Hello, again, folks: installment three [cases 31-45] of this mini-study. 1957-1964 era. Several powerhouse incidents here which help define the CE2p phenomenon/phenomena [?].
These five cases above contain three "6's"---the heaviest concentration of such superstars in the 150, I believe. Another "4" is probably really up there with them too.
November 6th, Merom, Indiana [The Rene Gilham case]. I am almost certain that i've told the story on the blog before, but it's buried in time so here goes. Gilham was a factory worker who lived on a farm. Very rural. There were no "bathroom" facilities, and they had an outhouse. Late one night, Gilham had the Call of Nature, and he went outside. There was no one else out and so he just sat inside the john with an open door. The land around lit up as a brilliant red object flew overhead. The light engulfed everything. It was this light which was seen by others which makes this a multi-witness case. Gilham was "enlightened" on his exposed skin areas. He went inside and began to complain of burning. The next day things were worse and he ultimately had to go to the hospital to have his burns treated. The military visited and left without statement. The press asked what was going on, and the hospital personnel refused to discuss details, leading people to believe it was a government cover-up. Gilham went along with that when he was quizzed by reporters. Later, James McDonald interviewed him, and came away with an intuition that Gilham was hiding something. Because of McDonald's reputation, a small doubt was cast on the story. Well, Gilham WAS hiding something, and when it came out actually anchors the truth of his tale even more. Chet Fitch went down to Gilham's farm and established a friendly relationship with the family. Gilham relaxed and "came clean". He had lied about the military telling him not to talk about the case. Why? Well...it seems that the ol' UFO had shown its light on...well...his exposed body parts, when he was sitting there and he REALLY didn't want to go into those particular details with the reporters. The story which they already had been circulating about a government hush-up was very convenient. Jim McDonald's intuition that he was hiding something was accurate. But. pretty understandable. The November 10th Madison Ohio case [Leita Kuhn] is the "4" which probably is a 5or6. A letter from her to Keyhoe is included in the illustrations [which by the way are acting up on this site and didn't use to].
February 17th, 1958, Alcalde, New Mexico. [newsclip above...maybe, we'll see]. Here two women were irradiated [at least by bright light] by a flat-bottomed disk which flashed light. The film in their camera was fogged. This led to testing at the Lovelace Clinic [one of the women worked in a civil defense job and her physician worked at the Clinic]. This was the famous Clinic that served places like Holloman, and has been rumored to have been involved with Roswell. The witnesses suffered temporary blindness, "sunburn", headache, nausea, vomiting, all-body rash. The issue of radiation of an ionizing kind is controversial: their personal information said yes, but the report to the press by the military said no. The testing by the military on their car revealed no radiation remnants, but if the testing on themselves DID, how did they get it? Retelling their encounter, they seemed to be off in their estimated time of travel by about two hours ... uh oh. This was WAY before "missing time" was a concept in UFOlogy. What on Earth [or beyond] are we dealing with here? James McDonald re-visited this case and found it to be solid.
Topeka, Kansas, November 11th, 1958. The primary witness here was a Lt.Colonel in the Civil Air Patrol, and well known to personnel at both McConnell AFB Wichita and Topeka Airport. She was awakened by a bright light engulfing her bedroom. Her dogs were acting frightened. She saw a 25-foot diameter disk outside. [four other witnesses saw something take-off from further distances away, including the airport tower operators, who were afraid that something was happening at her home]. The UFO left straight up and was tracked by the airport on radar. She had sequelae to the exposure including recurring red blotches on her eyes and long-term light sensitivity. Both dogs developed cataracts. Even more spectacular than the CE2p aspect were the CE2em effects. Lights, radios, refrigerators were not only shut down, but had permanent damages. Wiring was actually burnt out. [this is a family of highly educated and technical people and not a run-down shack]. When she ultimately told the whole story to the UFO investigations officer at McConnell, he went quietly ballistic. He would have loved to have gotten those refrigerator motors. They'd already been tossed away.yep...thing's leaving a gap...scroll down
yep, keep going...
almost there.....
patience wins the race.....
is there a light on the horizon???
hmmmm...I'd swear I saw something ahead.
can't be much further now...I hope
It just HAS to be a conspiracy.
The ghost of Robertson has struck in 2011
Yep, it's down there..can see it in my telescope
Trust me, would I lie to you??
This is a test; this is only a test.
There is no danger of radiation leakage.
What we have here is failure to communicate
We've always yearned for the wide-open spaces but .....
Just to occupy the time, have you heard the one about.....
Hell is being trapped in a hotel room with Phil Klass and Stanton Friedman and not being able to do anything but listen for eternity
Whoops...we've arrived.
From priceless to bargain basement with this next set. Nothing here to rave about. The Polish case is probably a good one if I had a good file. It seems to have had a simple physical "no air" effect on the witness. The Proberta case might not qualify as CE2p at all, but rather be "just" anti-gravity pulling at him. My intuition is that the "rural Michigan" case would be a knock-out, but it is one of those things which has surfaced only by an internet tale [well told, however] and thereby without investigation, and lost to us forever as being of worth. Such is the NEGATIVE impact of the internet on UFOlogy...and, yes, there are positive effects too.
This last set of five contains some good cases: two "4's" and a "5". Both fours could be higher. The five is an extremely well investigated Australian case from Willow Grove [sometimes called "Moe"] in Victoria,
The case involved a 25-foot diameter see-through domed disk making swishing noises and leaving with "instant acceleration". Australian military and scientific personnel were interested in the investigation, along with the public investigators who have done such solid work on many cases there [my own file on this was mailed to me directly by Keith Basterfield, for instance]. The CE2p elements of the case are violently reacting panicked animals and a day-long headache for the witness. James McDonald, on his foray to Australia, interviewed the witness and was impressed by both him and the case investigation. The cartoon to the left [again, maybe that's where it will end up] is my own attempt to crudely portray the incident. [the day was rainy if you were wondering what those streaks were meant to convey---this detail is usually not mentioned in descriptions of the case and comes from the RAAF report]. Well, with that, and since my typing hand is breaking, I'll sign this version off, and hope that the blogmachine doesn't screw the arrangement of the post too badly---if it does, just consider it a part of the Great Conspiracy.
As soon as I read the report from Kansas 1958 wherein the purported 'vehicle' went straight up upon leaving, I couldn't help but think of the dramatic Jerusalem video footage (supposedly 5 of them at my last count) which has now gone viral. Assuming you are aware of the case, Do you have any gut reactions about it Professor?
ReplyDeleteAlready there is much debunking effort (much of it of dubious quality it seems to me) devoted to it.
I wish that i could comment on that but i can't. My feelings about assessment of any UFO case are that I must have some degree of confidence in the source, and therefore I need to see some orderly evidence of the investigation. I do not have that on this situation [nor frankly most of the very modern things {due to my current limitations of time and resources}] and should not thereby comment. My views are always that if I have no reason to think differently, my mind remains open on such cases. Many of the recent incidents that i do come across lately are often by accident or a close friend sends the details to me.
ReplyDelete"Hell is being trapped in a hotel room with Phil Klass and Stanton Friedman and not being able to do anything but listen for eternity" - -
ReplyDeleteHehehe..... ;-)
~ Susan
It is very interesting that during this era close witnesses seemed to suffer radiation burns of some kind. Is this something which has now stopped happening? Has that particular type of UFO been retired (the Galactic Environmental Protection Agency decided it had excessive emissions)?
ReplyDeleteHaHa!! We don't know anything about ET's EPA or OSHA rules, but what we DO see is a crashing fall-off of Close Encounters of the Second Kind of all sorts [circa late 1970s], as well as Old-style [non-abduction] CE3s. I'm pretty sure that i documented that sort-of extensively earlier on the blog. This disappearance of "evidence-rich" cases is eerily coincident with the maturation of the civilian UFO community's ability to take such cases to laboratory level, plus the French GEPAN program to do so officially in France. Could be a simple accident...but.....
ReplyDeleteIn the Topeka case, why is there no mention of Forbes Air Force Base? It was at that time both a nuclear bomber base, and the home of RB-47s, which carried out recon missions on the edge of the Soviet Union. It was located (and in it's altered form, still is), just outside the city limits to the south. Atlas ICBMs aimed at the Eastern Bloc dotted the surrounding countryside in every direction in those years. Mentioning that the witness was "well known to personnel at both McConnell AFB Wichita and Topeka Airport", and not mentioning Forbes makes someone here sound (at the least) geographically challenged. The sighting could be as solid as Grant's Tomb, and the account OF the sighting, could still be regarded as sounding bogus. I was 10 years-old and in Topeka at the time. There were always "sightings" and high strangeness about. On a per capita basis, there were probably more heads of households, with security clearances in Topeka, than about any place else of comparable size. It was the perfect place to hide things in plain sight.
ReplyDeleteI of course have no idea. I can only report on what's in the report file. This lady worked a lot with the Airport and those people were friends [which is why they called her to see if anything was wrong. The witness assumed that they were going to contact the base so she didn't. McConnell was involved because their officer was involved with CAP and that's when he learned of the incident [at a regional CAP meeting] . The same guy was the regional UFOB investigator.
ReplyDeletejust a small follow up on my jerusalem light query earlier...in fact I'm a tad bit embarrassed in retrospect, having seen on the Anomalist page that you are in fact Michael Swords, whose work I have read and admired over the years. Of course most of the material on the net is invariably compromised in one way or other just by BEING on the net, since a cascade of 'evidence' follows on any purported 'true' event...almost an impossible for one trained in scientific protocol to deal with.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, there is a fascinating socio-culural meme/viral thing going on with technical telemedia as re: making a space for reception of such ideas you might say.
But as one who has been strictly on the sidelines for a long, it seems that the days of hard evidence research is diminishing, in favor of net swipes and drivebys. But I don't keep abreast as much as I once did.
Anyway I appreciate your work...an oasis in a sea of pixillation...in all senses .
Thank you. I began this blog anonymously for two reasons. Primarily it was because I believe that "personality" should ideally play no role in the search for truth, and therefore any "authority" that I may have gained over the years should not sway anyone from their own path of investigation of each claim. This is also why I am continuously dismayed when parties insist on slamming someone's name while objecting to a concept or claim.
ReplyDeletePersons deserve to be called out as individuals when they themselves have made a "career" of putting themselves in a primary position equal or beyond the issues [a la Greer and many others] and sometimes one cannot avoid a personal reference. This is prominent when you notice that someone is making a living off this. Still, it is usually unhelpful to a discussion of objective facts and hypotheses.
Secondly, I had from the start the knowledge that I would be referring to certain incidents involving friends and family, and didn't want to encourage "enthusiasts" hassling them. So the "soft anonymity" had a non-conspiratorial basis to it.