271 replies to this topic

[quillius]

1963, on 31 January 2013 - 03:58 PM, said:

The connection seems a cert to me also Quillius!

And as for a prosaic explanation for the glow...besides the possibility of the effect being caused by some kind of electrical protective force-field, or indeed artificial-atmosphere?, ..I have also strongly entertained the idea that the slight 'glowing effect' that is nominally mentioned, could have been something as simple as being effected by the sunlight reflecting off the sheen of the colour of the craft ...it could conceivably to me at least also be a combination of ..that and the glow that was  repeatedly-reported to be emanating from the side-panels [portholes]?.

Cheers buddy.

Hello 1963,

what do you think about this:

6:55--7:04 P.M. Up to four illuminated humanoid figures seen on top of object off and on.

7:10--7:20 P.M. Sky now overcast at about 2,000 feet. Humanoid figures seen again, and a "thin electric blue spotlight" upward from the UFO, hovering below the overcast. UFO disappears in clouds

This suggests that the blue light came after the 'beings' were said to be illuminated therefore it could not have been the blue light causing the glow....at least not the full glow, if we carry on reading he then states:

''Another peculiar thing was this shaft of blue light. which emanated from what appeared to be the center of the deck. The men appeared to be illuminated not only by this light reflected on them, but also by a sort of glow which completely surrounded them as well as the craft. The glow did not touch them, but there appeared to be a little space between their outline and the light.. . . ''

He does seem quite specific here, especially when suggesting two types of glow plus the gap between 'being' and glow...

??

[1963]

quillius, on 31 January 2013 - 04:18 PM, said:

Hello 1963,

what do you think about this:

6:55--7:04 P.M. Up to four illuminated humanoid figures seen on top of object off and on.

7:10--7:20 P.M. Sky now overcast at about 2,000 feet. Humanoid figures seen again, and a "thin electric blue spotlight" upward from the UFO, hovering below the overcast. UFO disappears in clouds

This suggests that the blue light came after the 'beings' were said to be illuminated therefore it could not have been the blue light causing the glow....at least not the full glow, if we carry on reading he then states:

''Another peculiar thing was this shaft of blue light. which emanated from what appeared to be the center of the deck. The men appeared to be illuminated not only by this light reflected on them, but also by a sort of glow which completely surrounded them as well as the craft. The glow did not touch them, but there appeared to be a little space between their outline and the light.. . . ''

He does seem quite specific here, especially when suggesting two types of glow plus the gap between 'being' and glow...

??

Hi Quillius, ..yes that's a fair point my friend...mea culpa!..it would appear that like you, i've been so ensconced in reading so many different sources to this case that I totally forgot that the reflection-theory had already been dealt with in the report!
And so with that in mind, I am stumped for any reasonable prosaic explanation for the effect?...and can only offer the very un-prosaic aforementioned  'protective or atmospheric shield' theory?

Of course you may well be right...but the 'added for colour' seems to be a stretch for me buddy.
I am of the opinion that a man as honest as the reverend, and whom was meticulous enough to jot down notes on the spot would feel it necessary to use artistic-licence to enhance the unfolding  drama of an event that he believed to be terrestrial?...After all, that was in no way a varyfiable terrestrial trait that he could have been witnessing , was it?...and so I believe that it was what he saw,..and the question for me is..what was it?


Cheers buddy.

[psyche101]

quillius, on 31 January 2013 - 04:18 PM, said:

Hello 1963,

what do you think about this:

6:55--7:04 P.M. Up to four illuminated humanoid figures seen on top of object off and on.

7:10--7:20 P.M. Sky now overcast at about 2,000 feet. Humanoid figures seen again, and a "thin electric blue spotlight" upward from the UFO, hovering below the overcast. UFO disappears in clouds

This suggests that the blue light came after the 'beings' were said to be illuminated therefore it could not have been the blue light causing the glow....at least not the full glow, if we carry on reading he then states:

''Another peculiar thing was this shaft of blue light. which emanated from what appeared to be the center of the deck. The men appeared to be illuminated not only by this light reflected on them, but also by a sort of glow which completely surrounded them as well as the craft. The glow did not touch them, but there appeared to be a little space between their outline and the light.. . . ''

He does seem quite specific here, especially when suggesting two types of glow plus the gap between 'being' and glow...

??

Not sure of this can cover it, but if this was Project NERVA, as suspected in the Cash Landrum case, and if the craft was suffering some type of failure, spent rods in a nuclear reactor will glow blue.

[psyche101]

I do not think Father Gill was exaggerating. I do not think Father Gill used poetic license. The basis of my argument is that people do not listen to Father Gills transcript, it is being interpreted. And anomalies exist that seriously question ET as an answer.

[psyche101]

SwampgasBalloonBoy, on 30 January 2013 - 11:18 PM, said:

The sighting 5 days prior most likely are connected, could be some kind of reconnaissance before more ships arrived.

the glow thing might be some force field to protect them from exposure to the unknown. their way of quarantine

But your not inventing things to make ET sound more likely are we? Force fields and mother ships are very distant from Father Gills description.

And even though one man has time travelled (Sergei Avdeyev), it's a ridiculous notion.

Honestly, I am not sure how you cannot see your own bias.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

psyche101, on 31 January 2013 - 11:14 PM, said:

Not sure of this can cover it, but if this was Project NERVA, as suspected in the Cash Landrum case, and if the craft was suffering some type of failure, spent rods in a nuclear reactor will glow blue.

Ah, another angle on the Secret Aircraft theory? But were there any reports of after-effects, e.g. from Radiation? And if they were on board of a nucular powered craft that was suffering some sort of Failure, the crew didn't seem to be too worried about it. And these hypothetical Secret aircraft do seem to rather pop up in the most random places, don't they.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

psyche101, on 01 February 2013 - 07:45 AM, said:

But your not inventing things to make ET sound more likely are we? Force fields and mother ships are very distant from Father Gills description.

And even though one man has time travelled (Sergei Avdeyev), it's a ridiculous notion.

Honestly, I am not sure how you cannot see your own bias.

i really, really don't understand your sheer stubbornness in dismissing "mother ships" as sci fi fantasy, just because no one reported seeing one. of course they wouldn't would they, it wouldn't come into the atmosphere. That's the whole point of it. You seem to have decided on this "Time Travel" theory, even though there's absolutely nothing whatsoever to support it, beyond that the inhabitants of the Craft were reported as looking like Humans, and from that you construct a whole theory about Time travellers? But yet you automatically dismiss any suggestion that there may have been another craft somewhere as sci fi fantasy? I just find this remarkably stubborn.

[quillius]

1963, on 31 January 2013 - 05:04 PM, said:

Hi Quillius, ..yes that's a fair point my friend...mea culpa!..it would appear that like you, i've been so ensconced in reading so many different sources to this case that I totally forgot that the reflection-theory had already been dealt with in the report!
And so with that in mind, I am stumped for any reasonable prosaic explanation for the effect?...and can only offer the very un-prosaic aforementioned  'protective or atmospheric shield' theory?

Of course you may well be right...but the 'added for colour' seems to be a stretch for me buddy.
I am of the opinion that a man as honest as the reverend, and whom was meticulous enough to jot down notes on the spot would feel it necessary to use artistic-licence to enhance the unfolding  drama of an event that he believed to be terrestrial?...After all, that was in no way a varyfiable terrestrial trait that he could have been witnessing , was it?...and so I believe that it was what he saw,..and the question for me is..what was it?


Cheers buddy.

Good Morning 1963,

I actually do agree that 'added for colour' doesnt quite work for me having thought about it further, The specific descriptions (at least twice) do not indicate a slip of the tongue for effect. If it was added for colour then this makes it a downright lie that was repeated and ofcourse would throw doubt onto the whole case.

and yes 'what was it' is where I am at.

psyche101, on 31 January 2013 - 11:14 PM, said:

Not sure of this can cover it, but if this was Project NERVA, as suspected in the Cash Landrum case, and if the craft was suffering some type of failure, spent rods in a nuclear reactor will glow blue.

Gidday Psyche.

did you know that the blue glow is caused by particles moving faster than light?

food for thought maybe?

also should project blue beam and holograms be considered?

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

quillius, on 01 February 2013 - 11:45 AM, said:

food for thought maybe?

also should project blue beam and holograms be considered?

in 1959? Why not bring HAAAAAARP into it as well?  

[quillius]

Lord Vetinari, on 01 February 2013 - 01:11 PM, said:

in 1959? Why not bring HAAAAAARP into it as well?  

hmmm...good point.

I guess time travellers kind of make the date irrelevant

[1963]

quillius, on 01 February 2013 - 11:45 AM, said:

Good Morning 1963,

I actually do agree that 'added for colour' doesnt quite work for me having thought about it further, The specific descriptions (at least twice) do not indicate a slip of the tongue for effect. If it was added for colour then this makes it a downright lie that was repeated and ofcourse would throw doubt onto the whole case.

and yes 'what was it' is where I am at.

quillius, on 31 January 2013 - 04:18 PM, said:

Hello 1963,

what do you think about this:

6:55--7:04 P.M. Up to four illuminated humanoid figures seen on top of object off and on.

7:10--7:20 P.M. Sky now overcast at about 2,000 feet. Humanoid figures seen again, and a "thin electric blue spotlight" upward from the UFO, hovering below the overcast. UFO disappears in clouds

This suggests that the blue light came after the 'beings' were said to be illuminated therefore it could not have been the blue light causing the glow....at least not the full glow, if we carry on reading he then states:

''Another peculiar thing was this shaft of blue light. which emanated from what appeared to be the center of the deck. The men appeared to be illuminated not only by this light reflected on them, but also by a sort of glow which completely surrounded them as well as the craft. The glow did not touch them, but there appeared to be a little space between their outline and the light.. . . ''

He does seem quite specific here, especially when suggesting two types of glow plus the gap between 'being' and glow...

??

Hi Quillius,..After a little more thought on this anomalous point that seems to be a deal-breaker to you,..Might not the 'two types of glow' be as simple as No.1... the glow that was coming from the panels/portholes  around the craft that was described by  the witnesses [including Mr. Evennett,!... though of course it may not have been the same craft, but the glow from around the craft's midriff was a feature of both reports]....

" There also appeared to be about four 'panels' or 'portholes' on the side of the object, which seemed to glow a little brighter than the rest."

and No.2 obviously being a bluish glow from the shaft of blue light that was being beamed,[ for what ever purpose and to goodness knows where?]

...and also, I cannot rule out a third possibility,.. that as you rightly pointed out....that the sky was overcast,...and also the reverend stated that between 6.02 and 6.25pm .."Dark was beginning to close in"... therefore isn't it likely that the entities that were carrying out 'their beam-shining  business' would have some kind of lighting 'somewhere on the deck' to see what they were doing?

The description of.. "there appeared to be a little space between their outline and the light"..I must admit, has me struggling somewhat?, and all that springs to mind is that perhaps it could have been an effect caused by some kind of reflective material used in the safety-apparel/suits  that the entities were wearing? .


Cheers Buddy.

[bison]

Aura-like luminance around the figures, but not touching them. Could be a protective field, as suggested. The situation might be like this: Looking directly at the figures through a minimum depth of the field, little light is seen. Looking to the the sides of the figures, and through, and along the sides of the field, and so through a longer cross section of the field, more light is seen. Perhaps air molecules ionized by the field, and set aglow.

Edited by bison, 01 February 2013 - 07:27 PM.

[psyche101]

Lord Vetinari, on 01 February 2013 - 08:28 AM, said:

Ah, another angle on the Secret Aircraft theory? But were there any reports of after-effects, e.g. from Radiation? And if they were on board of a nucular powered craft that was suffering some sort of Failure, the crew didn't seem to be too worried about it. And these hypothetical Secret aircraft do seem to rather pop up in the most random places, don't they.

Not another angle, a qualified candidate that could possibly fit the description. Aliens who never want to be seen also seem to pop up in the most curious locations. But we excuse that.

[psyche101]

Lord Vetinari, on 01 February 2013 - 08:36 AM, said:

i really, really don't understand your sheer stubbornness in dismissing "mother ships" as sci fi fantasy, just because no one reported seeing one. of course they wouldn't would they, it wouldn't come into the atmosphere. That's the whole point of it. You seem to have decided on this "Time Travel" theory, even though there's absolutely nothing whatsoever to support it, beyond that the inhabitants of the Craft were reported as looking like Humans, and from that you construct a whole theory about Time travellers? But yet you automatically dismiss any suggestion that there may have been another craft somewhere as sci fi fantasy? I just find this remarkably stubborn.

Yes, becase the time travel theory can be applied without extending on the transcript of Father Gill. One man has actually time travelled, has anyone ever managed warp drive?

What exactly qualifies ET as a candidate here? Can you outline that? WHat we have is a recollection of men on a craft, and there is the big jump to aliens because "we do not have anything in our closet like that"? which is bunkum we do have things like what was described, and examples have been provided, they just do not fit all the performance characteristics.

Why so much stubbornness from the ETH'ers who refuse to so much as tell me what aspect of Father GIll's transcripts can be described as only ET? Why keep looking for evern far fetched explanation you can to try and shoehorn Aliens onto the story, when it does not fit the verbal description? What is with the stubbornness to adhere to that which we actually have? Why the need for motherships instead of trying harder to nut the words out, is that not simply lazy to invoke aliens? You say Black Ops is very loose, I think aliens are much looser. I honestly do not see any merit in sitting around making things up to squeeze ET in here.

[psyche101]

quillius, on 01 February 2013 - 11:45 AM, said:

Gidday Psyche.

did you know that the blue glow is caused by particles moving faster than light?

food for thought maybe?

also should project blue beam and holograms be considered?

Gidday Mate

Tachyons? Yes, the blue Doppler shift demands it. Except we found out that they do not exist, they are entirely hypothetical. They talk about them in Star Trek all the time, made me interested enough to look them up a few years ago. It has been realised that some holes in the theory exist. I remember the LHC making note of looking for them early in the piece.

Quote

Lisa Randall, Warped Passages: Unraveling the Mysteries of the Universe's Hidden Dimensions, p.286: "People initially thought of tachyons as particles travelling faster than the speed of light...But we now know that a tachyon indicates an instability in a theory that contains it. Regrettably for science fiction fans, tachyons are not real physical particles that appear in nature."

As such, I cannot see Tachyons causing the glow, if it was, that would also be enough glow to indicate a process in action I would think?

I cannot consider Blue Bean, if we are talking about the Serge Monast CT. The Fatima event is well before Blue Beam, and is an example of what Blue Beam is supposed to be doing.

Holograms? Had not considered such, but then again, Blue Beam is not the sort of thing I ask seriously, are you talking Blue Beam Holograms, or do you have something else in mind, and if so, may I ask how it fits into this jigsaw?

I think that NERVA vehicles are certainly more plausible as ET, because technology we had at the time was concieved to do things like this, as well as the Hillier platform indicating there was a need perceived for such a vehicle to fit things like NERVA engines to. Which I think disqualifies the claim that we could not possibly have possessed such technology at the time. More than one project ended because of unknown health hazards this might be such an embarrassment considering things like the Cash Landrum case. I think Cash Landrum was a classic example of a black project being in the wrong place at the wrong time. This is some time later, (Cash Landrum) se perhaps that is how that incident happened. This could be considered human interaction with NERVA and no side effects which my possibly be why the people involved with the Cash Landrum case managed to get hurt, when previous records indicated that should not be the case.
And Lord V says I do not speculate! Maybe it's the subject matter?

Cheers.

Edited by psyche101, 04 February 2013 - 01:01 AM.