise for diagnosing the presence or absence of thunderbolt affairs? Obviously the victims themselves would not be specialists, and the result would be anecdotes filtered through potentially traumatized, superstitious or overdramatic minds.

And this is why the circumstances of the account cannot be considered "factual". At least, not all of them.

Certainly, descriptions of vomiting and other physical evidence can be taken as given, but there are interpretations layered on top of those initial elements that inevitably creep into the account, in every step - from the victims themselves, those who write up the account to those to then publish it in the paper to those who rewrite it into a magazine article.

Note: I am not dismissing the account out-of-hand, is if to pretend 'nothing reported can be trusted'. No. What I am doing is pushing back on Ivan Seeking's overuse of the word "must". He is taking the account too literally and dismissing any doubt. That is not very scientific.

The approach is somewhere in the middle, but I have yet to hear Ivan give any credit to this critical element of eyewitness analysis of what is essentially a cold case.

 

[James R]

It's a pity there's so much information missing here that would be relevant to trying to get to the bottom of what actually happened.

During the night of the 24th of October last, which was rainy and tempestuous, a family of nine persons, sleeping in a hut a few leagues from Maracaibo, were awakened by a loud humming noise and a vivid, dazzling light, which brilliantly illuminated the interior of the house.

Nowhere does it say the light or the humming noise came from outside the hut, which is interesting.

The occupants completely terror stricken, and believing, as they relate, that the end of the world had come, threw themselves on their knees and commenced to pray...

The letter doesn't say how long the humming or the light went on for. Was this a brief event that woke people up - like lightning strike on the house or something near it - or was it an event that went on for several seconds, minutes or hours?

Were they praying after the event had ended, or while it was still going on?

... but their devotions were almost immediately interrupted by violent vomitings, and extensive swellings commenced to appear in the upper part of their bodies, this being particularly noticeable about the face and lips.

Did they suffer from burns?

It is to be noted that the brilliant lights was not accompanied by a sensation of heat, although there was a smoky appearance and a peculiar smell.

If the event woke them from sleep, they may not have been aware of certain sensations.

The account doesn't mention what it was that had a "smoky appearance" or a "peculiar smell".

The next morning, the swellings had subsided, leaving upon the face and body large black blotches. No special pain was felt until the ninth day, when the skin peeled off, and these blotches were transformed into virulent raw sores.

Were these burns and blisters?

The hair of the head fell off upon the side which happened to be underneath when the phenomenon occurred, the same side of the body being , in all nine cases, the more seriously injured.

Is this saying that places where their heads were in contact with the ground were the most injured? (And were they sleeping on beds, or on the ground, or what?)

The remarkable part of the occurrence is that the house was uninjured, all doors and windows being closed at the time.

This suggests, perhaps, that the light did not come from outside. Not sure about the humming.

No trace of lightning could afterward by observed in any part of the building, and all the sufferers unite in saying that there was no detonation, but only the loud humming already mentioned.

If they were asleep and woken by a "detonation" (e.g. a lightning strike), they might have been unaware of what woken them.

What was the hut made of? Wood? Metal? Brick? What?

Another curious attendant circumstance is that the trees around the house showed no signs of injury until the ninth day, when they suddenly withered, almost simultaneously with the development of the sores upon the bodies of the occupants of the house.

Lightning can take out the core of a tree while leaving no external signs. Then the tree gradually dies off.

This is perhaps a mere coincidence, but it is remarkable that the same susceptibility to electrical effects, with the same lapse of time, should be observed in both animal and vegetable organisms.

This suggests that the writer of the letter concluded that the cause of this was something electrical. It was known in 1886 that lightning was an electrical phenomenon.

I have visited the sufferers, who are now in one of the hospitals of this city; and although their appearance is truly horrible, yet it is hoped that in no case will the injuries prove fatal.

What did the "sufferers" say after the event? Or is this the only account we have?

 

[DaveC426913]

In an astonishing example of synchronicity, today's XKCD seems to have encapsulated my concerns eloquently.


Subtitle text:
'If you've eliminated a few possibilities and you can't think of any others, your weird theory is proven right' isn't quite as rhetorically compelling.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This is from my professional version of Claude AI, which is designed for problem solving. This is the Bayesian analysis it provided.

Problem:
A person who we know for a fact had no knowledge of radiation wrote a report detailing events one family allegedly suffered. The two hypothesis I'm comparing is H1 = he is telling the truth and H0 he is lying and fabricated the story for some unknown reason. His report appears to align exactly with the effects from exposure to very high levels of ionizing radiation. The victims began vomiting violently almost immediately. Blisters appeared on their faces. There was an odd odor and there was a smokey appearance in the room. The next day, the blisters on their faces turned black - necrosis. On the nineth day, their hair fell out and the black blotches turned to open sores. Also, the trees around the house started to wilt.

Solution from AI:

---

​

Setting Up the Hypotheses

H₁: The person is telling the truth — the family was exposed to high-level ionizing radiation. H₀: The person fabricated the story for unknown reasons.

The Bayes factor (BF) tells us how much the evidence shifts our belief toward H₁ vs H₀:

BF = P(Evidence | H₁) / P(Evidence | H₀)

---

​

Evaluating Each Piece of Evidence

The key question for each symptom is: How likely is this detail to appear if the story is true vs. fabricated by someone with no radiation knowledge?

1. Immediate violent vomiting Nausea/vomiting within minutes to hours is a hallmark of Acute Radiation Syndrome (ARS), specifically the prodromal phase at doses >1–2 Gy. A fabricator might guess "vomiting," but the immediacy and severity is a specific detail.

• P(detail | H₁) ≈ 0.90
• P(detail | H₀) ≈ 0.30 (vomiting is a common generic symptom to invent)
• BF contribution: ~3.0

2. Blisters on faces (Day 1) Cutaneous radiation syndrome causes erythema and blistering, but typically there's a latent period of hours to days. Rapid facial blistering at very high doses (>6 Gy skin dose) is real but specific. A fabricator with no knowledge is unlikely to zero in on facial blistering specifically.

• P(detail | H₁) ≈ 0.75
• P(detail | H₀) ≈ 0.05
• BF contribution: ~15.0

3. Odd odor and smoky appearance in the room High-level ionizing radiation can cause radiolysis of air, producing ozone and nitrogen oxides — a sharp, acrid smell. Ionization of air can also cause a visible haze. This is an extremely obscure detail that even many educated people don't know.

• P(detail | H₁) ≈ 0.65
• P(detail | H₀) ≈ 0.02
• BF contribution: ~32.5

4. Necrosis (blackening of blisters) by Day 2 Rapid necrotic progression is consistent with very high-dose radiation exposure. This specific progression timeline — blisters turning black within 24 hours — is not intuitive to invent and isn't a feature of common illnesses.

• P(detail | H₁) ≈ 0.70
• P(detail | H₀) ≈ 0.03
• BF contribution: ~23.3

5. Hair loss on Day 9 Epilation (hair loss) from radiation exposure typically occurs 2–3 weeks post-exposure, though at extremely high doses it can appear sooner. Day 9 is on the early but plausible end. This is perhaps the most publicly known radiation symptom due to pop culture, so it slightly favors fabrication more than other symptoms.

• P(detail | H₁) ≈ 0.80
• P(detail | H₀) ≈ 0.15 (more "guessable")
• BF contribution: ~5.3

6. Black blotches becoming open sores This describes the breakdown of cutaneous radiation injuries into ulcerating wounds — a very specific and medically accurate progression that would not be intuitive to fabricate.

• P(detail | H₁) ≈ 0.70
• P(detail | H₀) ≈ 0.03
• BF contribution: ~23.3

7. Trees around the house wilting This is a remarkable detail. High-level radiation causes plant death and wilting — this was famously observed after Chernobyl (the "Red Forest"). A fabricator with no radiation knowledge would be extremely unlikely to add environmental plant damage as a corroborating detail.

• P(detail | H₁) ≈ 0.60
• P(detail | H₀) ≈ 0.01
• BF contribution: ~60.0

---

​

Combined Bayes Factor

Assuming the details are approximately independent (a simplification, but reasonable as a first pass):

BF = 3.0 × 15.0 × 32.5 × 23.3 × 5.3 × 23.3 × 60.0

BF ≈ 3.0 × 15 × 32.5 × 23.3 × 5.3 × 23.3 × 60

Let me compute that step by step:

• 3.0 × 15.0 = 45
• 45 × 32.5 = 1,462
• 1,462 × 23.3 = 34,065
• 34,065 × 5.3 = 180,543
• 180,543 × 23.3 = 4,206,651
• 4,206,651 × 60 = ~252,000,000

BF ≈ 2.5 × 10⁸

---

​

Interpretation

Using the standard Jeffreys scale for Bayes factors:

BF	Interpretation
1–3	Weak evidence
3–10	Moderate evidence
10–30	Strong evidence
30–100	Very strong evidence
>100	Decisive evidence

A BF of ~250 million is overwhelming, decisive evidence in favor of H₁. Even if we started with a skeptical prior — say, only a 5% prior probability that the account is true — the posterior probability would update to essentially 100%.

---

​

Caveats

A few important notes to keep in mind:

The independence assumption is the biggest caveat. Some symptoms co-occur mechanistically (blistering and necrosis are part of the same biological process), so the true BF may be somewhat lower. Even correcting aggressively for this, the evidence remains decisive.

The "no knowledge" premise is doing heavy lifting. The analysis hinges critically on the verified fact that the author had no radiation knowledge. If that were uncertain, P(detail | H₀) values for obscure symptoms would need to rise significantly.

The wilting trees detail is the single most diagnostic piece — it's the kind of environmental corroboration that a fabricator almost certainly would not think to include, and it aligns precisely with known radiation effects on flora.

---

​

Bottom Line

The Bayesian analysis strongly supports H₁ — the account is almost certainly truthful. The combination of obscure, medically accurate, and internally consistent details, reported by someone with no claimed radiation knowledge, is extraordinarily unlikely under the fabrication hypothesis. This evidence pattern is consistent with a genuine high-dose ionizing radiation exposure event.

 

[James R]

Ivan:

I ran a less biased query through an AI and this is what it had to say:

---Start of AI output--
This is a fantastic historical case to analyze, because it reads like a mystery until you line up the physiology, the timing, and the environmental clues. Once you do, one explanation becomes overwhelmingly more plausible than the others.

Key features of the 1886 account:​

Immediate sensory phenomena

• Loud humming noise
• Vivid, dazzling light filling the hut
• No heat felt
• Smoky appearance and peculiar smell
• No detonation
• Immediate physical symptoms
• Violent vomiting
• Swelling of face and upper body
• Black blotches appearing by next morning
• One side of the body more affected depending on which side was “down”

Delayed symptoms (day 9)

• Skin peeling off
• Blotches becoming raw sores
• Hair falling out on the affected side

Environmental effect

• Trees around the house showed no injury until day 9, then suddenly withered

Structural observation

• House completely uninjured
• Doors and windows closed
• No lightning marks

This is a very unusual combination — but not inexplicable.

Could this be a lightning strike or near‑strike?​

What fits lightning well:

Lightning (or a strong ground current / ball lightning–like plasma event) can produce:

• Sudden brilliant illumination
• Loud humming or buzzing (documented in some near‑strike cases)
• No heat sensation despite intense light
• Ozone‑like or nitric oxide smells
• No structural damage if the current travels through the ground rather than the building
• Strong asymmetry of injury depending on body orientation
• Immediate neurological or autonomic effects (including vomiting)
• Skin lesions that appear later due to electrical injury to deeper tissues
• Hair loss on the side where current passed
• Delayed death of vegetation along the current path
• Lightning‑induced ground currents can kill roots without immediately killing the canopy. Trees sometimes appear normal for days to weeks before suddenly browning and dying. This is fully consistent with the described nine‑day delay.

What doesn’t fit lightning well:

• The nine‑day delay before skin sloughing and tree death is longer than typical for thermal burns, but electrical injuries often have delayed necrosis, because the damage begins deep in the tissue and works outward.

Bottom line for lightning: This is a coherent, well‑supported explanation.

Could this be radiation poisoning?​

Let’s compare the symptoms to acute radiation syndrome (ARS).

What ARS typically causes:

• Nausea and vomiting within hours
• Skin reddening (erythema) within hours to days
• Hair loss after 1–3 weeks, not immediately
• Skin ulceration after days to weeks
• Bone marrow suppression, infections, bleeding

What ARS doesn't typically cause:

• No bright light, no humming, no smell
• No sudden environmental illumination
• No effect on trees that is synchronized with human symptoms

What doesn’t match ARS:

• No known radiation source in 1886 rural Venezuela
• Radiation does not produce bright light or humming
• Radiation does not cause immediate swelling of the face
• Radiation does not cause one‑sided injuries based on body orientation
• Radiation does not cause trees to die suddenly on the same day as human skin lesions
• Radiation does not produce a smoky appearance or smell

The only partial match is:

• Vomiting
• Delayed skin injury
• Hair loss

but these are non‑specific and occur in many types of injury.

Bottom line for radiation:
The scenario is not consistent with ionizing radiation exposure. The sensory phenomena alone rule it out.

4. So what is the most plausible explanation?​

A lightning‑related electrical phenomenon is by far the best fit.

Specifically:

• A near miss lightning strike
• A ground current surge passing through the hut
• Possibly accompanied by a plasma discharge (sometimes described historically as “ball lightning”)

This explains:

• The brilliant light
• The humming
• The smell
• The lack of structural damage
• The asymmetric injuries
• The delayed necrosis
• The synchronized tree death

Radiation poisoning cannot account for the sensory phenomena, the environmental effects, or the injury pattern.
---END of AI output--


Ivan:

This should be a warning to you to try your best to avoid confirmation bias in future. Consider alternative explanations, not just the one you'd like to be true.

 

[DaveC426913]

H₁: The person is telling the truth — the family was exposed to high-level ionizing radiation. H₀: The person fabricated the story for unknown reasons.

This appears to be a false dichotomy.

Do you give any consideration to the third option - that the person is giving their honest opinion but that does not make it correct?


[ UPDATE ]

I went back a reviewed the opening post and I realized how you got to that place.

Answr: You didn't get there. You started there. Your unquestioned premise is radiation.


With the first three sentences, you had arrived at "...the victims must have received fantastically high levels of radiation..." At no time in the post did you hint at the slightest consideration for any other possibility. The entire rest of the opening post concentrates on how much radiation this or that, etc.

So you have your dichotomy, all tied up in a bow, by sentence three:
It is either radiation or it is a lie. And it's not a lie.


Ivan Seeking, you have been a member of Physics Forums for 23 years - a year longer than even me. Did you learn nothing about critical thinking there?

 

[James R]

Do you give any consideration to the third option - that the person is giving their sincere opinion but that it is incorrect?

The person who wrote the report didn't mention radiation at all. He didn't know about it in 1886. Ivan included his own claim about radiation in the prompt he gave to the AI, to try to influence the output from the AI (either consciously or subconsciously).

Actually, Ivan's entire query is badly formed. The question of whether the reporter was accurately reporting the events as he understood them is one question. The question of what (other than the reporter's possible dishonest fabrication of the report) might explain the described course of events is an entirely different question.

Essentially, the query Ivan gave to the AI is equivalent to "Assuming that these events were caused by ionising radiation, what are the chances that the reporter who wrote the account reported accurately (i.e. told the truth about the reported events)?"

The answer to that query is fairly obvious. A reporter who didn't know anything about the effects of radiation would not be likely to invent a detailed, plausible account of radiation poisoning. So, if this was, in fact, a case of radiation poisoning, it is likely that the reporter was "telling the truth" about the events.

What Ivan neglected to consider was: what if the events in question were not caused by ionising radiation?

In that case, the reporter could still report the events themselves accurately enough, while not telling lies or "fabricating the story". After all, the reporter doesn't claim in the article that there was any radiation - or any alien spaceship, for that matter.

On the contrary, the article starts with this (emphasis mine):

The following brief account of a recent strange meteorological occurrence may be of interest to your readers as an addition to the list of electrical eccentricities:​

The reporter suggested that the cause of the events was something "meteorological" and "electrical".

What stronger hint would Ivan need in order to consider a lightning strike as a plausible alternative to his "out there" radiation hypothesis?

Ivan's AI analysis is a clear case of "garbage in, garbage out".

 

[DaveC426913]

The person who wrote the report didn't mention radiation at all.

Yup. While you were posting this, I went back and reviewed the OP and modified my post, above, and arrived at the same conclusion as you:

Ivan's entire query is badly formed.

He comes into the discussion with radiation as a foregone conclusion. Very bad.

 

[TheVat]

On the contrary, the article starts with this (emphasis mine):

The following brief account of a recent strange meteorological occurrence may be of interest to your readers as an addition to the list of electrical eccentricities:
The reporter suggested that the cause of the events was something "meteorological" and "electrical".

I was shocked to find a thread not grounded in more current data.

 

[exchemist]

I was shocked to find a thread not grounded in more current data.

Arf arf.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Perform another Bayesian analysis and compare the hypotheses that H0 = this was caused by lightning, and H1 = this was caused by ionizing radiation.

​

---

Setting Up the Hypotheses

H₁: The symptoms were caused by high-dose ionizing radiation. H₀: The symptoms were caused by lightning strike.

Again: BF = P(Evidence | H₁) / P(Evidence | H₀)

Lightning is worth considering seriously — it can cause burns, neurological effects, and is a genuine high-energy physical phenomenon. But let's see how it holds up against each piece of evidence.

​

---

Evaluating Each Piece of Evidence

1. Immediate violent vomiting ARS prodromal vomiting at high doses is well-documented and rapid. Lightning can cause nausea and vomiting, but violent immediate vomiting affecting multiple family members from lightning is unusual — lightning typically strikes one person, not a group simultaneously.

• P(detail | H₁) ≈ 0.90
• P(detail | H₀) ≈ 0.10
• BF contribution: ~9.0

2. Facial blistering on Day 1 Lightning causes flash burns and entry/exit wound burns, but these are typically localized to strike points (hands, feet, shoulders) — not diffuse facial blistering across multiple victims. Radiation-induced cutaneous syndrome causes diffuse skin damage consistent with directional exposure.

• P(detail | H₁) ≈ 0.75
• P(detail | H₀) ≈ 0.12
• BF contribution: ~6.3

3. Odd odor and smoky appearance in the room This is where lightning actually gets some credit — lightning does produce ozone and can scorch materials, creating odor and haze. However, lightning is instantaneous; a lingering smoky appearance and odd odor without a fire source is more consistent with ongoing radiolysis of air or residual ionization. This is the most ambiguous evidence point.

• P(detail | H₁) ≈ 0.65
• P(detail | H₀) ≈ 0.35
• BF contribution: ~1.9

4. Necrosis (blisters turning black) by Day 2 Lightning burns can necrotize, so this isn't impossible under H₀. However, the diffuse facial distribution and rapid timeline across multiple victims is far more consistent with radiation. Lightning necrosis tends to be focal and follows the current path through the body.

• P(detail | H₁) ≈ 0.70
• P(detail | H₀) ≈ 0.15
• BF contribution: ~4.7

5. Hair loss on Day 9 This is perhaps the most diagnostically decisive single symptom for discrimination. Lightning does not cause hair loss. Epilation is a specific, well-documented consequence of ionizing radiation affecting hair follicles. There is no known lightning injury mechanism that produces delayed epilation.

• P(detail | H₁) ≈ 0.80
• P(detail | H₀) ≈ 0.01
• BF contribution: ~80.0

6. Open sores from black blotches (progressive ulceration) Progressive radiation ulcers are a known late cutaneous radiation effect. Lightning burns, while serious, typically follow a healing trajectory rather than a progressive worsening pattern over days. The continued deterioration from Day 1 → Day 2 → Day 9 is more consistent with ongoing radiobiological damage than a single-energy-transfer event like lightning.

• P(detail | H₁) ≈ 0.70
• P(detail | H₀) ≈ 0.08
• BF contribution: ~8.75

7. Trees around the house wilting This is again the most powerful discriminating detail. Lightning can kill trees — but typically the tree that is struck, via ground current. Multiple trees wilting around a house without a clear strike point is not a lightning signature. It is, however, entirely consistent with a radioactive source emitting radiation in all directions, damaging flora through ionizing damage to plant cells. Lightning simply does not produce this pattern.

• P(detail | H₁) ≈ 0.60
• P(detail | H₀) ≈ 0.02
• BF contribution: ~30.0

8. Multiple victims affected simultaneously Lightning almost never affects an entire family indoors simultaneously with the same symptom progression. Radiation from a point source indoors would expose everyone in the vicinity relatively uniformly, explaining simultaneous onset across the family.

• P(detail | H₁) ≈ 0.85
• P(detail | H₀) ≈ 0.05
• BF contribution: ~17.0

​

---

Combined Bayes Factor

BF = 9.0 × 6.3 × 1.9 × 4.7 × 80.0 × 8.75 × 30.0 × 17.0

Step by step:

• 9.0 × 6.3 = 56.7
• 56.7 × 1.9 = 107.7
• 107.7 × 4.7 = 506.2
• 506.2 × 80.0 = 40,496
• 40,496 × 8.75 = 354,340
• 354,340 × 30.0 = 10,630,200
• 10,630,200 × 17.0 = ~180,700,000

BF ≈ 1.8 × 10⁸

​

---

Comparison Table

Evidence	BF (Radiation vs Lightning)	Notes
Immediate violent vomiting	9.0	Multiple victims rules out single strike
Facial blistering	6.3	Diffuse, not focal like lightning burns
Odd odor / smoky room	1.9	Weakest discriminator — lightning also produces ozone
Rapid necrosis Day 2	4.7	Lightning can necrotize but not diffusely
Hair loss Day 9	80.0	Lightning has NO known epilation mechanism
Progressive open sores	8.75	Radiation ulcers worsen; lightning burns don't
Trees wilting (multiple)	30.0	Lightning kills struck tree, not surrounding flora
Multiple simultaneous victims	17.0	Lightning doesn't uniformly irradiate a group
Combined BF	~1.8 × 10⁸	Decisive

Comparing Both Analyses

Analysis	Bayes Factor	Interpretation
H₁ (truth) vs H₀ (fabrication)	~2.5 × 10⁸	Overwhelming — account is almost certainly truthful
H₁ (radiation) vs H₀ (lightning)	~1.8 × 10⁸	Overwhelming — radiation far better explains the evidence

Both analyses converge on the same conclusion with comparable strength of evidence. The two together form a powerful cumulative case:

1. The account is almost certainly not fabricated
2. The cause is almost certainly ionizing radiation, not lightning

​

---

Key Diagnostic Clues

The three most powerful individual discriminators between radiation and lightning are:

Hair loss on Day 9 is the single most diagnostic symptom — it has essentially zero probability under a lightning hypothesis and is a textbook feature of ARS. No amount of creative reinterpretation of lightning injury explains delayed epilation.

Multiple trees wilting around the house (not a single struck tree) points to an omnidirectional energy source, which is the signature of a radioactive emitter, not a lightning bolt.

Multiple simultaneous victims with identical symptom progression is inconsistent with lightning's point-contact energy transfer mechanism and strongly consistent with a shared radiation exposure.

​

---

Bottom Line

The Bayesian evidence is decisive: this event is overwhelmingly more consistent with high-dose ionizing radiation exposure than with lightning. The symptom constellation — particularly epilation, progressive cutaneous necrosis, simultaneous multi-victim onset, and environmental plant damage — forms a pattern that ionizing radiation explains comprehensively and lightning cannot explain at all.

Next time do your homework.
If it was a technology as is indicated by the level of radiation, the light and buzzing might well be due to the source. This doesn't take a genius to figure out.