271 replies to this topic

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Paxus, on 04 February 2013 - 10:54 AM, said:

(1) I wasn't supporting him - in fact, the opposite - I was suggesting him arguing with the likes of you, is futile
(2) Read my position on the ETH (in my signature) and some of my posts on here before making assumptions/judgements about me - thank you
(3) Constructive? Certainly, Here: Instead of die-hard Skeptics argueing with die-hard believers about IF ET visits(Earth) or not, change the arguement to; 'Since there are SOOOO many sightings, some even with occupants and landings, why can't we aquire PROOF'
N.B. I have suggested this and MANY other constructive things many times (I've been here on UM for a while now and post a fair ammount) - so you will excuse me for making the occasional post that isn't 100% constructive - agian, thank you

"the likes of you"? How's that for making an assumption about someone? why do people assume that just because a person isn't entirely convinced by (for instance) Time machines, or Secret military aircraft as an off-the-shelf explanation for everything, that means they';re a Die-hard ETH'er? That's rather an ssumption. Is it because people have this deep pscyholgical need to find an explanation for everything, and can't be content to consider that some things might still be mysteries? I think that must be it. People have to pigeonhole; either you're one of us (rational and sane) or you're one of them (a die-hard ETH'er, i.e. a gibbering loon).

[Chrlzs]

Well, I saw Paxus' smiley face..

Settle down folks - no need for escalation - I think we are all not actually that far apart.  And without a bit of interesting debate and differing opinions, we'd miss out on all this fun and enlightening conversation and the forum probably wouldn't need to exist...

[Paxus]

Lord Vetinari, on 04 February 2013 - 11:14 AM, said:

"the likes of you"? How's that for making an assumption about someone? why do people assume that just because a person isn't entirely convinced by (for instance) Time machines, or Secret military aircraft as an off-the-shelf explanation for everything, that means they';re a Die-hard ETH'er? That's rather an ssumption. Is it because people have this deep pscyholgical need to find an explanation for everything, and can't be content to consider that some things might still be mysteries? I think that must be it. People have to pigeonhole; either you're one of us (rational and sane) or you're one of them (a die-hard ETH'er, i.e. a gibbering loon).

Lord Vetinari
Nope, you're completely misunderstanding my intentions....
I've written to you before and any disc-world fan is a good-guy in my book.
I don't know why you're choosing to get upset or take offense when none is intended...
As I have already hinted, I'm actually a leaner towards ETH - Some people get confused though, when I argue about the need for skeptisism and point out that in all these years we have not a single SHRED of PROOF yet - which should be disturbing to any ETH believer.
I don't pigeon-hole anyone - especially since I don't really fit into one of the two main categories!
'The likes of you' - wasn't meant to be specific

Chrlzs seems to have gotten my intent by my use of emoticons...

*sighs*

[1963]

quillius, on 04 February 2013 - 09:46 AM, said:

Hey 1963,

Its not so much a deal breaker for me as I think this is an element that points away from any 'human' project (this doesnt exclude any time traveller theory) at the time.

I have been thinking and looking at this case for hours over the weekend and like you I am really struggling with the gap between the figures and the glow surrounding them. I also note that he says the object was around the size of a pineapple if held up at arms length. This means that the figures at a guess (using pineapple scale plus the 35ft estimate) would be around a couple of inches. Also note that he was able to discern two different glows somehow....baffling.

speak soon as only have a ten minute window for some speed posting.

Hi Quillius, Yeah the gap between the figures and the glow has given me a beating too! lol. and I am prepared to throw in just one piece of speculatory-musing more....And that is, have you considered the possibilities of the vehicle's power source being the source of a minor optical illusion? ie..the Magneto-Optic Kerr Effect...in which , as the link suggests...all manner of light reflection , refraction, polarization and general hocus-pocus occurs to light comes from a magnetised surface.

http://en.wikipedia....tic_Kerr_effect

or maybe some other optical effect was at large , caused by the the craft itself?....

http://en.wikipedia....ro-optic_effect

anyway Q, it's a real ball-breaker for a technical lightweight such as me!...perhaps one of the technorak's  that populate the forum could look into this possibility with a little bit more savvy ?




Cheers Buddy.

[psyche101]

quillius, on 04 February 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

Hey Psyche,

the blue shaft of light has been playing on my mind quite a bit. I have thought that it was plausible that the blue glow may have been from spent rods in a nuclear reactor due to craft failure as suggested. However, this does not make sense in the context of
1- the craft returned the next day with the same blue shaft of light, if it was craft failure then the craft would be no more (as would the operators)
2- the reaction of the beings during this blue glow was not one of distress...which would be expected during a craft malfunction with radiation dangers etc form nucleasr reactor.

Gidday Mate

Could the rods be used up rather quickly in this model, resulting in regular maintenance, and therefore little concern from a repair crew who were expecting to be replacing spent parts? I admit that is a wild guess, but would explain the above. Maybe they tried to improve upon that design with greater power which eliminated frequent maintenance, but was Fatal to the Cash Landrum people. It's that rabbit hole mate, as far as ET can go down it, earthly explanations can too.  The faithful in this thread have decided this is ET and anyone who dare challenge that be a heretic, and expect me to run along with making up more stuff to shoehorn ET in. Yet I still await from any one of these strong proponents the answer to the simple question - what in Father Gill's transcript can only be ET. That might well make ET a good candidate, if the question can be answered. It cannot.
But then again, you also mentioned tachyons, they do not seem to exist, but if some other type of Neutrino can move faster than light, we may be back at time travel again.

quillius, on 04 February 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

I must say I have a few questions that remain with this case:

More than a few my friend, I am sure I will give my opinion on what I see as possible below.

quillius, on 04 February 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

1- what made Father Gill assume the figures were human?

Physical description and interaction. A strong indication of familiarity.

quillius, on 04 February 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

2- what was the blue shaft of light

I know the fuel rods are the focus at the moment, but what about a tether of some sort? An early feasibility study of a space elevator? Like perhaps, can a tether link be maintained without physical attachment? The idea was first proposed in the mid 1800's, and we are still trying to crack something like this today. It would explain the balcony too. The tether has always been rather a bother.

quillius, on 04 February 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

3- what was the glow aroudn the beings and roughly how far away from their body's was this light/glow?

We can only work with what we have, and it cannot be completely determined of the glow came from inside the craft or not from Father Gill's perspective  he could not see below the waist, and with the craft at height, parallax error has to be taken into account. If Father Gill never saw the source  we can only ever guess, and that I have done above.

quillius, on 04 February 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

4- did he see hair?

Honestly, not sure. Nothing about it in the official transcripts.

quillius, on 04 February 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

5- why didnt everyone sign

The Mokele Mbembe story comes to mind. The more the natives got smiles and happy reactions, the more prone they were to pint at a picture of a Dinosaur, which has lead to many people wasting horrendous amount of money looking for a living Sauropod in the jungle, which could never possibly exist due to physical limitations of Sauropods. These people just converted to Christianity, I feel they are likely to do what pleases those who have brainwashed them.

quillius, on 04 February 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

lastly before I must dash, have you all seen the letters from Father Gill on two consecutive days?
I will dig out and post quickly, apologies 1963 if I am once again re-posting information that has been put forth on the thread, havent the time to go back and check

Thanks for your time mate.
Might they be the letters that are noted below the table provided by SGBB which illustrates the comments of the mother ship?

Cheers.

[psyche101]

Lord Vetinari, on 04 February 2013 - 10:21 AM, said:

I realise it is disappointing when one cannot come up with a plausible rational explanation that doesn't neccesitate invoking time machines or nuclear powered hovering platforms, but i'm not sure if it really warrants getting angry over. Anyway, I am, once again, very sorry for this.

You often confuse frustration with anger, Really, I do not know how to spell it out nay more basically than I have done. It is I that be sorry today, that we seem to have this impas. I think your comments recently of how you enjoy enjoying upsetting others, and the way you pride imagination does explain it though. It is just that after the last few week, I have seen you tackle many such instances in a more academic fashion than that which I have seen here. What you have done here - in my opinion - is take a large step backwards back into pretend land but only when it suits you. Every ideal I have put forth I have offered reason, adherence to Father Gill's transcription, and examples. All you have done is stamp your feet and protest that ET is leaving the picture. And you have done you best to make stuff up to make ET seem plausible, bit not qualify one instance. It's a bit disappointing if anything. I know you are capable of so much morre than the pandering about you have done in this thread and that is even more frustrating than the games you are playing to try and imagine ET into Father Gill's recollection.
Again, this is why the phenomena wears a tin foil hat. Stunning that you cannot fathom time travel, but favour warp travel, when one man has actually time travelled and we have no working models of warp travel. And you think that is imaginative and should be held up with pride?? It seems rather restrictive to me.

[psyche101]

Paxus, on 04 February 2013 - 10:24 AM, said:

Hey psyche101!

You know, argueing with die hard ETH'ers is futile! You're talking about a race (humans) who largely believe in deities (god, gods, angels etc) without ever having SEEN one!!! No mass sightings from thousands of people from all walks of life!
And you think they would take a skeptical view of the ETH?!!?!? (where there have been thousands of sightings and by a multitude of different people from all walks of life - including previous skeptics and scientists etc)

HAAAAAH!

Gidday Mate!

We level headed Aussies can see this for what it is. ET proof indeed pfffttt.

As we can see, these ETH'ers do not seem to have much of an open mind. No option will do, unless we can fit ET in. Ship too small? Lets invent a bigger one to put it into! He saw men? Must be aliens that look lik men? Left without heading into space? Who cares, we just did not see it.

And they honestly do not think they are desperate for validation!! Not one can answer the question, "What in Father Gill's transcript can only be ET, and nothing else" Now if it was ET, we should have at least a promising indication, yet all we get is inflation of the original tale.

HA!

Damn mate, hope you guys got through the cyclone alright, we got hammered a bit down on the coast.

Cheers.

[psyche101]

Lord Vetinari, on 04 February 2013 - 10:28 AM, said:

And incidentally, i'm sure you are just doing it deliberately, but you still keeping on insisting that I was trying to argue, regarding certain incidents in New Mexico in 1947, about "a crashed spaceship filled with drones that the witnesses got wrong, and thought were people so you could entertain your robot scenario".

Yes, of course it is deliberate it is a precedent.

Lord Vetinari, on 04 February 2013 - 10:28 AM, said:

Surely you must be deliberately trying to misunderstand what other people seem to have not too much difficulty understanding;

Who be these people that "get you"? Cannot say I have seen support for your Roswell idea. Not ever. It's a bit silly.

Lord Vetinari, on 04 February 2013 - 10:28 AM, said:

viz. that i never was talking about "spaceships full of robots" like C3PO, but I was talking about unmanned, robotic spacecraft, like the probes that we send to other planets. Not shiny spacecraft that land and ramps descend and shiny metal robots stride out and start walking around, like out of 1950s sci fi. I really don't know why this seems to be so hard to understand, unless one just deliberately wanted to misunderstand. I just thought I'd try, one more time, to try to explain this, even though it is OT, but i doubt it'll have much effect.

Yes, I know, and I have answered that, but who cares if they look like C3PO, a Transformer of the original example I offered to clear this up initially, obviously you never read my reply post? I mentioned that what you are describing was pretty much the type of Robot used in the docufiction Alien Planet. I thought you had agreed that was the sort of thing you were talking about, but again, it matters not. What does matter is that not one ounce of tech was ever recoverred fro Roswell by all accounts. The only account of the bendy metal, wich no doubt is simply heavy gauage aluminium with a rubber backing. Not one light, not one resistor, not one wheel, not one cog, not one control panel. Nothing at all. String, balsa wood, eyelets and tin foil make up the original report. Every account that does exist describes physical dying or dead beings, not failing robots. Stench is reported as well. The Simpsons might allow those materials to be sufficient to built a robot, or perhaps the A team, but not real life. It is not even close to a viable hypothesis to explain that information that surrounds the Roswell incident, again, it's totally made up, and in no way fits in with the information at and. Perhaps it could also be described as a "Garden Path".
But you seem to take offence that your stab at the Roswell Incident fell well short of Lost Shamans Hypothesis. Try to falsify that sometime. Then perhaps, you might understand where I am coming from. As far as I can tell, you methods are about as deductive as looking at the clouds to see shapes in them.

[psyche101]

quillius, on 04 February 2013 - 10:30 AM, said:

Hey Paxus...been a while....

not so futile IMO.

UFOs need an answer and some suggest ET

what suggests God?

Indeed, I agree, but I also agree with Pax. All I have seen here is people sway away from Father Gills words and try to force ET into a picture. Most certainly not your good self, but to be fair, I have qualified every idea I have put forth with at least some reasoning, and I do not have that courtesy returned. It might only make sense to me, but if I post it, everyone can see what I am thinking and we can have discussion. SGBB and LV are not thinking. They do not want to discuss, they want to be happy we have proof of ET, when we do not.  They are mightily cheesed that I dare challenge precious ET and doing their damnedest to keep saying this is ET, but cannot tell me what in Father Gills transcript can only be described at ET.


Man suggests God, and in this case, man is forcing ET into the picture. Richard Dawkins will give you an answer on God, and qualify it, but many will not like it, and even though they canot refute it, they will still call it lies. Same thing is happening here. No matter how many questions this thing coming from space raises.
In fact. this an many other debates have had me think a great deal more about the ET/God connection that you mentioned earlier in the piece, that I disagreed with. We should discuss that some time mate, I would be interested to know more, as I have been feeling you may well have a point. In several debates in recent times, that short discussion has come back to haunt me.
Yep, these things are always in my head. Annoying at times, it feels like I never get internal peace. But I have a pretty active memory, maybe that is why I do not dream.

[DBunker]

psyche101, on 05 February 2013 - 12:22 AM, said:

Man suggests God, and in this case, man is forcing ET into the picture. Richard Dawkins will give you an answer on God, and qualify it, but many will not like it, and even though they canot refute it, they will still call it lies.

Richard Dawkins is my God.

[psyche101]

Paxus, on 04 February 2013 - 11:46 AM, said:

Chrlzs seems to have gotten my intent by my use of emoticons...

*sighs*

I did too

But I am a heretic. LOL.

[psyche101]

Lord Vetinari, on 04 February 2013 - 11:14 AM, said:

"the likes of you"? How's that for making an assumption about someone? why do people assume that just because a person isn't entirely convinced by (for instance) Time machines, or Secret military aircraft as an off-the-shelf explanation for everything, that means they';re a Die-hard ETH'er? That's rather an ssumption. Is it because people have this deep pscyholgical need to find an explanation for everything, and can't be content to consider that some things might still be mysteries? I think that must be it. People have to pigeonhole; either you're one of us (rational and sane) or you're one of them (a die-hard ETH'er, i.e. a gibbering loon).

Touched a nerve huh?

Well yes, your argument here is indeed one of a die hard ETH'er. Not sure how you miss it yourself. I have offered examples, time lines, technologies, prototypes etc etc, and what have you done? Re-written the original transcript, added in items to make ET sound more plausible, and protest. Have I missed anything? Why can nobody tell me what can only be ET in Father Gill's transcript? This is the sort of arrogance that propagated the thread title - this is ET and you cannot touch it! Bah Humbug! Talk about showing true colours, this is definitely ET, but not one person can tell me, what in Father Gill's transcript can only be described as ET? Or are we going to say we all Black Op's specialists, and are aware of every single operation carried out, and we can write that description off? I might as well claim to be a direct witness and say the Father was wasted on Kava and I saw the whole thing, it was a helicopter! if that is the case!!!!
Yes, I certainly have an inbult and intense curiosity of that which is around me. I want to know, and I will try to find out. What a ridiculous suggestion to make - we keep mysteries just that? What if we had done the same with lighting, or fire? What possible value can one manage from making crap up to feel good? Just take a bloody valium mate. Is that psychological to need to know? Maybe, not a bad thing if so. In fact, I would say thank goodness some are inclined this way.
Yes pigeon holes not only exist, but people themselves make them. You have no problem pigeonholing skeptics I have seen in the past. One could call the late great Carl Sagan a believer  and yet one could also call nutbags like Stephen Greer a believer  Are they the same? Not one bit. Are the believers  Yes. Then we need a pigeonhole don't we. People like Sagan do not deserve to be dropped to the bottom of the barrel with people like Greer. And yes, one contingent is gibberish, but we all know, and these people know where they fit, and that is by personal choice, nothing to do with other peoples pigeonholes.

Not only that, but he hit the nail right on the head didn't he? It most certainly does seem futile for you and I to discuss this. Unless I turnaround and say "Ohh, I see now, of course!! It was Aliens all along!!" you will continue to stamp your feet, wont you? You do not want any answers, you do not want to discuss options, or even possibilities, you want a mystery, and one we can label ET. Undebunkably LOL.

Edited by psyche101, 05 February 2013 - 01:03 AM.

[psyche101]

DBunker, on 05 February 2013 - 12:31 AM, said:

Richard Dawkins is my God.

He really is an intelligent man. I think like the rest of us prone to a little sensationalism from time to time, but I really like that. It proves he is human. I agree, one of the finer and more impressive minds about today. Seems like a nice bloke too. He has even visited down under recently. A colleague of mine met him, I was rather dirty that he did not invite me along. From what I hear though, he seems very much a gentleman in person.

Edited by psyche101, 05 February 2013 - 01:06 AM.

[DBunker]

psyche101, on 05 February 2013 - 12:57 AM, said:

He really is an intelligent man. I think like the rest of us prone to a little sensationalism from time to time, but I really like that. It proves he is human. I agree, one of the finer and more impressive minds about today. Seems like a nice bloke too. He has even visited down under recently. A colleague of mine met him, I was rather dirty that he did not invite me along. From what I hear though, he seems very much a gentleman.

I remember him on a Noweigian tv show (can be found on youtube) Skavlan+Richard Dawkins.... anyway, he killed the mormons without knowing that one of the other guests (a pop dude) was a mormon.

Check it out.

[psyche101]

DBunker, on 05 February 2013 - 01:05 AM, said:

I remember him on a Noweigian tv show (can be found on youtube) Skavlan+Richard Dawkins.... anyway, he killed the mormons without knowing that one of the other guests (a pop dude) was a mormon.

Check it out.

Sounds like a hoot, I will look that up in the near future. I have a couple of his docos at home, I might be reacquainting myself with some of them this weekend

Loved his input in "Inside Natures Giants" My gosh that is a fascinating show. I will watch The Genius of Charles Darwin this weekend with some luck.  Did you know he even has appeared on Dr Who (The Stolen Earth)? As himself, what a top bloke!