271 replies to this topic

[psyche101]

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

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

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

*sighs*

The phrase "the likes of" specifically is not specific. It is amusing that he is making disapproving comments in the AA thread about exactly what he is doing in this thread.

[psyche101]

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

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.

How about a Lazer? US Patent US7219853 describes Lazer pencil beams as directional assistance tools.

Quote

The system is intended to determine the angular deviation of the missile to direct it into a target. It comprises a laser, a rotating convergent cylindrical lens to convert the laser beam into a flat, elongated, rotating pencil beam. The missile bears one detector scanned by the pencil beam and processing circuits for determining the polar coordinates of the missile and for controlling its rudders.

Which is loosely close to my first suggestion of some type of GPS?

[Paxus]

psyche101, on 04 February 2013 - 11:56 PM, said:

Gidday Mate!

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

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

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

HA!

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

Cheers.

I dunno - I sorta 'phase' out when things get heated or argumentative. I'm only interested in facts. The arguments make me tired....
I think people should stop talking about proof all the time. Call it evidence. There may be plenty of evidence that ET has visited Earth, but no 'proof', as yet.....

Hah! Thanks for asking. I lost power for 6 DAYS!!!! (Not Happy!)
Glad you faired OK!

[theSOURCE]

Paxus, on 05 February 2013 - 10:15 AM, said:

I dunno - I sorta 'phase' out when things get heated or argumentative. I'm only interested in facts. The arguments make me tired....
I think people should stop talking about proof all the time. Call it evidence. There may be plenty of evidence that ET has visited Earth, but no 'proof', as yet.....

Hah! Thanks for asking. I lost power for 6 DAYS!!!! (Not Happy!)
Glad you faired OK!

If I may interject, I feel that is the crux of the problem. It seems as though the debate has polarized between whether or not the UFO phenomenon is about aliens.

As I've stated through the years I've been here, I feel that that the "us verses them" attitude robs us from any potentially important scientific discoveries that may exist.

Just speculating, but UFOs may actually be a natural, undiscovered source by which we may someday use as a means to explore deep space.

This planet we live on is filled with as yet undiscovered or unexplained natural mysteries. Why bring unsubstantiated claims into the mix just to muddy the waters? Forget alienz. There's cooler stuff to found right here originating from good ol' mother Earth.

And before I'm flamed to death, I'd like to say that I'd be thrilled to discover that an alien species has travelled all the way from wherever just to visit us. But it also disappoints me no end that any in-depth study into the UFO phenomenon is neglected just because people would rather believe in ET than something a hell of a lot more interesting.

[quillius]

1963, on 04 February 2013 - 09:15 PM, said:

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

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

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

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

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


Cheers Buddy.

Hey 1963, interesting suggestions there mate....like you I am as technical as a banana so would be good to have some of the heavyweights offer some views/assistance/analysis.

[Chrlzs]

quillius, on 05 February 2013 - 11:18 AM, said:

Hey 1963, interesting suggestions there mate....like you I am as technical as a banana so would be good to have some of the heavyweights offer some views/assistance/analysis.

Well, I make no claims as a 'heavyweight' (hey quill, how did you know I was a tad portly?), but I do know my optics *very* well, and my general science/physics grasp is ok, I guess...  so here's my lightweight understanding ...

The Kerr effect...?  This is something that affects polarised reflected light only.  It works at a small scale and only on light reflected from certain crystalline magnetised materials by its nature.  As such, I don't see any way it could cause a halo around someone.  There is a related thing called the Faraday effect that refers to changes in polarised light affected by large scale magnetic fields (eg starlight as it travels across the galaxies/near to our Sun)..  Problem is, that it is a quite small effect and again only affects the polarisation, not the actual amount of light.. It is difficult to see how this (or any) polarising effect could work to create a halo.

The more general Electro-Optic Effect...?  That only happens within some very specific solid materials - it won't create a halo around a person in air..


But don't get me wrong - there are some relatively simple ways you can create a halo effect given a bit of creative license - ask any good theatre special effects person!  I've even done it myself for some gothic-ish portraiture (no, I'm not showing you as it was for commercial use, sorry!).  So I don't think you have to look for anything really exotic.. but if you want a vaguely sciency one, you could maybe assume that the person was highly statically charged, and that something (smoke/dust/gas/?) around them was being affected by that.. add a bit of back lighting and hey presto!

Me?  I think Father Gill has just conjoined his memories to a lucid dream.. or alternatively, he's like my Grandad - great at making up stories and after telling them twice or more (each time getting more dramatic) he genuinely believed the added details, or even the whole thing... RIP Gramps!

I apologise if there were multiple witnesses who also *independently* verified the haloes without talking first to the good father..  I haven't really been keeping up with this thread - shame on me..

[1963]

quillius, on 05 February 2013 - 11:18 AM, said:

Hey 1963, interesting suggestions there mate....like you I am as technical as a banana so would be good to have some of the heavyweights offer some views/assistance/analysis.

Amen to that my friend! ..[but it won't happen!]

And also Quillius, here's an article that should interest you as it answers a question that you have been posing,..the one about there only being 25 signatories on the witness statement!


"Gill had drawings made and obtained the signatures of witnesses.  There were thirty-eight in all, of whom twenty-five signed the report (the children were excluded).  Apart from Gill, the witnesses included five Papuan teachers and three medical assistants."

...from a section of study into UFO literature by Professor A H Lawson at California State University, using J Allen Hynek's UFO Report....


http://radiantufo.bl...new-guinea.html



...Also Q, this section of Hynek's interview with Gill seems to suggest that it wasn't possible for the witnesses to see if the figures had any hair,...and also possibly, that Hyneck was of the opinion that the visual-anomaly around the figures may have been the result of 'space suits' ....



They seemed to be illuminated in two ways: (a) by reflected light, as men seen working high up on a building at night caught by the glare of an oxy-acetylene torch, and ( by this curious halo which outlined them, following every contour of their figures and yet did not touch them. In fact, they seemed to be illuminated themselves in the sameway as the machine was. This is indicated in Fr. Gill's diagram.
When asked whether he thought they were wearing space suits, he replied

"I couldn't say. It may be so, that would seem to be a possible explanation of the double outline, but I could not see any such suits."

"I asked him whether he could see any details, such as the colour of their skins. He replied that they were too far away to see such details, but that he would say they were probably pale. As for the details of their bodies, all he could be sure of was that they had the outline of normal human beings from the waist up. Their legs were hidden by the sides of the craft. If wearing clothes they were very tight fitting."


ps..While I find this article helpful,and have checked the professor's credentials [excellent by the way],  I also have to mention that I find the errors in a paper by a professor of English,..a bit odd?
...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.

[bison]

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.

Edited by bison, 05 February 2013 - 04:07 PM.

[quillius]

psyche101, on 04 February 2013 - 11:41 PM, said:

Gidday Mate

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



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



Physical description and interaction. A strong indication of familiarity.



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



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



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




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



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

Cheers.

Gidday Psyche,

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.

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

Edited by quillius, 05 February 2013 - 04:58 PM.

[quillius]

psyche101, on 05 February 2013 - 01:45 AM, said:

How about a Lazer? US Patent US7219853 describes Lazer pencil beams as directional assistance tools.

Which is loosely close to my first suggestion of some type of GPS?

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?!??!

[quillius]

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

[quillius]

Chrlzs, on 05 February 2013 - 01:02 PM, said:

Well, I make no claims as a 'heavyweight' (hey quill, how did you know I was a tad portly?), but I do know my optics *very* well, and my general science/physics grasp is ok, I guess...  so here's my lightweight understanding ...

LOL, although you have mentioned it a few months back in jest

Chrlzs, on 05 February 2013 - 01:02 PM, said:

The Kerr effect...?  This is something that affects polarised reflected light only.  It works at a small scale and only on light reflected from certain crystalline magnetised materials by its nature.  As such, I don't see any way it could cause a halo around someone.  There is a related thing called the Faraday effect that refers to changes in polarised light affected by large scale magnetic fields (eg starlight as it travels across the galaxies/near to our Sun)..  Problem is, that it is a quite small effect and again only affects the polarisation, not the actual amount of light.. It is difficult to see how this (or any) polarising effect could work to create a halo.

The more general Electro-Optic Effect...?  That only happens within some very specific solid materials - it won't create a halo around a person in air..


But don't get me wrong - there are some relatively simple ways you can create a halo effect given a bit of creative license - ask any good theatre special effects person!  I've even done it myself for some gothic-ish portraiture (no, I'm not showing you as it was for commercial use, sorry!).  So I don't think you have to look for anything really exotic.. but if you want a vaguely sciency one, you could maybe assume that the person was highly statically charged, and that something (smoke/dust/gas/?) around them was being affected by that.. add a bit of back lighting and hey presto!

thanks for your opinion I am sure it will help and gives us another more informed perspective on this aspect.

Chrlzs, on 05 February 2013 - 01:02 PM, said:

Me?  I think Father Gill has just conjoined his memories to a lucid dream.. or alternatively, he's like my Grandad - great at making up stories and after telling them twice or more (each time getting more dramatic) he genuinely believed the added details, or even the whole thing... RIP Gramps!

I thought it was strange you setting yourself up like that...then I read.........

Chrlzs, on 05 February 2013 - 01:02 PM, said:

I apologise if there were multiple witnesses who also *independently* verified the haloes without talking first to the good father..  I haven't really been keeping up with this thread - shame on me..

realised you would leave yourself so exposed

[quillius]

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

Amen to that my friend! ..[but it won't happen!]

And also Quillius, here's an article that should interest you as it answers a question that you have been posing,..the one about there only being 25 signatories on the witness statement!


"Gill had drawings made and obtained the signatures of witnesses.  There were thirty-eight in all, of whom twenty-five signed the report (the children were excluded).  Apart from Gill, the witnesses included five Papuan teachers and three medical assistants."

...from a section of study into UFO literature by Professor A H Lawson at California State University, using J Allen Hynek's UFO Report....


http://radiantufo.bl...new-guinea.html

Hey 1963, excellent mate, I had read all this before and somehow missed the underlined critical part....about the children......feels good to cross that one off.

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

...Also Q, this section of Hynek's interview with Gill seems to suggest that it wasn't possible for the witnesses to see if the figures had any hair,...and also possibly, that Hyneck was of the opinion that the visual-anomaly around the figures may have been the result of 'space suits' ....



They seemed to be illuminated in two ways: (a) by reflected light, as men seen working high up on a building at night caught by the glare of an oxy-acetylene torch, and ( by this curious halo which outlined them, following every contour of their figures and yet did not touch them. In fact, they seemed to be illuminated themselves in the sameway as the machine was. This is indicated in Fr. Gill's diagram.
When asked whether he thought they were wearing space suits, he replied

"I couldn't say. It may be so, that would seem to be a possible explanation of the double outline, but I could not see any such suits."

"I asked him whether he could see any details, such as the colour of their skins. He replied that they were too far away to see such details, but that he would say they were probably pale. As for the details of their bodies, all he could be sure of was that they had the outline of normal human beings from the waist up. Their legs were hidden by the sides of the craft. If wearing clothes they were very tight fitting."

I had seen this also mate and cant for the life of me work out why a spacesuit would result in a halo effect???? (with a gap remember)...not sure I am understanding their point here?

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

ps..While I find this article helpful,and have checked the professor's credentials [excellent by the way],  I also have to mention that I find the errors in a paper by a professor of English,..a bit odd?
...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.

ok I will also have a look, dont recall coming across them to date.....

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

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

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

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.
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?

[bison]

My solution to the

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.
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?

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.