Scientific Review of UFO Evidence

[2inquisitive]

For those members who would like a review of evidence presented
before a board of scientists.
Physical Evidence Related to UFO Reports
The Proceedings of a Workshop Held at the
Pocantico Conference Center, Tarrytown, New York
September 29 ? October 4, 1997

SSE Home > Journal of Scientific Exploration > Articles

Director
P.A. Sturrock

Scientific Steering Committee
T. E. Holzer, R. Jahn, D. E. Pritchard, H. E. Puthoff, C. R. Tolbert, and Y. Terzian

Scientific Review Panel
V. R. Eshleman (Co-Chair), T. E. Holzer (Co-Chair), J. R. Jokipii, F. Louange, H. J. Melosh, J. J. Papike, G. Reitz, C. R. Tolbert, and B. Veyret

Investigators
R. F. Haines, I. von Ludwiger, M. Rodeghier, J. F. Schuessler, E. Strand, M. D. Swords, J. F. Vallee, and J-J. Velasco

Moderators
D. E. Pritchard and H. E. Puthoff

http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/ufo_reports/sturrock/toc.html

 

[James R]

Quote from the report:

Concerning the case material presented by the investigators, the panel concluded that a few reported incidents may have involved rare but significant phenomena such as electrical activity, but there was no convincing evidence pointing to unknown physical processes or to the involvement of extraterrestrial intelligence.

 

[2inquisitive]

Quote from the conclusion of the report:

The panel concluded that further analysis of the evidence presented at the workshop is unlikely to elucidate the cause or causes of the reports. However, the panel considers that new data, scientifically acquired and analyzed (especially of well documented, recurrent events), could yield useful information. In this case, physical scientists would have an opportunity to contribute to the resolution of the UFO problem.

The panel made the following observations:

* The UFO problem is not a simple one, and it is unlikely that there is any simple universal answer.

* Whenever there are unexplained observations, there is the possibility that scientists will learn something new by studying those observations.

* Studies should concentrate on cases which include as much independent physical evidence as possible and strong witness testimony.

* Some form of formal regular contact between the UFO community and physical scientists could be productive.

* It is desirable that there be institutional support for research in this area.

* The GEPAN/SEPRA project of CNES (Centre National d'Études Spatiales - the National Center for Space Research) in France (see Appendix 1) has since 1977 provided a valuable model for a modest but effective organization for collecting and analyzing UFO observations and related data.

* Reflecting on evidence presented at the workshop that some witnesses of UFO events have suffered radiation-type injuries, the panel draws the attention of the medical community to a possible health risk associated with UFO events.

 

[2inquisitive]

James R, could this be the case referred to in the quote you posted
stating electrical activity could be involved, but no evidence of
involvement of extraterrestrial intelligence?
_______________________________________-
Schuessler gave an extensive account of a notable case that occurred near Dayton, Texas, on December 29, 1980 (Schuessler, 1981; 1988; 1998). This is known as the "Cash-Landrum" case since it involved Betty Cash, then a 51 year old business woman, and Vickie Landrum, then a 57 year old employee in a restaurant. It also involved Landrum's grandson Colby, then 7 years old. According to their reports, they encountered a large diamond-shaped object hovering above the road in front of them. Flames were belching from the bottom of the craft. The interior of the car became hot, forcing them to leave the vehicle. However, Colby and Landrum returned to the vehicle out of fear. Cash remained outside the automobile for seven to ten minutes. The object rose into the night sky and moved away. According to their reports, the object was accompanied by 23 helicopters that Cash and Landrum assumed to be military.

The witnesses were initially affected mainly by the heat and the bright light, and they developed headaches. During the night, Colby vomited repeatedly and his skin turned red. The same happened to Landrum. Cash fared even worse: large water blisters formed on her face and head, and by morning her eyes had swollen shut. The three witnesses continued to have severe nausea: even water would make them vomit; they developed diarrhea, and their health deteriorated severely. Cash was taken to a hospital where she was treated as a burn patient. This was the first of more than two dozen periods of hospital confinement for Cash.

Schuessler listed the following medical problems developed by the three witnesses: eyes swollen, painful and watery; permanent damage to the eyes; stomach pains, vomiting and diarrhea; sores and scarring of skin, with loss of pigmentation; excessive hair loss over a several-week period, the new hair having a different texture from the old; loss of appetite, energy and weight; damage to fingernails and shedding of fingernails; increased susceptibility to disease; and cancer.

The Cash-Landrum case seems to be unique in that there is detailed documentation of the injuries (photographs, etc.), and of the subsequent medical treatment. The case seems also to be unique in that it appeared to involve military helicopters, raising the possibility that a secret military operation was in progress (Schuessler, 1996).

 

[2inquisitive]

I thought I would provide a little more detail of the Cash-Landrum
report for those that might be interested.
Betty Cash was driving throught the piney woods of east Texas
about 40mi. NE of Houston when an intensely luminous object
came down to tree top level above the road in front of them. It
seemed to be periodically emitting "flames" down to the road and
Betty stopped the car, afraid to drive under it. The car began to heat
up and all three passengers got out. Vickie Landrum and her grandson quickly got back in the car, frightened. Betty stayed
outside, partially shielding her eyes with her arm from the heat.
When the "flames" would come out the bottom of the object, it
would rise a few feet and then settle back down when the flames
stopped. After a while, as the object began to slowly ascend, a
large number of helicopters showed up and appeared to be trying
to force the object to land. It instead flew away with the helicopters
in pursuit. The object may have been having propulsion problems
or have been damaged in some way. Other witnesses in the area
reported seeing both the extensive helicopter activity and the object
itself. The object was first witnessed near the Texas-Louisiana border
flying west. Betty later identified 12 of the helicopters to be CH-47
Chinooks, a medium-duty twin rotor helicopter sometimes used for
lifting and carrying items by straps underneath the chopper. At least some of Betty's doctors stated that her injuries were due to
radiation poisoning. Among other things, most of her hair had fallen
out by 7 weeks. She also later had cancer, which was sucessfully
treated. Betty filed a lawsuit against the government because
of the supposed military involvement, but lost the case because
an investigation by the Army Inspector General's office could not
find a source of the helicopters. After many hospital stays since
witnessing the event, Betty died on Dec 29, 1998, exactly 18 years
after the event on Dec 29, 1980. Betty's injuries and hospital stays
were well documented, an entire book written about the case by
Dr. Schuessler.