-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
The 1980 Cash-Landrum sighting and investigation
- Thread starter Sentry
- Start date
Free episodes:
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
OK I'll see if I can find it myself then.
In the context of my specific quote, it means plenty. You're minimizing it because we all tend to take computer technology for granted. However computer technology, particularly processor development is one of our most advanced technologies. Furthermore, my work as a PC tech means I've studied the basics of how they are developed and have physically held dozens and dozens of different CPUs in my own hands, technology that only a few months prior had been under secret development by guys in moon suits in high security labs. It's a real life example based on experience, not "sheer assumption" ( as you had suggested ).
The same technology that goes into making processors is also integrated into high technology in other areas, including weaponry. So I'm sorry to have to inform you that your hand waving on my example is not sufficient counterpoint. To dispute it you would have to show that computer processors aren't designed and manufactured under high security and kept as secret as possible until release, that they haven't been making steady advances typically within about a two year time frame, which is in keeping with Moore's law, and that it's unreasonable to assume they get used in secret military projects.
Kurzwiel and Kuku have genuine credentials as inventors and scientists. Kurzwiel hold patents for real technology. Again, your hand waving on those sources doesn't represent sufficient counterpoint. As for "cutting edge black technology", that isn't what my quote said. Once again I said, "Most advanced technology is only about that far ahead, some much less ( consider computers )." Considering the context of my quote, I've more than adequately shown that it's not merely an assumption.
Also it's not reasonable that you should expect me to supply real world examples of black ops technology because the very nature of such projects are such that I cannot have any certain knowledge about the details of those projects. However it is reasonable to extrapolate based on the exponential rate of known technological advancement, that a certain number of black ops projects that incorporate such technology are going to advance at the same rate as that technology, which is a generation about every 2 years.
Again, hardly assumptions. Unlike you, who couldn't be bothered to link me to the video you base your statement on, I've provided real world examples to back my quote and references to scientists and inventors with genuine credentials and patents on technology. If anything, it seems to be you who are making the assumptions. You doubt Friedman's comment and you're being dismissive of the examples I've given here. So perhaps at this point it would be better for us to try another approach.
What I'm getting from you is that you think it's reasonable to believe that most people don't become aware of secret military technology within about 2 years from the time it enters service. On that assumption, I would say that most people aren't even aware of what the current cutting edge technology is, so it's a pointless assumption to begin with. I would say a more appropriate illustration should include references to specific types of technology in various publicly available sources. One example that tends to flip flop around in time frames is particle beam weaponry. I saw an article back in the 1980s on the DEW they have mounted in a 747, but it still keeps popping up now and then as being the latest thing, that's a 20 year span. I wouldn't be surprised if a small number of other things have been kept secret even longer. Is that more the kind of thing you're getting at? Can you be more specific?
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
The Cash-Landrum sighting was over an isolated two-lane road in dense woods somewhere between Houston and Dayton Texas, not over a heavily populated area. Why was it there? I don't know.@Christopher O'Brien mentions in his Mysterious Valley book that the SLV is subject to some sort of military testing and training. So maybe the area where they sighted the object was part of something similar. The nuclear project wasn't being done nearby, but there are USAF bases. So maybe it was heading toward one and ran into problems.
Jeff Davis
Paranormal Adept
For the longest time I figured this to be some type of run in with a prototypical affair that had gone far off course, but I have really started to wonder over the last two days thanks to this thread. According to Chris's new eyewitness illustration, what I have also started to wonder about is why in the world would such a device have port holes or lights surrounding it's center?
Jeff Davis
Paranormal Adept
Ufology,
The bottom line is that no one is qualified to state that the average Joe is going to have zero problem differentiating between non human technology, quasi human technology, and what would be military based advanced sciences and technologies midst prototypical development. This being outside a two year window from their time of functional flight or navigation. Naturally within the field of context laid out, the only matter we are interested herein, are, UFOs.
Neither Ray Kurzweil nor Michio Kaku are qualified in the least to state where on the grid we are specifically at with respect to military based advanced computer sciences, no matter what their credentials bear out according to the pop stardom potential. They both carry serious weight in terms of relative speculative opinion, of course they do. However, at least as far as I am aware, they possess no top secret advanced sciences clearances within the Military. In simple straight forward speak, NO ONE, save those individuals vested tightly and securely within these projects, or those with a specific need to know, are qualified to make such a claim.
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
That's a much better approach. It's completely reasonable to suggest that it's getting more and more difficult to be sure whether or not a UFO report represents a UFO ( alien craft ) or some secret aircraft or other technology from within our own civilization. However I would also submit that it's also reasonable to make some general assumptions about our rate of technological progress, and that one of them is that our progress isn't linear. Therefore, the time span between what is secret and what gets delivered to the general public has been getting shorter and shorter for decades. Fifty years ago, a claim of 2 years would not have been supportable. These days I wouldn't be surprised if public sector comes up with some stuff before the black-ops guys do. In fact, I read an article not long ago about how some private sector guys came up with a drone that the military said would have taken them much more time and money to come up with. So today, Friedman's statement might not be so far out of whack.
However with respect to the topic at hand ( UFOs ), I'm going to do what seems like a complete one-eighty. I don't believe the classic performance characteristics exhibited by some UFOs, like silent instantaneous acceleration, deceleration to and from hypersonic speeds, and instantaneous high-angle changes in direction, are among our technological accomplishments, and would even be so bold as to they don't appear to be within the realm of our engineering for the foreseeable future. However I do predict that we'll probably have figured out how to create similar technology by the end of the century.
I've been reading this thread and it is quite interesting, as well as the case itself. I would have to agree that it was a manmade craft, especially with the reports of the helicopters escorting it. The US did have a nuclear rocket program from 1959-73 called Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Applications (NERVA) which was focused on nuclear power replacing chemical rockets for the latter stages of launches. What was learned from that experience was that it was possible to build a nuclear thermal reactor and integrate it with a nozzle system to make space propulsion. In fact the US actually launched a nuclear reactor in space, called SNAP-10a, in the mid 60's but hasn't done one since (other than RTG type technology). The Russians have launched a lot more. The key point here is that all of this technology is aimed at space propulsion and not launch vehicles. I don't think they've ever come up with a design to lift a spacecraft to orbit. The inherent risks of fissile materials on ascent vehicles is very problematic and probably the main reason for the pushback on development of this technology.
The question I have (perhaps I should ask the researchers, unless it is common knowledge here) is what was learned from the Cash-Landrum radiation exposures? Has there been a report to correlate their radiation sickness symptoms with known sources? There is a lot of differences between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation and acute vs. chronic exposures (and all combinations).. I would think there symptoms should be qualitatively linked to general type of source. Several years ago I asked Stanton Friedman this question (when he was discussing this case) and he really didn't have an answer on the level of their exposure and the type. I've have never heard any explanation on this - does anybody know of any documented discussion on this?
The question I have (perhaps I should ask the researchers, unless it is common knowledge here) is what was learned from the Cash-Landrum radiation exposures? Has there been a report to correlate their radiation sickness symptoms with known sources? There is a lot of differences between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation and acute vs. chronic exposures (and all combinations).. I would think there symptoms should be qualitatively linked to general type of source. Several years ago I asked Stanton Friedman this question (when he was discussing this case) and he really didn't have an answer on the level of their exposure and the type. I've have never heard any explanation on this - does anybody know of any documented discussion on this?
boomerang
Paranormal Adept
[quote="breddell, post: 163596, member: 6371"Has there been a report to correlate their radiation sickness symptoms with known sources? There is a lot of differences between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation and acute vs. chronic exposures (and all combinations).. I would think there symptoms should be qualitatively linked to general type of source. Several years ago I asked Stanton Friedman this question (when he was discussing this case) and he really didn't have an answer on the level of their exposure and the type. I've have never heard any explanation on this - does anybody know of any documented discussion on this?[/quote]
breddell: Check out Senty's link on the previous page, "Cash-Landrum NOT ionizing radiation". It's an excellent look at the radiation issue.
It's an easy out in terms of analysis. But from the Vallee school of ufology, Cash Landrum has all the dream-like earmarks of the classic UFO experience. The vehicle reported demonstrates characteristics that are quasi-feasible in terms of known technology. The craft is accompanied by a reported 23 terrestrial helicopters which seem to have materialized out of nowhere. Witness injuries are anomalous. Tangible documentation (medical records) is either not quite conclusive or remains just out of reach.
I have to wonder how, in the darkness and confusion, the Landrums could have counted a specific number of helicopters. Perhaps they did.
C-L remains a fantastic case. In terms of persistent high strangeness/credibility value, it must be in the all time top 10.
breddell: Check out Senty's link on the previous page, "Cash-Landrum NOT ionizing radiation". It's an excellent look at the radiation issue.
It's an easy out in terms of analysis. But from the Vallee school of ufology, Cash Landrum has all the dream-like earmarks of the classic UFO experience. The vehicle reported demonstrates characteristics that are quasi-feasible in terms of known technology. The craft is accompanied by a reported 23 terrestrial helicopters which seem to have materialized out of nowhere. Witness injuries are anomalous. Tangible documentation (medical records) is either not quite conclusive or remains just out of reach.
I have to wonder how, in the darkness and confusion, the Landrums could have counted a specific number of helicopters. Perhaps they did.
C-L remains a fantastic case. In terms of persistent high strangeness/credibility value, it must be in the all time top 10.
Jeff Davis
Paranormal Adept
Ufology,
Tremendously good post. It lets me know where you are at with respect to your comprehensive stance on alternate advanced black military based aviation research and development.
Unfortunately for myself , admittedly, I am quite influenced by Extraterrestrial Technology and Edgar Rothschild Fouche and I could be completely WRONG. But just as risque, and therefore of great concern to me, as is the notion of investing my trust into Fouche's claims, it is the influence that such a level of acceptance has brought to bear on my personal speculations concerning UFOs that I am specifically most concerned about. Duh!
I have scrutinized Fouche thoroughly several times. Frankly, despite being associated formerly with some less than credible people IMO, his credentials and character seem to be in order. I could be WRONG and that is the only reason I ever use capital letters, just as I did here like the author did in the GREAT paper that Sentry provided in this thread, to create emphasis. It's certainly not some exercise in raising one's voice. I do that via an exclamation mark.
Please forgive me, as this may all seem more so like an apologetic ruse to help you/others "see" my speculative theories in part, but I am clearly admitting as much in an effort to hone my own understanding better, more so accurately. The constant retooling of my Fortean speculations are centered within it's proverbial "mission statement". A mandatory part of it's change/revision/progress. Fantastic as it may all be, nonetheless, I still value it greatly. As we all do really, hence our great interest in UFOs.
No, quite truthfully, I suspect we are MUCH further ahead of what is public knowledge than 2 years. I'm thinking more so 50-100 at this point. And rather than seeing this gap as becoming shorter like it would with respect to market targeted commercial scientific developments, the gap with respect to these possible esoteric "new sciences" in prototypical actuation, increases in it's length dramatically. This is only logical as it becomes solely a matter of keeping the developments away from private enterprise's (an extremely powerful group I might add) commercial sector, and thus the matter will remain ultimately unacknowledged in the public sector.
I certainly DO NOT think this constitutes an explanation for all UFOs. Just some, POSSIBLY.
For some reason, I missed the link "Cash-Landrum NOT ionizing radiation" before (one of my readers doesn't show link sometimes?). Anyways, that email does make sense in some areas and not in others, with many assumptions not knowing anything about the type or energy of the radiation field (if that was what it was). For instance, there is a statement that says ionizing radiation isn't too penetrating, well that is true for low energy heavy ions, but not true for high energy heavy ions. Although it is seems very unlikely that if the source was heavy ions, that the ions would have very high energy, but not knowing the source that generated them, it would be pure speculation. Part of my work is to evaluate ionizing radiation effects, but I don't really look at human health effects etc. But a lot the health effects quoted with the radiation dose levels seem to make some sense and consistent with things I've come across over the years.
Human radiation exposures (the ones that lead to death) are very rare events and probably very private. That is why you really don't see too much literature/journal articles on specific incidences, but rather see generic studies from major events like Hiroshima and Chernobyl. So, as fascinating as this case is, I wouldn't expect there to be a credible documented study - I was hoping that maybe one of the investigators who stuck with that case over the years might have detailed knowledge of some of this.
Yea, I would have to wonder that too. I actually live in the Houston area and these days the area between Dayton and Houston isn't too isolated. Now I have heard of 'rumors' (i.e. with no evidence other than anecdotal) of an underground base north of Houston. The rumors associate planes flying in an out of some area, cases of many helicopters (>20) flying in formation, etc. I can't help but think about the C-L case when I hear these things.
Human radiation exposures (the ones that lead to death) are very rare events and probably very private. That is why you really don't see too much literature/journal articles on specific incidences, but rather see generic studies from major events like Hiroshima and Chernobyl. So, as fascinating as this case is, I wouldn't expect there to be a credible documented study - I was hoping that maybe one of the investigators who stuck with that case over the years might have detailed knowledge of some of this.
Yea, I would have to wonder that too. I actually live in the Houston area and these days the area between Dayton and Houston isn't too isolated. Now I have heard of 'rumors' (i.e. with no evidence other than anecdotal) of an underground base north of Houston. The rumors associate planes flying in an out of some area, cases of many helicopters (>20) flying in formation, etc. I can't help but think about the C-L case when I hear these things.
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
The kinds of claims made by Fouche seem plausible. We know for sure that the USA has a mini-drone shuttle that can go up into space and rove around by remote control for a number of days. Compared to UFOs however, the problem we're still having with virtually all aerospace technology is that airplanes are to UFOs what sailing ships are to nuclear submarines. Aircraft are beautiful pieces of machinery that fly with grace because they're dependent on the principles of aerodynamics and thrust. On the other hand UFOs seem to operate on some on technology that does away with those things altogether and is beyond our present capacity to engineer. I wonder if it's the kind of thing some nerd will figure out in his or her parent's basement?
boomerang
Paranormal Adept
I haven't read the Fouche link yet. I think we need to be cautious when comparing giant leaps we see in semiconductor technology to advances in technology generally. Especially in the realm of high energy physics. We can always postulate many decades of progress having been kept in the black. And given the sociological habits of our government, rightfully so. But as far as I know, there is no information whatsoever (in the public domain anyway) that would allude to an imaginable pathway to the kinds of performance reported by UFO's.
On the other hand: The lid on aerospace and weapons research is clamped down tighter than ever. And decades after the end of the Cold War, no less. There are also caveats of a technological nature which might let us account for reported characteristics in terms of things like projected holograms and other methods of warping perception. We don't see hyper-secure areas like Groom Lake going out of business anytime soon. Spook is a growth industry in America. Strange days indeed.
There is also the alleged scenario where such leaps are the result of seeded technology.
Which was the version of the story i heard (not sure where)
That the craft was on loan to the military and that the pilots lost control of it causing it to stall.
As for computers................
Google and NASA Snap Up Quantum Computer D-Wave Two: Scientific American
Diamond Shows Promise for Quantum Internet: Scientific American
Which was the version of the story i heard (not sure where)
That the craft was on loan to the military and that the pilots lost control of it causing it to stall.
As for computers................
Google and NASA Snap Up Quantum Computer D-Wave Two: Scientific American
Diamond Shows Promise for Quantum Internet: Scientific American
Very true, im often baffled by the suggestion Kurzweil isnt a real scientist simply because he has some ambitious ideas
About Ray Kurzweil
The Singularity is Near » Ray Kurzweil Full Biography
The nations highest honour for technological achievement.......
RobDel
Skilled Investigator
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
Falcon: A member of the so-called "Aviary", presumed to be either Richard Doty or Commander C.B. Scott Jones, Ph.D.
Sentry
Paranormal Adept
Check page 7 of this PDF for more on Doty's "contribution" to the Cash-Landrum case.
Just Cause, June 1988: Note s on Peter Gersten's meeting with Richard Doty, Jan. 1983
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
Very Interesting
! Something that sort of fits the bill that may have been covered in Aviation Week was the X-13 a jet powered vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft, or perhaps the SNECMA C.450 ...
... as mentioned on the bottom of this issue of Aviation Week ( ring wing VTOL concept ) ...
Sentry
Paranormal Adept
Whoa, there! I wasn't suggesting Doty was providing genuine information. If his conversation had any basis in fact, he may have been referring to the article in this issue:
(By the way, I don't have a physical copy of the issue, these quotes were extracted from Google books.)
(By the way, I don't have a physical copy of the issue, these quotes were extracted from Google books.)
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
Sure ... just playing along. Masters of disinfo include some real info to make the disinfo seem more believable.