Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Tantalising Testimony


Recommended Posts

It isn't unexplainable in conventional terms, but it's just a case of looking for different things, so you're bound to see it the way you do, which is fine (imo). For example, i'm looking for evidence of alien life either on earth or in space, i'm not trying to attribute unexplained phenomena to unexplained photo's, and that is one of many differences that there are in this subject. Your way works for you, but absolutes like "The Denbigh object is unexplainable in conventional terms" doesn't work on a wider audience.

Have you ever written down what you would consider constitutes evidence of ET in your view? Can such evidence exist?

Edited by zoser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you ever written down what you would consider constitutes evidence of ET in your view? Can such evidence exist?

Of course it can exist. Life and/or technology that doesn't originate from this planet. The way you determine that is to either physically examine it, or be able to train enough instruments on something that can collect enough data that gives you the science you need to draw a conclusion. Photo's of out of focus blurs may be good enough for you, and guessing/dismissing conventional explanations may be good enough for you, but I want to know, so guessing doesn't come into it for me. :)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it can exist. Life and/or technology that doesn't originate from this planet. The way you determine that is to either physically examine it, or be able to train enough instruments on something that can collect enough data that gives you the science you need to draw a conclusion. Photo's of out of focus blurs may be good enough for you, and guessing/dismissing conventional explanations may be good enough for you, but I want to know, so guessing doesn't come into it for me. :)

No blurred images are not good enough for me; it's a whole range of things, but where testimony plays a central part collected from different sources at different times in different places.

The point I have made before is that the sort of proof you require will by definition always be questionable by some text book scientific method or other. There is enough evidence on this thread to reach a series of positive conclusions validating the existence of ET imho.

ET just isn't going to land in Hyde Park on the Star Ship Enterprise and roll up his sleeve for a blood test.

That's never going to happen. It doesn't need to if we use our other senses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No blurred images are not good enough for me; it's a whole range of things, but where testimony plays a central part collected from different sources at different times in different places.

The point I have made before is that the sort of proof you require will by definition always be questionable by some text book scientific method or other. There is enough evidence on this thread to reach a series of positive conclusions validating the existence of ET imho.

ET just isn't going to land in Hyde Park on the Star Ship Enterprise and roll up his sleeve for a blood test.

That's never going to happen. It doesn't need to if we use our other senses.

Well you're wrong about me in terms of waiting for a science book to tell me something exists. I did start in this subject with a little group called RIAP (research into aerial phenomea) back in the early 90's...so I collected many many personal accounts and testimony. one thing I learnt from it though is that someone (or even a group of people) can be absolutely telling the truth and accurately recollecting a sighting/experience, and still it is not enough to say what the origin was, all you can do is try and rule explanations out. On one case (that was a joke to me from day one in terms of being credible - the Jason Andrews abduction case) I see first hand how military affairs and this subject crossed over to the point of being mistaken for something else. Had I not seen that I had it been me that had experienced what happened in that case I would have been pushing the abduction angle on that case. My point is that in just about every case we come to light there are huge holes in what info is available, so not conclusion can be drawn.

Now though (whilst I still collect ufo reports on occasion) I started another group, but it's headed up under an astronomy group (sort of), we have one fixed observatory and now 2 portable pods, a portable 'control center' :D to oparate everything from, several large satellite dishes and other antenna, and there's other projects on the go too.....we're looking, recording and looking....and we'll carry on doing that, and if anything comes up (radio, visual or by any other means) we will contact bigger organisations with everything we have to try and validate it......that (imo) really is the only way forward unless something dramatic happens in the meantime.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well you're wrong about me in terms of waiting for a science book to tell me something exists. I did start in this subject with a little group called RIAP (research into aerial phenomea) back in the early 90's...so I collected many many personal accounts and testimony. one thing I learnt from it though is that someone (or even a group of people) can be absolutely telling the truth and accurately recollecting a sighting/experience, and still it is not enough to say what the origin was, all you can do is try and rule explanations out. On one case (that was a joke to me from day one in terms of being credible - the Jason Andrews abduction case) I see first hand how military affairs and this subject crossed over to the point of being mistaken for something else. Had I not seen that I had it been me that had experienced what happened in that case I would have been pushing the abduction angle on that case. My point is that in just about every case we come to light there are huge holes in what info is available, so not conclusion can be drawn.

Now though (whilst I still collect ufo reports on occasion) I started another group, but it's headed up under an astronomy group (sort of), we have one fixed observatory and now 2 portable pods, a portable 'control center' :D to oparate everything from, several large satellite dishes and other antenna, and there's other projects on the go too.....we're looking, recording and looking....and we'll carry on doing that, and if anything comes up (radio, visual or by any other means) we will contact bigger organisations with everything we have to try and validate it......that (imo) really is the only way forward unless something dramatic happens in the meantime.

Do you think any abduction cases are real or just the people that experiance them are lying or hallucinating?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think any abduction cases are real or just the people that experiance them are lying or hallucinating?

No I don't think they are all lying or hallucinating, but whether the origin of what caused it is alien or not there just isn't enough available evidence to conclude either way. That's not necessarily the fault of the 'abductee', the brain is a strange mechanism, i'm not sure anyone could accurately relay such an event if it happened to them. I do think something other then prosaic explanations may be behind some cases, not necessarily alien, but certainly something we haven't got a handle on yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the Denbigh case January 2012

I just found this which is a clip of a similar looking object flying over Fraserburgh:

Youtube clip:

Woman claims to have filmed UFO Fraserburgh, Aberdeenshire

Zoser26.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The video could be a construction site ( road work ), a car accident with emergency vehicles there, etc.

I do not see anything here that would help out in the evidence files.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The video could be a construction site ( road work ), a car accident with emergency vehicles there, etc.

I do not see anything here that would help out in the evidence files.

Compare the two clips; Denbigh and Fraserburgh. They are identical. She saw it hovering over her house.

More footage:

http://www.ufodb.com/ufo_video/ufodbvideo.php?code=485

Edited by zoser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Denbigh footage starts at 40 seconds and last for a few minutes:

A VERY REAL Ufo Event in Wales, UK - Jan 2012!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I don't think they are all lying or hallucinating, but whether the origin of what caused it is alien or not there just isn't enough available evidence to conclude either way. That's not necessarily the fault of the 'abductee', the brain is a strange mechanism, i'm not sure anyone could accurately relay such an event if it happened to them. I do think something other then prosaic explanations may be behind some cases, not necessarily alien, but certainly something we haven't got a handle on yet.

Hmmm okay, so it remains a mystery then what could actually be happening to them even though they claim alien. I understand that I mean If it is aliens and there is no discernable evidence It would make sense to a degree, because in my opinion why would something so technologically further ahead then us leave traces of itself behind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Compare the two clips; Denbigh and Fraserburgh. They are identical. She saw it hovering over her house.

More footage:

http://www.ufodb.com...eo.php?code=485

Is there a link to what was reported on BBC or the Sun. I don't see one.

There's not even statements from witnesses unless I'm missing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there a link to what was reported on BBC or the Sun. I don't see one.

There's not even statements from witnesses unless I'm missing it.

The only testimony I found on the Fraserburgh incident is the short paragraph on youtube; assuming that it was what actually happened and we have no reason to doubt it.

I'm struck by the similarity of the object in the two cases and I absolutely believe that this is the smoking gun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only testimony I found on the Fraserburgh incident is the short paragraph on youtube; assuming that it was what actually happened and we have no reason to doubt it.

I'm struck by the similarity of the object in the two cases and I absolutely believe that this is the smoking gun.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2219690/Familys-terror-UFO-hovers-rural-home-hours.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-19989427

Cheers.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've just watched all 8 parts. Apart from the family drama's that appear on the clips it looks like a darned good case.

In part 5 the investigator walks the route and shows us the terrain. In part 6 another young witness (female) appears.

In part 7 they establish that the lights were most probably not in the field but closer; they draw this conclusion from seeing a reflection on a nearby car. I tried to see this from the short piece of footage available on YT and I couldn't see it.

The investigator does make the point that there is 8 minutes of footage altogether.

The only missing thing for me is more witnesses. When walking the route I would have called on a few houses to see it anyone else saw it.

A good case. What are your thoughts everyone?

Okay, I finally got around to watching this. The 8 parts made me hesitate because I wasn't looking forward to spending over an hour listening to that guy, but fortunately some of the parts were short.

The biggest hump for me so far is the claimed 8 minutes of footage mentioned in part 5, starting about

. Petey tells us (paraphrased)... "There is 8 minutes of footage. I've put up probably 17 seconds of it, 13 seconds of it max. Simply because what I don't want to do is put everything up. There's so many debunkers and haters out there that they would pick on everything and it would soon become a worthless piece again."

What is in that 8 minutes that he doesn't want us to see? Why does he think it might expose something to debunkers and make it "a worthless piece again?"

It is precisely this kind of deliberate obfuscation that makes UFOlogy such a joke.

Plus, my initial opinion is that his attempted day/night overlay in parts 2 and 3 is quite poorly done. I'll have a closer look to see if I can improve upon it, but so far I'm thinking that it might simply be sparks coming out of the chimneys. And the 'third witness' seems contrived to me, like she's just seeking attention. I think she made up the bit about it being level at first and then tilting later, or imagined it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for that '63.

The statement that the lights appeared for 4-5 hours is interesting.

I noticed at approx. 0:22, there is a light which briefly appears to the left of the main grouping.

Also, at about 0:55, there is a light which appears to break away from the main group and move off to the right.

Still frames from the video:

fraserleft.png

fraserright.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I finally got around to watching this. The 8 parts made me hesitate because I wasn't looking forward to spending over an hour listening to that guy, but fortunately some of the parts were short.

The biggest hump for me so far is the claimed 8 minutes of footage mentioned in part 5, starting about

. Petey tells us (paraphrased)... "There is 8 minutes of footage. I've put up probably 17 seconds of it, 13 seconds of it max. Simply because what I don't want to do is put everything up. There's so many debunkers and haters out there that they would pick on everything and it would soon become a worthless piece again."

What is in that 8 minutes that he doesn't want us to see? Why does he think it might expose something to debunkers and make it "a worthless piece again?"

It is precisely this kind of deliberate obfuscation that makes UFOlogy such a joke.

Plus, my initial opinion is that his attempted day/night overlay in parts 2 and 3 is quite poorly done. I'll have a closer look to see if I can improve upon it, but so far I'm thinking that it might simply be sparks coming out of the chimneys. And the 'third witness' seems contrived to me, like she's just seeking attention. I think she made up the bit about it being level at first and then tilting later, or imagined it.

I found the omission of 8 minutes strange too. I got the feeling that dragging it out to 8 parts, and his mention of it going viral with number of "hits" etc, that perhaps a little revenue was hoped for out of this. They are entitled to it, but to me it knocks the credibility down a notch.

Also, I mentioned the chimneys as a possible source of the lights in post #4078. (sorry for not using multiquote, I usually bugger it up and have to write my posts again)

From #4078, I said:

Here's a "could be" idea I have:

"The "lights" don't seem to have a distinct shape and seem to vary in brightness and size, and flicker somewhat.

There are drifting up and to the right.

As claimed in the video, I see no "saucer" shape.

There are a few chimneys in the area, so I think it may be someone burning newspaper or something similar in their fireplace. I've seen that happen when the papers will drift right out the chimney while still burning.

I don't get a "UFO feeling" about this sighting at all."

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great testimony thanks; no this is it for me I'm afraid; two almost identical objects seen several hundred miles apart in the same year. Nothing can really explain this. In both cases we have testimony and eye witnesses.

Extremely difficult to explain away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found the omission of 8 minutes strange too. I got the feeling that dragging it out to 8 parts, and his mention of it going viral with number of "hits" etc, that perhaps a little revenue was hoped for out of this. They are entitled to it, but to me it knocks the credibility down a notch.

Why don't we email him about the other 8 mins? I wouldn't automatically assume anything sinister is involved.

Also, I mentioned the chimneys as a possible source of the lights in post #4078. (sorry for not using multiquote, I usually bugger it up and have to write my posts).

Now there are two cases not one, any explanation has to satisfy both!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As claimed in the video, I see no "saucer" shape.

Look carefully at the first couple of seconds of the Fraserburgh footage. It looks as if a saucer shape is discernable. The footage itself isn't as clear as it could be; poor Morag it was all she had!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't we email him about the other 8 mins? I wouldn't automatically assume anything sinister is involved.

I think you should, and report back his refusal as he almost undoubtedly will refuse.

Now there are two cases not one, any explanation has to satisfy both!

Why on earth are you tying these two cases together? You have absolutely no reason to link the two other than they are both grainy videos of lights in an apparent array. They aren't identical zoser. You worry me sometimes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I finally got around to watching this. The 8 parts made me hesitate because I wasn't looking forward to spending over an hour listening to that guy, but fortunately some of the parts were short.

The biggest hump for me so far is the claimed 8 minutes of footage mentioned in part 5, starting about

. Petey tells us (paraphrased)... "There is 8 minutes of footage. I've put up probably 17 seconds of it, 13 seconds of it max. Simply because what I don't want to do is put everything up. There's so many debunkers and haters out there that they would pick on everything and it would soon become a worthless piece again."

What is in that 8 minutes that he doesn't want us to see? Why does he think it might expose something to debunkers and make it "a worthless piece again?"

It is precisely this kind of deliberate obfuscation that makes UFOlogy such a joke.

No I actually agree with him; there are too many people in this field who make mocking bird at such things and will make undue accusations. Put yourself in his position. If it were your footage (I accept that he is acting on behalf of the family) would you want it derided if you knew it was genuine?

Plus what else do we need to see? The boys apparently did not leave the room, so the remaining footage is only likely to be from the same perspective. If there were anything vital in the remaining footage I'm sure we would have seen it.

Plus there are now two sightings of this 'thing'. It should certainly be making people think.

Why on earth are you tying these two cases together?

Erm; the footage is extremely similar???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I actually agree with him; there are too many people in this field who make mocking bird at such things and will make undue accusations. Put yourself in his position. If it were your footage (I accept that he is acting on behalf of the family) would you want it derided if you knew it was genuine?

I would put the whole thing out there if I thought it was genuine. Why would I hide parts of it? What value would that provide for the field of UFOlogy?

Don't UFOlogists always deride the government for supposedly hiding evidence? Double standard zoser... think about it.

Plus what else do we need to see? The boys apparently did not leave the room, so the remaining footage is only likely to be from the same perspective. If there were anything vital in the remaining footage I'm sure we would have seen it.

How can we know what else is in the remaining footage without seeing it?

Plus there are now two sightings of this 'thing'. It should certainly be making people think.

Again, you have absolutely no reason to link these two events together. No reason at all.

Erm; the footage is extremely similar???

Not really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't we email him about the other 8 mins? I wouldn't automatically assume anything sinister is involved.

I just left the following comment on his part 1 of 8 video.

"Why can you not upload all of the video you have of the lights? It would give your story more credibility. The fact that you state on your video that you don't want to upload it for fear of it being debunked, would seem to indicate that you don't have much faith in what has been recorded. Please upload it."

Now there are two cases not one, any explanation has to satisfy both!

I disagree. You could have two completely different sources for these lights creating a similar appearance on video.

Just because the 2 cases look similar, doesn't mean they are connected.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. You could have two completely different sources for these lights creating a similar appearance on video.

Just because the 2 cases look similar, doesn't mean they are connected.

P >0.99

Lets see if I'm right. Time will hopefully tell.

Edited by zoser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.