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

#91    SwampgasBalloonBoy

SwampgasBalloonBoy

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 330 posts
  • Joined:02 Jul 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:1 Star State

Posted 28 January 2013 - 01:52 AM

View Postpsyche101, on 28 January 2013 - 01:42 AM, said:

Yes that is time dilation, nature spreading out time. NASA concludes with a wormholes that time is not directional, and theoretically can be traversed in any direction.

Length contraction also comes into the picture at those speeds. - LINK

And more than the people, that craft is not engineered for space. That shuts out ET. If a species is to have come from another planet, it needs to cross space  Nobody is crossing space in what was described by Father Gill, just as the farmers saucer that Valles wrote about was not going into space powered by propellors.

How would one get to a wormhole?

And report of ET ship with viewing deck are not unique is there?

Be back later. watching some Downton Abbey

Edited by SwampgasBalloonBoy, 28 January 2013 - 01:56 AM.


#92    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 30,011 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 28 January 2013 - 01:58 AM

View Postbison, on 26 January 2013 - 06:47 PM, said:

It's possible that the scientific method itself has not prevented the broad and open acceptance of evidence for an extraterrestrial presence at Earth. Political and emotional considerations enter into this, too. Science, being a work in progress, and far from perfect, is subject to preconceptions, inertia, and (sometimes unconscious) biases.

That is absolute Codswallop. From the days of Drake and Sagan, real minds have been analysing the problem for decades. Dressing your claim up in prose and woo woo does not take away from the achievements of these great pioneers. Boys playing war games have merely convoluted the field. Considering the lousy management of the study of the phenomena  and so many grown men "afraid of ghosts" influenced by pop culture, I am surprised that the field retains as much credibility as it does today. That the wo woo side exists at all is merely a sad testament to the lack of education being provided in the public system. The many who remain in tainted by the alluring side of pop culture, and the fame bowing to that brings, are overshadowing the real leaps forward, small as they may be, by the real brains tackling this phenomena. Whilst absolute embarrassments to science, and the human species for that matter, such as Lier and Greer tout their unashamed garbology, Hawking, Greene, Kaku and such maintain the credibility these cretins feed from. We owe these great names a wealth of debt as without them, the UFO phenomena would be about as believable as Roswell Rods.

View Postbison, on 26 January 2013 - 06:47 PM, said:

It's also possible that there is another problem. What if *we* are the observed, trying to observe the observers? This would probably introduce complications. Suppose extraterrestrials observing us had a protocol that said that we were not be be allowed, as a species, to unambiguously know that we were being observed. They might feel that such knowledge would interfere with the sorts of human behavior they wish to study. Trying to observe such observers using the scientific method could be fruitless, or at least produce ambiguous results.

And it might be an International requirement that we wear green hats. This is based on imagination and science fiction  Our history goes nothing like this whatsoever  and all we have to work with is a pool of one. Once we dip into imagination land, no ideal is right or wrong. Time travel becomes very plausible in such an open field. What you ETH'ers are simply refusing to admit is that the design of the craft is not one for interstellar travel. You want to pretend that in some fantasy land, it is workable, but you cannot present why. This takes ET from any structured and sensible evaluation.

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.


#93    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 30,011 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 28 January 2013 - 02:10 AM

View PostSwampgasBalloonBoy, on 28 January 2013 - 01:52 AM, said:

How would one get to a wormhole?

One creates it, all you need is the energy of a sun or two. Which in my mind, makes traversable wormholes rather unlikely in general. It is not only cresting one, keeping the entrance/exit open is another great hurdle. I do not know of a single one that has been observed in nature.

View PostSwampgasBalloonBoy, on 28 January 2013 - 01:52 AM, said:

And report of ET ship with viewing deck are not unique is there?

Please feel free, but the plural of anecdote is not data. How is that proof of ET, and not proof of time travel?

This is where we are parting. You are assuming that if someone else saw something that cannot be immediately explained then it must be proof of ET. You are also jumping to the technology over the basic possibilities to skip to ET. Other small craft have been reported also that are too small to cross space. The nonsense at Roswell tries to say the craft, that carried all those beings and crossed space is as big as a Volkwagen Beetle. I mean, lets face it, this makes no sense at all. Even is you could fit the occupants in the craft!. Kecksburg, smaller again, but something that propels itself through space? Physics take precedence here, and the claims simply do not add up. What we have is a design, this is not possible of doing what ETH'ers say it's function actually is. That is like me saying you can stick apples in your car and it will run. It will not. It will not work, and a 35 foot craft with viewing decks is not going to be crossing space. That just makes no sense whatsoever.

View PostSwampgasBalloonBoy, on 28 January 2013 - 01:52 AM, said:

Be back later. watching some Downton Abbey

I have no idea what that is, but I have to say it does not sound like my sort of thing. Downtown Abbey does not sound like it will have many explosions in it. I am sitting out the wrath of a cyclone at the moment.

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.


#94    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 30,011 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 28 January 2013 - 02:32 AM

View PostPaxus, on 26 January 2013 - 06:54 PM, said:

Hi zoser

No offense but I think what you wrote is flawed. Read that sentence again:


1st of all, there is nothing fundamentally flawed about the scientific method FOR WHAT IT IS. It is for doing science.
Perhaps you're comparing apples and oranges.
Discussing UFO vs ET craft and HOW you're discussing them, whether you're talking about belief, or proof, evidence vs proof, etc etc
It seems to me you are suffering from a simple misunderstanding with skeptics.
The second part of your sentence is also flawed because if said 'scientific method' proves something, then, no, it can't simply be denied....

Try to remember if skeptics do not agree with you, it's not because they don't believe in ET, it's because, after MUCH research, they believe that there hasn't been sufficient 'PROOF' to accept the ETH as an explination for UFO. (TO BE ABSOLUTELY SURE - remember MANY MANY MANY have been proven to be MISTAKEN!)
Also, Please note the difference between 'proof' and 'evidence'. Most skeptics agree there is PLENTY of evidence of the ETH but believe this evidence is mostly anecdotal or circumstantial. However, skeptics believe there is no proof. This is why they are skeptical of the ETH.
And, before making grand sweeping statements about skeptics ignorance, please remember most skeptics want to believe. This is why they are members here. The reason they are skeptics is that there is no proof. < A lot of skeptics find this, in itself disturbing... (with THOUSANDS or hundreds of thousands of sightings etc etc etc - You would expect there to be SOME proof if the ETH was true!!!)


Hi Pax


Beautifully said mate. Thank you for pointing that out, This is exactly how we all should look at this. I cannot shake the Mystery Airship of 1896, nor Vallee's saucer with propellors. Some strange things happen  but I think it is not the right option to just stick an ET label on it. In my mind, that is what the ETH'ers are accusing skeptics of. FInding an easy answer such as "black ops' or "they are lying" when this contingent is incapable of producing any better. Less so if anything, as we are faced with but one all encompassing option. ET can do anything.
It's a conundrum allright, but if we all stick our heads together and take such instances on as a blank page, they have a much better chance of actually resolving, then they do just being argued back and forth over one's favoured conclusions. At the end of the day, the performance is puzzling as per the description. THere is no way to attribute the origin of what Father Gill saw to any sourced based upon his description. Only cherry picking that description provides an answer of ET. And I think I have annoyed some people by pointing that out.
Indeed, one ray gun would go a long way to making any skeptics take an entirely different approach, yet the best we can be faced with is some slag from an Aluminium press claimed to be spaceship parts. When this is what we have to work with, I truly wonder why skepticism is not the only way to look at this mystery.

Cheers.

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.


#95    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 30,011 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 28 January 2013 - 02:42 AM

View PostLord Vetinari, on 26 January 2013 - 06:54 PM, said:

This is what i've often said. That is a basic principle of science, after all; don't interfere with what you're studying, whether it's chemical reactions or studying animal behaviour. Any kind of intrerference, like letting them know you're there, can affect their behaviour, after all.
(So maybe the ETs haven't been all that good at hiding themselves from us? Or, since people always insist that there's never been any hard evidence that they have been, maybe they are. Who knows.) :cry:


But as pointed out, never with intelligent species. We just land a ship in the shores and say Howdy Do. The only time we observe in stealth is when we cannot communicate with a species to ask it how it manages to fit into the ecosystem for our records.

It is not a basic principal of science, it is a convoluted Ideal borne from Star Trek fashioned to support the ETH. I imagine the Australian Indigenous, as well as native Americans sure as heck wish this was how we initiated first contact. You guys act like we are ants. We are not. That is another stupid ideal left over from the ETH. We are an intelligent species capable of traversing the stars, and communicating in many different ways. No matter how you look at this, Ants are not going to come up with plasma Tellies. That is the big difference, we have attained the intelligence to answer first contact. Not one of the species we observe can mange this.

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.


#96    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 30,011 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 28 January 2013 - 04:09 AM

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle might not seem so prophetic when we note that he was taken in by two little girls with a brownie camera. In the case of the Cottingley Fairies, his adage to the improbable could not have been more of the mark.

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.


#97    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 16,641 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet TEXAS

Posted 28 January 2013 - 04:16 AM

THe best thing about being Human ! We can forget,we can remember to forget ,and we can forget to forget .ANd we can even not even Give a Flippin care about it !
THe Worst we will be is Human as we tend to be . But If we stop Dreaming and Looking Only board we will be !

This is a Work in Progress!

#98    SwampgasBalloonBoy

SwampgasBalloonBoy

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 330 posts
  • Joined:02 Jul 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:1 Star State

Posted 28 January 2013 - 05:10 AM

View Postpsyche101, on 28 January 2013 - 02:10 AM, said:

One creates it, all you need is the energy of a sun or two. Which in my mind, makes traversable wormholes rather unlikely in general. It is not only cresting one, keeping the entrance/exit open is another great hurdle. I do not know of a single one that has been observed in nature.

Since human are unlikely to create wormhole here on earth to be able to travel backward in time, can we eliminate the men from the future scenario as a possibility in this case? or at least put it last on the list of possibilities, even behind that of ET?

View Postpsyche101, on 28 January 2013 - 02:10 AM, said:

Please feel free, but the plural of anecdote is not data. How is that proof of ET, and not proof of time travel?

This is where we are parting. You are assuming that if someone else saw something that cannot be immediately explained then it must be proof of ET. You are also jumping to the technology over the basic possibilities to skip to ET. Other small craft have been reported also that are too small to cross space. The nonsense at Roswell tries to say the craft, that carried all those beings and crossed space is as big as a Volkwagen Beetle. I mean, lets face it, this makes no sense at all. Even is you could fit the occupants in the craft!. Kecksburg, smaller again, but something that propels itself through space? Physics take precedence here, and the claims simply do not add up. What we have is a design, this is not possible of doing what ETH'ers say it's function actually is. That is like me saying you can stick apples in your car and it will run. It will not. It will not work, and a 35 foot craft with viewing decks is not going to be crossing space. That just makes no sense whatsoever.

No, I am not assuming it is proof of ET. I am only making a connection that it could be ET since people have reported seeing non-human in crafts with viewing deck. So the mere fact that a craft containing a viewing deck completely ruled out the possibility of ET is nonsense.

While you accusing me of assuming, you are doing the same. You assumed that a 35 ft craft cannot travel in space. Do you know this for a fact? Maybe you do know something no of us do? :hmm:


#99    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 30,011 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 28 January 2013 - 07:01 AM

View PostSwampgasBalloonBoy, on 28 January 2013 - 05:10 AM, said:

Since human are unlikely to create wormhole here on earth to be able to travel backward in time, can we eliminate the men from the future scenario as a possibility in this case? or at least put it last on the list of possibilities, even behind that of ET?

Does that mean the Aliens are unlikely to ever create a wormhole to traverse space? Humans right now are unable to create a usable wormhole to the best of my knowledge for any reason. Will that change in 100 years? 1,000? 50? If you cannot answer that, why is ET a better candidate? The difference here is one of us is talking a difference in space, the other a difference in time, yet we are both discussing space-time. With hypothetical means of travel, I do not see how one negates the other when as far as we now, both are pretty much impossible for us, or anyone for that matter, to achieve.

You keep trying to give ET the upper hand here, yet claim no bias. I find that confusing. ET does not have any hand, the performance characteristics are anomalous and as such, some have attributed that anomaly to a higher power. In my mind, that is not an answer, that is self gratification. From where I sit, no answer "fits" perfectly. It's not a whole lot different to religion and invoking God to explain Cyclones IMHO.

View PostSwampgasBalloonBoy, on 28 January 2013 - 05:10 AM, said:

No, I am not assuming it is proof of ET. I am only making a connection that it could be ET since people have reported seeing non-human in crafts with viewing deck. So the mere fact that a craft containing a viewing deck completely ruled out the possibility of ET is nonsense.

I do not see how you can come to that conclusion. We are talking about a craft that has supposedly just crossed an Interstellar medium right? A spaceship by description right? As such a viewing deck is hardly something to be brushed over. You want to delve into specifics of theoretical space travel and time travel, but want to gloss over the fact that this craft clearly is designed for terrestrial use? In essence that is making things up to fit into a preconceived conclusion whilst negating aspects of Father Gills recollection. One comment I saw was "I suppose they were all doing mushies" but that has not been anything like the case has it? What has been presented is many links and ideas, I admit that the case is perplexing, but you want to think that either Father Gill described the craft wrong, or that the described viewing deck canot be as per the description. If that is the case, why do we then take the take of scenario and performance characteristics as gospel?

View PostSwampgasBalloonBoy, on 28 January 2013 - 05:10 AM, said:

While you accusing me of assuming, you are doing the same. You assumed that a 35 ft craft cannot travel in space. Do you know this for a fact? Maybe you do know something no of us do? :hmm:

I am not assuming that at all, I am unsure how you could have missed all the reasons why this is not an interstellar craft, namely size and the design. That craft is not crossing space. You can tell me until you are blue in the face that we do not know what a craft looks like, because all I will do is agree. The believers are attributing a saucer shape to alien craft, not I. All I have done is question resources vs capacity to hold them, and it makes no sense. Nor does the viewing deck. It is not enough to say, "Well it could be normal to have viewing decks on spacecraft". That defies logic and common sense, and all to push a certain conclusion.

What propulsion system can traverse light years yet carry enough fuel to comfortably fot in a 35 foot craft?
How do astronauts survive a distance between planets in a 35 foot craft?
How does a 35 foot craft hold enough supplies for an interstellar journey for craft and crew? Is it a TARDIS?
What conceivable notion is there for viewing decks on an interstellar craft, and what an immense waste of space for something so compact that does so much!

The only way to answer the above is to say "Aliens can do anything" and honestly, what sort if an answer is that? And that is not even touching the fact that not a single person on earth can confirm that this thing ever saw space  Not one single pair of eye's nor satellite has recorded an anomaly that could explain such.

You think that suggesting time travel is silly? Some have claimed that they can effectively rule out black ops! Yeah, I surely believe someone on this board has access to every single black op ever undertaken and can effectively rule such out! We have the Hiller platform, that was an experiment to prove that people thought of doing what Father Gill described. And in fact many designs were stabilised, a popular can manufacturer has such a product I believe. I can honestly say I do not know for certain if it was ever achieved, yet some feel they can say with confidence that it most cretainly was not. The truth is not to the best of their knowledge, but considering the people who state such do have a bias toward an ET solution, such is hardly surprising.

If so much logic has been expended on proving this is ET, then why can not one person tell me what is it about this craft that can only be ET and nothing else?

Edited by psyche101, 28 January 2013 - 07:04 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.


#100    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 30,011 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 28 January 2013 - 07:07 AM

View PostDONTEATUS, on 28 January 2013 - 04:16 AM, said:

THe best thing about being Human ! We can forget,we can remember to forget ,and we can forget to forget .ANd we can even not even Give a Flippin care about it !
THe Worst we will be is Human as we tend to be . But If we stop Dreaming and Looking Only board we will be !

And there is nothing wrong with dreaming about being better humans. We are what we are, and things will be what they will be. :tu:

Humans might be able to do more than Aliens I think we need to get the overlord scenario out of our heads. You never know who is coming to dinner, and who will be dinner! It's all up in the air at this stage of the 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.


#101    Admiral Rhubarb

Admiral Rhubarb

    An Inspiration to Millions

  • Member
  • 23,418 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hammerfest

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 28 January 2013 - 08:01 AM

View Postpsyche101, on 28 January 2013 - 02:42 AM, said:

But as pointed out, never with intelligent species. We just land a ship in the shores and say Howdy Do. The only time we observe in stealth is when we cannot communicate with a species to ask it how it manages to fit into the ecosystem for our records.

It is not a basic principal of science, it is a convoluted Ideal borne from Star Trek fashioned to support the ETH. I imagine the Australian Indigenous, as well as native Americans sure as heck wish this was how we initiated first contact. You guys act like we are ants. We are not. That is another stupid ideal left over from the ETH. We are an intelligent species capable of traversing the stars, and communicating in many different ways. No matter how you look at this, Ants are not going to come up with plasma Tellies. That is the big difference, we have attained the intelligence to answer first contact. Not one of the species we observe can mange this.
But until people like Darwin, and perhaps (though it didn't really work out for him in the end) Cook, exploration by Europeans was not really done on a scientific basis, was it? Landing a ship and saying Howdy Do is a very irresponsible way of going about it. Columbus and Cortés are hardly very good examples of good scientific practice, are they. They weren't interested in scientifically studying the natives, it was about either converting them or exploiting their rsources. I mean, you yourself say I imagine the Australian Indigenous, as well as native Americans sure as heck wish this was how we initiated first contact. So why insist that that's what any intelligent race would do, just because that's what Humans used to do? What I'm talking about is properly studying a whole planet - not just the Humans - all of it, its ecology, its fauna and flora. That would surely only be done in any proper and responsible way by not landing and saying Howdy Do, but by observing and perhaps taking samples. You seem to be assuming that the only thing that any ETs that found this Planet would be interested in would by making contact with us. That's a bit anthropocentric, isn't it, not to say big headed? we might indeed be just another kind of fauna to be studyied, like, as you say, Ants. They might not even be all that interested in us at all, it might be part of a wide-ranging and systematic program to catalogue* the whole solar System.
* or catalog

Quote

Ants are not going to come up with plasma Tellies
I expect they've gone way past that, and have probably moved on to Holograms.Or they've discarded TV altogether as they've realised that it's just a means for Governments to control the People and suppress dissent. Rather reminds me of Douglas Adams; "a race so incredibly primitive they still think digital watches are a pretty cool idea". :D

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


#102    quillius

quillius

    52.0839 N, 1.4328 E

  • Member
  • 4,955 posts
  • Joined:04 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:LONDON

  • A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.
    Albert Einstein

Posted 28 January 2013 - 10:10 AM

View Post1963, on 24 January 2013 - 11:56 AM, said:

Hi Quillius, I trust you are well my friend! :tu:

I confess to being a little unsure of your points on  the Ruwa Incident Q?...I agree that there are similarities between the sketches of the crafts in each of the cases, but am uncertain as to whether you feel that this is a negative aspect in validity of the Father Gill case...or the Ruwa testimony ?
I think that the Papua encounter being 35 years before the Zimbabwe case means that perhaps you are either mulling over the possibilities of a type of 'copycat hoaxing' on behalf of the African school?...or that you are connecting the two incidents and suggesting a link with the 'unknown-visitors' in both events?
Either way, I think that it is pretty possible...but have to say that the latter theory is more in my way of thinking, because as you might suspect, I give a great amount of credence to 'both' of these cases, even though I do not see a single  reasonable alternative to the ETH for the Gill case. In my humble opinion ...the Ruwa case ,and even the Westall case are not so far behind!

As for the apparent nonchalance of the Reverend and his flock in breaking away from their observations to perform their church service?...Well I have to say that , that didn't go unnoticed with me when I first read the testimony?...But after ruminating the case for quite some time afterwards,...it became clear to me that it wasn't such a strange thing for the minister to do after all.
The facts are that throughout the 3 day encounter, the Reverend Gill and his co-witnesses did not realise that the strange scene that they were watching were not in fact 'American's' operating their 'Technology' as Father Gill said that they had assumed. And so as the 'American's in their wonderfully advanced airship/platform' didn't look likely to land, he thought nothing of carrying out his vocational-duty by performing the service as normal. ...And also in his testimony, Gill does exude an air of confidence in his belief that the object was going to be present even when he broke off from his observations to have a spot of dinner!
Besides the fact that it is unknown if there was some kind of sentry left outside of the chapel with instructions to barge in and tell them of any interesting developments?

UFOnauts walking around their ships rare?...well I haven't got much time to find the numbers of these reports just now Q,...so i'll link you to an excellent thread that has been compiled by a good friend of mine over at AU, if you are interested in browsing ....


http://www.alien-ufos.com/ufonauts/


Cheers buddy.

Morning 1963, I am well thanks mate, hope you and the family are well also.

Apologies for delayed response..

I am not sure where I was going to be honest with regards to the similarities. I think it is very unusual to have people walk on top of a craft and as mentioned have only seen it in these two cases, that coupled with the the tight costumes and similar crafts. I do not think its a copy cat hoax at all. I do not think Ruwa was a hoax, not sure what happened but I do not think I have seen anything that suggests hoax.

Having read more into it I now do see the reasoning behind why the Father and co continued with the service whilst 'craft' was still outside. I guess I jump to the conclusion naturally that 'UFO' = awe and amazement. This event proves that this is not always the case.

Sorry its short buddy but will try and come back again by the end of the week.


#103    quillius

quillius

    52.0839 N, 1.4328 E

  • Member
  • 4,955 posts
  • Joined:04 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:LONDON

  • A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.
    Albert Einstein

Posted 28 January 2013 - 10:16 AM

View Postpsyche101, on 25 January 2013 - 03:18 AM, said:

Gidday!

I find it acceptable mate. The Reverend did not believe in ET, and he is adamant what he saw was humans. It seems reasonable that when he went outside and saw what he took to be a military exercise, it did grab his attention, but I think like watching anything that stands still, after a while, you attention would wander. Mine would to I think. I would suppose that he figured it was just repairs, and he might have even thought, we will be seeing more of these things. I remember reading when one of the mystery airship crashed, at least one witness walked up to a member of the crew and chatted nonchalantly with him.



With the viewing deck? Might I ask you to proved a side by side example mate, can't see it myself. I always thought the best drawings to come out of Ruwa looked more like Jupiter2 from Lost in Space.

Hey Psyche, apologies to you also mate for delayed response on this.

Anyhow as mentioned to 1963, I do now see the points you both make regarding why the Father and Co. continued with the service.

With regards to viewing deck, I dont think the sketches are similar because of this (I am not sure I even saw a deck mentioned or sketched in the Ruwa case, I meant the carft itself looked similar. The similarity in the accounts are to do with the 'beings' walking on/viewing from the top of craft, have you ever heard an account of the 'beings' walking on the top of UFO?

anyway back soon


#104    bison

bison

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,152 posts
  • Joined:13 Apr 2011

Posted 28 January 2013 - 06:40 PM

I'm sure most informed persons know that, scientifically speaking, time and space as separate entities have been superseded by the concept of spacetime. This is, or course, relevant to any discussion of the warping of space for travel to stellar distances, and of the idea of time travel.
Even in the modern conception of spacetime it is possible to select a space-like path or a time-like path with respect to warped spacetime. If we were to ignore the logical difficulties caused by pursuing a time-like path into the past, we might say that stellar space travel and time travel to the past were equally likely to occur. For the sake of discussion, let us assume this.
If we take seriously the time travel explanation of some flying saucer reports, then we must, to maintain consistency, allow the possibility of visits from extraterrestrials, too. Let 50% be examples of our own descendants visiting, and 50% extraterrestrials calling on us, if you like.
I'm not at all certain what a really advanced interstellar spacewarp  transport should look like, or how large it should be. Given sufficient opportunity to perfect the technology, even the most far flung journeys might be accomplished in a very brief time. It could be more like opening a door, stepping into a room, opening a door opposite, and stepping out onto the view of another world; not traveling through space, in the usual sense, bur making a radical short cut.  
Its not at all clear, either, that such a transport need be seen at all, when this is not desired. Even our relatively rudimentary science has already begun to work on stealth and invisibility technologies. Is it not logical to assume that very substantial advances along these lines we be available to more mature civilizations?


#105    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 30,011 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 28 January 2013 - 11:38 PM

View PostLord Vetinari, on 28 January 2013 - 08:01 AM, said:

But until people like Darwin, and perhaps (though it didn't really work out for him in the end) Cook, exploration by Europeans was not really done on a scientific basis, was it? Landing a ship and saying Howdy Do is a very irresponsible way of going about it. Columbus and Cortés are hardly very good examples of good scientific practice, are they. They weren't interested in scientifically studying the natives, it was about either converting them or exploiting their rsources. I mean, you yourself say I imagine the Australian Indigenous, as well as native Americans sure as heck wish this was how we initiated first contact. So why insist that that's what any intelligent race would do, just because that's what Humans used to do? What I'm talking about is properly studying a whole planet - not just the Humans - all of it, its ecology, its fauna and flora. That would surely only be done in any proper and responsible way by not landing and saying Howdy Do, but by observing and perhaps taking samples. You seem to be assuming that the only thing that any ETs that found this Planet would be interested in would by making contact with us. That's a bit anthropocentric, isn't it, not to say big headed? we might indeed be just another kind of fauna to be studyied, like, as you say, Ants. They might not even be all that interested in us at all, it might be part of a wide-ranging and systematic program to catalogue* the whole solar System.
* or catalog

You are assuming we would re-write forst contact procedures  as opposed to amend them to make such more amicable? Why would that be? First contact with an intelligent species offeres a plethora of shortcuts, particularly in the instance such as you have mentioned above. Want a record of life on this planet? Here you go, here is our fossil record in digital format (and I am sure that an Aliens species capable of crossing space can decipher 1's and 0's if we can) and if you would like to know a little something about out flora? Here is a copy of our Svalbard Global Seed Vault records. Would there be anything else we can help you with?

How is it intelligent to spend decades doing something we have already done, and are willing to share? And indeed we are willing such information is public record. Would the intelligent thing to do not be to simply ask, and exchange information, as we do with first contact? Before the likes of Cook, contact was made between Australia's Indigenous and the Polynesian Islanders. That was amicable, and beneficial to both parties. Why would we not take elements from this, and realize the greed of Empires, not men, who destroyed First contact? As happened when New Zealand entered the picture?

That is why Australia's Indigenous, and the American Natives would wish first contact went like that, but it did not. Had it gone the way you suggested, perhaps many people might still be alive, first contact can evolve too, not just the people who initiate it. Even today, we will approach someone and just ask. Things had improved by the time New Zealand was colonised. The Waitangi treaty is the move forward, and it is not one into spying, but one of democracy and equal rights. We have changed the way we initiate first contact, we did it in a discussion. And now the Maori people are reaping the benefits of that very treaty.

I believe hiding in the shadows has a good chance of leading to distrust between species before forst contact can even be initiated. I think it is a more dangerous way to approach a new species. What is we were spooked by some ET "appearance" and nuked it? Not really our fault is it.

View PostLord Vetinari, on 28 January 2013 - 08:01 AM, said:

I expect they've gone way past that, and have probably moved on to Holograms.Or they've discarded TV altogether as they've realised that it's just a means for Governments to control the People and suppress dissent. Rather reminds me of Douglas Adams; "a race so incredibly primitive they still think digital watches are a pretty cool idea". :D

I suspect that if Ants are holograms then that is proof that Aliens do not exist at all. I mean, one follows the other, Just logical I am sure you agree.

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