UFO SCEPTICISME
Avertissement : UFO SCEPTICISME est un forum indépendant de toute association, groupe, structure, traitant du phénomène ovni.

Son administration se démarque et condamne fermement les activités prosélytes de partisans d'hypothèses exotiques non testables, non vérifiables à propos des PAN.

Avant l'inscription, merci de lire le règlement de l'hébergeur et le règlement particulier du forum. Pour cela, voir la rubrique "A lire avant de s'inscrire ou de poster".

Aucune inscription n'est plus acceptée sans l'adresse mail du fournisseur d'accès internet. Les adresses mail restent totalement confidentielles.

Pour que l'inscription soit pérenne, le nouvel inscrit doit poster au moins un message dans les 8 jours après la validation de celle-ci.

Le forum UFO SCEPTICISME privilégie la participation par rapport au nombre d'inscrits.
UFO SCEPTICISME

UFOLOGIE ET SCEPTICISME


Vous n'êtes pas connecté. Connectez-vous ou enregistrez-vous

Cash-Landrum 29 décembre 1980 DAYTON TEXAS

Aller à la page : Précédent  1 ... 10 ... 17, 18, 19 ... 23  Suivant

Aller en bas  Message [Page 18 sur 23]

marcassite

marcassite
Membre d'honneur
Membre d'honneur
J'ai survolé ce rapport (peu confortable à lire vsuellement et en anglais en sus) et remarqué quelques petites choses :
- Leur repas du soir n'est pas détaillé mais on sait au moins qu'ils ont consommé des "sausage, eggs,..." au resto routier avant les symptômes physiologiques. Charcuterie, oeufs, mayo, thon sont connus comme source d'intox alimentaire.
-Il est indiqué un gonflement des lèvres (de 3 fois).
Je ne suis pas toubib mais c'est plus du registre de l'oedème d'allergie (histaminique?) ou de l'urticaire que des radiations ...
On sait que les femmes agées sont plus sensibles aux intox alimentaires et aussi que ces intox alimentaires peuvent provoquer des alopécies chez la femme.
(Si quelqu'un peut traduire la note 18 en page 6 qui en parle ?)
-Une des témouines avait bien une cataracte, probablement avant l'observation. => effet éblouissement multiplié, contours peu nets. Tout ce qu'il faut pour une méprise avec un panneau ou un hélico + projo. Est-ce la conductrice ?
-Le gamin Colby dit que les hélicos étaient là du début à la fin de l'observation (hypo du panneau).
-Il me semble avoir lu quelque part qu'il est question d'un traitement qui répond aux antibiotiques.
-la chute de cheveux, d'ongles, la desquamation,
la diarrhée, le gonflement des paupières, lobe d'oreille et des lèvres,... Faudrait vraiment lister tout ça par témoin et demander l'avis de quelques médecins sur les diverses hypothèses logiques (radiation, staphylocoques dorés, intox histaminique, intox autre, radiation, psychosoma, ...)

-Enfin, j'ai le souvenir d'avoir lu il y a longtemps, qu'une des témoins disait ne pas supporter la douche ou le bain (eau chaude). Exact ou pas ?




sentry579

sentry579
I can confirm that the witnesses reported sensitivity to heat and sunlight. Vickie Landrum, for example said she was unable to cook for her family or take warm baths.
- - -
Je peux confirmer que les témoins ont rapporté sensibilité à la chaleur et du soleil. Vickie Landrum, par exemple déclaré qu'elle était incapable de cuisiner pour sa famille ou prendre des bains chauds.

Bonus: My slideshow test reel

http://blueblurrylines.blogspot.com/

nablator

nablator
Administration
Administration
marcassite a écrit:Est-ce la conductrice ?
Non, c'est Vickie.

(Si quelqu'un peut traduire la note 18 en page 6 qui en parle ?)
18. J'ai cherché à avoir l'opinion d'un autre pathologiste ici dans les environs [du comté] de Madison. Mon expert m'a indiqué que sous le microscope alopecia areata est un diagnostic spécifique, pas un diagnostic poubelle. [NdT : "poubelle" je suppose que ça veut dire "par défaut"] Raison de plus de douter du diagnostic du pathologiste de là-bas à Houston.

http://nabbed.unblog.fr/

Invité


Invité
Nouvelle entrée sur le blog de Sentry.
Professor Michael D. Swords Reports on the Cash-Landrum UFO Investigation:

http://blueblurrylines.blogspot.fr/2013/11/professor-michael-d-swords-reports-on.html

Invité


Invité
Curt, Isaac Koi et Wim Van Utrecht viennent de rendre téléchargeable un article de ce dernier jusque-là non-publié:
van Utrecht, Wim: Cash-Landrum UFO identified? 2001 published by Caelestia, Antwerp, Belgium
https://app.box.com/s/hdp72hndv5ubkg13o6vv

 

Win tient à ce que ces notes suivantes - qui ne figurent pas dans ce "draft" - soient prises en compte :
- The “flame reflections” that I refer to in the article are actually part of a broader phenomenon that I have since called “Artificial Light Pillars in High Cloud” (a six-part article on these light pillars can be found here: http://www.caelestia.be/article01a.html).


- There are various paragraphs in the text that I now feel should have been either left out or rewritten.


- The German photos included at the end are not a good example of the type of pillar that, I think, caused the CASH/LANDRUM report. Most of the pillars that are shown in these pictures are reflections from unshielded city lights in low cloud (ice mist). What we need for the CASH/LANDRUM report is a mirrored image of a big flame in cirriform cloud. Flames from a gas well or a petrochemical complex may have been responsible for the twin pillars in the bottom picture, but I never managed to establish that with certainty.

A much better example of a bright reflection is this one: http://www.caelestia.be/OP-PH-21.html. It was caused by a flame from a refinery near Terneuzen, The Netherlands. We calculated that the reflection occurred in 16,000 feet high cirrus clouds.

Despite the fact that there are quite a few shortcomings in the text I'm sending you, there is no doubt in my mind that the first phase of the CASH/LANDRUM incident was indeed caused by an atmospheric reflection of a bright flame. Compare for instance the image I just linked to with the following descriptions given in SCHUESSLER’s book:

- Betty: first a “red glow” near the horizon, then also “a vertical streak of red” that “appeared to be miles away”, but “stood out clearly in the sky”.

- Vickie: “a long streak of fire” that didn’t move.


Or in HENDRY’s recently surfaced preliminary report:

- “The whole sky seemed bright ahead of them”; “Then the witnesses became aware that a vertically oblong form was suspended over the road”.

Note also that, like with the light pillar caused by the flare at Terneuzen, the Texan witnesses too wondered if Jesus was going “to come out the fire in the sky”.

The light source responsible for the CASH/LANDRUM reflection - if that is what it was - can only be tracked down if we now the azimuth and elevation of the vertical streak of light (among other things, it was never a 100% clear to me where the car was when the “object” was first spotted). If it turns out that a big flame from an industrial site is impossible, we might be looking at an accident with a pipe line that, for some reason, needed to be covered up.

I still think it’s a pity that I never finished this article, but there were simply too few useful data in SCHUESSLER’s study to make a solid case for this theory.



Dernière édition par Gilles F. le 21/11/13, 09:10 pm, édité 2 fois

sentry579

sentry579
I have just emailed Wim to compliment him on his article and offer him further resources if desired.
His analysis of Schuessler's book is excellent. I feel like I've found a lost brother!

http://blueblurrylines.blogspot.com/

Sebastien

Sebastien
Modération
Modération
Very interesting theory that we'll have to dig a little bit. The linked image isn't visible in the text of Wim. Here it is I think: http://www.caelestia.be/reflections/reflections-fig1.jpg


_________________
Tout se passe comme si l'HSP/TRC était vraie, ou que l'HET était rare.

nablator

nablator
Administration
Administration
Awesome!



Cash-Landrum  29 décembre 1980 DAYTON TEXAS - Page 19 Reflec10
(http://www.caelestia.be/reflections/reflections-fig1.jpg)

Cash-Landrum  29 décembre 1980 DAYTON TEXAS - Page 19 Reflec11
(http://www.caelestia.be/reflections/reflections-fig5.jpg)

http://nabbed.unblog.fr/

Invité


Invité
La carte fournie par Wim, et ses commentaires, sont intéressants àmha pour examiner l'hypothèse (artificial light pillar):

Cash-Landrum  29 décembre 1980 DAYTON TEXAS - Page 19 Gk528d1d85

nablator

nablator
Administration
Administration
Le problème c'est que :
- les torchères des raffineries doivent être nombreuses, il n'y en a surement pas qu'une seule,
- aucun grand incendie n'a été identifié. Faudra chercher dans les journaux.
- des hélicoptères civils n'ont pas été identifiés non plus, mais y a-t-il seulement eu des recherches ? Un contrôleur aérien (civil et militaire) interrogé n'était au courant de rien.

http://nabbed.unblog.fr/

Sebastien

Sebastien
Modération
Modération
The theory of Wim Van Utrecht points to the Shell Deer Park Oil Refinery which exists since the late 20's and was well active in 1980. It is nowadays the sixth biggest refinery in the States.
http://www.shell.us/aboutshell/projects-locations/deerpark/about-deer-park.html

Here is a picture (almost 2 miles wide) from Google Earth showing the refinery as of December 1978:

Cash-Landrum  29 décembre 1980 DAYTON TEXAS - Page 19 Shell-10

J'ai mappé la carte de Wim Van Utrecht sur Google Earth et mis en évidence la raffinerie en question. Qu'est-ce que vous utilisez pour partager un fichier en ligne? scratch 


_________________
Tout se passe comme si l'HSP/TRC était vraie, ou que l'HET était rare.

nablator

nablator
Administration
Administration
Sebastien a écrit:J'ai mappé la carte de Wim Van Utrecht sur Google Earth et mis en évidence la raffinerie en question. Qu'est-ce que vous utilisez pour partager un fichier en ligne? scratch 
Rapidshare.com ?
Box.com ?
C'est quoi comme fichier ? Kmz ?

http://nabbed.unblog.fr/

oncle dom

oncle dom
Sebastien a écrit: Qu'est-ce que vous utilisez pour partager un fichier en ligne? scratch 
Ca dépend de de la taille du fichier. Pour moins de 8192 Ko, il y a http://cjoint.com/
Sinon, il y a ceux répertoriés sur cette page
Malheureusement, elle n'est pas à jour.

http://oncle-dom.fr/index.htm

Sebastien

Sebastien
Modération
Modération


_________________
Tout se passe comme si l'HSP/TRC était vraie, ou que l'HET était rare.

marcassite

marcassite
Membre d'honneur
Membre d'honneur
Selon la carte de Wim V.Utrecht,
si l'ovni est vu au point 2 "en face" et au point 6 "dans le rétro/lunette arrière", la source (flamme de torchère, lumière) ne peut être qu'à un seul endroit logiquement : au croisement des axes des 2 routes respectives. Bref il y a un bug dans l'histoire.

Sinon l'axe de vue en 2 pointe bien sur les raffineries Total et Shell de Deer Point.
http://goo.gl/maps/lAAOz

S'il y a eu un dégazage de flamme exceptionnel d'une torchère, c'est qu'il y a eu un petit incident de production qui est forcément noté dans les archives de ces raffineries... si elles ont des archives.

Voir aussi si les conditions météo collaient avec le type de cristaux/nuages.=> prendre contact avec un ufologue US qui contacterait un météorologue texan qui trouverait l'info ? Sad

C'est une hypothèse à creuser sérieusement.
Je note que Wim V.U conforte l'idée d'une intox alimentaire avec une citation (schuessler) "perhaps it was something he had eaten at the truck stop in New Caney"...

Sebastien

Sebastien
Modération
Modération
Pour l'alopécie, le stress peut en être la cause. Je connais deux cas personnellement malheureusement. Et quand on sait que le témoin cité par Van Utrecht a lui aussi pensé à la venue de Jésus, on peut penser que cette vision doit avoir un petit effet de stress.

Pour le point 6 de la carte, tu notes un point à éclaircir effectivement. Qui dit qu'elles voyaient la colonne dans le rétroviseur? D'ailleurs il serait bon d'avoir tous les textes qui ont permis cette reconstitution. Sentry have you an idea what the sources are for Van Utrecht's map?

Pour la météo, peut-être que quelqu'un ici connait un site performant capable de se remonter aussi loin?


_________________
Tout se passe comme si l'HSP/TRC était vraie, ou que l'HET était rare.

Invité


Invité
Sebastien a écrit:Very interesting theory that we'll have to dig a little bit. The linked image isn't visible in the text of Wim. Here it is I think: http://www.caelestia.be/reflections/reflections-fig1.jpg
Je viens de recevoir un e-mail de Wim. J'ai demandé si je pouvais partager certaines informations qu'il a apportées (en plus des suivantes) en nous lisant.
En fait, l'image serait plutôt celle-ci et légendée comme vous lirez... Très intéressant et surtout magnifique (même s'il s'agit de L.P verticaux).

Cash-Landrum  29 décembre 1980 DAYTON TEXAS - Page 19 OP-PH-21
Légende:
On January 7, 2007, an equipment malfunction triggered an emergency flaring at the Dutch manufacturing company of Dow Chemical in Terneuzen. The huge flame that accompanied the excessive gas emission produced a bright reflection that stirred commotion in the provinces of Zeeland (the Netherlands) and Oost-Vlaanderen (Belgium). Inspired by witnesses who believed that the second coming of Christ was at hand, newspapers and television stations spoke of the return of the Star of Bethlehem. Fortunately, members of the Philippus Langsbergen Observatory in Middelburg were interviewed as well. Since they were acquainted with the phenomenon of gas-flame reflections, their explanations helped put matters to rest.

The picture above was taken by a member of the observatory and published the next day by the local newspaper Provinciale Zeeuwse Courant and de national paper De Telegraaf. See next images for three more pictures of this same reflection taken by other amateur astronomers.
Wim m'a également fait part de cette vidéo. Il s'agit d'un L.P. qui fut causé par un feu et l'explosion d'un pipe-line... Very Rare and impressive (vertical again).

sentry579

sentry579
Wim van Utrecht has kindly allowed me to publish a revised version of his unpublished 2002 Cash-Landrum examination: http://www.blueblurrylines.com/2013/11/cash-landrum-theory-analysis.html

Also, a video slideshow of Vickie's NUFORC call:

http://blueblurrylines.blogspot.com/

nablator

nablator
Administration
Administration
sentry579 a écrit:Also, a video slideshow of Vickie's NUFORC call:
"It come down almost to the treetops, and then it went back up and went to the right of us."

How high would treetops be from Vickie's point of view? From the Bergstrom Interview, 60 to 80 feet above and 130 feet distance would be between 27° and 38° of altitude. This angle and a little calculation from meteorological data could yield a lower bound to the distance to the hypothetical reflected flame.

If Vickie is correct, the flame would also have to be moving to the right.

http://nabbed.unblog.fr/

Invité


Invité
Sentry579 a écrit:Wim van Utrecht has kindly allowed me to publish a revised version of his unpublished 2002 Cash-Landrum examination: http://www.blueblurrylines.com/2013/11/cash-landrum-theory-analysis.html
Again, it is a very interesting piste/hypothesis (and a new one).
If I'm correct, LP may be seen by individuals, but not by others, depending the point(s) of location they are situated. It could explain why not so much other witnesses saw it. The L.P. phenomenon being "intrinsically" rare, well we have a good potential "explanation" why the sighting is resisting, and why the witnesses have been "legitimately" surprised. Beyond this explanation is pointing a real stimulus, well matching with what is described (taking into account how narratives may be more or less well describing what it is realy seen), we have an economical explanation.
Cash-Landrum  29 décembre 1980 DAYTON TEXAS - Page 19 CASH-LANDRUM-comparison

The "problem" is that not the "full" Cash-Landrum file is addressed by Wim's excellent article, noticeably the "Helicopters" chapter/ingredient.
As Curt wrote in his comments section: [quote] Obviously, it doesn't fully account for many other elements in the case, but I'm glad Wim has taken a serious look at it, and considered that there was a genuine event at the core of the story. I'm hoping Wim will offer further opinions once he's had a chance to absorb more of the recent material.[/img]

But well, IFO studies (aka UFO cases explained) show how legacies are sometimes “cumulating” many conventional variables, from real stimulus observed to "embellishments", projective transpositions, etc. and then how some IFO cases are in reality very complex, even if they are, in reality, involving "conventional" variables (in interaction).
Like other "good and solid" cases (ie: RB47H), it is possible many conventional variables are in interaction (if cases in reality involving no “fortean” entities), and then a posteriori, it is more or less "impossible" to solve such cases definitively.
I'm humblely among the ones who think, it is one the reasons why we will have ALWAYS unsolvable cases, even if this UFO phenomenon had nothing Fortean...
Dunno if clear enough.
Gilles.

sentry579

sentry579
nablator a écrit:[ From the Bergstrom Interview, 60 to 80 feet above and 130 feet distance ...
About this measurements you mention. These are from the Schuessler & Holt trip to the scene with Vickie & Colby on Feb. 28, 1981 to the road. Not the exact spot as revealed in TDH documents. I have doubts about how closely she could determine the distance of the bright object from the car. At the scene, Vickie described events and measurements were taken of the estimated distance. These measurements were circulated and the witnesses began using them instead of their own words to describe the case. Since Holt, an engineer, was present, I do place some trust in these estimates.

There is one helpful and unique detail in Allan Hendry's report, in his interview with Vickie, she told him the object was larger than her outstretched hand.

On to what Gilles is saying about cumulative stimuli. While unlikely, if we are going to consider "ET", we have to look at Klass-type explanations as well. The adult witnesses originally were not able to tell if they were seeing helicopters or airplanes, which would seem to indicate they were distant. It could it be possible that they saw lights from air traffic to and from the Houston airport, and the excitement of the moment caused them to associate it with their experience. When they discussed what they'd seen, perhaps they speculated that it was helicopters, and sketchy details became case facts.

Just speculation, but it allows a genuine series of events or stimulus, rather than just calling it all a hoax.

http://blueblurrylines.blogspot.com/

nablator

nablator
Administration
Administration
sentry579 a écrit:I have doubts about how closely she could determine the distance of the bright object from the car.
Sure. Competent investigators would have taken measurements of angles, not distances that are wildly inaccurate. It doesn't matter if the distances are right or not, I'm just looking for an estimation of the minimum (angular) altitude of the center of the apparition. Let's say not less than about 30°. Then I'll have to remember how to calculate the altitude of the hypothetical ice crystals layer from surface temperature, dew point, etc. that are not precisely known. We only have records from the Houston airport.

The adult witnesses originally were not able to tell if they were seeing helicopters or airplanes, which would seem to indicate they were distant.
Where did you get this from? Shocked

http://nabbed.unblog.fr/

sentry579

sentry579
http://www.theblackvault.com/encyclopedia/documents/MUFON/Journals/1983/September_1983.pdf a écrit:Tape Recording Made At Parkway
Hospital On 1 February 1981
(Approx.), and Furnished To Bill
English at APRO
Betty said, after getting back into
the car at the initial sighting scene, that
the object went up into the sky, and
"but there was a quite a few helicopters
circling around. I don't know whether
they were trying to get around it or up
closer to it or what, to see maybe what it
was."
Betty said, when they stopped on
the Huffman-Crosby road, "but at this
time I counted 23 helicopters, around
and about the object. They were far
away but yet they were low enough and
we set there and watched them 'till they
got over the car because I wanted to
make sure if it was airplanes or if it was
helicopters, which it was helicopters. I
counted 23 of them. I don't know what
color they were, I can't say. But I do
know that they had a double deal on the
top, propeller-like thing. And I could
hear 'em just as plain as if they were
right ready to land...."
This tape is also transcribed in Schuessler's book, page 39.

Edited to add:
This tape was made shortly after Vickie's call to NUFORC. This was produced at the request of Bill english of APRO, who was selling the story to the Weekly World News. It would be 20 days later before John Schuessler became involved in the case. JS did not have access to this tape until it was recovered from APRO in 1982.



Dernière édition par sentry579 le 27/11/13, 03:17 pm, édité 1 fois (Raison : addition)

http://blueblurrylines.blogspot.com/

Invité


Invité
The adult witnesses originally were not able to tell if they were seeing helicopters or airplanes, which would seem to indicate they were distant.
If  sourced, and in the "first" interviewes, that's realy interesting imho... EDIT: you provided an excerpt (our comments crossing^^).**
You well know that, more and more times you are interviewed (or restoring events in memory), and more and more you are re-structuring it, and going "fare away" the "initial" event you are narrating.  "Embellishments" comes into play and becomes part of a "sensational narrative", as often including as new "parts" of your narrative what is offered by your interviewer and investigator (John Shuesler ie.), by articles/newspapers about you and your story, etc. In other words, external infos (in reality) become taking part your narrative, as "exagerations", as what have a special interest for others (investigators, newspapers, etc). It is mainly not consciously done or made (then, it is not the witnesses who are hoaxing, lying...), but involving mere suggestion/suggestibility processings...

Psychologists are agreed that even if the first time you are restoring an event/stimulus in memory, that's already a re-construction of it, and not the instant "photo" of this stimulus/event.

I particulary like the definition of retrospective falsification, something probably at play concerning its  famous case, or not. Dunno, if not impossible to proove, but well something probably to take into the "equation":

D. H. Rawcliffe coined this term to refer to the process of telling a story that is factual to some extent, but which gets distorted and falsified over time by retelling it with embellishments. The embellishments may include speculations, conflating events that occurred at different times or in different places, and the incorporation of material without regard for accuracy or plausibility. The overriding force that drives the story is to find or invent details that fit with a desired outcome. The process can be conscious or unconscious. The original story gets remodeled with favorable points being emphasized and unfavorable ones being dropped. The distorted and false version becomes a memory and record of a remarkable tale. [...] The term is used in psychology to describe the process of creating false memories by selecting and reshaping incidents from the past to fit present needs. Retrospective falsification occurs in most, if not all, people and is generally an unconscious process.
source: http://www.skepdic.com/retfalse.html

** PS: this excerpt could be interpreted differently than "were not able to tell if they were seeing helicopters or airplanes", because in the sequence of its narrative she is "confirming" it was helico...
But well, again, narratives are complexe and should be recorded "immediatly" after an event, to avoid the processings I mentionned fastly. Of course, that's impossible...

Amitiés,

Gilles

nablator

nablator
Administration
Administration
sentry579 a écrit:This tape is also transcribed in Schuessler's book, page 39.
All right, but Betty did state unambiguously that she recognized helicopters as soon as she had a good look "over the car". You made it sound as if the witnesses were unsure if they were seeing helicopters or airplanes. If "originally" means before they came "over the car", I agree.

N.B. I'm not saying "they DID see helicopters". To me the whole episode sounds like a nightmare. You know, being unable to move while something awful is happening. Something that doesn't have to make sense, like being slowly roasted alive and doing nothing to protect oneself.

http://nabbed.unblog.fr/

Contenu sponsorisé


Revenir en haut  Message [Page 18 sur 23]

Aller à la page : Précédent  1 ... 10 ... 17, 18, 19 ... 23  Suivant

Permission de ce forum:
Vous ne pouvez pas répondre aux sujets dans ce forum