Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Father Gill's UnDebunkable Case?


  • Please log in to reply
271 replies to this topic

#241    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 16,718 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet TEXAS

Posted 07 February 2013 - 03:48 AM

me thinks Father Gills knew his fine Scotch ! :tu:

This is a Work in Progress!

#242    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 30,022 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 07 February 2013 - 04:43 AM

View Postquillius, on 06 February 2013 - 10:01 AM, said:

not quite seeing how this relates back to the tapes from the interviews?

Just historical record, thought it might come in handy.

View Postquillius, on 06 February 2013 - 10:01 AM, said:

There has been some suggestion of nearby military having something to do with it, but have found that quite fragile with research done to date, but of course its not ruled out just yet...especially when bearing in mind words by 'Ben Rich'

But if you go by what he said, you have no chance of finding out anything concrete.

View Postquillius, on 06 February 2013 - 10:01 AM, said:

also not sure how teh Corona satellite accounts for people on viewing deck?

It does not, but it focus on the craft. I personally think the refraction theory is the best one on offer so far. With the Min Min hypothesis twist of course.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.' - Sir Isaac Newton. "Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit." Ed Stewart. Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs. Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Sir Wearer of Hats.


#243    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 30,022 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 07 February 2013 - 04:45 AM

View PostLord Vetinari, on 06 February 2013 - 11:05 AM, said:

Entirely possible, of course, that he may have described the people aboard the craft as "human" when he meant that they looked like Humans; i.e. bipedal and about the same size; but then; how could you be sure they were the same size as a Human unless you were quite sure about the size of the Craft itself? The notion of them being Human is one of the major reasons for insisting on an Earthly explanation, isn't it ... if we're prepared to consider that they might not have been Human, just humanoid, well, that leaves the floor wide open, doesn't it ....

Humans are not the anomaly, the performance of the craft is. It is what needs to be qualified, only then any such assumption might be valid. Before that, it's just a game.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.' - Sir Isaac Newton. "Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit." Ed Stewart. Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs. Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Sir Wearer of Hats.


#244    1963

1963

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,083 posts
  • Joined:02 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:BEDLAM

  • When the day is through,and the nightsky shades the blue,and the swallows cease to sing as they fly!.......

Posted 07 February 2013 - 12:00 PM

View Postquillius, on 06 February 2013 - 10:01 AM, said:

not quite seeing how this relates back to the tapes from the interviews?



also not sure how teh Corona satellite accounts for people on viewing deck?


Of course It doesn't Quillius!...it is merely yet another inept spanner that that poster is trying to toss into the equation , as his/her latest attempt to deprecate the actual data supplied by the witnesses! :no:

Firstly this particular poster is  , in their unfailing manner of refusing to accept that a spade ...is sometimes a spade! ..unless of course, it fits with their in-built belief system that there is always a prosaic answer to any situation that points to 'something more'!.Now since I have had this poster on my 'ignore-list' for ages now and only ever catch bits of their quotes in other peoples posts, I have to assume that either not as 'bright' as I had previously given credit to,..or is just routinely practicing his/her well honed and obvious obfuscation method of muddying the waters of a case with damn good testimony!.As is plainly demonstrated by the serious attempt to tout the outlandish 'Time Traveller Hypothesis' early on in the thread!! ....

Posted Image



....and then came the usual 'cut and paste' jobs to push the 'debunk-at-all-cost's agenda' that can be found on all of the predictable sceptoid-sites...'spent nuclear rods', refracted mirages,  etc,...and as far as I can ascertain  is currently in the process of mooting several highly unsupported ideas... from my friend Karl 12's unlikely 'U.S Secret Flying Platform Possibility'...to  Martin Kottmeyer's fanciful 'Squid-boat Hypotheses' , and now the even more nonsensical 'Misidentified Corona Satellite explanation', [which incidentally has also been covered in the link to the AU thread that he provided]....the gist being that the Corona missions of the time, were a series of experimental spying devices that were launched from Cook Air Force Base in California, and orbited over the 'north pole'..between 6-7000 miles from Boianai!...and not to mention that there doesn't seem to be any successful launches of the satellites in Father Gill encounter timeframe!...and not least of the problems in trying to shoehorn the Corona missions into the 'ah!..i've cracked it' scenario, is that no matter how I try...I cannot find the 'smoking-gun documentation' that records that a four man crew of astronauts were commissioned to stand on top of these dodgy-satellites, waving their arms to missionaries and dozens of other verified witnesses in New Guinea!!



http://fr.wikipedia....cycle_video.ogv


btw Q...I am still struggling to get those Hynek interview tapes, but haven't given up yet! lol..and does this link to UFO Evidence site not work for you....?

http://www.ufoeviden...ases/case67.htm

Also, I just realised that I haven't mentioned another point that has been on my mind for a while...and it may well be a point better left there lol,,,but here we go...its the part near the end of Gill's statement....

"

11.20 p.m.




11.30 p.m.


Sunday, 28/6/59.



No sign of U.F.O.


Only 1 U.F.O. practically overhead. Slightly north. Very high, but clearly distinguishable, due to hovering. (Fr. Gill uses the word 'hover' in the sense of wavering movement in a small area).


Same U.F.O. - moved to southern position, but still more or less overhead.


3 U.F.O.'s in almost straight line – all high, sky clear.


8 U.F.O.'s. This is the greatest number seen at one time, one fairly low, but except for occasional 'hover', no activity seen on board.


A sharp metallic and loud bang on Mission roof, as though a piece of metal had dropped from a great height. No roll of 'object' down roof slope afterwards. Outside, 4 UFO's in a circle round station. All high.


To bed, and UFOs still there.


Monday 29/6/59


Roof examined. No apparent sign or mark or dent, which one might expect from last night's noise.




....I wondered if anyone..ie Hynek or any of the other interested visitors to the mission, had thought that being as the mission roof is sloped and not flat,..that any solid object that may have fallen from a great height, would be likely to either smash through the roof, [which apparently it did not] ..or simply glance off the slopes of the roof and could conceivably be lying around the vicinity , maybe under some foliage waiting for some interested party to find via a metal detector or something?

Cheers Buddy.

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

#245    Esoteric Toad

Esoteric Toad

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 689 posts
  • Joined:04 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida

  • Where does one get certified as an "Ancient Astronaut Theorist" or "Cryptozoologist"?

Posted 07 February 2013 - 12:48 PM

UnDebunkable and yet completely unverifiable. Nothing but another story, period. JMO.


#246    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 30,022 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 08 February 2013 - 04:41 AM

Say what you like 63, It's not like it will bother me. But then again you always have.

If Anything, I want to say thank you for this thread. It is very illustrative, and without doubt a case that deserves more attention than it has received to date. And it actively exposes the one sided mindset of UFOlogy. Being considered a "Solid Case" my probing into alternate solutions has surely colourfully illustrated the mindset of the ETH'ers and I feel this thread well shows not only why the UFO phenomena wears a tin foil hat, but why it deserves one.

It also well demonstrates just how valuable eyewitness testimony is to a diehard ETH'er. Which is "It is great when it says what I want it to", and shows that even The Fathers testimony is not sacred. His reputation where an ET angle is certainly held up, even though it is an assumption as not one person who says Father Gill is a fine person has actually met him, or read more than this case about him. Not to mention not one person can state "What can only be described as ET in Father Gill's description". Catholic priests have something of a dubious reputation these days, yet even with this high praise, his actual words are discarded. He could not possibly be seeing human's no matter what he said, he got every aspect of the story right, except that it was ET, and he did not see humans, he saw ET's that looked something like humans. That is how it goes isn't it? It does not matter that the craft is too small to traverse space, it does not matter that the craft does not seemed to be designed for space, it does not matter that the craft never entered space, and we know that better than your extensive knowledge of Black Op's no matter what you claim. But we can overlook all that because it hovered, and took of at great speed, faster than a conventional plane in 1959, as far as a Catholic Missionary is concerned.

The thread also illustrates the limited inderstanding of time dilation, whilst the fellow above might look somewhat comical the the replica of the movie version of HG wells time machine, the globe does not consider Sergei Avdeyev comical one bit, seeming as he did travel through time, and has been verified as having aged 20 milliseconds less than the rest of the globe by way of atomic timekeeping. Hardly science fiction. But force fields, warp drive and the like, all of the ETH'ers seem to find second nature, as if commonplace.

If anything, you have given everyone a good reason to dimiss the credulous claims at first sight, as I can see, unless the answer is ET, you do not consider anything an answer. If anything, this has indeed been an illustrative experience, although not one bit surprising. I hope science stops giving this fringe element the time of day, as science has wasted far too much time and resources proving themselves to the crackpots who already "have the answer". ETH'ers are a blight on science, and will continue to be as long as they insist that they get to make the rules. The entire faction should just be ignored.

If we go back through the thread, I never once offered any solutions as "The Answer" not one. I still have not, but favour Martin Kottmeyer's solution over what has been presented to date with perhaps some help from Professor Jack Pettigrew's work. I have presented alternatives, and tried to get (to no avail) people to consider alternatives. Heretic!!! No ET in my suggestions!! But as you do not read the posts you would have missed that, yet you feel qualified to comment upon such. Speaks volumes that. But not closed minded are you, never jump to conclusions do you LOL.

Undebunkable does not mean ET. Neither thread you made proves that.
And thank you for having me on ignore. I consider that a courtesy.

Edited by psyche101, 08 February 2013 - 04:46 AM.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.' - Sir Isaac Newton. "Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit." Ed Stewart. Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs. Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Sir Wearer of Hats.


#247    Admiral Rhubarb

Admiral Rhubarb

    Often Unsatisfactory

  • Member
  • 23,519 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hammerfest

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 08 February 2013 - 08:28 AM

I'd decided it wasn't worth arguing interminably about this any more, but just a small point:

View Postpsyche101, on 08 February 2013 - 04:41 AM, said:


It also well demonstrates just how valuable eyewitness testimony is to a diehard ETH'er. Which is "It is great when it says what I want it to", and shows that even The Fathers testimony is not sacred. His reputation where an ET angle is certainly held up, even though it is an assumption as not one person who says Father Gill is a fine person has actually met him, or read more than this case about him. Not to mention not one person can state "What can only be described as ET in Father Gill's description". Catholic priests have something of a dubious reputation these days, yet even with this high praise, his actual words are discarded.
the late Rev. William Booth Gill was actually the head of the Anglican mission at Boiani, ('Father' is customarily used for Catholic priests, of course, which was a point I questioned initially, but it appears that Anglican priests can be addressed as 'Father' if they wish.)
Apart from that, there's no point arguing interminably when people have such dogged beliefs, so I'll leave everyone to it.

I suppose this will be interpreted by those who insist on taking an adversarial stance and arguing interminably that their beliefs must be the only true ones, as "climbing down" and that they've "won" and so on, and they're quite welcome to if they like.  So have a nice day, please.

Life is a hideous business, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.

H. P. Lovecraft.


Posted Image


#248    1963

1963

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,083 posts
  • Joined:02 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:BEDLAM

  • When the day is through,and the nightsky shades the blue,and the swallows cease to sing as they fly!.......

Posted 08 February 2013 - 02:47 PM

View PostLord Vetinari, on 08 February 2013 - 08:28 AM, said:

I'd decided it wasn't worth arguing interminably about this any more, but just a small point:

the late Rev. William Booth Gill was actually the head of the Anglican mission at Boiani, ('Father' is customarily used for Catholic priests, of course, which was a point I questioned initially, but it appears that Anglican priests can be addressed as 'Father' if they wish.)
Apart from that, there's no point arguing interminably when people have such dogged beliefs, so I'll leave everyone to it.

I suppose this will be interpreted by those who insist on taking an adversarial stance and arguing interminably that their beliefs must be the only true ones, as "climbing down" and that they've "won" and so on, and they're quite welcome to if they like.  So have a nice day, please.

Hey Vetinari ["still can't get used to punching that into the keyboard 7".lol]

What's with the 'whimpy post'?....Don't be so silly man...you know that your opinions, musings,witty banter and general contributions are both worthy and welcome in any thread!
And If the sentiment in the above post of yours is a genuine feeling of your posts and thoughts within ,  are being disparaged by other posters..[and I wholeheartedly hope that i'm not included in this]..then all that I can suggest is don't just allow yourself to be browbeaten , and skulk-off in disappointment! No my friend, I suggest that you do something about it!!
For example, if the problem is,.. as I suspect, ..with 'a certain rather rude poster' that continually insists that you are a fool if you do not fall in line with their every edict, theory, or inference.. [no matter how implausible]..that then for pity's sake man just tell him straight!....eg.."No Sergei Avdeyev did not Time Travel!...he merely experienced a miniscule fraction of time dilation,0.02 which he achieved by travelling in space at a speed of 27360 kmps for 747 days. Time dilation in essence is the name given for the slowing down of time's effect on Avdeyev's body, and not a reversal of time itself!"....or whatever other point that you want to make yourself from the many valid ones  that I notice you have been trying to get over to that poster!...it's quite an easy thing to do, and i'm sure that the enjoyment of your time on the threads will be enhanced once you decide to stand your corner, and not just withdraw from the 'conversations' because a ..let's say , 'forceful personality' is constantly making you walk on egg-shells!
Failing that...there is always the option of.. 'choosing with whom to converse',..because 'some people' are not only less open minded than you appear to be, but in fact have their minds 'nailed shut' and can never be persuaded to consider an alternative answer to the one that they are predispositioned to defend!... :no:


Anyway M'Lord...unless I have missed it?...I cannot remember seeing your own summary of just what exactly do you 'presently think' what happened in the Father Gill case,..Prosaic or Not?.and without inhibitions of any kind...the question is.... in your opinion, what did they see?


Cheers buddy.

Edited by 1963, 08 February 2013 - 02:50 PM.

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

#249    Grey Area

Grey Area

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 369 posts
  • Joined:09 Apr 2008

Posted 08 February 2013 - 03:37 PM

View Post1963, on 08 February 2013 - 02:47 PM, said:

Hey Vetinari ["still can't get used to punching that into the keyboard 7".lol]

if the problem is,.. as I suspect, ..with 'a certain rather rude poster' that continually insists that you are a fool if you do not fall in line with their every edict, theory, or inference.. [no matter how implausible]..that then for pity's sake man just tell him straight!....eg.."No Sergei Avdeyev did not Time Travel!...he merely experienced a miniscule fraction of time dilation,0.02 which he achieved by travelling in space at a speed of 27360 kmps for 747 days. Time dilation in essence is the name given for the slowing down of time's effect on Avdeyev's body, and not a reversal of time itself!"


Hi, dont post very often, its unusual I feel it necessary to post, but I do enjoy following the threads from time to time.

I feel compelled to set a few things straight here.  Firstly, why would you post a Thread entitled 'Un-debunkable' and then not expect the usual skepticism to go with.  And for the record I am a total skeptic.  This thread from start smelled a bit of Troll.

On the point of time dilation.  This is not a form of time travel, or an effect on the body, and you certainly cannot dilate time in order to travel backwards.  Time Dilation is an 'Observed' effect that can be measured from the perspectives of two seperate, but synchronised viewpoints.

View Post1963, on 08 February 2013 - 02:47 PM, said:


because 'some people' are not only less open minded than you appear to be, but in fact have their minds 'nailed shut' and can never be persuaded to consider an alternative answer to the one that they are predispositioned to defend!... :no:



This thread should have been more aptly titled 'Unverifiable'.  Because this is what this is, totally and utterly unverifiable.  Witness testimony is the only thing we have here, and simply stating that the witnesses were teachers and Vicars and medical professionals and so on and so forth does not give someone an automatic reliability clause.

It needs to be accepted that there are other explanations, no matter how implausible, and that includes that they all simply concocted a story and then told it, for whatever reasons, and there always will be alternative explanations, because there is no way to verify the accounts of the witnesses

"Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No
matter how fast light travels it finds the darkness has always got there
first, and is waiting for it."

Terry Pratchett.

#250    Admiral Rhubarb

Admiral Rhubarb

    Often Unsatisfactory

  • Member
  • 23,519 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hammerfest

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 08 February 2013 - 03:39 PM

View Post1963, on 08 February 2013 - 02:47 PM, said:


Anyway M'Lord...unless I have missed it?...I cannot remember seeing your own summary of just what exactly do you 'presently think' what happened in the Father Gill case,..Prosaic or Not?.and without inhibitions of any kind...the question is.... in your opinion, what did they see?


Cheers buddy.
What does I reckon it might have been, then? Well, I'm glad you asked me that. :blush:  That's a very good question, and it's one well worth asking. And once I've decided, if I ever do, I'll be the first to let you know. :innocent:

But leaving politicians' answers out of it, if there was a Prosaic explanation, the only one that really seems at all feasible would be the idea that it was some kind of hovering platform-type device being evaluated by the Military. In support of this, we have the description of the people aboard it as looking like Humans. And if they were testing something like that, the jungles of south-east Asia would be just the sort of place where it would be useful. Perhaps the U.S. (presumably) Military had scented which way the wind was blowing, and had an idea that south-east Asia would be an area that would be of particular interest before long.
On the other hand, though, there's the fact that it seemed, from this report, to be working quite satisfactorily and safely; the crew didn't seem too concerned about anything, did they, in fact they seemed quite cheerful. Would a military crew, testing an important (and of course, highly secret) experimental machine, spare the time to drop by the natives and give them a wave? Would it not be sensible to keep something secret well awy from anywhere it might be seen? And then, if it did seem to be succesful, why was nothing more ever heard of such a device? Why were the skies of 'Nam not filled with hundreds of these versatile, silent, manouverable platforms, rather all those noisy helicopters? They'd surely have been just the job for inflitrating the Ho Chi Minh Trail or hutning down the Vietcong. And why has it never appeared in any of the books or articles about US experimental aircraft that have appeared since then?

Then, er, the Time machine; well, don't get me wrong, I'm only too pleased to see the notion of a Time machine being taken seriously rather than dismissed as Sci fi fantasy, but to try to argue that it's a serious suggestion, based entirely on the fact that the occupants of said Craft looked like Humans from the distance they were seen from, and that is has been demonstrated to be possible since Andrey Medvedev claims to have carried out experiments in time dilation, so that therefore in the future, Time machines may be as common as cars, and someone may have gone for a jaunt around Papua New Guinea in 1959, seems, well, to be extrapolating every bit as much as the idea that it may have been a Space craft, to be quite honest. I wouldn't want to say clutching at straws, but, well ....
In fact, surely it's less probable than a Spacecraft, since we know that Space travel, at modest speeds at any rate, is possible, and in fact we've done it ourselves, while we're a long, long way off being able to hop into the Time machine, crank it up to 88 mph, and away we go.

So, a Spacecraft, then? Well, this "viewing deck" seems to get some people immensely wound up, and cause them to reject it out of hand; might it be as simple as that one could only open the outside doors and go out 'on deck' at low altitude and low speeds, or in the hover, much like how one should only open the doors of an airliner once it's on the ground: perhaps the external doors were locked before it shot away at great speed, or perhaps the 'outside deck' was protected by a force field [oh no! Sci fi fantasy again! We can't have that! :unsure2: ], or simply covered over by something like a heat shield when it exited the atmosphere.
Or it might not have to exit the atmosphere at all; it might have been a purely atmospheric craft, like a lander or survey craft that undocked from a parent craft somewhere; perhaps the parent craft dipped into the atmosphere, launched the lander (perhaps one of several), and took off again out of the way.

So, while I wouldn't not possibly suggest that it must have been ET, as some insist that I keep shouting, I do not think any of the objections are conclusive objections against the idea. If it was something Militarty, why was nothing more ever heard of it, and, well... I wouldn't want to rule out a Time machine, but I think it would need rather more to support it than to say "they looked like Humans! A Spacecraft woudln't possibly have a viewing gallery!". I really don't think it's any less sci fi than a Spacecraft, and arguably more so, since we do know that spacecraft can be constructed, and so far, the ability to construct a Time machine is entirely hypothetical.

* Oh, I didn't mention the Nuclear angle, did I. Well, I think the fact that no one seemed to report any kind of radiation in the vicinity, and no one seemed to report any ill effects resulting from radiation, can really rule that out. Plus the fact that ideas for nuclear power plants aboard aircraft envisaged huge intercontinental bombers, not small devices that

* oh! yes, it was only 35 ft in diameter! Well, that's a conclusive argument against a Spacecraft, isn't it! no one's going to to go zipping across the immeasurable distances of Space in something that size!! :clap:
Well, perhaps not, but that's all the more argument in favour of the lander idea, isn't it. When compared with all the alternative suggestions, the more reasonable it seems.

** Oh, and, what were the other sugegstions, Venus or a Satellite? Well, I think you could safley say that those came from the same department that gave us Swamp gas. :blush:

Life is a hideous business, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.

H. P. Lovecraft.


Posted Image


#251    bison

bison

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,155 posts
  • Joined:13 Apr 2011

Posted 08 February 2013 - 07:44 PM

View PostGrey Area, on 08 February 2013 - 03:37 PM, said:

Hi, dont post very often, its unusual I feel it necessary to post, but I do enjoy following the threads from time to time.

I feel compelled to set a few things straight here.  Firstly, why would you post a Thread entitled 'Un-debunkable' and then not expect the usual skepticism to go with.  And for the record I am a total skeptic.  This thread from start smelled a bit of Troll.

On the point of time dilation.  This is not a form of time travel, or an effect on the body, and you certainly cannot dilate time in order to travel backwards.  Time Dilation is an 'Observed' effect that can be measured from the perspectives of two seperate, but synchronised viewpoints.




This thread should have been more aptly titled 'Unverifiable'.  Because this is what this is, totally and utterly unverifiable.  Witness testimony is the only thing we have here, and simply stating that the witnesses were teachers and Vicars and medical professionals and so on and so forth does not give someone an automatic reliability clause.

It needs to be accepted that there are other explanations, no matter how implausible, and that includes that they all simply concocted a story and then told it, for whatever reasons, and there always will be alternative explanations, because there is no way to verify the accounts of the witnesses
Other possible explanations? To be sure! It's their relative probability, based on our best knowledge, that appears to be of the essence. Noting the high improbability of the technological explanations, other than an ET space craft, it seems to boil down to this, or the witnesses were lying.
Science seems to mistrust the eyewitness reports of unsanctioned observers from among the general public. It appears that meteorites were kept out of the scientific canon for some time, because it seemed more likely that the witnesses made it all up, than that rocks fell from the sky. I wonder what our descendants will say about this sort of dismissal of extraterrestrial craft, having the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. hmm.


#252    1963

1963

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,083 posts
  • Joined:02 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:BEDLAM

  • When the day is through,and the nightsky shades the blue,and the swallows cease to sing as they fly!.......

Posted 08 February 2013 - 11:14 PM

View PostLord Vetinari, on 08 February 2013 - 03:39 PM, said:

What does I reckon it might have been, then? Well, I'm glad you asked me that. :blush:  That's a very good question, and it's one well worth asking. And once I've decided, if I ever do, I'll be the first to let you know. :innocent:

But leaving politicians' answers out of it, if there was a Prosaic explanation, the only one that really seems at all feasible would be the idea that it was some kind of hovering platform-type device being evaluated by the Military. In support of this, we have the description of the people aboard it as looking like Humans. And if they were testing something like that, the jungles of south-east Asia would be just the sort of place where it would be useful. Perhaps the U.S. (presumably) Military had scented which way the wind was blowing, and had an idea that south-east Asia would be an area that would be of particular interest before long.
On the other hand, though, there's the fact that it seemed, from this report, to be working quite satisfactorily and safely; the crew didn't seem too concerned about anything, did they, in fact they seemed quite cheerful. Would a military crew, testing an important (and of course, highly secret) experimental machine, spare the time to drop by the natives and give them a wave? Would it not be sensible to keep something secret well awy from anywhere it might be seen? And then, if it did seem to be succesful, why was nothing more ever heard of such a device? Why were the skies of 'Nam not filled with hundreds of these versatile, silent, manouverable platforms, rather all those noisy helicopters? They'd surely have been just the job for inflitrating the Ho Chi Minh Trail or hutning down the Vietcong. And why has it never appeared in any of the books or articles about US experimental aircraft that have appeared since then?


I am in total agreement with all you say, and have said the same in the past!...It is only common sense that if mankind was so far advanced as to have achieved the level of sophisticated-technology required for that speculation to be a 'serious possibility'...it only stands to reason that  the world would be a very different place to what it presently is!


Then, er, the Time machine; well, don't get me wrong, I'm only too pleased to see the notion of a Time machine being taken seriously rather than dismissed as Sci fi fantasy, but to try to argue that it's a serious suggestion, based entirely on the fact that the occupants of said Craft looked like Humans from the distance they were seen from, and that is has been demonstrated to be possible since Andrey Medvedev claims to have carried out experiments in time dilation, so that therefore in the future, Time machines may be as common as cars, and someone may have gone for a jaunt around Papua New Guinea in 1959, seems, well, to be extrapolating every bit as much as the idea that it may have been a Space craft, to be quite honest. I wouldn't want to say clutching at straws, but, well ....

Yes again but ,..'I would' want to say... "clutching at straws"!

In fact, surely it's less probable than a Spacecraft, since we know that Space travel, at modest speeds at any rate, is possible, and in fact we've done it ourselves, while we're a long, long way off being able to hop into the Time machine, crank it up to 88 mph, and away we go.

Again yes!...but....88 mph?



So, a Spacecraft, then? Well, this "viewing deck" seems to get some people immensely wound up, and cause them to reject it out of hand; might it be as simple as that one could only open the outside doors and go out 'on deck' at low altitude and low speeds, or in the hover, much like how one should only open the doors of an airliner once it's on the ground: perhaps the external doors were locked before it shot away at great speed, or perhaps the 'outside deck' was protected by a force field [oh no! Sci fi fantasy again! We can't have that! :unsure2: ], or simply covered over by something like a heat shield when it exited the atmosphere.

Or just maybe ...it wasn't a spacecraft at all?...Maybe it was merely a tool that was designed and built in that specific way, to perform a specific task?
And maybe this specifically designed tool was delivered to it's place of work, by the 'larger shuttle'  that was reported by Mr. R L Smith and Mr. and Mrs Ronald Orwin , whom reported seeing a bronze flying disc that accompanied a larger red flying object , appear to "jump towards and disappear into the larger object"...and who knows, just maybe that larger red UFO [shuttle?] takes the disc along with the disc's operators back to the 'mothership' that was stealthily orbiting nearby ...or maybe even parked on the moon!?...[well..wer'e only speculating aren't we? lol]

Or it might not have to exit the atmosphere at all; it might have been a purely atmospheric craft, like a lander or survey craft that undocked from a parent craft somewhere; perhaps the parent craft dipped into the atmosphere, launched the lander (perhaps one of several), and took off again out of the way.

...or this!



So, while I wouldn't not possibly suggest that it must have been ET, as some insist that I keep shouting, I do not think any of the objections are conclusive objections against the idea.
If it was something Militarty, why was nothing more ever heard of it, and, well... I wouldn't want to rule out a Time machine, but I think it would need rather more to support it than to say "they looked like Humans! A Spacecraft woudln't possibly have a viewing gallery!". I really don't think it's any less sci fi than a Spacecraft, and arguably more so, since we do know that spacecraft can be constructed, and so far, the ability to construct a Time machine is entirely hypothetical.


* Oh, I didn't mention the Nuclear angle, did I. Well, I think the fact that no one seemed to report any kind of radiation in the vicinity, and no one seemed to report any ill effects resulting from radiation, can really rule that out. Plus the fact that ideas for nuclear power plants aboard aircraft envisaged huge intercontinental bombers, not small devices that

* oh! yes, it was only 35 ft in diameter! Well, that's a conclusive argument against a Spacecraft, isn't it! no one's going to to go zipping across the immeasurable distances of Space in something that size!! :clap:
Well, perhaps not, but that's all the more argument in favour of the lander idea, isn't it. When compared with all the alternative suggestions, the more reasonable it seems.

** Oh, and, what were the other sugegstions, Venus or a Satellite? Well, I think you could safley say that those came from the same department that gave us Swamp gas. :blush:



Well I think  that has made your position pretty clear M'Lord!...please correct me if i'm wrong, but it appears that out of the 'available options', that if pressed, you favour the ETH above the rest...but unlike me...you are not willing to say so with any real certainty!
That's ok by me, because no matter how well anyone else thinks that they know how my mind works, and try to pigeon-hole me...the fact is that whilst I do believe this event to be of an 'extraterrestrial nature'...or perhaps the equally anomalous interdimensional-event?...either way, I am still open to a prosaic explanation, so long as it is a sound explanation, and not in the same league as the limp efforts that have already been touted! :tu:


Cheers Buddy.

Edited by 1963, 08 February 2013 - 11:16 PM.

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

#253    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 30,022 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 10 February 2013 - 10:38 PM

View PostLord Vetinari, on 08 February 2013 - 08:28 AM, said:

I'd decided it wasn't worth arguing interminably about this any more, but just a small point:

the late Rev. William Booth Gill was actually the head of the Anglican mission at Boiani, ('Father' is customarily used for Catholic priests, of course, which was a point I questioned initially, but it appears that Anglican priests can be addressed as 'Father' if they wish.)
Apart from that, there's no point arguing interminably when people have such dogged beliefs, so I'll leave everyone to it.

I suppose this will be interpreted by those who insist on taking an adversarial stance and arguing interminably that their beliefs must be the only true ones, as "climbing down" and that they've "won" and so on, and they're quite welcome to if they like.  So have a nice day, please.


Not taken in that way at all, in fact good point. You have a nice day too. My main point is that people who throw themselves upon the ETH have no other recourse, they cannot think outside this box they think they are. For some reason the consensus seems to be, "if it is unexplained it is ET" that is not the case, and I feel it is not the case here. I believe enough anomalies exist to seriously question ET as an answer. People are not even willing to look at alternatives, they keep trying to explain the sighting as ET. The adversarial feeling in this thread is simply due to the fact that some people refuse to look at any option other then ET if stumped.THis contingent of the ETH I feel are taking the entire phenomena backwards at a rapid rate, and if such continues, I feel the tin foil hat may never come off.

There is no "win" in this case, I thought that became obvious early on in the piece. I cannot prove the refraction hypothesis any more than anyone here can put a finger on ET. Even thought it is a viable hypothesis, it is pushed to one side at the wave of a hand, and I imagine a sneer. If anything, this thread should have sparked more in depth conversation and critical thinking, some alternatives, some ideas, and something new would have been a bonus, yet alas, if it's not ET, it's regarded an insult. It is disappointing to have seen this place become so limited and one sided. It's "Us and Them" now. And that is the loss we all suffer. Professor Jack Pettigew's work on Min Min lights appears to open some doors that very well might answer this conundrum, but it will not be given a chance in here. No ET. If people did not take the 1896 Airship as a precedent, and I feel that can only be for personal reasons, then Vallee's flying saucer with propellors ought to qualify as a precedent in this area that indicates more options are required to be considered. But in the end, some socialism has been achieved. All the ETH'ers can get together and say how clever you all are, and thumb your nose at me for actually trying to find an answer instead of falling to me knees and praising the Gods from other planets.

Same thing happened when Lost Shaman tried to offer a piece of Mylar to explain the Apollo 11 UFO. If anything, the ETH is indeed consistent. If not rather credulous.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.' - Sir Isaac Newton. "Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit." Ed Stewart. Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs. Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Sir Wearer of Hats.


#254    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 30,022 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 10 February 2013 - 11:26 PM

View PostLord Vetinari, on 08 February 2013 - 03:39 PM, said:

Then, er, the Time machine; well, don't get me wrong, I'm only too pleased to see the notion of a Time machine being taken seriously rather than dismissed as Sci fi fantasy, but to try to argue that it's a serious suggestion, based entirely on the fact that the occupants of said Craft looked like Humans from the distance they were seen from, and that is has been demonstrated to be possible since Andrey Medvedev claims to have carried out experiments in time dilation, so that therefore in the future, Time machines may be as common as cars, and someone may have gone for a jaunt around Papua New Guinea in 1959, seems, well, to be extrapolating every bit as much as the idea that it may have been a Space craft, to be quite honest. I wouldn't want to say clutching at straws, but, well ....
In fact, surely it's less probable than a Spacecraft, since we know that Space travel, at modest speeds at any rate, is possible, and in fact we've done it ourselves, while we're a long, long way off being able to hop into the Time machine, crank it up to 88 mph, and away we go.

There is no claim, atomic clocks have proven it. My main point is that it is a workable hypothesis right? You are lets say hypothesising Mother Ships to cross space (my objection being that you are adding elements, Father Gill already has a mothership and it's 35 foot across), which you say are likely using a wormhole to get close, and then use a scout-ship right? The hypothesis with regards to actually creating one of these things is that making a "Short" Wormhole" is a great deal easier than making a "Long" Wormhole. If a "Wormhole" Is something that can actually be created to offer a shortcut through space, then we could make a time machine long before we could travel to distant stars. About one year quicker than going to Alpha Centauri at 99% of c to create a Wormhole 500 years into the future from now, with what we know now. The spacecraft we have now are not operating in any realm that would achieve this in any time frame, like the drag car that will not make a quarter mile in under one second they are not engineered to do so, and the performance described is also not something the craft we build can do, so something completely different must be in place. A time machine would appear to "Zip" away and not require inertia, as was pointed out earlier in the thread, space is on the move. Time travel means space travel. And for all we know, that might even be how "Wormholes" are distributed for use if anyone is making them. So if the craft is not of the same performance, it seems incorrect to evaluate it as ET based on the performance. They are very exotic explanations, I feel the the refraction hypothesis is the most likely out of everything put forth to date.

View PostLord Vetinari, on 08 February 2013 - 03:39 PM, said:

** Oh, and, what were the other sugegstions, Venus or a Satellite? Well, I think you could safley say that those came from the same department that gave us Swamp gas. :blush:

Hrmmzzz, really? Very appropriate comment IMHO. That "department" is of the highest order where both sides of this debate are concerned, and is held up by UFOlogy on a constant basis as some type of holy grail.

Swamp Gas came from J. Allen Hynek. Probably the best chance UFOlogy ever had to get an answer on this, until like this thread, he said one thing that upset the die hards, and was ousted from the community for it. I think UFOlogists that hold Hynek up as some sort of benchmark are hypocrites considering:

From WIkipedia:

It was during the late stages of Blue Book in the 1960s that Hynek began speaking openly about his disagreements and disappointments with the Air Force. Among the cases where he openly dissented with the Air Force were the highly publicized Portage County UFO chase (where several police officers chased a UFO for half an hour), and the encounter of Lonnie Zamora. A police officer, Zamora reported an encounter with a metallic, egg-shaped aircraft near Socorro, New Mexico.


2 actual cases that indeed are compelling and in my opinion are far better candidates where ET is concerned. In fact I would say Portage County deserves this title better than Father Gill's case considering the details.

In late March 1966, in Michigan, two days of mass UFO sightings were reported, and received significant publicity. After studying the reports, Hynek offered a provisional hypothesis for some of the sightings: a few of about 100 witnesses had mistaken swamp gas for something more spectacular. At the press conference where he made his announcement, Hynek repeatedly and strenuously made the qualification that swamp gas was a plausible explanation for only a portion of the Michigan UFO reports, and certainly not for UFO reports in general. But much to his chagrin, Hynek's qualifications were largely overlooked, and the words "swamp gas" were repeated ad infinitum in relation to UFO reports. The explanation was subject to national derision.

And that is that day that UFOlogy shot itself in the foot and showed it's true colours. This thread is repeating that very mistake the way I see it. But that is the arrogance of the ETH - a case that is undebankably ET, yet ET was never qualified. That is good enough for a Stanton Friedman novel. But I have agreed from page ione, that neither planetary explanation is workable too, like the ET claim, these explanations leave too many questions unanswered. But they hardly come from the same camp as swamp gas. That is an event that UFOlogy really ought to be rather red faced about, but like the ETH'ers I see, they are never wrong. They all think they are smarter and more experienced than J. Allan, so Hynek was considered wrong. Plasma is another thing we have UFOLogy to thank for holding back progress. No secret why. That alone ought to be enough for a good long look in the mirror I reckon.

Ya know, it strikes me that UFOlogists and ETH'ers ought to be painfully aware of that past blunder, and try to bury it, but they do not, they use it to mock the very phenomena which it sought to uphold. How is such a mindset ever supposed to see rationality?

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.' - Sir Isaac Newton. "Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit." Ed Stewart. Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs. Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Sir Wearer of Hats.


#255    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 30,022 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 10 February 2013 - 11:40 PM

View PostGrey Area, on 08 February 2013 - 03:37 PM, said:

Hi, dont post very often, its unusual I feel it necessary to post, but I do enjoy following the threads from time to time.

I feel compelled to set a few things straight here.  Firstly, why would you post a Thread entitled 'Un-debunkable' and then not expect the usual skepticism to go with.  And for the record I am a total skeptic.  This thread from start smelled a bit of Troll.

Hi Grey Area

I would like to see you post more often. You may not have much to say, but when you do have something to say, it contributes greatly IMHO. I felt the title was one that had an adversarial tone to begin with as well, but the OP likes to go for the throat as opposed to discuss a case where skeptics are concerned to my experience.

View PostGrey Area, on 08 February 2013 - 03:37 PM, said:

On the point of time dilation.  This is not a form of time travel, or an effect on the body, and you certainly cannot dilate time in order to travel backwards.  Time Dilation is an 'Observed' effect that can be measured from the perspectives of two seperate, but synchronised viewpoints.

Agreed, and it is no answer to be sure. It does seem to fit the actual description better than ET, and my point was merely to illustrate that time travel is viable and we have a working model, whereas we do not with warp travel, which was touted as more likely. Until we get that working model, I do not believe it is a more likely answer and time travel seems to be a more viable technology - hypothetically anyway. Yet, at best, ET is a stab in the dark, no answer at all. With the woo woo in here, had I been inclined I could probably throw the Philadelphia experiment at this hypothesis, whilst I view it as a tall tale, many of these proponents of ET I have no doubt would be happy to argue otherwise.

View PostGrey Area, on 08 February 2013 - 03:37 PM, said:

This thread should have been more aptly titled 'Unverifiable'.  Because this is what this is, totally and utterly unverifiable.  Witness testimony is the only thing we have here, and simply stating that the witnesses were teachers and Vicars and medical professionals and so on and so forth does not give someone an automatic reliability clause.

It needs to be accepted that there are other explanations, no matter how implausible, and that includes that they all simply concocted a story and then told it, for whatever reasons, and there always will be alternative explanations, because there is no way to verify the accounts of the witnesses

I could not agree more, and no matter what explanation is offered, it is more than obvious that no option other than ET is likely to be considered. Vallee's flying saucer with propellors is one such precedent that questions such a straight line solution. I am more than willing to have a good look at all testimony, but even these guys canot tell me "What can only be described as ET in Father Gill's description" as I believe his recollection does not qualify ET as an answer. Too many questions.

Thank you for your input. I enjoyed your perspective.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.' - Sir Isaac Newton. "Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit." Ed Stewart. Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs. Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Sir Wearer of Hats.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users