271 replies to this topic

[quillius]

bison, on 05 February 2013 - 04:05 PM, said:

The luminous 'aura' surrounding the figures sounds as if it could be due to electrical ionization of the air surrounding them. Such ionization is apparently common in flying saucer reports. James Mc Campbell, ufo researcher, went into this aspect of the subject some years ago in his book 'Ufology'. The luminous surrounds could appear this way because, looking at the figures straight on, the thinnest cross section, and so, least luminous view of the ionized area is afforded. Looking to the sides of the figures, and so, along the sides  of the ionized area and through a longer cross section of it, greater luminosity is observed.

Hello Bison,  would this visual effect you describe account for the gap between the aura and the beings?

also any idea as to why Hynek suggested a space suit could explain this aura and gap?

[quillius]

1963, on 05 February 2013 - 01:08 PM, said:

...Also,..perhaps you or anyone else could help ?...I have been trying to locate the original report from Hynek, as well as the CUFOS  Hynek/Boianai witness tapes that have been mentioned in a couple of articles??...but so far, they are proving to be a tad elusive!

Cheers Buddy.

struggling with this one 1963.......I have spent a few hours even trying to go via the transcript route which sometimes leads back to the tapes but it was to no avail...

[bison]

quillius, on 05 February 2013 - 09:22 PM, said:

Hello Bison,  would this visual effect you describe account for the gap between the aura and the beings?

also any idea as to why Hynek suggested a space suit could explain this aura and gap?

  I had the idea, which I probably didn't explain very well, that the effect of an 'aura' around, but not touching the figures might be explained by the viewing angle, with respect to each figure. I reasoned that the ionized zone around each figure would appear to glow brightest when viewed along the sides, rather than straight on.
Picture each zone of ionization, around each figure, as a box with a flat side facing the observer. Looking at the figure directly through this flat side would present the  least possible thickness of ionized air to view, and so, presumably the least luminosity. Looking to either side of the figures would present a sightline through a greater thickness of ionized air, and so, I reasoned, a greater luminosity.
I don't know exactly what Dr. Hynek had in mind about the light effect from spacesuits. Perhaps he thought that they would be shiny, and reflect light. I don't quite see how this could produce an effect of a aura-like surround of each figure

Edited by bison, 05 February 2013 - 10:55 PM.

[psyche101]

quillius, on 05 February 2013 - 04:56 PM, said:

Gidday Psyche,

Gidday Mate

quillius, on 05 February 2013 - 04:56 PM, said:

thanks for detailed repsonse and addressing each point, apologies if I dont reply in the same fashion but have serious time constraints plus not sure what I can add. I guess there are two quick things I would like to cover, firstly the Mokele Mbembe comparison, although always possible I find that the teachers for example that made up part of the group would not have be prone to such easy influence yes still provided signatures to quite an amazing event. Although more investigation into this may be prudent.

With Mokele Mbembe though, the natives in question were adults. Rather than prone to influence, I thought it was more for personal gain. You make the visitor happy, he rewards you. Just trade.

quillius, on 05 February 2013 - 04:56 PM, said:

Secondly the reason for Father Gill describing them as human needs further investigating although your points noted.

I will suggest we look into everyone of these points and detail and see what we can all dig up....i.e. start with all descriptions by whom/when and exact words with regards to the description of beings....I have found some differences in a few of the statements, but have also found that many people have relayed what the Father has said in their own words...which obviously gets very messy. Hence my suggestion we strip it all back and provide every phrase we can find that is in the exact words of said indivduals and post them all together, with time frames....then move onto doing the same with all the glow descriptions , craft descriptions etc etc.

edit to add: God only knows where I will find the time considering I couldnt even give you a better response to above post due to time

Yes, as you know, this has perplexed many people who have looked at this case. In addition to the more exotic explanations out there, I have seen this one, which is rather mundane, and sure to draw the ire of those already settled on an answer here, however, even if only as a point of discussion, it bears mentioning  Refraction seems to be the answer to the Min Min phenomena according the Professor Jack Pettigrew's papers, this seems to be suggesting something similar.




I put in some observing time at a nearby lake to double check the limitations of visibility of humans on ships. For Gill to be able to observe humans waving at him, the ship definitely had to be well under a mile in distance. Forget mirages.One of the days I picked for observing involved very calm conditions. The sailboats crept very slowly across my field of vision. The surface was close to mirror-like. The ship hulls doubled. The sails only partly doubled. This I expected and felt would explain the thickness of the saucers drawn by Guyorobo and Rarata. The sky’s blueness was mirrored in the water and I noticed the horizon was virtually invisible, so well did the colours match and nearly blend. At night, one could imagine the horizon completely lost. I also observed on this occasion discontinuities in the water that ran at a mostly horizontal angle to the real horizon. They were undoubtedly related to a slight wind. Some ran across the field of vision between me and a sailboat. One of these discontinuities was fairly close to the shore and seemed rather stable over the period of observation of roughly an hour. I am unaware of the precise reason for this stability – if it involved a miniature sea-breeze effect, water currents, or whatever. Move this into the night, illuminate it by boat light, and one might get the effect of a false horizon.
We do know that there is a type of night fishing that takes place in Pacific regions. Squid fishermen rig their boats with powerful incandescent lamps of many thousands of watts to lure squid up from great depths. [20] Such a boat could account for the observation “It was sending a bright white halo – throwing it up on the base of the cloud”. That’s hardly typical of Venus! Such a fishing vessel would also account for the slow drifting motion of the object and its long presence in the area. Other types of boats would have traversed such an area in a much briefer period of time.We have here, I think, most of the elements needed for an acceptably unparadoxical resolution to the Gill classic. It is basically a real-world example of one of those double-interpretation perceptual puzzles. Look at a drawing one way, you see a duck; look at it a different way and you see a rabbit. Look at the Gill saucer one way and you see a hovering saucer decked out in lasers, landing legs and windows. Look at it a different way and you see a brilliantly lit squid-boat with rigging, fishing nets draped in the water, portholes, and men too busy to do more than wave at the natives they see onshore. Nobody is hallucinating or lying or behaving stupidly. The situation simply invites two interpretations and Gill’s party locked into the wrong one, tricked by a false horizon which led them to think the image was hanging in the air.
Can we be certain this is what really happened? There are still things we might feel uneasy about. Could dozens of people really be fooled this way for hours without somebody on site tricking out the correct answer? How likely is it that squid-boats visit the region so rarely that Gill and everyone else never were able to put two and two together on a later occasion, like when wind conditions were different? Though I consider these unanswerable, my retort must be. “Well, do you have a better solution?” Hoaxes, Venus-induced hallucinations, and extraterrestrials seem a good deal harder to swallow than this scenario.
That this is a disappointingly unrevolutionary solution, I fully concede. It is also rather boring from a psycho-social perspective. My hope that Cargo belief would provide a key to the case was thoroughly dashed in the end. I almost feel obliged to apologise for what feels more like tying up an old loose end than the offering of useful insights into the nature of the UFO phenomenon. Still, it was history’s best close encounter. Excelsior, I suppose.
LINK

Drawing based on Father Gill’s description

[psyche101]

quillius, on 05 February 2013 - 05:00 PM, said:

I do like that line of thought although unsure if that patent supports the theory entirely, I say this because I think the patent was applied for around 2007 with the earliest cited possible 'prior art' goes back to 1979...I may well be wrong?!??!

Indeed, however that is the culmination of a long process. Maser? Masers are naturally occurring as well in astrophysics. However, they do require high magnetic fields, and difficultly with cooling, which could lead back to the blue shaft, perhaps visible through excitation of molecules in the atmosphere? It's a stab I admit, and we might be over-thinking it a bit, I have a suspicion that the answer is simpler than this.

[psyche101]

quillius, on 05 February 2013 - 05:19 PM, said:

I quite like it when debates get a little heated, it definately ensures everyones A game is brought to the table and just shows there is passion behind the debaters...a common trait they share even though at each others throats.

Passion is OK, heat is OK, but the passion and heat is misdirected. Not one of these guys are reading my posts in full. Form what I can tell, they seem to be skimming them, picking out anything controversial, and basing a new attack, stating that I have provided an answer. I have told these guys that I have not provided an answer, but I see no reason to invoke ET, at least not yet. I have asked time and time again "what can only be ET in Father Gill's description" to which I get replies about mother ships, force fields, and claiming Father Gill misinterpreted humans in the same breath as saying how his profession makes his testimony honest. Yet they dismiss is own description. I am really not sure what these people want. One seems to want a mystery to stay a mystery, and make up some sort of invasion force story to go with it, the other is not going to consider anything other than ET, not matter what is put forth. Hell, I am getting claims that Warp travel is just around the corner, and that time travel is ridiculous  yet one man has time travelled, and we have no working models of warp drive. Then we get all this stuff about wormholes, yet these blokes do not seem to ba able to fathom that is is easier to make a short wormhole than a long one, which again is a simpler step to time travel than it is to warp. If we could make a wormhole, I suspect we could get pretty close to c. If we could get close to c, then we could make a short wormhole, put one end of the contraption in a spaceship, rocket it around the solar system at 99% of c for 7 years, then land, pull out the wormhole, and bam. You have time travel, a traversable wormhole 500 years into the future, and back.

Uncle Phil stuffed this one up. No doubt. I suspect that might be where you got your first suspicion about Father Gill going back inside for dinner, Phil could not believe that either, and as such promptly labelled the claim a hoax. Menzel said he saw Venus. Well from page one that was never on the table. We might have a Venus, be we do not have Venusians. Human Beings were reported. Hendry said, not Venus - Mercury! Even worse I would say. It's a detailed explanation, and quite an effort, but I honestly think, no cigar. Campbell said both Venus and Mercury! But like I always say, the plural of anecdote does not = data. This just does not explain the human beings.  Cargo Cults (being whisked away from the planet) have also been proposed. I do not tink Father Gill is the "Cult" type. He is already spoken for. However, I do not dismiss the refraction hypothesis based upon Professor Jack Pettigrew's paper on Min Min lights. I think it is a starter.

I am not seeing passion, I am seeing panic. I think at realisation that this classic solid case that is undebunkable just might not be ET after all. Not one person who haas debated me has tried to understand the craft or why it might look as described. All I have seen is people inventing technological wonders to make this sound like it could be ET. That is a predisposed mindset, and I fell an open illustration of whet these very people accuse me of. Not considering all the options. One thing this thread does illustrate is the desperation of the die hard faithfuls. No matter what comes up, they are not going to let go of ET. Even though not one can tell me "What can only be ET in Father Gill's description". I am finding it disheartening. People are more one sided than I thought.

quillius, on 05 February 2013 - 05:19 PM, said:

ahh you see this is where I was going, Man suggests ET because of objects seen (whether plasma ET or other)...this fear is then possibly rationalised through ET...

what leads us to invoke God? is it fear? is it fear of death? There is a big discussion IMO here even reaching out to how life started....intelligent design and so on....I almost feel as if we can answer one then we will answer all, but yes maybe a structured thread one day would be good....maybe once we have looked into Father Gills event in detail.

Yes I do, and I do hope to discuss this further with you. Let me know when things slow down a bit, and we will open a thread. One thing, I do enjoy is my conversations here with you. I wish you were the benchmark for believers. After the latest rash of believers  had you not hung around I think I would go the way of the boon. Some of the stuff I see these days is far below the standard previously set on here.
I think I have provided more detail, and options than any other poster so far that has engaged me in debate. I just hope the bar raises in here. Right now it is one person saying "Why is this ET?" and everyone glaring and saying how dare you! Of course this is ET, we just need to look at it from a believers perspective.............

[psyche101]

Lord Vetinari, on 05 February 2013 - 06:51 PM, said:

Now seriously, (thank you Qullius for quoting this, I hadn't noticed it before). I'm not thinking? Do you know just how rude that is? I know you pride yourself on Blunt speaking, but that is just rude. What aren't I thinking about? Because I'm not convinced about your Time machine theory? That means I'm not thinking? Really.

Take it as rude, you take everything as rude. I find it rude that you skim my posts, refuse to adress them, and then continue to meander down a path I have already said I do not wish to wander, that being imagination. You do not mind being rude, but do not take pointing out that you ignore the bulk of my replies to focus on snippets that you feel you can sway.
Blunt is good. If i wore kid gloves, it might be another 20 posts before we get to this point, Do you not say you do not like bickering? Can you make your mind up about anything?

Lord Vetinari, on 05 February 2013 - 06:51 PM, said:

And I'm one of those "doing their damnedest to keep saying this is ET"? when did I say it must have been E flaming T? You're just putting words in my mouth. You seem to assume that if someone doesn't automatically reach for one of the handy off-the-shelf Rational explanations (and how desperate they are in this case), then that means that they think it must have been ET? Is a Time machine any more plausible than an ET craft? No, I don't think it is. Is a secret nuclear powered fying device more plausible than ET? No, I don't think it is. Is that the same as saying it must be ET? No, it is not. I've never said that. Have we finally got that clear now?

Yes you indeed are. You might be masking your ETH side, but all you have done is attempt to push ET into the case, You have not considered any other option, and continue to ride me about suggesting time travel. Yet you have no comment of the very fact a man has time travelled, but we have no warp drive. Last time you and I got into an argument, it was the same thing, you only seem to be able to see one side, and refuse to accept there is debate about your proposals, as they do not answer all questions. Yes desperate is a good word. You refuse time travel, but accept force fields and imaginary mother sips. To be honest I am surprised that you have not yet offered robots.
So, no it is not clear, not one bit. If you do not hink ET is the only answer, why is the the only answer you consider, yet provide no reasoning to every other option other than "I do not think so"? I have provided you with many points, and even listed them out for you. Not one has been approached, you just push them to the side and say, nah, its just gotta be ET tech. You give nothing to work with, you give no reasoning, you just come up with a title and expect it to be heralded. Get some elbow grease. What exactly do you want from me? Just to say ET is on the table? As far as I am concerned, that may only happen when someone can tell me "What can only be ET in Father Gill's description".

bison, on 05 February 2013 - 09:02 PM, said:

My solution to the My solution to the few sources of habitual and conspicuous rudeness on this forum: To not read or respond to the posts of such persons, on a consistent basis.  I find it works quite well in improving the quality of my experience here.

You reckon? I think it makes you look weak, and your argument unsupported.

[psyche101]

quillius, on 05 February 2013 - 10:13 PM, said:

struggling with this one 1963.......I have spent a few hours even trying to go via the transcript route which sometimes leads back to the tapes but it was to no avail...

It's all been done before as well, some time ago. By the same person. Another option someone offerred over there:

Quote

What about the Corona SpySat Program...?

Check this out...

"Over three nights in June 1959, Fr. Gill and his entire congregation were witnesses to a remarkable close encounter of the third kind lasting several hours on each occasion...
Malcolm's Musings: Anomalies: UFOs over Boiani - in Father Gill's Own Words

Ufos over Papua New Guinea on the same night as father Gills.

On the night of Friday, 26th.June between 7:15 [1915 hrs] and 7.30 p.m. [1930 hrs], Mr. 'Ernie' Evennett saw what looked like a "...shooting star... greenish and very bright, with a trail of white fire behind it.
It descended quite close to me, appearing larger and larger, and slowing down until it hovered about 500 ft. above me at an angle of about 45 deg.
next day
Saturday, 27th. June, 1959, at 1940 hours Mr. R. L. Smith noticed a bright white spherical light...
then next day
“On Sunday, 28th., at 1820 hours, the bright light was again seen by Mr. and Mrs. Orwin.
It appeared in the same position as on the previous night, although it was not as bright at first."
Malcolm's Musings: Anomalies: UFOs Over Papua - the Same Nights as Father Gill

As 'unlikely' as it may seem, the month of June, 1959 IS also The Month a USA Spy Satellite Program called Corona begins...

"The Corona program was a series of American strategic reconnaissance satellites produced and operated by the Central Intelligence Agency Directorate of Science & Technology with substantial assistance from the U.S. Air Force.

"The Corona satellites were used for photographic surveillance of the Soviet Union (USSR), the People's Republic of China, and other areas beginning in June 1959 and ending in May 1972. "
Corona (satellite) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evennett's drawing of Ufo...

~
US Corona SpySat Recovery Image... ~rore

LINK

As soon as an alternative was entered there, the conversation seems to have ended. Yet these very people are fond of quoting Ben Rich who said we have tech 50 years in advance of what the public see.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

psyche101, on 06 February 2013 - 02:50 AM, said:

So, no it is not clear, not one bit. If you do not hink ET is the only answer, why is the the only answer you consider, yet provide no reasoning to every other option other than "I do not think so"? I have provided you with many points, and even listed them out for you. Not one has been approached, you just push them to the side and say, nah, its just gotta be ET tech. You give nothing to work with, you give no reasoning, you just come up with a title and expect it to be heralded. Get some elbow grease. What exactly do you want from me? Just to say ET is on the table? As far as I am concerned, that may only happen when someone can tell me "What can only be ET in Father Gill's description".

Please try to understand. I don't know whether you do have difficulty understanding*, but when did I say its just gotta be ET tech? Tell me that, please.
And please stop banging on about robots. If you keep banging on about robots, that can only demonstrate that you do not take the slightest notice of anything I have tried, again and again and again, to explain, and you deliberately not not take any notice. If you do not understand the difference between the robots that you keep on about, and robotic craft or probes, then I can only assume that you do have difficulty understanding, or you deliberately misunderstand in order to be sarcastic.

* Rude? no, just blunt. blunt is good.

"you ignore the bulk of my replies to focus on snippets that you feel you can sway."? It's called not quoting the whole post in order to save space. It is in fact a courtesy.

" I find it rude that you skim my posts, refuse to adress them, and then continue to meander down a path I have already said I do not wish to wander, that being imagination."? What else can one do in this instance, when all of the possible explanations that have been put forward are all equally imaginative? A time machine, or a nuclear powered hovering platform, or an ET craft? I'd say they're all equally imaginative, and there's no more reason to favour one over the other. There are objections to all of them, these objections being:
* Time machine: still entirely hypothetical, and raises just as many questions as the ET theory as to why the hypothetical they would choose to go back to that particular place & time from wherever they started out from. Simply suggesting Time machine purely on the basis that the occupants were reported as looking like Humans, and that you don't think it would be likely to be able to walk out on "deck" on a spacecraft, is surely leaping to an conclusion every bit as much as that it was ET.
* Nuclear Powered flying Platform: the facts (as opposed to "We don't know what they might have done in secret") are that no such thing has ever been constructed, as far as anyone knows. The practicalities of such a thing would be almost impossible to get round; the ideas for nuclear powered aircraft that were floated in the 1950s were for enormous intercontinetal bombers. The idea of being able to fit a reactor in something 35 ft in diameter, in 1959, I'm afraid does put it in entirely the same realm of the hypothetical as ET. And the suggestion is that this might account for the 'glow', if these were exposed reactor rods? can you imagine how much radiation that would scatter over the jungle and the good Fr. Gill and his colleagues? did any of them report so much as any hint of being exposed to radiation at all? Has any unexplained radioactivity bveen reported from the area where this occurred? Not to mention that the "crew" didn't seem to be too concerned, and you'd have thought that if it was something as ultra-sensitive as anything Nuclear powered, they'd be extremely unlikely to let it go wandering wherever they liked, and would keep it in very carefuly controlled airspace (for instance, the Nellis/Groom Lake range), and have it closely escorted at all times. The comparison with the Cash/Landrum incident in Texas is probably a red herring, as that was 21 years later, and they didn't seem to have made any progress, in fact even less so? So I think we can rule out anything Nuclear powered; anything terrestrial at any rate.
* So, ET?!   Something 35 ft in diamater needn't be impossible to be a space craft in itself, if it was designed for relatively short distances and not for interstellar travel; but then, an insterstellar craft might not have to be the size of the USS Enterprise, if the race constructing them had developed non-conventional methods of getting about; look at Carl Sagan's strange contraption in Contact. So, the "viewing gallery"?  Well, if it did not need to go into Space at all, but was designed to operate purely in atmosphere, that needn't be any more difficult from an aerodynamic point of view than the gondola of an Airship. It was, however, reported as taking off very quickly at very high speed, so if it was an Airship it would have to be a pretty unconventional one. Who would have been able to construct something like that in 1959? But, if the "open deck" was protected by some kind of, well, if I said "force field", people would start talking about Star Trek again, and completely disregard everything else I've said. But that might be a not entirely irrational explanation for the "glow" surrounding the peoples on board, might it not? And that might mean that people on the "deck" would be protected from the effects of the air at high speeds. There might also be the simple idea that the "open deck" was closed off at high speeds, and when preparing to exit the atmosphere, when it might be covered by aerodynamic fairings, much in the manner of re-entry shields on our early Spacecraft.

So, is it any more likely that it may have been ET? There's no proof that it was, and there are questions regarding the design of the craft. However, these questions could be answered if it was not designed to operate in Space, but, perhaps, may have been launched from some other craft. But the other two explanations are every bit as hypothetical, and they depend on the existence of technology of which there's no more proof of their existence, or even that it's possible to construct them, than ET.


I do hope that addresses some of the issues with which you were having difficulty.

[quillius]

bison, on 05 February 2013 - 10:50 PM, said:

I had the idea, which I probably didn't explain very well, that the effect of an 'aura' around, but not touching the figures might be explained by the viewing angle, with respect to each figure. I reasoned that the ionized zone around each figure would appear to glow brightest when viewed along the sides, rather than straight on.
Picture each zone of ionization, around each figure, as a box with a flat side facing the observer. Looking at the figure directly through this flat side would present the  least possible thickness of ionized air to view, and so, presumably the least luminosity. Looking to either side of the figures would present a sightline through a greater thickness of ionized air, and so, I reasoned, a greater luminosity.
I don't know exactly what Dr. Hynek had in mind about the light effect from spacesuits. Perhaps he thought that they would be shiny, and reflect light. I don't quite see how this could produce an effect of a aura-like surround of each figure

ok, I understand what you are saying now and think its a very good point. The only part that confuses me slightly is that for this to work wouldnt the particles have to be 'flat' as per your box comparison....let me try and explain (although not sure how)

lets first take a credit card and imagine it is slightly opaque but we can just about see through it when viewing it face on. Now from the side view the opaqueness is at its maximum and you will not be able to see through it. I believe this is what you describe which I understand. Now imagine we have a cigarette box say with the same level of opaqueness as the credit card. (actually can we change a cigarette box to something more square as opposed to oblong), so now when we look at the square box the thickness (opaqueness) is the same whatever our viewing angle......

so the question why do the ionized particles produce a credit card layer rather than a box....(assuming that is the case)?/?

[quillius]

psyche101, on 06 February 2013 - 12:06 AM, said:

Gidday Mate

With Mokele Mbembe though, the natives in question were adults. Rather than prone to influence, I thought it was more for personal gain. You make the visitor happy, he rewards you. Just trade.

Gidday Psyche,

I think this mind set would be far less prevelant in 'teachers' and 'nurses' that made up a large part of the 'witnesses' in Father Gills case.

Also at what point would they think its a step too far?

psyche101, on 06 February 2013 - 12:06 AM, said:

Yes, as you know, this has perplexed many people who have looked at this case. In addition to the more exotic explanations out there, I have seen this one, which is rather mundane, and sure to draw the ire of those already settled on an answer here, however, even if only as a point of discussion, it bears mentioning  Refraction seems to be the answer to the Min Min phenomena according the Professor Jack Pettigrew's papers, this seems to be suggesting something similar.

******snipped*******

I dont buy this one for various reasons. A few of those reasons would be the
-descriptions of how high the UFO was initially,
- other speed and manouvers that were described
- the underneath of craft described...to the extent of 'non'retractable' legs

there are more reasons, I think this is a non-starter IMO

Edited by quillius, 06 February 2013 - 09:57 AM.

[quillius]

psyche101, on 06 February 2013 - 02:58 AM, said:

It's all been done before as well, some time ago. By the same person. Another option someone offerred over there:

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

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'

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

[Slave2Fate]

I've mostly been lurking on this thread, just watching the back and forth. I agree with psyche that Father Gill's testimony of human occupants is very difficult to get around without bringing up the possibility that he was either lying or mistaken about what he saw. Which is a slippery slope that also drags into question his entire testimony. If he was mistaken about the occupants being human, what else might he have been mistaken about? Unfortunately with testimony like this we can't just take what we want from it and leave the rest, not if we want to remain objective at least. It's another case with insufficient evidence to fully resolve I'm afraid. Don't let that stop anyone from trying though, there may be pieces of the puzzle yet to be brought forth.

[quillius]

Slave2Fate, on 06 February 2013 - 10:59 AM, said:

I've mostly been lurking on this thread, just watching the back and forth. I agree with psyche that Father Gill's testimony of human occupants is very difficult to get around without bringing up the possibility that he was either lying or mistaken about what he saw. Which is a slippery slope that also drags into question his entire testimony. If he was mistaken about the occupants being human, what else might he have been mistaken about? Unfortunately with testimony like this we can't just take what we want from it and leave the rest, not if we want to remain objective at least. It's another case with insufficient evidence to fully resolve I'm afraid. Don't let that stop anyone from trying though, there may be pieces of the puzzle yet to be brought forth.

Hey S2F, I can see where Psyche is coming from, although I would just add that 'human' looking aliens have been very popular in reports over the years.

I am compiling everything I can find in Father Gills or other witnesses own words and see how they all compare with regards to teh human element

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

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 ....