271 replies to this topic

[1963]

Father Gill's UnDebunkable Case?

Hi all!

As a well confirmed member of the 'Pro-ETH-Club', and one that thoroughly enjoys seeing people on 'the other side of the fence' [so to speak] express just why they are of an opposing view of the veracity of some of my own preferred cases,.. I often have this nagging feeling of bewilderment about the reasons stated for the negative responses given with regards to the possibilities of certain testimonies being adequate proof of the probability of the ETH,...or even that I find often is the case that when what I consider pretty compelling evidence [usually in the form of reliable testimony] is presented by one of the excellent researchers that drop by these forums from time to time,[Karl 12 comes to mind]  is almost always ignored by the 'heavy-sceptics' altogether!
Does this mean that there is no none-extraterrestrial explanation possible?...if so, then why are you still opposed to the ETH?

A case such as this that I am fairly sure that most people here will already be familiar with, is The weird and wonderful 1959 Father Gill Papua New Guinea Encounters....

It wasn’t hyperbole. There are 38 witnesses. No other entity case comes close to that number. Twenty-five signed their names to a detailed report. Five of them were teachers and three were medical assistants. There was agreement the object was circular, had a wide base, a narrow upper deck, a type of legs, four human figures, and a shaft of blue light which shone upwards into the sky at an angle of 45°. It was visible for hours....

http://malcolmsanoma...-gills-own.html


here's a snippet of the main witness himself,..check him out and see if you think he is a snakeoil-salesman?





....And if that wasn't enough,..there is also independent corroboratory testimony that 'unearthly flying vehicles' were uninhibitedly parading around the vicinity at the time in question!


http://malcolmsanoma...ather.html#more


Though I admit that this case is a fairly-unusual one, with an unlikely scenario....it is also a case that has consistently rebuffed any kind of reasonable debunking!...and many have tried over the course of the 54 years or so since the event. And i'll even go so far as to say that it has made monkeys out of the high-priests of UFO-debunkery ....Phil Klass reckoned that the whole thing was just a story made up by Gill and corroborated by all of the other folk designed to wind up Father Crutwell, a friend of Gill's !...And Donald Menzel proclaimed that, he and all of the 37 other witnesses that were present along with Father Gill, as well as the other seven or so independent witnesses that I know about from other parts of the region had been foolish enough to have been fooled by 'VENUS', !...even though Father Gill mentioned that he could also see Venus at the time!......and funniest of all was that Menzel asserts that the waving occupants of  Venus the vehicle was "the witnesses own out of focus eyelashes!"...
The list of attempts to debunk this case goes on and on,...with silly explanations varying from 'moving planets' to 'mirages of boats' etc ...but the plain fact is that no other explanation, and please correct me if i'm wrong, but no matter the unfathomable motivations of operations being carried out by the occupants of those strange flying craft's that were witnessed by so many respectable witnesses on those three nights in Papua 1959 fits the scenario as good as the ETH!...



Cheers.

"The discovery of truth is prevented more effectively not by the false
appearance of things present and which mislead into error, not directly
by weakness of the reasoning powers, but by preconceived opinion, by
prejudice." - Schopenhauer



GORT...KLAATU BARADA NIKTO.

Edited by 1963, 22 January 2013 - 11:22 PM.

[psyche101]

Well knowing how much you enjoy my company, I will just pose what I find quite an anomaly to the entire forum in hopes someone might be able to answer the conundrum I see with Father Gill's recollection.

Father Gill said:

Quote

A: Well, of course, the whole thing was most extraordinary; the fact that we saw what appeared to be humans beings on it, I think, is the important thing.

And I think it is too. Lying, money and fame take a back seat due to Fathers position without some pretty damning evidence, which as far as I know, does not exist. They are not going to factor here. But what exactly is the case supposed to be conveying? It is indeed technology that sound's far in advance of anything we have, yet he not only saw humans, but gestured  Would an Alien know that a wave is a friendly gesture, and would an Alien repeat the gesture? Maybe? But no matter how we look at this, Father Gill states humans, so is this supposed to be an ET recollection, black ops, or is an alien joint venture being proposed here? It is not The Roswell claim, the dimensions and general description differ immensely, It is not any other crash that I can think of immediately, definitely not something like Kecksburg either, so I am not sure hat reverse engineering is an answer.

I think while this case may very well be as the title states, undebunkable, it is not proof of ET either. Like the Mystery Airship of 1896, it seems more of an OOPART possibly even from our own future than an alien. How would one put a definitive answer on something so bizarre? I do not thin turing to modern gods will expedite any conclusion.

I do not agree with the Phil Klass assessment of Venus and imagination, but Robert Schaffer looks at that angle with an interesting view:

Quote

In my book UFO Sightings, I summarize one reliable witness case of Witchcraft, taken from the 1689 edition of Saducismus Triumphatus by Joseph Glanvill, the J. Allen Hynek of the 17th Century. "In 1669, reports reached the Swedish king concerning a large-scale outbreak of witchcraft in the village of Mohra.... the devil had apparently drawn hundreds of the village's children into his grasp....The commissioners interviewed each of the children separately..'all of them, except some very little ones' told stories that were highly consistent." Forty-eight adults and children were executed for witchcraft, "the day being bright and glorious, and the sun shining, and some thousands of people being present at the spectacle." (As in Bernstein's Candide, "What a day, What a Day, for an Auto-da-Fe, what a sunny summer sky!")

More recently, we have seen dozens of children testifying to satanic molestation in Day Care centers, many of the claims simply impossible (involving elephants, jet planes, etc.). But people went to jail, anyway.

So I agree that the fact of this story being told in this manner is quite unusual, and that fact alone makes it worthy of study by psychologists. But it is not unprecedented, as there are similar instances of what appear to be mass delusions. It is certainly not evidence of ET, witchcraft, or any other extraordinary claim.

Again, I add the mystery airship of 1896. That one also involved plain old run of the mill humans. I would agree, this conundrum is fascinating, but so are tho other two examples from antiquity. We have a precedent for this general sort of mystery. As such, I really do not see ET as the only option, let alone an answer.

Quote

Q: Did you try to establish contact with the pilots of the
craft?

A: We did. As one of the men seemed to lean over as though over a rail and look down on us, I waved one hand overhead and the figure did the same as though a skipper on a boat waving to someone on a wharf. Couldn't see the rail but he seemed to lean over something with arms over it... could see him from just below waist up. Ananias, the teacher, waved both hands overhead and the two outside figures seemed to wave back - no doubt that movement made by arms was answered by the figures.

Q: What was the reaction by the native at signals?

A: Surprised and delighted. Small mission boys called out - everyone beckoned to invite the beings down but no audible responses....no expressions discernible on the face of the men - rather like players on a football field at night.

Hard to dismiss that men aren regularly mentioned. I expect Aliens to look like us, but I am not sure about exactly like us, and I do not think cultures and basic communications would be universal.

Edited by psyche101, 23 January 2013 - 12:35 AM.

[SwampgasBalloonBoy]

psyche101, on 23 January 2013 - 12:33 AM, said:

Well knowing how much you enjoy my company, I will just pose what I find quite an anomaly to the entire forum in hopes someone might be able to answer the conundrum I see with Father Gill's recollection.

Father Gill said:




And I think it is too. Lying, money and fame take a back seat due to Fathers position without some pretty damning evidence, which as far as I know, does not exist. They are not going to factor here. But what exactly is the case supposed to be conveying? It is indeed technology that sound's far in advance of anything we have, yet he not only saw humans, but gestured  Would an Alien know that a wave is a friendly gesture, and would an Alien repeat the gesture? Maybe? But no matter how we look at this, Father Gill states humans, so is this supposed to be an ET recollection, black ops, or is an alien joint venture being proposed here? It is not The Roswell claim, the dimensions and general description differ immensely, It is not any other crash that I can think of immediately, definitely not something like Kecksburg either, so I am not sure hat reverse engineering is an answer.

I think while this case may very well be as the title states, undebunkable, it is not proof of ET either. Like the Mystery Airship of 1896, it seems more of an OOPART possibly even from our own future than an alien. How would one put a definitive answer on something so bizarre? I do not thin turing to modern gods will expedite any conclusion.

I do not agree with the Phil Klass assessment of Venus and imagination, but Robert Schaffer looks at that angle with an interesting view:




Again, I add the mystery airship of 1896. That one also involved plain old run of the mill humans. I would agree, this conundrum is fascinating, but so are tho other two examples from antiquity. We have a precedent for this general sort of mystery. As such, I really do not see ET as the only option, let alone an answer.






Hard to dismiss that men aren regularly mentioned. I expect Aliens to look like us, but I am not sure about exactly like us, and I do not think cultures and basic communications would be universal.

I don't think he specifically said it was human. it appeared to be  human. Does a scarecrow or a mannequin appeared human? yes. Are they human? no. I think he just meant they got a head, neck, and arms, and behave like human(waving). I think you have your own bias just like you accused so many believers of having.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you think it could be something from the future?

[psyche101]

SwampgasBalloonBoy, on 23 January 2013 - 01:27 AM, said:

I don't think he specifically said it was human. it appeared to be  human. Does a scarecrow or a mannequin appeared human? yes. Are they human? no. I think he just meant they got a head, neck, and arms, and behave like human(waving). I think you have your own bias just like you accused so many believers of having.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you think it could be something from the future?

Why state Human then? Not "Human Like"? And what about the gestures, waving and the like, not to mention that these aliens have no quarantine concerns and know our culture? PNG would be a quarantine nightmare for an alien because it is pretty untouched for the larger part of it. I can tell the difference between a mannequin and a scarecrow and a human at 100 meters. You honestly cannot?

No, you are not wrong, a future craft seems more plausible than spacecraft, seeming as the culture and appearance match, it seems like someone or something familiar with us and our customs. Not to mention the co-incidence of appearance. That just stikes me as a long shot between planets to tick all the boxes. Just conversations over Oceans can go horribly wrong, this strikes me as rather a large gap to be seemingly familiar with.

My impression is because of all aspects of the story, the craft seems to be the only aliens sounding aspect. Do you see any connection to something like ET in the description of the occupants, in any way? Father Gill and his witnesses did not seem to think so, once they received a friendly wave, they ended up going inside, and missed the rest of the show. Many gestures were communicated. I cannot shake that familiarity. I am not sure why you see it as insignificant? May I impress upon you to expand?

You can call it bias, I call it methodology. The process of elimination. As I mentioned, we have precedents. Surely you do not feel the mystery Airship of 1896 was an Alien craft? Yet another anomaly here, and it had humans onboard something ahead of it's time as well this sounds more like something we imagine as "Black Op's". It is a mystery sure, but so are the occupants.

[SwampgasBalloonBoy]

psyche101, on 23 January 2013 - 02:15 AM, said:

Why state Human then? Not "Human Like"? And what about the gestures, waving and the like, not to mention that these aliens have no quarantine concerns and know our culture? PNG would be a quarantine nightmare for an alien because it is pretty untouched for the larger part of it. I can tell the difference between a mannequin and a scarecrow and a human at 100 meters. You honestly cannot?

No, you are not wrong, a future craft seems more plausible than spacecraft, seeming as the culture and appearance match, it seems like someone or something familiar with us and our customs. Not to mention the co-incidence of appearance. That just stikes me as a long shot between planets to tick all the boxes. Just conversations over Oceans can go horribly wrong, this strikes me as rather a large gap to be seemingly familiar with.

My impression is because of all aspects of the story, the craft seems to be the only aliens sounding aspect. Do you see any connection to something like ET in the description of the occupants, in any way? Father Gill and his witnesses did not seem to think so, once they received a friendly wave, they ended up going inside, and missed the rest of the show. Many gestures were communicated. I cannot shake that familiarity. I am not sure why you see it as insignificant? May I impress upon you to expand?

You can call it bias, I call it methodology. The process of elimination. As I mentioned, we have precedents. Surely you do not feel the mystery Airship of 1896 was an Alien craft? Yet another anomaly here, and it had humans onboard something ahead of it's time as well this sounds more like something we imagine as "Black Op's". It is a mystery sure, but so are the occupants.

I think you are being too specific with words, Psyche. You seemed to attack every misspoken words you could find. Here an excerpt from the link 1963 provided. It indicated that he didn't get a clear look at the beings.

"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 they 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 would think I can tell the difference between a human or a mannequin at 100 m away if it was during the day even if they were standing still. If they both stand still at night? then I'll probably need some movement to differentiate the two.

Why would he used "men" when addressing them instead of "unknown being"? To understand this, we have to ask ourselves, why do we address a male animal as "he" and not "it" or "a male gorilla"(as an example). Because we will likely pick words we often used. He said they "appeared human" because human are the best reference when making comparison with anything that moved like human. what other word could he used?

Quarantine concern? I am sure they're smart enough to know how. And why would you assumed they dont know anything about human culture?
I have never met a gorilla. However, I have read and watch enough to know I don't go up to them and shake their hand. If reports are true, then they've been here before. I am sure these "guys" would have learn enough about human to understand the basic behaviors.

A future craft is more plausible than spacecraft? this is where we differ. I think a space craft is way more plausible than time travelling human. What are the evidence for time travel other than hypothesis. Can you see what a mess it is for time travel? one thing affect another and on and on...this just seemed endless. doesn't seem logical.  A spacecraft seemed to just involved one reality, one time line. how could this be less plausible?

You perplexed the hell out of me, Psyche. You seemed to have an aversion to ETs. Seriously? time travel is more plausible than a spaceship travelling to another planet?

[bison]

Thanks 1963. I've read about the Fr. Gill case for years, but never heard or seen the Good Father telling of his experience in his own way.
I have to doubt that this was an instance of time travelers from our own future. It seems an overly-complicated explanation. First we have to assume that time travel from the future is possible, which is not at all clear. We must also assume that the paradoxes built into such time travel, which are as basic as logic, and cause and effect, can be ignored or overridden. Seems quite a lot to ask.  All this in service of what? To explain an approximately human appearance, and the rudimentary knowledge needed to respond to a wave? Extraterrestrials might easily have learned enough about us from our television broadcasts to do *that*! It doesn't seem too extraordinary that a roughly human shape might occur on some other planet, with conditions not too dissimilar to our own. We see examples of convergent evolution in very different types of creatures right here on Earth. Why not throughout space?  Perhaps such extraterrestrials are uniquely interested in us, because of what we have in common with them.
I don't think the comparisons to false memory syndrome or witch hysteria are likely to be very helpful in understanding this incident, either. Father Gill and his flock seem to have been remarkably relaxed about what was happening before them. There is no hint of hysteria or obsession. They even went along to evensong in the middle of their sighting!  Is there anything here comparable to the coercion, prompting and hypnotic manipulation that has produced those regrettable cases of false memories? it seems not.

Edited by bison, 23 January 2013 - 03:34 AM.

[psyche101]

SwampgasBalloonBoy, on 23 January 2013 - 03:13 AM, said:

I think you are being too specific with words, Psyche. You seemed to attack every misspoken words you could find. Here an excerpt from the link 1963 provided. It indicated that he didn't get a clear look at the beings.

"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 they 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."

Too specific with words? What else do we have to work with pray tell? From what I can see, conclusions are drawn from imagination. I am only trying to step that up a notch, and work with what we have, not what we imagine this case to be.

It is not attack, that is the believer mentality in you. It is evaluation. Did he say those words? Did he repeat them often? What does that mean if not a striking similarity identical to humans? Can other species exist that look just like humans? Of course! What makes you say that this is another species that looks like humans from another planet?

Please answer that. I am interested in your reply.

What about Father Gills words? What did he say that is completely different to my perplexing conundrum?

Quote

A: Well, of course, the whole thing was most extraordinary; the
fact that we saw what appeared to be humans beings on it, I
think, is the important thing.

He notes this as extraordinary too.

I take note of his words, and agree with him. It is an extraordinary aspect. Do you feel we should gloss over the terminology, and come to a conclusion without it?

SwampgasBalloonBoy, on 23 January 2013 - 03:13 AM, said:

I would think I can tell the difference between a human or a mannequin at 100 m away if it was during the day even if they were standing still. If they both stand still at night? then I'll probably need some movement to differentiate the two.

The craft was lit up, it was a bright white, which diminished to a yellow (Daylight colour to soft white, our everyday lighting works in these spectrums). So it was not "in the dark" If the mannequins had lights all around them, you would then see them, such as was the case here.

SwampgasBalloonBoy, on 23 January 2013 - 03:13 AM, said:

Why would he used "men" when addressing them instead of "unknown being"? To understand this, we have to ask ourselves, why do we address a male animal as "he" and not "it" or "a male gorilla"(as an example). Because we will likely pick words we often used. He said they "appeared human" because human are the best reference when making comparison with anything that moved like human. what other word could he used?

He could have used the words you just did. Appeared human. Also, humanoid, human like or even "look like us" would have been more of an indicator. This was not "like a human" he defined the sexes. Men. Yes, we use she or it, when familiar, as a general term with species we are specific with. We do not say, that is a male gorilla, as you say, we go "look at him" but Father Gill did use the word "men".

SwampgasBalloonBoy, on 23 January 2013 - 03:13 AM, said:

Quarantine concern? I am sure they're smart enough to know how. And why would you assumed they dont know anything about human culture?

That is a mighty big assumption, and much faith in Alien species. I think it is ludicrous that one can be smart enough to guard against the unknown. And I would consider an alien planet the unknown.

Why would they be aware of human culture? TV? That is not enough. We have enough trouble just communicating across seas, you think space would be a snap? What these "men" that Father Gill saw did was reciprocate a gesture with an expected reply, That indicates experience. I see that as another plus for being normal humans. What you are doing is assuming that some species has deciphered all out cultures, and acts appropriately in any given one. Personally, I think that is a big ask.

SwampgasBalloonBoy, on 23 January 2013 - 03:13 AM, said:

I have never met a gorilla. However, I have read and watch enough to know I don't go up to them and shake their hand. If reports are true, then they've been here before. I am sure these "guys" would have learn enough about human to understand the basic behaviors.

What? Because you believe some other report's you feel they support this report?

Does not work like that. If you go up to a Gorilla and he glares at you, and you glare back, it's not going to go well. That is essentially what these men did, Father Gill waved, they waved back, knowing it was a friendly gesture. Why do you think that basic behaviours can be observed, and simply then put into practise?

SwampgasBalloonBoy, on 23 January 2013 - 03:13 AM, said:

A future craft is more plausible than spacecraft? this is where we differ. I think a space craft is way more plausible than time travelling human. What are the evidence for time travel other than hypothesis. Can you see what a mess it is for time travel? one thing affect another and on and on...this just seemed endless. doesn't seem logical.  A spacecraft seemed to just involved one reality, one time line. how could this be less plausible?

OK, fair enough, you are entitled to your own thoughts. As am I. But are you also saying that a spacecraft would have balconies or railings as described by Father Gill, with a viewing deck, or that such a design would be sensible for crossing space?

I reckon you could do with listening to some Jacques Vallee. He could blow your mind with this sort of stuff. Parallel universe, time travel dimensional alternative, he is more on top of the subject than anyone I could think of. You want to bend space time to travel the Universe  but you cannot travel through part of the same medium? Interesting to say the least. I think you are contradicting yourself a bit there. Space is big. You need something special to get across it in a lifespan.

What evidence is the for exotic space travel? Such as would be required to get a tiny 35 foot craft to traverse space with occupants? The size suggest local travel, not interstellar.

What reports of astronomical events could possibly account for this craft leaving or entering the atmosphere  When did it leave our solar system when did it enter it? You cannot tell me we do not know, hundreds of thousands of people from Government agencies and private satellites to someone who just bought a telescope are looking up all day every day. How did they miss this? To say they all did is logical? How? Spacecraft are supposed to go into space! Not one UFO ever has been tracked entering, or leaving the atmosphere, let alone the solar system!

SwampgasBalloonBoy, on 23 January 2013 - 03:13 AM, said:

You perplexed the hell out of me, Psyche. You seemed to have an aversion to ETs. Seriously? time travel is more plausible than a spaceship travelling to another planet?

I have to say that same about you. Like the other believers already thinking "ohhh we got the skeptics this time!!" I see no more in your post other than a protest. What I want to know, is what is the actual Alien connection? Because from what I can see, it is assumption. The craft is out of place, I admit that, I cannot place a craft that can do what Father Gill described, but everything else about the story is very much an everyday event. So what I have done is break it down, the craft and the occupants, the occupants do not warrant ET do they? The craft is an anomaly, does that warrant ET does it? Using that logic, everything unidentified in the sky is from another planet, isn't it?

Do you understand time dilation? How would you describe that?

Instead of insisting I am wrong, can you tell me why ET is right? I understand why people would scream ET, the craft. I am pointing out that the craft is the only extraordinary aspect, such as the 1896 Airship Exhibited. How do we explain that event? That cannot be ET. What about the Witch claims I gave you? Eyewitnesses! We have a precedent, but what does it mean?

Edited by psyche101, 23 January 2013 - 04:54 AM.

[psyche101]

bison, on 23 January 2013 - 03:16 AM, said:

I have to doubt that this was an instance of time travelers from our own future. It seems an overly-complicated explanation. First we have to assume that time travel from the future is possible, which is not at all clear. We must also assume that the paradoxes built into such time travel, which are as basic as logic, and cause and effect, can be ignored or overridden. Seems quite a lot to ask.  

But folding or warping space is no problems at all?
And 35 foot wide craft are more than sufficient to traverse solar systems? With several occupants?

I am not saying this IS time travel, I am saying the instance seem to fit that expectation better than an ET expectation, as we envisage such. I find the viewing platform, friendly gesture's and pure observation fot that which we expect form time travel. I just thought black ops might be stretching it here, and am looking at the actual aspects of the recollection. If time travelling to PNG for an American resident, perhaps paradoxes can be overridden. Do we even know if a Grandfather Paradox, of a rolling film paradox is more likely than each other, or even have an effect on our current timeline?

bison, on 23 January 2013 - 03:16 AM, said:

All this in service of what? To explain an approximately human appearance, and the rudimentary knowledge needed to respond to a wave?

Culture, is what you are broad brushing, and misunderstandings have led to war.

Not only that, but what about the ship sugests it is made for space? The saucer description? What about the railing? That is like putting fly screens on a submarine.

bison, on 23 January 2013 - 03:16 AM, said:

Extraterrestrials might easily have learned enough about us from our television broadcasts to do *that*! It doesn't seem too extraordinary that a roughly human shape might occur on some other planet, with conditions not too dissimilar to our own. We see examples of convergent evolution in very different types of creatures right here on Earth. Why not throughout space?  Perhaps such extraterrestrials are uniquely interested in us, because of what we have in common with them.

Codswallop. As with the above example, if you watch a Gorilla and then go mirror it, you will get ripped to pieces. The shape and features are so identical that it is considered "one of us". That is conceivable I admit, but is it plausible that first contact is going to be a species that looks just like, and acts like us? No difference noticeable?

If commonality was of interest, why did they not land when invited than?

Is it because you are making up excuses as you go along? I am trying to make up nothing, time travel was a suggestion based on the fact that the occupants look like us, know our ways, and the craft seems built for observation, and it is too small to cross space. And it never went into space, So why is it a spaceship?

bison, on 23 January 2013 - 03:16 AM, said:

I don't think the comparisons to false memory syndrome or witch hysteria are likely to be very helpful in understanding this incident, either. Father Gill and his flock seem to have been remarkably relaxed about what was happening before them. There is no hint of hysteria or obsession. They even went along to evensong in the middle of their sighting!  Is there anything here comparable to the coercion, prompting and hypnotic manipulation that has produced those regrettable cases of false memories? it seems not.

No, I agree, but it does make for some interesting precedents. Particularly, the 1896 Airship. It to was an out of place technological wonder, that did not exist, that humans were seen talking from. How do you explain that? I think the 1896 Airship is quite comparable to Father Gills claim.

What about you Bison? I know you do not particularly like me after pointing out that Mr Kimbler was not kosher, and heck, he has gone rather quiet hasn't he, but you talk to me when it suits you. Hey, we cannot all be believers you know. What other than the ship itself do you see here as extraordinary? Do you see no point in isolating that which is anomalous from the recollection and trying to understand if the everyday can lead us in a direction?

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Time travel, psyche?
This is one of my favoruite stories, it doesn't sound very much like an interstellar vehicle, to be sure, but I don't know why people always insist that UFOs must be interstellar craft. It seems much more probable to me that they'd use small landing craft for flying in atmospheres and/or landing, and leave the mother ship out there somewhere. Of course some of the aspects of this story, such as the fact that they appear to be able to stroll about in the open air, provide some question marks in themselves, but perhaps they'd only come out 'on deck' when at low speed & low altitude. Or perhaps it's a kind of airship, where they could stroll about in the open air.
Anyway, this is one of the stories that always please me, because even the most Skeptical Skeptic would have to work hard to make any of the regular off-the-shelf Explanations (ballons, Flares, lighthouses etc) fit, and that's always pleases me.

[psyche101]

Lord Vetinari, on 23 January 2013 - 08:38 AM, said:

Time travel, psyche?

You of all people! The one who tells me I do not use my imagination enough LOL. This is where I was going with this. If Jacques Vallee can consider it, then I can. I think he is a few steps in front of any "Believer" in this forum!

Quote

60GCAT: Your theories about UFOs and other "paranormal" phenomena involve your metaphor of the "informational universe," where time and space and whatever other dimensions there might be act as a kind of cosmic computer database. What do you mean by that?

Vallee: You can get a consistent representation of reality if you look at the world as a collection of events, or 'instances' (as the philosophy of Occasionalism did in the eleventh century), rather than as a collection of material objects moving in 3-dimensional space as time flows. In virtual reality, of course, you can't tell the difference. In the real world information and energy are actually the same physical quantity. In a universe viewed as 'informational events' you should expect coincidences, telepathy, time travel, multiple realities--all those things that seem impossible in the 4-D energy universe. To me that's why puzzles like UFOs are interesting. I don't have a personal theory to "explain" them, but I see them as an opportunity to pose new questions. If it's true that information resides in the questions we ask, coming up with novel problems may be more important than having answers, at this stage of our very limited understanding of the universe.

LINK

You guys are all acting like I am saying this is the answer. I guess most expect this from a skeptic? I threw it out there, and people have picked up on it like a dog with a bone, Do you lot prefer a skeptic stays within expected guidelines? Or may I call it as I see it? I( am posing a question, this looks like humans on a vehicle that appears to exceed out technology. I seem to be considered a Heretic myself for simply repeating the actual witnesses description.

Lord Vetinari, on 23 January 2013 - 08:38 AM, said:

This is one of my favoruite stories, it doesn't sound very much like an interstellar vehicle, to be sure, but I don't know why people always insist that UFOs must be interstellar craft. It seems much more probable to me that they'd use small landing craft for flying in atmospheres and/or landing, and leave the mother ship out there somewhere. Of course some of the aspects of this story, such as the fact that they appear to be able to stroll about in the open air, provide some question marks in themselves, but perhaps they'd only come out 'on deck' when at low speed & low altitude. Or perhaps it's a kind of airship, where they could stroll about in the open air.

It does not sound like an Interstellar vehicle at all, it sounds like an observation vehicle hence my comment. What suggests alien? The craft, not the occupants isn't it. If say the same bunch of beings were working on somthing that the Father could not makle out, and could be anchored to the ground, would this still be considered an Alien claim?

Why does everyone insist this is a spaceship? It has no features a spaceship would have, and with the viewing deck, I cannot see it as a scout ship, as per your favourite explain-all. Balconies/railings on a spaceship are nonsense. Scout ship indeed! Bet those decks are something of a bother on every planet in the solar system expect Earth!

Lord Vetinari, on 23 January 2013 - 08:38 AM, said:

Anyway, this is one of the stories that always please me, because even the most Skeptical Skeptic would have to work hard to make any of the regular off-the-shelf Explanations (ballons, Flares, lighthouses etc) fit, and that's always pleases me.

I had expected more from you! This is believer mentality! Lets try and hurt the skeptics, so we can feel better about the bruises from a debate! Pretty ordinary mate. I never picked you as a vindictive type. But I have been wrong about you before I guess. I would have thought such below you with your bickering comments.


Can you tell me why this vehicle IS a spaceship? That is all I am asking, and it is upsetting you lot a great deal isn't it! Why is that???? You people tell me it is easy to harness the power of the sun, and warp space-time to cross space, and that Aliens are surely doing it all over the shop, but you say that bending part of that medium for time travel is impossible hey? I honestly would not consider that very open minded, nor logical.

I will ask you, what would you describe time dilation as? Is that a concept you accept?

Edited by psyche101, 23 January 2013 - 09:14 AM.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Who's trying to say it was a Spaceship? I said it wouldn't make a very good spaceship, didn't I? It certainly sounds more like something operated by Humans. Anyway, the reference to Skeptics was only a gentle wind-up, there should be no need for anyone to take offence. I was merely saying that, unless the good Father and his colleagues were colluding in an eleborate wind-up, there would seem to be little room for doubt that it was some kind of flying device, and that attempts to explain it as a misapprehension of something else seem a bit of a stretch.

[Sky Scanner]

Lord Vetinari, on 23 January 2013 - 09:20 AM, said:

Who's trying to say it was a Spaceship? I said it wouldn't make a very good spaceship, didn't I?

Personally I wouldn't draw a conclusion on that either way. As much as I like Vallee's work, I do sometimes think that some of these alternative thinkers try and over complicate things, create an even bigger mystery within an initial mystery. I have no idea what an alien craft 'should' look like, how it should behave, whether it could have decks or not, how it's occupants interact with us, what they know about us. We (humans) have not got to the stage of being able to send a craft across the voids of space, with occupants, and if we ever do then I can't see our current method of sending hardware into space as being the way we do it. So if we can't do it yet, have no benchmarks of what is needed, and what is capable for anything that could do this, then i'm not inclined to rule spaceships in or out.

[psyche101]

Lord Vetinari, on 23 January 2013 - 09:20 AM, said:

Who's trying to say it was a Spaceship? I said it wouldn't make a very good spaceship, didn't I? It certainly sounds more like something operated by Humans. Anyway, the reference to Skeptics was only a gentle wind-up, there should be no need for anyone to take offence. I was merely saying that, unless the good Father and his colleagues were colluding in an eleborate wind-up, there would seem to be little room for doubt that it was some kind of flying device, and that attempts to explain it as a misapprehension of something else seem a bit of a stretch.

My apologies, I thought you were when you said:

Quote

It seems much more probable to me that they'd use small landing craft for flying in atmospheres and/or landing

That you were referring to this particular craft. I just do now know why people reject time travel, but accept space travel, which if traveling at required speed, would be subject to time dilation, and therefore time travel as well. I am not saying it is the answer, not by a long shot, but looking for instances whereby humans might have access to an advanced vehicle. Mainly the 1896 Airship is a big inspiration. it seems to also have human traveling in a machine that was before it's time. I guess it could also be mad scientists working for Skunkworks or something! I just think the recollection could be pulled apart a bit.

Sorry if I am tense, it has been the end of a long and trying day, I think I'll just sign off and go have a Scotch. I was hoping this might give me some relief, but I do not think I am in the right frame of mind. Anyhoo, there is my thoughts up there, have at them, all I ask is a well thought out response. I figure it is a starting point. Reading your post back too, I think I read it wrong the first time. Sorry about that.

[psyche101]

Sky Scanner, on 23 January 2013 - 09:36 AM, said:

Personally I wouldn't draw a conclusion on that either way. As much as I like Vallee's work, I do sometimes think that some of these alternative thinkers try and over complicate things, create an even bigger mystery within an initial mystery. I have no idea what an alien craft 'should' look like, how it should behave, whether it could have decks or not, how it's occupants interact with us, what they know about us. We (humans) have not got to the stage of being able to send a craft across the voids of space, with occupants, and if we ever do then I can't see our current method of sending hardware into space as being the way we do it. So if we can't do it yet, have no benchmarks of what is needed, and what is capable for anything that could do this, then i'm not inclined to rule spaceships in or out.

I am not drawing conclusions, not by a long shot. Time travel was a suggestion, and nothing more. It seems an instance whereby human beings would have access to an advanced craft, and this tale seems to old to be black ops, we do not see this sort of technology today, not in the pipeline. If anyone has another suggestion whereby humans have access to advanced tech, I am all ears.

What I do see is an illogical ship for crossing space as we know it. It is not big enough to harness the energy of the sun, it has viewing decks, and the description of Human Beings is used frequently. The craft never went to space by any account, and I know of no celestial event at the time that could be the craft.

What I am really asking, is why is ET a candidate? It is only the craft is it not? Therefore, can we not break the story down and try to make sense of each piece as we know it, with what we have? Time travel might be completely impossible, but so might be bending space. We have a description of Human Beings, we have a craft that is small, and seems made for viewing. It's propulsion is the question is it not? Should that aspect not be a focus of any attempt to resolve the conundrum? Isolate the anomaly and try to work with that?

Edited by psyche101, 23 January 2013 - 09:47 AM.

[Sky Scanner]

psyche101, on 23 January 2013 - 09:46 AM, said:

I am not drawing conclusions, not by a long shot. Time travel was a suggestion, and nothing more. It seems an instance whereby human beings would have access to an advanced craft, and this tale seems to old to be black ops, we do not see this sort of technology today, not in the pipeline. If anyone has another suggestion whereby humans have access to advanced tech, I am all ears.

What I do see is an illogical ship for crossing space as we know it. It is not big enough to harness the energy of the sun, it has viewing decks, and the description of Human Beings is used frequently. The craft never went to space by any account, and I know of no celestial event at the time that could be the craft.

What I am really asking, is why is ET a candidate? It is only the craft is it not? Therefore, can we not break the story down and try to make sense of each piece as we know it, with what we have? Time travel might be completely impossible, but so might be bending space. We have a description of Human Beings, we have a craft that is small, and seems made for viewing. It's propulsion is the question is it not? Should that aspect not be a focus of any attempt to resolve the conundrum? Isolate the anomaly and try to work with that?

Oh I wasn't implying you was making a conclusion either way - I was just saying that I see nothing in this case to limit where it's origin might be from. My point was more along the lines that from the little amount of detail we have, all of it lays in line with humans, but if that explanation is lacking and there needs to be a more extreme explanation then I don't see the reasons given for favouring one scenario over another as being particularly convincing - time travel or ET both needs leaps of understanding to bridge the gaps and make this case fit. If we are exploring other possibilities then making assumptions about what is possible with an ET craft, or why it would be designed a certain way seems to be jumping the gun.

We have nothing to go in knowing how a craft would look like or behave (a craft capable of carrying intelligent life across the voids of space I mean)...if we can't do it, how can we use that lack of knowledge to rule in or out how something else might achieve it?

Edited by Sky Scanner, 23 January 2013 - 09:56 AM.