Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

An in-depth (re)view of the Cash/ Landrum case

page: 4
51
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by dpd11
 


That's your problem. You say you work in the industry, no wonder why your head is so empty.

if you didn't want to sound like a nuthead, then you could have simply said - it did happen, they did have some physical damage frm this object, but nothing suggests that it was alien, it could've been military or anything man-made that has radiation as we do have radioactive elements here on Earth. That's how I view it, I cannot say it is alien as nothing suggests so. While a believer would say it is 100% an alien, well it seems I'm not from those afterall.

But no, you have to go over the edge, saying it didn't happen, saying they had injuries from somewhere else. Oh really? Whom did you talk to? Some randoms? Why not ask the boy that currently lives? Let him tell you because you think they made up the story. See the problem? There is medical records and a witness saying it happened, having proof of their injuries, you decided they made it to become famous?

That's your problem, then don't wonder why you get rained by insults. Cause such reckless ignorance is insulting itself.

YouTube

Watch this, watch how this boy named Colby, one of the three witnesses is responding to the Lieut. Colonel - it sounds like 'something happen to us that night and i wanna know what!' - does this sound to you like a lier who was just pretending?

Did you see the document related to this incident? Why would anyone make so long report of an event that never happened? You claim that it never happened!!! This is not some religion!
____________________
And Kandinsky to your question frm the Dulce interview thread, yes I stop posting and I would very much make another break soon, as I'm tired of everyday videos that show nothing yet they are called 'a UFO'. Few nights ago I observed the sky from a mountain, I saw many airplanes, shooting stars that burn out in the atmosphere. I saw obe yellow object obviously flying much higher than airplanes, moving in straight direction with constant speed. I called it a SATELLITE not a UFO. That's right, sorry im not your daily believer. I've never seen any UFOs.

And the other half of extremely skeptical like dpd111 that make me see this forum in disgust. So yes it's a waste of time arguing here. Pretty much why I wouldnt want to waste my time.
edit on 30-8-2011 by Imtor because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by dpd11
We've gone over it before, but once again... You just don't test stuff like that in some random residential area.


I don't know if that has been posted laready since I am at page 2 of this thread but I had to reply in case I forget later . I have to disagree with the above quote for a simple reason , You Sir have no idea what that craft was being used for , let me elaborate . If this was some kind of military command and control vessel or a stealth recon vessel for example then what better place to test it than over a secluded residential area with civilins ?

If the object was undetected it would have passed the test , if it got detected You can always spin a story. Who said that the object was not tested on a secret test side at first ?

Another possibility would also be that the object was being flown to a test site or returning from one and just malfunctioned ..

I have another question that does bother me in the story thou : If the object emited such a great heat that, I quote "When she touched the door it was so painfully hot that she had to use her leather jacket to protect her hands as she got back in the car." then why where the people not burned ? i mean if something heats up metal to such temperatures that its painful to touch , then I would have thought that the human skin would have already be badly burned by such heat ...



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 08:36 AM
link   
Man, there seems to be some pissed off people on this thread. Let's keep our emotions in check folks and try to have a civil dabate.

@ DP

Again, please share your theory with us as to what you think it was. As you've seen, you've already been called a nutcase from some members, lol, and you seem to have a thick enough skin to endure it. So what do you have to lose? Maybe your insight into this object would help open a door to a different direction in this case, instead of letting this thread spiral into another offtopic argument, rife with quotes and he said/she said banter.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Thill
 


I was thinking the same about the flight from one base to another or even a test flight "with the risk of being seen".

As for the heat and/ or radiation check this out:

www.artgomperz.com...

It may explain some details.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by dtrock78
Man, there seems to be some pissed off people on this thread. Let's keep our emotions in check folks and try to have a civil dabate.

@ DP

Again, please share your theory with us as to what you think it was. As you've seen, you've already been called a nutcase from some members, lol, and you seem to have a thick enough skin to endure it. So what do you have to lose? Maybe your insight into this object would help open a door to a different direction in this case, instead of letting this thread spiral into another offtopic argument, rife with quotes and he said/she said banter.


Love that post! I'm glad this case initiated an interesting discussion and I would love to hear dpd's theory!!



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by dtrock78
Man, there seems to be some pissed off people on this thread. Let's keep our emotions in check folks and try to have a civil dabate.

@ DP

Again, please share your theory with us as to what you think it was. As you've seen, you've already been called a nutcase from some members, lol, and you seem to have a thick enough skin to endure it. So what do you have to lose? Maybe your insight into this object would help open a door to a different direction in this case, instead of letting this thread spiral into another offtopic argument, rife with quotes and he said/she said banter.


It's not about my skin. I put up with HC insanity for three years, I can put up with this. It's about wasting time. If this was a topic I didn't understand, I'd keep my mouth shut. But its a giant waste of time to put forward a bunch of effort and know through your life experience how something works... then you throw it out there and you get nothing but people that just keep saying 'no no no no no', because they're so in flexible that they refuse to believe anything other than 100% of the story as it was told, verbatim. I mean if I annoy people so much with just this, I can't imagine what a few people here would do if Don showed up. They would just have a total meltdown. lol

I'm not going over the test stuff anymore. I've explained over and over how that works and why it's not that. If people can't get past that, then whatever. Like I said... I can't say exactly what I think it was, because if I am right, it would still be a secret. I'm patriotic. Yes, chances are it wouldn't be a big deal, but if for some reason it did bring the truth out before it should be brought out, I don't want to be responsible for that. Unlike most people here, I feel obligated to my country, and I don't believe the government and military is just evil shadow people constantly trying to kill us. I know first hand that most of them work very hard to keep us safe, and I do not believe in the concept that every single citizen deserves to know everything they do. That's not feasible, nor practical.

I will go as far as to say that I believe it was training for a very important mission, and the flight package of helicopters on their training route, had an incident at the specific location that I already posted in the beginning. That incident may have involved a slung fuel bladder being carried for a FARP, or possibly just a helicopter by itself.

A mission package would typically be divided between helicopter types in sections, and this particular group would have the specific different types they describe seeing. Each type is responsible for a different part of the mission. One of the ships from a section in the front, which would potentially have the fuel bladder (but not guaranteed), had the incident at that location. The accident would have involved what they crashed into, and that object would have been the actual cause of how the people sustained their injuries, when they came upon the scene of the accident just after it happened. The injuries would have been from arc flash, or plasma burns... which would look very similar to many of the injuries they had. A following section in the strike package could have shown up later, at about the time the women were at the scene, and discovered the accident that happened with the ship in the lead section. These would have been the helicopters they saw before they left.

Flying in a package such as this at night, would have been very rare in those days. This was the very beginning of routine night flying, and NVGs were just showing up in Army aviation. All this together would narrow down who was doing it. But through many people's description of what was going on in those units at the time, there are many things that point to a group specifically working out of TX around that time and training for this mission, and they also spent time doing 1000 mile insertion missions in Nevada at night, around the same time.

Due to the nature of the mission, I believe it would have been fairly easy to cover it up, thanks to the very rural area where it happened. Why the women would not have been informed as to what happened, I do not know. This would have been very compartmentalized, and most people in the military may very well have not even known of the mission or what was happening. The unit itself that was involved, could simply have not even known anybody had been there when the accident happened.

If you look at the location, it's not hard to figure out. But sorry, I know some people will be greatly annoyed that my ideas aren't nearly as thrilling as a super secret nuclear test craft... and all this will be shot down with the usual 'no no no no'... and I will no doubt once again be bombarded with name calling and irrational comments claiming I'm saying the women are liars, and all this other crap that I never said.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by dpd11
 


Hi dpd11, thanks for sharing your theory on the event. Even though I don't share your opinion I, of course, respect your opinion and am glad you told us your take on the things.

As long we don't know the truth in its entirety we have to take every theory into consideration, even if it's just a little piece out of every theory out there.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by dpd11
 


That's a much better idea; why not cut straight to it instead of all the mystery? It's certainly worth considering to work out if it is consistent with the witness descriptions and if it is plausible from a technical perspective.

They drove up the Cleveland-Huffman road and see a bright light ahead and above the road in the distance. As they draw nearer, the light becomes discernible as coming from an object they describe as being quite large (40m according to Landrum). The object appears to be on a horizontal axis and moves to a vertical position as they draw near. The object is bright and occasionally belching flames. They all get out of the car because of the heat. Landrum and Colby get back in because the kid is scared. Cash walks ahead and then the heat is too much for her and she gets back in too.

They describe how the object rose when the flames appeared and lowered otherwise. The brightness was maintained throughout and there was a loud beeping sound reported by all three. The flames stopped, the object lifted and moved away over the pines. Vickie and Colby first saw and heard the helicopters at this point.

This part of the incident was close to 15 minutes from first to last sight. As they drove away, the object was visible as a bright light in the sky for a further 5 minutes. 20-/+ minutes in total.

For detail, they saw the object as they approached, then from 150 yards away and beneath, and then from behind as they drove away. At no point did they describe the object being suspended from a helicopter.

Are you thinking of a collapsible fuel tank and at what dimensions? Are you thinking a fuel tank caught fire? I haven't found statistics for aviation accidents involving fuel slings so I don't know the protocol for the situation. How would a pilot respond to this? Are they able to dump?

Could an object being slung by a helicopter be on fire for up to 20 minutes without causing the crew to dump or ditch? From the images on-line, the proximity of fuel bladders to the underside of the heli and the intense heat described (asphalt burned, skin burns), could a heli remain airborne? If a fuel bladder ruptured and caught fire, would it be able to burn with this described ferocity for the period of time?

I think if you can answer these questions, you could be on to something.




posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 02:09 AM
link   
dpd11 did you even bother to check one of the three witnesses on the video? It is enough to see what tone he has towards the Colonen that he experienced something and he wants to know what it is? Do you think they are all pretending? Do you think they decided to make use of their HAIR LOSS incident use it to make money? HAHAHAHAH I know people are greedy but thinking they got their burns somewhere else and then they decided to make Money out of it is plain ridiculous


You really amuse me with your claims dpd11, glad you dont disagree that the event happened, now at least you are one step closer to being less funny. If you want to sound sane, call it military, nothing to do with ET, that's how I do, but see the guy that was with his granny and aunt who talks about it, does he look to you like lying when nearly yelling at the Colonen/Lieut. look at the episode on history? It is undeniable that this object caused the radiation but for this case specifically I think it is military not alien.

So you are saying:
Here he's just pretending he's being serious? He is not wanting the truth, as he is a very good actor!
edit on 31-8-2011 by Imtor because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by dpd11
 


Are you thinking of a collapsible fuel tank and at what dimensions? Are you thinking a fuel tank caught fire? I haven't found statistics for aviation accidents involving fuel slings so I don't know the protocol for the situation. How would a pilot respond to this? Are they able to dump?

Could an object being slung by a helicopter be on fire for up to 20 minutes without causing the crew to dump or ditch? From the images on-line, the proximity of fuel bladders to the underside of the heli and the intense heat described (asphalt burned, skin burns), could a heli remain airborne? If a fuel bladder ruptured and caught fire, would it be able to burn with this described ferocity for the period of time?

I think if you can answer these questions, you could be on to something.


Thanks for the conclusive approach of dpd's theory, Kandinsky!!! The questions you asked are plausible and have to be answered for dpd's theory to be closer to the truth.
edit on 31/8/11 by Dalbeck because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 04:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Imtor
 


There's no need to laugh him out of the thread. If he is proposing that what was witnessed was an accident with a suspended fuel bladder that caught fire, that is a very good theory. It could explain some elements of the story.

However, I don't buy it, because while some parts of that theory match up, others do not. The shape of the object, the ring of lights around it's center section, the glowing, the spontaneous burst of flames (sounded more like some sort of engine firing, if it were a fuel fire, you'd expect the whole object to be blazing). They described it as emitting flames from the bottom, but not actually being on fire. It was dark at the time, but having witnessed it for over 10 minutes, you'd expect that they would be able to easily tell if it was actually on fire or if it were just shooting flames out.

All of the symptoms the victims had also point directly to radiation exposure. Even her physician agreed on that and she was treated for radiation exposure.

Edit: here's the original Unsolved Mysteries episode on this case. This is one of the cases that got me into all of this UFO stuff (along with the Kecksburg incident) and I still think it's one of the strongest cases out there.

Whoops, can't get the embed to work. Little help?

Part 1:



Part 2:



edit on 31-8-2011 by Charizard because: (no reason given)
edit on 31-8-2011 by Charizard because: (no reason given)
edit on 31-8-2011 by Charizard because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Charizard
 




Next time, just paste the part between the equal sign (=) and the end. Or if there's an ampersand (&), copy the part in between the = and the &.


ww.youtube.com/watch?v=d-6Yl1njWN0&feature=related



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   
I have to reiterate that this DOES NOT sound like a military test aircraft testing mission. If there were 23 CH-47 helicopters involved, then this would suggest that some other major army operation was taking place and MAYBE they were diverted to follow the other "craft" or whatever it was.

I think it was an interesting theory that the object might be payload which was being carried by a Chinook, but I have reasons to doubt that. You would think that the witnesses would have noticed the downwash from the rotors. If this was a "fuel fire", then I don't see how you would get a blue flame shooting out the bottom. That sounds like a controlled plasma of some sort. I'm trying to imagine what sort of fuels might produce a blue or blue-white flame. Maybe alcohol? Butane? The witnesses compared the flame to an welder's acetylene torch.

If this were a conventional "rocket type" engine, it would need considerable thrust from expelled gases to maintain a hover, considering the fact that this object is reported to be as high as a water tower (suggests to me it was at least 50 feet high).

It definitely sounds to me like the government gave the witnesses the run around. I really can't see how Bergstrom Air Force would be involved, (as the CH-47s suggest Army or Marine exercise) so I guess they were sent there because it was close geographic proximity to the witnesses homes.

I'm not totally ruling out that the object might be a human manufactured craft, but I really have doubts that it is the technology described in the original post.

I should note that I have been involved in one incident of a UFO which emitted some sort of blue flame/plasma.

This was a fairly small object which was silently hovering over some trees beside a road, near the US/Canada border. The object had red and blue lights on the sides (like nav lights), and an array of white lights on the front, which seemed to be "search lights". The blue flame suggested something from a turbine after burner, but the aircraft was silent and stationary. It did sound like some sort of conventional vehicle like a helicopter or drone, but it was just odd that it made no noise. The witness was unable to see any detail from the structure of the craft, aside from a metallic looking nozzle in front of the blue flame (which does suggest a conventional turbine).

After the witness stopped the car, the craft rotated its search light array up front and took off, turning around some distance down the road behind the witness.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by bluestreak53
 



I have to reiterate that this DOES NOT sound like a military test aircraft testing mission. If there were 23 CH-47 helicopters involved, then this would suggest that some other major army operation was taking place and MAYBE they were diverted to follow the other "craft" or whatever it was.


According to witnesses, the number of helis were between 12 and 25. All witnesses described chinooks and single-blades. The reason a test craft has been considered is because the description of shape, propulsion and flight characteristics were not those of conventional craft.

Given the descriptions by the three witnesses, if it wasn't conventional it's fair to speculate that a prototype could be the cause. Examining vehicles with similar characteristics led to comparisons with lunar landers - these were then discounted for obvious reasons.



That sounds like a controlled plasma of some sort. I'm trying to imagine what sort of fuels might produce a blue or blue-white flame. Maybe alcohol? Butane? The witnesses compared the flame to an welder's acetylene torch.


The smell was described as being like 'lighter fluid.' A chemical agent could conceivably have been the cause of skin irritation, burns and the eye inflammation they experienced.




If this were a conventional "rocket type" engine, it would need considerable thrust from expelled gases to maintain a hover, considering the fact that this object is reported to be as high as a water tower (suggests to me it was at least 50 feet high).


The size of the object was compared to a water-tower. It's altitude was described as being some '60 to 80 feet.'


I'm not totally ruling out that the object might be a human manufactured craft, but I really have doubts that it is the technology described in the original post.


A pilot called Willy Culberson, from Ellington AFB, landed a Chinook in Dayton as part of a PR day for the USAF. He told Vickie Landrum that he had been part of a response in reaction to a 'UFO.' When she told him she was in the car, he retracted the statement. Later on, his statement was confirmed by his Commanding Officer. This doesn't mean that what he said was true, or that they intercepted a 'UFO,' it just confirms that he said it.

I can think of another situation where the USAF were transporting something back from Europe and it was described as a UFO by some personnel. It wasn't a 'UFO,' it was just banter.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
The smell was described as being like 'lighter fluid.' A chemical agent could conceivably have been the cause of skin irritation, burns and the eye inflammation they experienced.


That is interesting. I certainly think the physician may have been incorrect in his diagnosis of radiation burns, and this might be related to some sort of chemical exposure, perhaps a by-product of the flame, whatever its source.


Originally posted by Kandinsky
The size of the object was compared to a water-tower. It's altitude was described as being some '60 to 80 feet.'


I take that to suggest that this might suggest the top of the object was perhaps 60 to 80 feet above the road? Which might mean the object itself might be quite a bit smaller, taking into consideration the height of the flame and the distance between the bottom of the flame and the roads surface.



Originally posted by Kandinsky


I'm not totally ruling out that the object might be a human manufactured craft, but I really have doubts that it is the technology described in the original post.


A pilot called Willy Culberson, from Ellington AFB, landed a Chinook in Dayton as part of a PR day for the USAF. He told Vickie Landrum that he had been part of a response in reaction to a 'UFO.' When she told him she was in the car, he retracted the statement. Later on, his statement was confirmed by his Commanding Officer. This doesn't mean that what he said was true, or that they intercepted a 'UFO,' it just confirms that he said it.

I can think of another situation where the USAF were transporting something back from Europe and it was described as a UFO by some personnel. It wasn't a 'UFO,' it was just banter.



I can see the possibility that Ellington AFB may have been involved in the operation just taking into consideration its close proximity to the location. If you take the statement literally, it would suggest that the "mission" was not a test mission (as many are suggesting here), but they were pursuing a UFO. I just can't imagine why they would send out 20 helicopters to pursue a UFO? Normally they send out fixed wing fighter/interceptor jets. Unless they were involved in some other exercise and got diverted when some "UFO" (whatever it was), was perhaps observed by the helicopters engaged in another operation.

I'm curious what exactly the CO said about the pilot's statement. Is there any record of this or are we relying on what someone said the CO stated? Do we know what Air Force units were stationed at Ellington at that time? From what I've read, the base currently serves quite a wide variety of clients from NASA, Air Force, Coast Guard and Texas Army Reserve.

Whatever happened, I have to agree that this is a very interesting case and certainly remains unsolved.

edit on 31-8-2011 by bluestreak53 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dalbeck

One thing you probably will be noticing is that I left out details of the legal battle with the US government which was eventually dismissed in August 1986. I won’t get into these legal actions because I want to concentrate on the case from a UFO standpoint and not a lawyer’s (maybe Isaac will have some input for those interested
), I hope you can live with that.


Interesting thread Dalbeck - starred and flagged.

At some point I may try to get hold of documentation relating to the relevant legal battle. I've only read summaries in various UFO books and much prefer to read the primary source material myself rather than rely upon accounts by other people.

I think I've seen some images of pages from those proceedings in a book or online. If you happen to have seen such an image (particularly any with the formal case name, court and reference numbers), perhaps you could post a link/reference in this thread or send me a U2U? That would be a useful short-cut for when I get around to seeking copies of relevant documents relating to those proceedings (which is nowhere near the top of my to-do list...).

By the way, this case was discussed in about 68 of the books I read as part of a project I carried out a few years ago involving reading about 1,000 UFO/SETI books. I've uploaded the relevant list of references into a table at the link below (which can be sorted by author, date and length of discussion):
www.isaackoi.com...


All the best,

Isaac
edit on 31-8-2011 by IsaacKoi because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Ugh... F it... Nobody is ever going to believe it anyway, even if it really did happen this way. The power lines guys... In the location I posted? Fuel bladder or not, the flight could have hit the power lines, possibly slung load or the actual copter itself hanging in the lines. An H-6 could be supported by those lines. They had other accidents like this during the same period. An H-6 pilot was killed by power lines like this right around the same time, while they ran their route doing NVG training, down a river in the south. They hit the lines and both were ejected. The second ship in the flight came along and saw the downed copter a couple minutes later and found them on the ground, one dead. The first low level NVG night flying being done in the Army... Crash... Arc flash, plasma burns, bright light. Accident withheld due to nature of the specific mission being trained for. I'm not purposely trying to be mysterious... I just don't want to start some giant witch hunt, that's all. People could have possibly died in the accident.

Anyway... I'll read all the posts later.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   
I'm just wondering. Has anyone considered the possibility that the "UFO/craft" might be a hot air balloon? that might explain the conical flame from a burner down below? It seems like a "typical debunker" explanation I suppose, but I am still trying to make sense with the observed behavior of the craft. I recall reading that the craft would rise after each time the flame erupted from the base. This doesn't sound like any sort of rocket engine (which have continuous burns).
edit on 31-8-2011 by bluestreak53 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   
Dpd11's proposed explanation may be close to the mark and well worth further consideration.

My understanding of radiation sickness is that a large enough dose of ionizing radiation to cause the types of injuries described to manifest themselves in such a short time would be fatal.

The description of the events leading to the witnesses injuries possibly suggests some type of propellant associated chemical exposure, specifically hydrazine.


Hydrazine is also used as a low-power monopropellant for the maneuvering thrusters of spacecraft, and the Space Shuttle's auxiliary power units (APUs). In addition, monopropellant hydrazine-fueled rocket engines are often used in terminal descent of spacecraft. A collection of such engines was used in both Viking program landers as well as the Phoenix lander launched in August 2007...

Hydrazine is also used in F-16 Fighter aircraft to power the EPU (emergency power unit). It is a small generator that supplies emergency hydraulic or electric power in the event that main power is lost in the aircraft.



Hydrazine is highly toxic and dangerously unstable, especially in the anhydrous form. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Symptoms of acute (short-term) exposure to high levels of hydrazine may include irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat, dizziness, headache, nausea, pulmonary edema, seizures, coma in humans.

Acute exposure can also damage the liver, kidneys, and central nervous system. The liquid is corrosive and may produce dermatitis from skin contact in humans and animals. Effects to the lungs, liver, spleen, and thyroid have been reported in animals chronically exposed to hydrazine via inhalation. Increased incidences of lung, nasal cavity, and liver tumors have been observed in rodents exposed to hydrazine.

Limit tests for hydrazine in pharmaceuticals suggest that it should be in the low ppm range. Hydrazine may also cause steatosis.At least one human is known to have died, after 6 months of sublethal exposure to hydrazine hydrate.

On February 21, 2008, the United States government destroyed the disabled spy satellite USA 193 with a sea-launched missile, reportedly due to the potential danger of a hydrazine release if it re-entered the Earth's atmosphere intact


Extremley speculative untill you google December 29, 1980 where this tidbit comes to light...


December 29, 1980 Shuttle STS-1 moves from Vandenberg AFB to Launch Complex 39A


DatesInHistory.com

Although the orbiter itself was transported piggybacked to the 747 Shuttle Carrier Aircraft, I'll do a bit of digging around regarding the logistics involved with STS-1 and post anything I come across that may be of interest.

This could be completely irrelevant but it is an interesting coincidence and food for thought.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 
Cheers for the hydrazine link. I was trying to think of it during the day and it was 'on the tip of my tongue.'


ETA: Hydrazine fails the 'smell test.' They described 'lighter fluid' and hydrazine is ammonia. Symptoms of exposure are in the right ball-park although I imagine the hospital staff who treated Cash for 12 weeks would have covered the possibility of chemical exposure looking for appropriate treatment. Oddly, despite multiple requests, Cash never gained access to her medical records from the hospital stay so even hindsight can't help us there.

Electro-magnetic radiation is a strong contender, but then we're left with the description of the object rising on the belching flames.

All in all, for every step in one direction...something else discounts it.
edit on 31-8-2011 by Kandinsky because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
51
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join