tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1071963771262525979.post838529394746677559..comments2024-01-22T18:18:17.236-06:00Comments on Blue Blurry Lines: The US Government’s Cash-Landrum UFO Investigations, Part TwoCurt Collinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13773941506205598439noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1071963771262525979.post-33037150431722175572019-04-07T22:37:38.453-05:002019-04-07T22:37:38.453-05:00Thanks for preserving purrlgurrl's reply, Curt...Thanks for preserving purrlgurrl's reply, Curt. I'm posting this as a reply to her older comment so that she'll see this.<br /><br />purrlgurrl: I don't agree re: your view that the more prosaic the phenomenon of interest, the less likely it is that an investigation will elucidate it. I've seen so many studies by Tim Printy, Martin Shough, etc. where they've been able to develop very convincing prosaic explanations of UAP cases, sometimes very old ones. Conversely, the tendency seems to be that when the prima facie "strangeness" of cases is high, even the really solid investigators are more likely to ultimately deem them "unknown," especially Shough. This is my impression, at any rate, and it leaves me fairly confident in my claim about prosaic cases being more likely to yield clear answers when subjected to scrutiny.<br /><br />I'm not sure the following from you is entirely accurate: "their thought was the Second Coming NOT an alien space craft nor government test." Consider what Curt has to say on this matter in a recent post: "There were no claims of an actual Jesus sighting, and at no time did the ladies characterize the object as a 'flying saucer.' According to their story, once they saw the helicopters pursuing the UFO, they rationalized the object as a military aircraft project." It is true that Vickie and Betty's first reaction to the event, because of the shocking nature of whatever it is they saw, was to think "they were experiencing the Biblical Judgment Day" (quoted again from Curt). But it seems to me that that was simply the thought that jumped to their minds from the initial shock of the experience. I don't see that in itself doing much to defuse the anomalous quality of the event (which isn't to suggest that there aren't other considerations that do have that defusing effect).<br /><br />"As for McDonald, I don't find him to be credible as a corroborating witness to whatever Cash-Landrum saw."<br /><br />That is a reasonable view. Curt, who seems to have researched the CL case more thoroughly than anyone else, agrees with it, if I recall correctly (please correct me if I'm wrong, Curt). That said, it does seem that the women's ability to see whatever was at the heart of the event was impaired by the associated extremely bright light. In those viewing conditions, it doesn't seem totally unreasonable to me that they could've misperceived the triangular craft that McDonald reported as something more akin to a diamond. Skeptics correctly observe that far more extreme misperceptions have occurred in the history of UAP.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1071963771262525979.post-86110039177072219732019-04-07T07:43:47.476-05:002019-04-07T07:43:47.476-05:00purrlgurrl submitted a reply to Matty, but I accid...purrlgurrl submitted a reply to Matty, but I accidentally deleted it. Fortunately, I still had a copy from the site's email notification. She said:<br /><br />"The more mundane what was seen, the LESS likely it is an investigation would turn up anything because something commonplace (though totally unfamiliar to Cash-Landrum) wouldn't be noted. It was nothing special to anyone but them. <br />So your rebuttal makes no sense to me. <br /><br />I now believe this event boils down to an extreme emotional over-reaction by the witnesses to something they didn't immediately recognize. Being Christian women, their thought was the Second Coming NOT an alien space craft nor government test. All that came later after Ufologists got involved with them.<br /><br />To me, the only thing of interest left about Cash-Landrum is the shoddy behavior of some in the UFO community who attached themselves to the pair like barnacles, exploiting and transforming their experience into something it wasn't originally.<br /><br />As for McDonald, I don't find him to be credible as a corroborating witness to whatever Cash-Landrum saw.<br /><br />Nope. I'm over and done with thinking Cash-Landrum has anything to offer. It's just another dead end in a UFO history that’s littered with them."Curt Collinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13773941506205598439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1071963771262525979.post-65232606368032354512019-03-26T18:52:01.303-05:002019-03-26T18:52:01.303-05:00Your argument doesn't make sense to me. Surely...Your argument doesn't make sense to me. Surely the more prosaic the phenomenon of interest, the more likely extensive investigation would be to turn up a clear answer.<br /><br />Of course, it could be that mundane or exotic, there will be little to find no matter how much study is conducted. But I do think something significant that lets us break through the uncertainty *just a bit* did come up at one point. Specifically, the testimony of McDonald, in which he reported a strange flying object fairly similar to that described by the more prominent witnesses, suggests, to my mind at least, that something unusual did happen.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1071963771262525979.post-69115101738179928382019-03-12T18:23:29.012-05:002019-03-12T18:23:29.012-05:00So, an unofficial ad hoc group of mostly UFO advoc...So, an unofficial ad hoc group of mostly UFO advocates undertook a study of the case and found it interesting. No surprise there. Then NIDS (Bigelow, the government boondoggle guy, and his UFO cronies) enters the picture along with the woo woo branch of the CIA. Honestly, this all seems part of a Hail Mary pass attempt when a significant amount of traditional investigation failed to score anything.<br /><br />Of course, there was overt and covert government investigation of the case. After all, there were very high-profile allegations as well as a lawsuit against the government for significant damages. <br /><br />Cash-Landrum was so widely covered by the media, from TV shows to newspapers (I read about it then in one of Chicago's major dailies) as well as the tabloids perpetually on display at supermarket checkout stands. No wonder there was pressure from inside and outside government to find out what happened. <br /><br />Nevertheless, after all investigations described in both posts, nothing of note was found. Why? Likely because what was seen, though it scared the bejesus out of the witnesses because it was totally unfamiliar to them personally, was something neither exotic nor even noteworthy, but rather purely mundane.<br /><br />Sorry UFO faithful, none of this investigative activity lends the Cash-Landrum claim a shred of credibility. When you throw all these resources at it but come up with no answers to hang your hat on, that doesn’t automatically make it a covered- up ET spacecraft or secret government test. In fact, just the opposite. It casts very serious doubt on the claim.<br />purrlgurrlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06519835482606629362noreply@blogger.com