This, from Jan Aldrich, was on Facebook 1/1 and provoked an interesting debate ...

 

A discussion ensued about field research and general research, using the 1980 Cash-Landrum UFO event as the point.

Andre Skondras (above) generated much that delved into the resultant "radiation" poisoning that affected the Cash-Landrum party, Andre and others, Curt Collins among them, chewing on the various kinds of radiation, nuclear and otherwise, and how some UFO researchers presented it amidst their evaluations of the incident.

This ballooned into the kinds of research, or lack of same, that imports from a UFO incident, some urging field (on the site of a UFO report) research and Andre showing that some research can come from a deep scrutiny of some aspects of a sighting, off-site, in this instance the various kinds of radiation that might have actually affected the Cash-Landrum observers.

Yes, it's not necessary for some UFO wannabe to trek to a UFO locale and feel around for something tangible to make a case.

Details from a report can allow a delineation of what was and what wasn't involved. 

In the debate noted here the claims centered around "ionizing radiation" vs a toxic aerosol chemical or electro-magnetic affectives and who proposed which or didn't.

But it all finally comes down to my complaint that all the deductive reasoning from details skimmed from old UFO reports will take us nowhere near to what UFOs are, and to keep barraging everyone with archaic and non-smoldering old UFO accounts -- as interesting as they may be -- is sheer madness.

Only a public, non-governmental "capture" of a UFO, with open press and open scientific scrutiny will tell us what the phenomenon is.

All the rest is flim-flam and nonsense of a pathological kind.

RR