Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Temporal Doorway - Eye and Skin Irritation in UFO Reports
The Temporal Doorway - Eye and Skin Irritation in UFO Reports
Introduction
A number of UFO cases contain reference to apparently related physical symptoms regarding
the eyes and skin. This article attempts to relate known information about similar physical
reactions from the medical literature to the UFO effects.
While specific cases are referenced in this document, the collection of the relevant
information about possible physical effect sources in one place is also an important objective
of this paper.
3/15/65, James Flynn, Everglades, FL, 1AM; "a cone shaped UFO hovering about 200' over
some cypress trees... moved rapidly and changed positions... the cone-shaped object
appeared to be about 25' high and had four tiers of windows emitting a yellowish glow... a
noise like a diesel generator... within 200 yards of the UFO, Flynn jumped out of the swamp
buggy... the UFO emitted a jet-like noise and a blast of wind that knocked him off balance; as
he continued to approach within a few yards, the UFO emitted a beam like a welder's torch
and Flynn blacked out... Extensive physical trace evidence was found, including an area of
burnt sawgrass 72 feet in diameter... 'I felt a blow like a sledgehammer'... when he awoke...
his vision was seriously impaired. About 24 hours had passed.... [he] required medical
treatment, and had a small dark spot on his forehead. He suffered impaired vision in one eye,
numbness, and loss of hearing." The effects lasted for over a week.[1]
10/12/63 - Eugenio Douglas, between Monte Maiz and Isla Verde, Argentina, evening; "a
single blinding light... Douglas could now see a circular metallic craft, about 35 ft high...
three figures appeared... over 12 feet tall... a ray of red light flashed to the spot where he
stood and burned him... the burning red light followed him as far as the village, where it
interfered with the street lights, turning them violet and green. Douglas could smell a
pungent gas... the same time they [Ribas family] heard Douglas' call the candles in the room
and the electric lights in the house turned green and the same strange smell was noticed...the
burns on his face and hands were clearly seen... Douglas was examined by a doctor, who
stated the burns had been caused by a radiation similar to ultraviolet"[4]
11/23/76 - Shelley McLenaghan, Bolton, England, 5:15PM; "a weird red and green light...
the size of a small house, flat on top, with sloping sides and three legs... ' a terrible pressure
on my head and shoulders, an off taste in my mouth. My teeth seemed to vibrate... a purple
rash covered her neck, chest, shoulders, and upper back. Her eyes and joints ached. In her
mouth, her top fillings had come out and the bottom ones had crumbled"[5]
Sept - Nov 1977 on... numerous (35) witnesses to "chupas" - refrigerator sized rectangular
objects emitting light beams in Brazil experienced damage to their skin after being struck
with light beams, and were examined by a medical doctor: "...began with intense reddening
of skin in the affected area. Later the hair would fall out and the skin would turn black. There
was no pain, only a slight warmth. One also noticed small puncture marks on the skin...
decrease in red blood cells". Some deaths were reported to result from these injuries.[6]
As with all UFO cases, these reports come from every nation and demographic category.
They are not restricted to any recent time period, but span at least 40 years.
The Pattern
As evidenced by the above reports, there are a number of specific effects which have been
documented regarding UFO effects on eyes and skin. The following are the salient aspects of
the pattern:
The absence of irritation in some close encounter cases and the presence of irritation in
others (may be a reporting artifact, a distance effect, or indications of the varying
nature of emissions by the object).
Irritation generally absent in beams (especially blue and white) and present in general
exposure to nearby UFOs.
Irritation in the presence of both red and blue light.
General absence of irritation in CE-IV cases.
The presence of shaped effects on the skin.
The recurrence of shaped effects on the skin at delayed intervals.
The presence of irritation in non-exposed skin areas.
Conclusion
The sample size and the quality of the data present are not sufficient for more than general
observations. Specific estimates of the energy output of the UFO can be derived from UV
effects if the distance to the object, the duration of the exposure, and severity of the
symptoms are identified. Analysis of the chemical effects of UFOs on humans is a currently
neglected area of study and investigators need to make arrangements for appropriately
certified expert analysis of blood, clothing, and exposed surfaces / materials in incidents
where the symptoms indicate the presence of allergens or toxic substances.
There are a number of possible causes for this. Most often, it is thought that this condition
results from UV or harder radiation, especially since it is sometimes reported in conjunction
with skin irritations similar to sunburn.
There are several types of conjunctivitis which match the reported symptoms. Allergic
conjunctivitis, for instance:[10]
red eye(s)
large dilated vessels in the sclera (the tough white fibrous tissue that covers the so-
called white of the eye)
intense itching -- burning eyes
tearing
puffy eyelids, especially in the morning
defined as:
"... a reaction to the introduction of materials to which the person is allergic, such as pollen,
dander, and so on. The reaction results in the release of histamine with subsequent dilatation
of vessels in the conjunctiva. Reddening of the eyes develops quickly and is accompanied by
itching and tearing."
"Acute Conjunctivitis Key Diagnostic Points: 1.The onset of the diseases is acute. There is
subjective itching with photophobia,stabbing pain, lacrimation, the sensation of a foreign
body in the eye,and burning sensations. 2.In the early and mild case, it's marked by slight
swelling of the eyelid, severe congestion of the palpebral conjunctiva and the fornix (inside
of eyelids) and( BR) mild congestion of the bulbar conjunctiva (thin protective coating over
sclera). Additionally,there can be a sticky secretion. 3.Features of a severe case include
palpebral redness and swelling, obvious congestion of bulbar conjunctiva possibly
accompanied with petechial haemorrhages andincrease of mucus secretions at the inner
canthus. 4.Usually,conjunctivitis will reach its climax in 3 to 4 days, and then it will be
relieved and recover in about 10 to 14 days. 5.This is a kind of acute infectious
opthalmopathy due to bacterial or viral infection. It's mainly characterized by an highly
infectious condition and obvious conjunctival congestion."[11]
"In a case where 2% aqueous glutaraldehyde was accidentally splashed in the eye, irritation,
pain and an increased sensitivity to light resulted. 74. Murray and Ruddy, Southern Med. J.,
vol. 78, p. 1012, 1985.74"[12]
This same substance can cause irritation when present in the air:
"In NIOSH HETA reports, eye irritation occurred in hospital workers exposed to
atmospheric glutaraldehyde concentrations up to 0.5 ppm v/v, 66. National Institute of
Occupational Safety and Health, Health Hazard Evaluation Report no. HETA 86-226-1769,
US Dept. of Health &Human Services, Public Health Service, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA,
January 1987.66, 68."[13]
Ozone is also known to cause eye irritation in certain quantities. It is an interesting candidate
substance in that ozone is a byproduct of electrical discharge, and there is evidence of
significant electromagnetic phenomena (atmospheric ionization, radio / television / ignition
interference) in the vicinity of UFOs.
"The characteristic smell of ozone associated with lightning discharges has been known
psyche antiquity, as has been shown by Mohr in citing four examples in Homer Iliad and
Odyssey. Homer called it "sulphur smell". Ozone was first described correctly in 1786 by van
Marum. He found a characteristic smell when a breakdown of electrical sparks took place
within a closed volume above water and he attributed this smell to the electrical matter."[14]
Knowledgeable readers will recognise similarity to the frequently reported irritating smell in
the area around a UFO.
Unfortunately, specific data about eye problems from ozone seem to be lacking.
"Ozone, like many other oxidants, irritates the mucous membranes of the respiratory system,
causing coughing, nausea, shortness of breath, pulmonary congestion, and impaired lung
function. It aggravates chronic respiratory diseases, such as asthma and bronchitis, and can
cause serious health problems for people in weakened health and the elderly (see
Introduction). Peroxyacetyl nitrates (PAN) and other oxidants that accompany ozone are
powerful eye irritants. Exposure for 6-7 hours or more reduces lung function significantly in
healthy people during periods of even moderate exercise."[15]
Even common materials can cause eye irritation, as shown in the following table[16]:
Dust Skin flakes, soil, pet components, Eye irritation, allergies, eye-ear-nose-
carpet fibers throat infections, asthma attacks,
fatigue
Bacteria Heating and cooling systems, Colds, respiratory infections, eye
house pets, garbage, bathrooms infections...
Benzene Paint, new carpets, new drapes, Headaches, eye and skin irritation,
upholstery... fatigue, cancer
Ammonia Tobacco smoke, cleaning supplies Eye and skin irritation, headaches,
nose-bleeds, sinus problems
Chloroform Paint, new drapes, upholstery, new Headaches,asthma attacks, dizziness,
carpeting eye irritation, skin irritation
Formaldehyde Tobacco smoke, plywood, Headaches, eye and skin irritation,
cabinets, furniture, particle board, drowsiness, fatigue, respiritory
office dividers, new carpets, new problems, memory loss, depression,
drapes, wallpaper, panelling gynecological problems, cancer
Benzopyrene Tobacco smoke Asthma attacks, eye and skin irritation,
sinus problems, lung cancer
Trichlorethylene Paints, glues, furniture, wallpaper Headaches, eye/skin irritation,
respiratory irritation
"Olfactory System: The odor threshold of formaldehyde is usually around 1 ppm, but may be
as low as 0.05 ppm in some people."
And:
"Skin contact with formaldehyde has been reported to cause a variety of cutaneous problems
in humans, including irritation, allergic contact dermatitis, and urticaria. Allergic contact
dermatitis from formaldehyde is relatively common, and formaldehyde is one of the more
frequent causes of this condition both in the United States and in other areas.
"In another attempt to estimate the susceptible population (particularly in relation to eye,
nose, and throat sensitivity) , information on a small number of healthy young adults exposed
to formaldehyde at various concentrations for short periods was considered. 59 At 1.5-3.0
ppm, more than 30% of the subjects tested reported mild to moderate eye, nose, and throat
irritation symptoms, and 10-20% had strong reactions. When test subjects were exposed at
0.5-1.5 ppm, slight or mild eye, nose, and throat irritation was noted in more than 30%, but
10-20% still had more marked reactions. Approximately 20% of the subjects had slight ear,
nose, and throat irritation in response to formaldehyde at 0.25-0.5 ppm. Finally, at the
lowest concentration tested, less than 0.25 ppm, some exposed subjects ("less than 20
percent") still reported minimal to slight eye, nose, and throat discomfort. These data might
be interpreted as suggesting that there are subjects perhaps 10-20% of those tested, who
react to formaldehyde at any given concentration.
"We may get further information from mobile-home surveys from which environmental and
clinical data are available. Irritation symptoms were reported by 30-50% of subjects when
formaldehyde concentration was greater than 0.5 ppm. When the concentration was less than
0.5 ppm, irritation symptoms were reported in fewer than 30% of subjects. Finally. in a more
controlled study in which irritation symptoms were investigated, mild irritation responses
(doubling of blinking rate) occurred in 11% of subjects tested at 0.5 ppm."
"In summary, fewer than 20% but perhaps more than 10% of the general population may be
susceptible to formaldehyde and may react acutely at any concentration, particularly if it is
greater than 1.5 ppm. People report mild ENT discomfort and other symptoms at less than
0.5 ppm, with some noting symptoms at concentrations below 0.25 ppm. Low-concentration
formaldehyde exposures may produce eye, nose, and throat symptoms and possibly lower-
airway complaints. In some susceptible persons, an "allergic" reaction to formaldehyde may
occur at very low concentrations , causing bronchoconstriction and asthmatic symptoms.
This particular type of reaction to formaldehyde appears to be uncommon; its prevalence
cannot now be estimated."[17]
Mercury has some side effects which can lead to its being mistaken for radiation effects:
" Mercury is a general sensory irritant. It may produce skin burns, rash, excessive
perspiration, easy blushing, partial loss of scalp hair,or a decrease in hearing. It can affect
taste, and it produces irritation in the mouth. Mercury poisoning may affect the sense of
touch, owing to the swelling of all extremities, including ears and nose.Except for spills of
inorganic mercury and excessive use of mercury-based paint, it is debatable whether indoor
concentrations of mercury are ever high enough to produce those effects."[18]
"Primary skin irritants include polycyclic organic matter and other vapor-phase organic
pollutants... Vapor-phase organic pollutants (like formaldehyde) may produce a variety of
skin effects. They may produce eczematous contact dermatitis and dermal contact sensitivity.
They may be absorbed percutaneously because of solubility in the water-lipid system, they
may produce skin paresthesis, and they may produce eczematous reactions of an acute or
chronic nature, including eruptions and exacerbations."[19]
"Similarly, another study showed that after human subjects had undergone twelve 30-minute
exposures to artificial UVR in a commercial tanning bed, the functions of T cells and Natural
Killer cells (which play a role in fighting viral infections and are cytotoxic to some tumor
cells) were negatively affected."[22]
Onset is well-defined:
"Occur 8-12 hours after exposure...Eyes feel dry and irritated, then feel as if they are full of
sand, moving or blinking becomes extremely painful, exposure to light hurts the eyes, eyelids
may swell, eye redness, and excessive tearing".[23]
" Recovery may take two or three days. Snowblindness is not a permanent condition."[24]
Upper limits would be based on retinal damage (which has not been reported):
"UV reaching the retina causes both functional and morphological damage. Lenses that have
been removed (aphakic), such as after a cataract operation, provide clear evidence of this
occurrence. The threshold for damage to the rabbit eye at 300 nm was 0.23 J [-2], A similar
value (0.36 J [-2]) was found for the primate eye at 325 nm (not UV-B); the aphakic
threshold was about ten times lower. More research is needed to determine how these
findings might apply to retinal damage in exposed human populations."[26]
UV is a natural suspect for skin irritation in UFO witnesses, especially since witnesses
frequently are affected at a distance.
"Unlike a thermal burn, sunburn is not immediately apparent. By the time the skin starts to
become painful and red the damage has been done. The pain is worst between 6 and 48
hours after sun exposure. In severe sunburns, blistering of the skin may occur. Edema of the
skin, especially in the legs, is common. Toxins are released with sunburn and fever is not
uncommon. Skin peeling usually begins between 3 and 8 days after exposure."[27]
"The major photoproducts following the absorption of UVR by DNA are pyrimidine
derivatives (Errera 1952). These photoproducts are cyclobutyl-type dimers (commonly called
'pyrimidine dimers' and by far the most significant), pyrimidine adducts, so-called 'spore
photoproducts', pyrimidine hydrates and DNA-protein crosslinks (Patrick and Rahn 1976)."
[28]
"MED is defined as the "minimum erythema dose" of energy required to produce clearly
marginated sunburn in the sun-exposed area of the skin [Parrish et al. 1983]. In humans, 1
MED is approximately equivalent to 200 J [-2] of UV radiation at 297 nm." [29]
Given the inverse-square fall-off of energy intensity, and the time of exposure, sunburn cases
offer a particularly specific method of determining the energy output of the UFO in a specific
frequency range.
"5.1.1.1. Time course of sunburn. Half an hour of midday summer sunshine in the UK on the
unacclimatized skin of Caucasian subjects is normally sufficient to result in a subsequent
mild reddening of the skin. Following this degree of exposure erythema may not appear for
about 4 h, although measurements using an instrument more sensitive than the eye at
detecting erythema showed that vasodilatation begins to occur much sooner (Diffey and
Oakley 1987). The erythema reaches a maximum at about 8-12 h after exposure and fades
within 1 to 2 days (Olson et al 1966, Farr et al 1988). Exposing the skin for increasing
periods to strong summer sunshine progressively shortens the time before the appearance of
erythema, lengthens its persistence, and increases its intensity. High doses may result in
oedema, pain, blistering and, after a few days, peeling.
"5.1.1.2. Action spectrum for ultraviolet erythema. The effectiveness of UVR of different
wavelengths in producing erythema has been determined repeatedly in a number of studies
over the past 70 years (Diffey 1982). The technique is to determine the doses of UVR at a
series of wavelengths necessary to produce a minimally perceptible redness 8 or 24 h after
irradiation. This dose is termed the 'minimal erythema dose' or MED. The reciprocal of the
MED is plotted against wavelength and the curve normalized to unity at the most effective
wavelength. The MED at a given wavelength in a group of fair-skinned subjects are
distributed lognormally. Studies in 254 normal subjects in the North East of England gave
the median MED at 300 nm to be 34 mJ cm[-2] with a 95% confidence interval of 14-84 mJ
cm[-2] (Diffey and Farr 1989).
"Although the action spectra determined by various workers have shown differences,
particularly in the spectral region 250-300 nm, there is good agreement that at wavelengths
greater than 300 nm the effectiveness drops very rapidly, falling to an efficiency at 320 nm of
about 1% of that at 300 nm. Recent studies (Parrish et al 1982, Gange et al 1986) have
extended determination of the erythema action spectrum up to 400 nm and have shown that
the erythemal effectiveness of UVR decreases with increasing wavelength through the
ultraviolet spectrum, although the rate of change of effectiveness is much less from 330 to
400 nm, than from 300 to 330 nm.
"A large number of published erythema action spectra were subject to statistical analysis and
combined to produce the reference action spectrum (McKinlay and Diffey 1987) shown in
figure 7...
"5.1.1.3. Factors influencing the development of sunburn. Skin colour is an important factor
in determining the ease with which the skin will sunburn. Whereas fair-skinned people
require only about 15-30 min of midday summer sunshine to induce an erythremal reaction,
people with moderately pigmented skin may require 1-2 h exposure and those with darkly
pigmented skin (i.e. Negroes) will not normally sunburn. Other phenotype characteristics
that may influence the susceptibility to sunburn are hair colour, eye colour and freckles
(Azizi et al 1988, Andreassi et al 1987). Based on a personal history of response to 45-60
min of exposure to midday summer sun in early June (Fitzpatrick 1975), individuals can be
grouped into six sun-reactive skin types (table 7).
"There are anatomical differences in erythemal sensitivity. The face, neck and trunk are two
to four times more sensitive than the limbs (Olson et al 1966). These anatomical differences
are compounded by the variations in solar exposure on different parts of the body table 8).
Vertical surfaces of an upright person receive about one half of the ambient UVR, whereas
horizontal surfaces, such as the epaulet region of the shoulder, receive up to 75%.
"Heat, humidity and wind have been shown to alter the erythemal sensitivity of mice exposed
to artificial UVB radiation, but the significance of these atmospheric conditions upon the
induction of sunburn in humans has not been clearly identified...
"5.1.1.4. Sunburn and epidermal hyperplasia. In addition to erythema and tanning (section
5.1.2), thickening (hyperplasia) of the epidermis is a significant component of a mild
sunburn reaction. A single moderate exposure to UVB can result in up to a three-fold
thickening of the stratum corneum within one to three weeks, and multiple exposures every
one to two days for up to seven weeks will thicken the stratum corneum by about three- to
five-fold (Miescher 1930). Skin thickness returns to normal about one to two months after
ceasing irradiation."[30]
The possibility of Infrared (IR) burns is raised in the Army FIELD MANUAL
PREVENTION AND MEDICAL MANAGEMENT OF LASER INJURIES:
"d. The Support System. The eyelids are the most relevant parts of this system; they may limit
the laser injury to 0.15 seconds, the duration of the blink reflex. The eyelids themselves may
be burned by high energy infrared laser irradiation together with surrounding skin and the
cornea...
" (1) Ultraviolet and low energy far-infrared radiation can injure the epithelial layer of the
cornea; a condition that is painful and visually handicapping. At lower powers, this injury is
primarily due to a photochemical reaction. A latency period of hours may exist between the
time of exposure and the development of the corneal pathology. Minimal corneal lesions heal
within a few days, but meanwhile they produce a decrement in visual performance...
"c. Skin Burns. The threshold for skin burns is similar to that of the cornea for ultraviolet
and far-infrared wavelengths. For visible and near-infrared wavelengths, the skin's threshold
is much higher than that for the retina, since there is no focusing power as will occur in the
eye. However, minimal lesion to the cornea is much more debilitating than a minimal skin
burn.
"The main symptom of laser injury is reduction in visual acuity; another symptom may be
pain. Medical personnel should suspect laser exposure when soldiers report seeing bright
flashes of light; experiencing eye discomfort and poor vision; and feeling unexplained
heat. Obvious lesions such as corneal burns, retinal injury and haemorrhage, and skin burns
make the diagnosis more certain. Conceivably, one may confuse the use of invisible lasers
with chemical agents which also irritate the eyes and skin (see FM8-285 for signs and
symptoms of chemical agent injuries). Spontaneous fires and unexplained damage to optical
instruments are additional evidence that laser devices/weapons are being employed."[31]
IR-A lasers range between 700 and 3900 Angstroms. IR-C lasers range between 5,000 and
10,600 Angstroms. UV lasers range between 325 and 350 Angstroms (UV-A).
Note also that the various chemicals and allergy provoking substances which cause eye
irritation commonly cause skin irritation as well.
Footnotes
1. Hall, Uninvited Guests, ISBN 0-943358-32-9, p 250
2. Keel, Why UFOs?, LC# 75-105593, p96
10. http://www.familyinternet.com/peds/top/001031.htm
11. http://www.stayhealthy.com/hrd/ME-TRRE_EYEANOTH_Cois.htm
12. http://www.allette.com.au/worksafe/fulltext/docs/h6/572.htm
13. http://www.allette.com.au/worksafe/fulltext/docs/h6/572.htm
14. http://www.ozonated.com/ozusinsm.html
15. http://hub.terc.edu/terc/gl/TropOzone/03-Background.html
16. http://aeropure.com/apmpi.htm
17. http://www.ul.cs.cmu.edu/books/indoor_pollutants/indoo314.htm
18. http://www.ul.cs.cmu.edu/books/indoor_pollutants/indoo314.htm
19. http://www.ul.cs.cmu.edu/books/indoor_pollutants/indoo314.htm
20. Often incorrectly referred to as "klieg conjunctivitis" among UFO researchers, due to
Keel. This reference is also incorrect, in that the term used is generic. The specific term is
photokerititus (http://www.smithsport.com/tech/uv.html) or actinic keratitis
(http://cwis.welch.jhu.edu/news/news_releases/chile.html)
21. http://www.mrccos.com/arn/currpage/uvhealth.htm
22. http://www.mrccos.com/arn/currpage/uvhealth.htm
25. http://www.ciesin.org/docs/001-538/001-538.html
26. http://www.ciesin.org/docs/001-538/001-538.html
27. http://www.housecall.com/databases/ami/convert/003227.html
28. http://www.ciesin.org/docs/001-503/001-503.html
29. http://www.ciesin.org/docs/001-538/001-538.html
30. http://www.ciesin.org/docs/001-503/001-503.html
31. http://chppm-www.apgea.army.mil/laser/lp_fm850/lp_fm850.htm#Threat
32. http://chppm-www.apgea.army.mil/laser/lp_fm850/lp_fm850.htm#Threat
Copyright © 2004 by Mark Cashman (unless otherwise indicated), All Rights Reserved