Cash-Landrum 29 décembre 1980 DAYTON TEXAS

That's a good one, thanks!

Talking about Good, there is a far less reputable case (RR3, single witness, later contactee) with eerily similar symptoms. At 22:20 on 30 December 1972 Ventura Maceiras, a 73 year-old caretaker living at Tres Arroyos in Argentina saw a brilliantly illuminated UFO (with occupants, I'm sparing you the details, you can read them in FSR) flooding the neighborhood with its powerful light.

For over a week he suffered from a gradually worsening and eventually unbearable headache, and by the eighth day he was experiencing pain in the back of his neck. There was even more disturbing symptoms, as reported by Romaniuk [the main investigator]:

Eight or nine hours after the episode, he developed a most violent type of diarrhea, involving about eight attacks daily. [...] The diarrhea continued until the eighth day ... accompanied for the first four days by nausea and vomiting.

At the time of my first visit, on January 16, 1973, Maceiras had begun to notice that he was loosing hair abnormally [...]

From the 14th day on, several small red pruriginous pustules appeared on the back of his neck, so that he was constantly scratching them [...]

Timothy Good, Alien Base p. 454 in the Random House paperback edition of 1998.

The referenced articles can be found in Flying Saucer Review (1973) vol. 19, no 4, pp. 10-14; vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 14-16.

Maceiras eventually completely recovered and even became stronger than he ever was. And he grew new teeth...

Some of the symptoms are said to be quite common in UFO cases, but I don't know any other similar case.

What to make of this? Coincidence? Common cause, whatever it might be?

Comme disait Pierre Desproges, "etonning, not ?" J'ai la flemme de traduire, alors débrouilez-vous.

nablator a écrit: J'ai la flemme de traduire, alors débrouilez-vous.

Pour vous alors :

"etonning, not ?"

"Etonnant, non ?"

canapéetchips

Curieuse a écrit:

nablator a écrit: J'ai la flemme de traduire, alors débrouilez-vous.

Google traduction marche plutôt pas mal. Et puis les histoires de contactés, j'en connais qui n'apprécient pas.

Patrice a écrit:"Etonnant, non ?"

Exactement ! C'est facile l'anglais !

Les scans de FSR sont disponibles sur le site d'Ignacio Darnaude.
FSR 1973 V 19 N 4.pdf
FSR 1973 V 19 N 5.pdf

"The UFO Experience" from 1982 on YouTube.


I'm transcribing notable parts of the segment. Betty Cash's cardiologist, Dr. V. B. Shenoy appears in the film, and his accent is a bit difficult to understand, so I'm posting his remarks in particular. He describes Betty's initial symptoms:

“Her main problem at that time was severe headache, swelling of the face, swelling of the eyelids, and a swelling of the scalp, that is, the top of the head.”

He makes no mention of burns.

sentry579 a écrit:He makes no mention of burns.

"They looked quite sunburned" the day after the encounter, in John Schuessler's book. It probably didn't last until the examination on January‭ ‬25 by Dr. Shenoy, as it is not mentioned in his report.

It is not unreasonable to suggest, as John Schuessler does in the documentary, that a mix of both ionizing and non-ionizing radiation may have caused the symptoms.

The "sunburn", the swelling of the skin and alopecia may have been caused by ionizing radiation sickness. However there was no sign of anemia, so X-rays were probably not involved but some less penetrating radiation.

Non-ionizing radiation may also have caused some of the symptoms. For example "Effects of exposure to very high frequency radiofrequency radiation on six antenna engineers in two separate incidents" include headache, paresthesia, diarrhea, malaise and lassitude.

Full article:
http://occmed.oxfordjournals.org/content/50/1/49.full.pdf

<Speculative mode on>

From an engineering point of view, it is unclear what kind of unconventional propulsion would radiate such electromagnetic energy as a by-product of its operation. I assume it can only be an unwanted by-product or leak as it would be futile to try and balance a vehicle on radiation pressure only: the required power would be tremendous, several terawatts per metric ton of vehicle mass.

As the downward blast of flames was not continuous it could be assumed that the craft hovered by another means of propulsion, that could not be precisely adjusted to generate additional thrust when needed.

Could this be a working prototype using the fabled magnetohydrodynamic propulsion with microwaves to ionize the atmosphere, a theory that a French physicist has been pushing since the 70s?



<Speculative mode off>

The problem is that there is no evidence that the numerous theoretical and engineering problems involved in building a fully functional MHD craft have been solved, even if it cannot be completely ruled out that a secret project existed. However, it seems to me that this highly inefficient and problematic way to push air downward (compared to the usual propellers and jets) would not have been considered as a realistic possibility as early as 1980 and worthy of a costly development, especially one as advanced as the experimental prototype stage.

Radiation sickness can't be ruled out because different wavelengths produce different symptoms and the exact type, duration and spectrum that would produce exactly the same range of symptoms probably never happened in a known instance, so a meaningful comparison can't be made.

A hoax can't be ruled out because the medical records that we know of (in JS's book) are inconclusive.

From there on, and without additional data, it's impossible to reach a conclusion. The hoax hypothesis is more economical, so it may be preferred, but without good supportive evidence the argument is quite weak.

nablator a écrit:omments. I'm going to address several of your recent posts here.
[quote="nablator"] "They looked quite sunburned" the day after the encounter, in John Schuessler's book. It probably didn't last until the examination on January‭ ‬25 by Dr. Shenoy, as it is not mentioned in his report.

The main value of John Schuessler's reporting on this case is the documents he provides and the direct testimony he records. Unfortunately, he gives little coverage to facts that do not support his version of the events. What I'm attempting to do is find all available original reporting of the case to see what information can be found directly from the witnesses.

In this documentary, Dr. Shenoy had the opportunity to state just how serious Betty's condition was, but he says it was a headache and swelling. The portions of his report quoted in Schuessler's book do not mention burns, he just describe skin problems. The sunburn is a minor element of the case, and could have been caused by other sources. Here's a clip from the first newspaper article to feature the case:

(Vickie) Landrum said once home she saturated herself and Colby with baby oil because they both were sunburned about the face and neck. “I thought maybe we’d been chapped by the wind or something because we’d been out most of the day,” she said. “there wasn’t no sun that day. It was real cloudy. it couldn’t have been sunburn from the sun.” -Conroe Courier Feb. 22, 1981

Vickie didn't understand that clouds do not block UV rays. Sunburn can be eliminated as prime evidence of a UFO in this case.

The links you posted to FSR were interesting, but more compelling still was the paper on the microwave injuries of the tower workmen. I'll need to go back and read JS's chapter on the medical data to compare the diagnoses, but, from what I remember, there were some similarities, but also many differences in symptoms. The timing of the onset of the problems was very different in the workmen, most often appearing several days after eposure. Schuessler himself mentions how you must mix and match types of radiation to get the combination of problems reported by Betty Cash. It's puzzling. The problem is that it is only the symptoms that seem to match. The medical tests performed did not show results identifying radiation as a source of the injuries.

Schuessler's (and your) speculation of the microwave powered craft is interesting. I like this theory more than the nuclear or alien-powered WASP II legend. I wish he had provided a sketch and some technical details of what his team imagined such a craft would be like and the purpose it was designed to serve. In any case, he later rejected this hypothesis in favor of his original ET "intruder" scenario which he still favors today.

Looking over the above it seems like too much of what I've written comes off like an argument, but my real gripe is not with anyone here. I'm frustrated that this case (like most UFO incidents) is polluted with so much misinformation, that instead of addressing the facts, it is like we are debating over the length of mermaids' tails.

Ah- just as I was about to post this, I saw the latest nablator post which discusses the hoax possibility. I agree, but as I suggest above, most of what we know about this case has been stage-managed by Schuessler. With access to the data he suppressed or ignored, the case might have been solved. Leaving it a mystery better serves him, MUFON and the ET hypothesis camp.

sentry579 a écrit:Vickie didn't understand that clouds do not block UV rays.

Yes but UV-B may have been reduced by 50%, or more, in the open. Also, in JS's narrative, "both of them [Vickie and Colby] looked quite sunburned, even on their arms although they had been wearing sleeves the night before." True or not, it can't be checked.

sentry579 a écrit:The problem is that it is only the symptoms that seem to match. The medical tests performed did not show results identifying radiation as a source of the injuries.

I haven't studied the literature enough to know whether any of the tests that were performed would identify a case of micro-wave exposure.

Looking over the above it seems like too much of what I've written comes off like an argument, but my real gripe is not with anyone here.

You're welcome! I've thrown in some provocative elements to elicit discussion.

nablator a écrit:...in JS's narrative...

A biased, non-factual source as I keep repeating. Direct witness statements or physician comments are preferred.

nablator a écrit:I haven't studied the literature enough to know whether any of the tests that were performed would identify a case of micro-wave exposure.

Me, either. But I do know the argument for some kind of radiation would have been made stronger if blood had been found in the witnesses' body wastes.
I think microwaves were considered just because they were having a hard time matching radiation to Betty's condition. Getting back to speculation, we might get a better match if the secret aircraft, while malfunctioning, accidentally activating its defense systems, firing a microwave weapon.

I can't tell if your "sunburn" comments are an example of you being contentious just for sport, but let's move on to something a bit more tangible. There are many photos of the burn or injury to the back of Vickie Landrum's left hand. Here is how JS described it in his book:

“she described how she had laid her left hand on top of the car as she stood in the open doorway and was severely burned.” pg. 65

In the Bergstrom interview, VL gives her height as 5 feet tall. Here are some specifications for the model of the car:

1980 Oldsmobile Cutlass (2-door)
Length: 5022 mm / 197.7 in
Width: 1826 mm / 71.9 in
Height: 1350 mm / 53.1 in
Turning circle btw. walls: 11.4 m / 37.4 ft from http://www.automobile-catalog.com/auta_details1.php

She was barely taller than the car. Even if she were standing on the car's threshold, this might be awkward for her, and unlikely given that at this point in the story she was supposed to trying to restrain and comfort Colby. An argument can be made that the top of the car does not mean the roof of the car, but to reach the hood, she would have to step around the door, not the position that was described. Strangely, in none of Vickie's media appearances does she mention this notable and famous injury, and in her call to NUFORC, where she reported the incident, she says:
"There was nothing happened to me but my but eyes is burned."
another interesting note about this, JS doesn't cite this episode as a physical burn until his book in 1998, in 1981 he labels it a radiation burn, and elsewhere says putting her hand on the car resulted in damage and discoloration of her fingernail, but does not mention the burn.

I am not a historian, but I have to wonder how they deal with murky, conflicting details from many sources.
The details in this event all come from the same source, yet they do not agree!

sentry579 a écrit:Me, either. But I do know the argument for some kind of radiation would have been made stronger if blood had been found in the witnesses' body wastes.

Only in the case of deep burns from ionizing radiation.

In the previously referenced medical paper about cases of exposure to VHF radio frequencies, it didn't happen. Also nothing unusual was found in the blood analysis.
"Routine biochemistry and full blood picture were within normal limits."
"Their blood pictures were normal."

Getting back to speculation, we might get a better match if the secret aircraft, while malfunctioning, accidentally activating its defense systems, firing a microwave weapon.

Nice! Ad hoc explanations RULE! :(MRDgreen):

She was barely taller than the car. Even if she were standing on the car's threshold, this might be awkward for her, and unlikely given that at this point in the story she was supposed to trying to restrain and comfort Colby.

I don't understand the problem. Standing beside the car with the door open, she could easily touch the upper side of the roof (but not with the back of her hand) and hold Colby with the other hand.

The details in this event all come from the same source, yet they do not agree!

Not necessarily, it is a matter of interpretation. The "severe" burning may have been exaggerated. Possibly the burning sensation did not result in any injury. The way I understood it the sores on her arms and hands had nothing to do with touching the roof of the car.

sentry579 a écrit:

hal9000 a écrit:

sentry579 a écrit:De plus, sa perte de cheveux a été immédiate, or, elle aurait dû apparaître plus tardivement.

Hum où est-ce qu'il est écrit que la perte de cheveux a été immédiate? Brad Sparks parle à ce sujet de 1 ou 2 jours mais je ne trouve pas ça dans l'interrogatoire des témoins...

These are two good examples:
"By morning, Betty's body was covered with half-dollar- size lumps, her hair was falling out in handfuls and she was suffering the most agonizing headache she had ever experienced. The woman was so weak from pain she couldn't even get out of bed to call for help."
Weekly World News March 24, 1981

Betty Cash: “The next morning I woke up and there was big gobs of hair on my pillow, and I had blisters just all over my face.” The Unexplained: televison program episode Close Encounters July 9, 1998

According to JS's book (yeah I know...), hair loss started a few days after the incident and continued over the next month:

Betty was admitted to Parkway General Hospital in Houston on January 2, 1981, at two o’clock in the afternoon by Dr. V. B. Shenoy.
[...]
On the second day in the hospital Betty began losing hair and over the next couple of weeks she developed bald spots all over her head. Her eyes swelled up and she could barely see.
[...]
After Betty was admitted the second time the loss of hair became much worse. It fell out in clumps. In a few days she had several bald patches on her skull three to four inches in diameter.

Nablator, in my posts I have cited testimony directly from the witnesses, and have shown several times where it does not agree with the story told by John Schuessler. So I'd like to know, now that you have read JS's book, could you please give us a brief review of your opinion of it, and the evidence and conclusions it presents?
There is one particular section I'd like you to discuss, pages 21-24, about Dec. 30, the morning following the UFO incident. Examine the behavior and activities reported, see if they are consistent with the injuries later claimed.

sentry579 a écrit:Brad Sparks makes a very good case. The argument for radiation is very weak. As Sparks and others have mentioned, Betty's symptoms would have required her to receive a lethal dose of radiation. Further, the onset of the hair loss was immediate, but should have occurred much later. Also, the body of the car would not have protected the Landrums from the same kind of damage.

Although the rapid onset of symptoms such as headache (within hours) and hair loss (within hours or days) would seem to indicate a very high dose of radiation (6 Gy or more) that would be lethal within a few days or weeks ( http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/radiation-sickness/DS00432/DSECTION=symptoms ), I have the feeling that things are actually more complicated. Non-ionizing radiation are not taken into account in the chart and the effects are different. How different is difficult to make out from the sparse documentation that I could find on the web.

Microwaves absorption also depends on wavelength ( http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen99/gen99445.htm ) so a strong effect on skin does not necessarily imply a devastating effect on internal organs (bleeding).

sentry579 a écrit:could you please give us a brief review of your opinion of it, and the evidence and conclusions it presents?

I haven't started comparing sources yet, you are much more advanced than I am in the study of the material. I will answer later more specifically.

Inconsistencies may happen for many reasons other than dishonesty. False memories, bad transcription of notes, wrong interpretations, etc. Journalists and ufologists usually spin information in a way that looks more dramatic or favors their favorite hypothesis. I have built quite a large tolerance for such tactics, otherwise I wouldn't be able to read most UFO books without throwing them into the trash bin after a few pages.

JS's book does read like a semi-fictionalized narrative, not a proper (i.e. skeptical) investigation. Pushing the conclusion (ET did it) as soon as the prologue is especially disturbing.

JS has very possibly misinterpreted some of the evidence; defects on the road and gaps in the trees, among others. However I would hesitate to reject most of his claims unless they are internally inconsistent or clearly impossible.

sentry579 a écrit:So I'd like to know, now that you have read JS's book,

If Jeansériel could send me the end of the book, starting at page 167, I would be grateful.

sentry579 a écrit:There is one particular section I'd like you to discuss, pages 21-24, about Dec. 30, the morning following the UFO incident. Examine the behavior and activities reported, see if they are consistent with the injuries later claimed.

I don't know what you are hinting at, but since I haven't reviewed all the interviews, I have certainly missed a lot.

According to the book, despite blisters, red skin, headache, nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, and intense thirst, Betty refused to go to the hospital.

Basically the same symptoms were reported in the Bergstrom AFB interview. She may have omitted some of the symptoms in other interviews, however I see no inconsistencies in the statements that can't be easily explained. Vickie's symptoms were less severe except on her hands (but she is older, so it makes sense that skin does not repair itself as easily). Also why would Vickie and Colby not have been somewhat protected by the car?

There is an interesting tidbit that hints at a cover-up in Greg Bishop's Project Beta, p. 170 in the Pocket Books edition.

When Cash and the Landrums tried to ask the Air Force about the incident, they were told to fill out forms and find a lawyer to petition the government for compensation. Early in the legal battle, the Air Force quietly offered to pay medical expenses if Cash and the Landrums agreed to sign a nondisclosure form promising not to discuss the case anymore. Their lawyer, Citizens Against UFO Secrecy president Peter Gersten, advised them against this, and tried to fight the Air Force to disclose the existence of the craft. When it became clear that the case was going nowhere, Cash and Landrum decided to accept the original deal, but the Air Force reply was a cold and confusing "What deal?"

No source is given. I'd like to see evidence for this alleged "deal". It sounds fishy. Proposing a deal would be admitting that there is something to hide. It defeats the purpose of a cover-up.

Nablator, thank you for your comments on the book, you make some good points. The portion you have not read yet contains some highly speculative material on the helicopter, biased and incomplete coverage of the lawsuit, and a very good appendix reproducing photographs and documents (some of these expose inconsistencies and omissions in JS's narrative).

The section I mentioned about the 30th contains a description of what Vickie and Colby did the following morning. Except for their loss of appetite, their actions sound as if they behaved as if they were in normal health,. Vickie sends Colby to walk alone to Betty's house to check on her, a strange chore to assign to a sick child. It just doesn't have the ring of truth to it. I think the severity of symptoms may have been exaggerated in order to better match Betty's illness.

In your post about the claim made in Greg Bishop's book, that refers to a rumor circulating at the time that was repeated in print in the APRO Bulletin. JS responded to it and labelled it false. It is briefly mentioned in a later section of the book that you have yet to receive. I don't have time just now to be more specific, but can provide details later if you wish.

French langage is possible?

sentry579 a écrit:Except for their loss of appetite, their actions sound as if they behaved as if they were in normal health.

Very good observation. It did strike me as odd that Vickie would go to work as usual, but I just thought "she wasn't so sick then" and dismissed the thought entirely. I'm a big sucker for non-fiction written as a novel.

I bow to your expertise and thank you for your very astute comments and useful information.