271 replies to this topic

[psyche101]

bison, on 01 February 2013 - 07:26 PM, said:

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.

If there are differing refracting patterns in the spectrum caused by an effect of this force field, why does Father Gills transcript not mention shimmering, ghostly like figures, or changes in physical description all of which would be the direct illusion of scattering the photons with the air molecule disruption in our atmosphere?

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

psyche101, on 04 February 2013 - 01:00 AM, said:

Gidday Mate


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.

The Hitler flying platform was a one man thing that was designed at best to reach a few hundred feet. No one would possibly think of trying to strap a nuclear reactor onto that. That kind of thinking was for intercontinental bombers. The Huffman, Texas case was in 1980; that's 20 years later. But they still hadn't apparently made any significant progress, just the opposite if anything, since, as i remarked previously, no one seemed to have been affected by radiation in PNG?

[psyche101]

Lord Vetinari, on 04 February 2013 - 07:48 AM, said:

The Hitler flying platform was a one man thing that was designed at best to reach a few hundred feet. No one would possibly think of trying to strap a nuclear reactor onto that.

Yes, that is why I offered other examples in this post - LINK
A Nuclear electrical rocket changes thermal energy into heat energy. A variation produced by NERVA. And this version allows higher exhaust velocities, like one might need for something that hovers.
Not to mention the Avrocar had some people quite stirred up, Avro Ambulances were designed, and each family should have an avro vehicle in the garage by now according to the more zealous proponents. So there is no doubt that we were trying to do something very much like this. I am not sure how you feel you can qualify every project that ever existed, and replace them with an Alien Mothership, that really does not sounds very logical to me at all. Heck you even misspelled the name of the example I provided. You are not exactly filling me with confidence as a block ops specialist.
The desire was there. no doubt about it, and many attempts were made. And I need no more than a failed black op to fit in with Father Gills testimony. I only need to come up with new engines, not new engines, a new species, and a spaceship to hold the spaceship Father Gill saw. That is quite an extension on what is actually perplexing in Father Gill's recollection.

Lord Vetinari, on 04 February 2013 - 07:48 AM, said:

That kind of thinking was for intercontinental bombers. The Huffman, Texas case was in 1980; that's 20 years later. But they still hadn't apparently made any significant progress, just the opposite if anything, since, as i remarked previously, no one seemed to have been affected by radiation in PNG?

Yes, the thinking was, what were the applications?
Exactly, and if Father Gill and all his witnesses came away unscathed, there might be a test a bit closer to home, that was not considered to be harmful, until someone got hurt. Someone gets hurt, we cover up the project, avoid hefty lawsuits and loss of faith from the voters. That sounds like a much more plausible cover up than aliens to be frank. And again, nothing need be embellished in the actual transcript for this scenario to play out.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

psyche101, on 04 February 2013 - 08:03 AM, said:

Yes, that is why I offered other examples in this post - LINK
A Nuclear electrical rocket changes thermal energy into heat energy. A variation produced by NERVA. And this version allows higher exhaust velocities, like one might need for something that hovers.
Not to mention the Avrocar had some people quite stirred up, Avro Ambulances were designed, and each family should have an avro vehicle in the garage by now according to the more zealous proponents. So there is no doubt that we were trying to do something very much like this. I am not sure how you feel you can qualify every project that ever existed, and replace them with an Alien Mothership, that really does not sounds very logical to me at all.

... because very few of these projects did actually excist. Nearly all of them were just artist's impressions in the Eagle and the Boy's Own Book of Modern Wonders. the Avrocar was able to reach a maximum altitude of about six feet, i think. To suggest that they may have got one device to a stage where it was working well enough to fly about over the jungles of Papua NG (and to shoot off at dramatic speeds), but has never been heard of or mentioned anywhere since, is I'm afraid to just resort to the old "well, it's probably been kept Secret. Who knows what the Military might have developed since then?" off-the-shelf explanation, and I'm afraid if there's nothing tio support that, I don't buy that. There really is nothing more to support either the "nuclear powered hovering thingy" or (even less) the "Time machine" theory than there is that it was an exploration craft launched from an otherworldy craft, there really isn't. I'm very sorry about this.

[psyche101]

Lord Vetinari, on 04 February 2013 - 08:16 AM, said:

... because very few of these projects did actually excist. Nearly all of them were just artist's impressions in the Eagle and the Boy's Own Book of Modern Wonders. the Avrocar was able to reach a maximum altitude of about six feet, i think. To suggest that they may have got one device to a stage where it was working well enough to fly about over the jungles of Papua NG (and to shoot off at dramatic speeds), but has never been heard of or mentioned anywhere since, is I'm afraid to just resort to the old "well, it's probably been kept Secret. Who knows what the Military might have developed since then?" off-the-shelf explanation, and I'm afraid if there's nothing tio support that, I don't buy that. There really is nothing more to support either the "nuclear powered hovering thingy" or (even less) the "Time machine" theory than there is that it was an exploration craft launched from an otherworldy craft, there really isn't. I'm very sorry about this.

You can be sorry about it because I am not. Wallow a little if you really want to! I do not agree with you, and I do not feel you have made any argument, you have done what any ETH'er would do, and that is indeed disappointing. But then again, when you have a pet theory, you do not like to consider much else, hell, you changed Roswell to be a crashed spaceship filled with drones that the witnesses got wrong, and thought were people so you could entertain your robot scenario. Never mind not an ounce of technology was never reported at the crash site and you are the only one in history to consider robot's with the descriptions provided. That's not "out of the box" I am afraid. There is another name for that.

You have convinced yourself, some zealots, and the OP, who simply has a personal problem with me. That is about it. Hardly impressive. You have not qualified any part of the testimony, you have merely expanded upon it to suit your own tale. Like I say, you can say the guesses I have thrown at this are not better than the ET angle, but only in the minds of the credulous, and I am OK with that. Not a group I would relish being bundled with to be honest.

I have not expanded on the testimony  I have sought example of real world technology that is in this very design proposal. Many designs were tried, and most failed. If the only working one caused fatalities, then that explains why we never saw it become reality.

Yeah, stuff looking into actual projects, forget that Father Gill said Men, do not worry about the fact this craft is obviously not built for space, we can insert a mother ship for that covers that, and we just assume Father Gill was wrong about calling what he saw human beings. But you lot are very serious about a genuine answer aren't you LOL. As long as you can re-write, insert, and embellish, we have ET!

ET did everything, hell I do not exist, this is ET typing. That Zoser enough for you? Now do you approve? God forbid I should actually try to think of rational explanations. lets jaust say "It's ET and Undebunkable" Lets forget that there is some serious logical holes on the ET credulous claim, because that's no fun, and fun is what we call intelligence in here isn't it Lets all get tin foil top hats and just stop thinking. That should solve all these mysteries. My TV's stopped working after the cyclone., That would be ET to.
Mate, if you want to have a discussion, bring something to the table. Don't stamp your feet when I take ET away from the table. It's not very becoming. Admit it, you have squat, but you do not want to stop imagining things.

Hell, there is not only nothing to support ET, ET is a silly answer to a small interstellar vehicle with a balcony. Unless you see good use for ejector seats in helicopters, and fly screens on submarines, your logic is not existant only your foot stamping is.

I have asked every person, including you in this tread, what aspect of Father Gill's transcript can only be ET? I have no answers, but much foot stamping and fist shaking LOL.

I gave you plenty of reasons why I do not think it is ET, but not one person can give a reason with this IS ET. Only that this is the answer the zealots want.

To be frank, after the last few weeks, I was expecting more out of you than to just fall back on your ET cover all, even when it obviously does not fit.

And you guys wonder why the tin foil hat. I mean really. Also, calling this "Undebunkable ET proof" says a great deal as well. It's not even a bloody spaceship.

[quillius]

1963, on 01 February 2013 - 05:55 PM, said:

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.

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.

[quillius]

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.

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.

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

1- what made Father Gill assume the figures were human?
2- what was the blue shaft of light
3- what was the glow aroudn the beings and roughly how far away from their body's was this light/glow?
4- did he see hair?
5- why didnt everyone sign

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

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

psyche101, on 04 February 2013 - 08:51 AM, said:

You can be sorry about it because I am not. Wallow a little if you really want to! I do not agree with you, and I do not feel you have made any argument, you have done what any ETH'er would do, and that is indeed disappointing. But then again, when you have a pet theory, you do not like to consider much else, hell, you changed Roswell to be a crashed spaceship filled with drones that the witnesses got wrong, and thought were people so you could entertain your robot scenario. Never mind not an ounce of technology was never reported at the crash site and you are the only one in history to consider robot's with the descriptions provided. That's not "out of the box" I am afraid. There is another name for that.

You have convinced yourself, some zealots, and the OP, who simply has a personal problem with me. That is about it. Hardly impressive. You have not qualified any part of the testimony, you have merely expanded upon it to suit your own tale. Like I say, you can say the guesses I have thrown at this are not better than the ET angle, but only in the minds of the credulous, and I am OK with that. Not a group I would relish being bundled with to be honest.

I have not expanded on the testimony  I have sought example of real world technology that is in this very design proposal. Many designs were tried, and most failed. If the only working one caused fatalities, then that explains why we never saw it become reality.

Yeah, stuff looking into actual projects, forget that Father Gill said Men, do not worry about the fact this craft is obviously not built for space, we can insert a mother ship for that covers that, and we just assume Father Gill was wrong about calling what he saw human beings. But you lot are very serious about a genuine answer aren't you LOL. As long as you can re-write, insert, and embellish, we have ET!

ET did everything, hell I do not exist, this is ET typing. That Zoser enough for you? Now do you approve? God forbid I should actually try to think of rational explanations. lets jaust say "It's ET and Undebunkable" Lets forget that there is some serious logical holes on the ET credulous claim, because that's no fun, and fun is what we call intelligence in here isn't it Lets all get tin foil top hats and just stop thinking. That should solve all these mysteries. My TV's stopped working after the cyclone., That would be ET to.
Mate, if you want to have a discussion, bring something to the table. Don't stamp your feet when I take ET away from the table. It's not very becoming. Admit it, you have squat, but you do not want to stop imagining things.

Hell, there is not only nothing to support ET, ET is a silly answer to a small interstellar vehicle with a balcony. Unless you see good use for ejector seats in helicopters, and fly screens on submarines, your logic is not existant only your foot stamping is.

I have asked every person, including you in this tread, what aspect of Father Gill's transcript can only be ET? I have no answers, but much foot stamping and fist shaking LOL.

I gave you plenty of reasons why I do not think it is ET, but not one person can give a reason with this IS ET. Only that this is the answer the zealots want.

To be frank, after the last few weeks, I was expecting more out of you than to just fall back on your ET cover all, even when it obviously does not fit.

And you guys wonder why the tin foil hat. I mean really. Also, calling this "Undebunkable ET proof" says a great deal as well. It's not even a bloody spaceship.

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.

[Paxus]

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!

Edited by Paxus, 04 February 2013 - 10:28 AM.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

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

[quillius]

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!

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

not so futile IMO.

UFOs need an answer and some suggest ET

what suggests God?

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

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!

i'm sure he'll appreciate your support, but do you have anything constructive to suggest, or do you just wish to paint every single person who doesn't just go "haaaaah!" or reach for a handy off-the-shelf Explanation with a nice broad brush as 'die hard ETh'ers'?

[quillius]

Link to father Gills letters.

http://ufoevidence.o...ases/case67.htm

Life is strange, isn't it? Yesterday I wrote you a letter, (which I still intend sending you) expressing opinions re: The UFOs. Now, less than twenty-four hours later I have changed my views somewhat. Last night we at Boianai experienced about four hours of UFO activity, and there is no doubt whatsoever that they are handled by beings of some kind. At times it was absolutely breathtaking

absolutely breathtaking......hmm I am sure it has also been described as mundane?

also note 'beings of some kind'.....

not so keen on the 'human' aspect?

[Paxus]

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?

Hey quillius !
I lurke from time to time but it's been a bit dry here lately...

Edited by Paxus, 04 February 2013 - 10:55 AM.

[Paxus]

Lord Vetinari, on 04 February 2013 - 10:33 AM, said:

i'm sure he'll appreciate your support, but do you have anything constructive to suggest, or do you just wish to paint every single person who doesn't just go "haaaaah!" or reach for a handy off-the-shelf Explanation with a nice broad brush as 'die hard ETh'ers'?

(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

Edited by Paxus, 04 February 2013 - 10:55 AM.