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

#31    bison

bison

    Psychic Spy

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

Posted 24 January 2013 - 12:41 AM

Reply to 1963;  Yes the video's sound is quite rough, even through earphones. Perhaps it could be 'cleaned up' via some technical means. They've taken some very old sound recordings (on cylinders) and done wonders with them.
On time travel:  The idea seems to be that they would break free of the time stream, and could jump back into it at whatever point desired. This either creates paradoxes, when traveling into the past, or, it's speculated, one is automatically shunted on to the time stream of another universe in which the changes one introduced into the past already existed!  It all seems remarkably speculative to me.
On the beings seen on the craft in the Gill case: Father Gill's drawings do show quite small figures, and only the upper half of them, at that. We don't know if their legs are of the same proportionate length as ours, or shorter, as reported of many flying saucer occupants. The view apparently wasn't close up enough to see much more than could be conveyed by 'stick figures'. One of Fr. Gill's drawings  has, within the written caption, the word "men", just like that, in quotes. This supports the tentative and figurative nature of the identification, not the severely literal interpretation that has been suggested.
Underwater extraterrestrial bases on Earth, or on other planets in this solar system seem entirely possible. We have explored so little of our own oceans with any great acuity, and the other planets even less so.
So, what did Father Gill and his flock see?  I don't know, or course, but the simplest explanation seems to be extraterrestrials. Not , as some would charge, simply because it is a fashionable, or appealing explanation, but because it takes account of probabilities that our rudimentary knowledge of the universe already suggest. It also answers questions that have been raised, and not, in my opinion, satisfyingly answered, about life in the universe, and the directions in which that life will develop.


#32    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 30,033 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 24 January 2013 - 01:17 AM

View PostSwampgasBalloonBoy, on 23 January 2013 - 09:22 PM, said:

Psyche, I think this could solve the conundrum regarding the observation of "human", "men". I have to admit, Father Gill and the other did say they saw "men". The most important question is, "ARE THOSE REALLY HUMAN?".


Wouldn't it be possible for the beings to want to get close to the villagers for better observation without frightening them? Could they be in some sort of human costume?

Look at what Hollywood costume maker are able to do. They can create realistic looking alien suit. Imagine if they put a man in a Predator costume(great action movie), and send him back to the villagers. Would the villagers have described seeing a "monster" and would ran for their life? Hell I would. If human are able to create very realistic looking costume, I would expect even better from a more advanced race. Yes, human had been known to create animal costumes to get close to them without frighten them. Why wouldn't a more advanced race thought of it?

Could they be in human costume? Why? Is the not really wandering away from what Father Gill has presented?

I think you are just really trying hard to come up with ways to call what Father Gill saw Alien, when he never used the word. That's the rub here. Aliens are not described, aliens are not mentioned. An exotic macine is. Man builds machines. I do not think we can build this just yet. Maybe we can, but that would to me be no better than saying that maybe he saw an alien and just didn't know it, but we know better and can interpret for him. I mean, can you rule out a secret project that nobody has seen yet? We do not now what goes on at Skunkworks, this might be the forerunner of some amazing technology that we still will not see for yet another 50 years. Can that be proven incorrect any more than an alien? I want to take that up a notch, and see if anything can be recognised when pulled down to it's smallest components.

The basic facts are nobody says aliens. People say the craft suggests that. People who were not there say this is Aliens, people who were there say I do not know. They did not look alien.

View PostSwampgasBalloonBoy, on 23 January 2013 - 09:22 PM, said:

Again, what is more plausible? ETs can get here or time travelling human?
   What is more plausible? ETs can make themselves "appeared human" or time travelling human?
   What is proven? Human can create realistic costume or time travelling human?

What is more plausible?

That spaceships will have viewing decks?
That ET will certainly be instantly familiar with us in culture and appearance?

View PostSwampgasBalloonBoy, on 23 January 2013 - 09:22 PM, said:

Didn't the skeptics always said, "the simplest explanation is the best"? Well, time travelling is too complex for me, costumes seemed much, much simpler. i can go to a store and buy an alien costume. If I have much more money, I could hire Hollywood artists to create much better one. Even if I am the richest man in the world, there's no way I could get a time machine.

Yes, but time travel is not the only option, and from what NASA say, it is theoretically possible. Yes you can buy a costume, but can you say that is indeed the case here? I am going a step further back. I am back at the description of human being, and trying to understand that. Separate from the craft. The process of elimination. That strikes me as more productive than imagining what things might be. If we can qualifying thing out of this description, we have a head start, and I do not see Aliens as ever being qualified as a definite answer. It's no more convincing than black ops.

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.


#33    SwampgasBalloonBoy

SwampgasBalloonBoy

    Apparition

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

Posted 24 January 2013 - 01:32 AM

View Postpsyche101, on 23 January 2013 - 11:37 PM, said:

And there is the ET shoehorn.

There is absolutely nothing to suggest a Mothership every existed, but that imagined assumption does make this instance easier to qualify as ET. The seeming anomalies that I have mentioned about the craft can only be explained by a Mothership right? So the logic is that a Mothership probably exists?
That is a straw-man if ever I heard one. You are making things up to make ET sound like the best option. Heck, some have even suggested it is not reasonable to suggest that a viewing deck on a spaceship is illogical!!! Based on what? But a mothership is just assumed to exist when the anomalies in design are pointed out to qualify them?
That some imagined species that does things we cannot understand might posses such technology and they might be visiting is?

And yet after all of that, time travel is outrageous? Even though traveling at, or a percentage of c is a form of time travel?
I am an amateur astronomer, and I simply do not believe that a giant mothership can be in our solar system, and remain undetected. Show me the mothership, and I would consider ET a viable option, until then viewing decks on a spaceship are like fly screens on a submarine.

If the "mother ship" does indeed exist, would it better explain the "peculiar" design of what seemed to be "rail"? In that case, I did not make up the assumption of a mother ship out of thin air, Psyche. It was in the report. It's the assumption of the witness, the man who was there! If you look at the 1st link in the op.

Here an excerpt:
Clouds patchy

8.50


Big one stationary and larger – the original?
Others coming and going through the clouds. As they descend
through clouds, light reflected like large halo on the ground –
no more than 2000', probably less. All U.F.O.'s very clear –
satellites?
Mother ship” still large, clear, stationary.


9.05


Nos. 2, 3, 4 gone.


9.10


Mother ship gone – giving red light.
No. 1 gone (overhead) into cloud.


9.20


Mother” back.


9.30


Mother” gone across sea to Giwa – white,
red, blue, gone.


9.46


Overhead U.F.O. reappears, is hovering.


10.00

10.10


Still there, stationary.

Hovering, gone behind cloud.



10.30


Very high, hovering in clear patch of sky between clouds.


10.50

11.04


Very overcast, no sign of U.F.O.

Heavy rain. IQA!!! (Wedau language! Finished.)


#34    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 30,033 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 24 January 2013 - 01:34 AM

View Postbison, on 24 January 2013 - 12:41 AM, said:

On time travel:  The idea seems to be that they would break free of the time stream, and could jump back into it at whatever point desired. This either creates paradoxes, when traveling into the past, or, it's speculated, one is automatically shunted on to the time stream of another universe in which the changes one introduced into the past already existed!  It all seems remarkably speculative to me.

It may create paradoxes. Do we visit the same time stream? And again, which paradox? The "Grandfather" paradox. or the "rolling film" paradox? It is remarkably speculative, and as I keep saying not an answer, but one possible option. Others are bound to exist. A mothership is alos remarkably speculative as is underwater bases.

Do you feel that Vallee is not to be considered?

View Postbison, on 24 January 2013 - 12:41 AM, said:

On the beings seen on the craft in the Gill case: Father Gill's drawings do show quite small figures, and only the upper half of them, at that. We don't know if their legs are of the same proportionate length as ours, or shorter, as reported of many flying saucer occupants. The view apparently wasn't close up enough to see much more than could be conveyed by 'stick figures'. One of Fr. Gill's drawings  has, within the written caption, the word "men", just like that, in quotes. This supports the tentative and figurative nature of the identification, not the severely literal interpretation that has been suggested.
Underwater extraterrestrial bases on Earth, or on other planets in this solar system seem entirely possible. We have explored so little of our own oceans with any great acuity, and the other planets even less so.

No we do not know, what he do know is that Father Gill used the term men, and human beings. ETH'ers are taking a leap, and dismissing the Father's words, and reinterpreting them for him. It stries me as condescending to accept part of the story, and interpret much more to qualify ET.

I am not the one taking the leap here, the ETH is.

Show me an underwater base, and I will apologise. Until that time comes as far as I am concerned it is just applying imagination to qualify and imaginatie response. The sea floor is better mapped than you make out.

View Postbison, on 24 January 2013 - 12:41 AM, said:

So, what did Father Gill and his flock see?  I don't know, or course, but the simplest explanation seems to be extraterrestrials. Not , as some would charge, simply because it is a fashionable, or appealing explanation, but because it takes account of probabilities that our rudimentary knowledge of the universe already suggest. It also answers questions that have been raised, and not, in my opinion, satisfyingly answered, about life in the universe, and the directions in which that life will develop.


That sounds an awful lot like the Vallee quite I posted.
I do not know either. I do not see how the simplest explanation is ET when this never has been proven to have left the planet. And no stories indicate such. The craft is described as something we canot qualify - from the description. The occupants are described as human. ET is a leap made from the described performance. Because we cannot put a craft to this you assume that it cannot be from here, but the occupants as described can and indeed are. Rudimentary knowledge suggests that a viewing platform ion a spacecraft is nonsense, but you see no problem in brushing that aside.

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.


#35    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 30,033 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 24 January 2013 - 01:42 AM

View PostSwampgasBalloonBoy, on 24 January 2013 - 01:32 AM, said:

If the "mother ship" does indeed exist, would it better explain the "peculiar" design of what seemed to be "rail"? In that case, I did not make up the assumption of a mother ship out of thin air, Psyche. It was in the report. It's the assumption of the witness, the man who was there! If you look at the 1st link in the op.

Here an excerpt:
Clouds patchy

8.50


Big one stationary and larger – the original?
Others coming and going through the clouds. As they descend
through clouds, light reflected like large halo on the ground –
no more than 2000', probably less. All U.F.O.'s very clear –
satellites?
Mother ship” still large, clear, stationary.


9.05


Nos. 2, 3, 4 gone.


9.10


Mother ship gone – giving red light.
No. 1 gone (overhead) into cloud.


9.20


Mother” back.


9.30


Mother” gone across sea to Giwa – white,
red, blue, gone.


9.46


Overhead U.F.O. reappears, is hovering.


10.00

10.10


Still there, stationary.

Hovering, gone behind cloud.



10.30


Very high, hovering in clear patch of sky between clouds.


10.50

11.04


Very overcast, no sign of U.F.O.

Heavy rain. IQA!!! (Wedau language! Finished.)






The mother ship in the report is the 35 foot craft with the men on it.


Quote

As indicated by his notes made at the time and in numerous interviews, Rev. Gill saw a bright white light in the north western sky. It appeared to be approaching the mission. The object appeared to be hovering between three and four hundred feet up. Eventually 38 people, including Rev. Gill, Steven Gill Moi (a teacher), Ananias Rarata (a teacher) and Mrs. Nessie Moi, gathered to watch the main UFO, which looked like a large, disc-shaped object. It was apparently solid and circular with a wide base and narrower upper deck. The object appeared to have 4 "legs" underneath it. There also appeared to be about 4 "panels" or "portholes" on the side of the object, which seemed to glow a little brighter than the rest. At a number of intervals the object produced a shaft of blue light which shone upwards into the sky at an angle of about 45 degrees.
What looked like "men" came out of the object, onto what seemed to be a deck on top of the object. There were 4 men in all, occassionally 2, then one, then 3, then 4. The shaft of blue light and the "men" disappeared. The object then moved through some clouds. There were other UFO sightings during the night.



Saturday, 27/6/59
Large U.F.O. first sighted by Annie Laurie at 6 p.m. in apparently same position as last night (26/6/59) only seemed a little smaller, when W.B.G. saw it at 6.02 p.m. I called Ananias and several others and we stood in the open to watch it. Although the sun had set it was still quite light for the following 15 minutes. We watched figures appear on top - four of them - no doubt that they are human. Possibly the same object that I took to be the "Mother" ship last night. Two smaller U.F.O's were seen at the same time, stationary. One above the hills west, another overhead. On the large one two of the figures seemed to be doing something near the centre of the deck - were occassionally bending over and raising their arms as though adjusting or "setting up" something (not visible). One figure seemed to be standing looking down at us (a group of about a dozen). I stretched my arm above my head and waved. To our surprise the figure did the same. Ananias waved both arms over his head then the two outside figures did the same. Ananias and self began waving our arms and all four now seemed to wave back. There seemed to be no doubt that our movements were answered. All mission boys made audible gasps (of either joy or surprise, perhaps both).


Notice the bolded?

Edited by psyche101, 24 January 2013 - 01:43 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.


#36    SwampgasBalloonBoy

SwampgasBalloonBoy

    Apparition

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

Posted 24 January 2013 - 01:58 AM

View Postpsyche101, on 24 January 2013 - 01:17 AM, said:

Could they be in human costume? Why? Is the not really wandering away from what Father Gill has presented?

I think you are just really trying hard to come up with ways to call what Father Gill saw Alien, when he never used the word. That's the rub here. Aliens are not described, aliens are not mentioned. An exotic macine is. Man builds machines. I do not think we can build this just yet. Maybe we can, but that would to me be no better than saying that maybe he saw an alien and just didn't know it, but we know better and can interpret for him. I mean, can you rule out a secret project that nobody has seen yet? We do not now what goes on at Skunkworks, this might be the forerunner of some amazing technology that we still will not see for yet another 50 years. Can that be proven incorrect any more than an alien? I want to take that up a notch, and see if anything can be recognised when pulled down to it's smallest components.

The basic facts are nobody says aliens. People say the craft suggests that. People who were not there say this is Aliens, people who were there say I do not know. They did not look alien.



What is more plausible?

That spaceships will have viewing decks?
That ET will certainly be instantly familiar with us in culture and appearance?



Yes, but time travel is not the only option, and from what NASA say, it is theoretically possible. Yes you can buy a costume, but can you say that is indeed the case here? I am going a step further back. I am back at the description of human being, and trying to understand that. Separate from the craft. The process of elimination. That strikes me as more productive than imagining what things might be. If we can qualifying thing out of this description, we have a head start, and I do not see Aliens as ever being qualified as a definite answer. It's no more convincing than black ops.

How could it be wandering away from what father Gill presented? He said he saw "human", "men". From the distance he saw them, he concluded them to be "human". I agreed that what he saw was "human". But was he close enough to pulled on their skin to make sure? I just throw out the possibility that it could be "wolf in sheep clothing". The same way you're pulling out the "human time travel". Since you've study the subject enough, I don't have to tell you of claims that ETs somehow make themselves looked human. There are theory that some MIB could be alien in disguise.

The costume theory could also explain why the beings don't talk back. They only waved. Shouldn't human from the future be able to say "hello"?
Or does somehow saying hello effect the time continuum but waving does not? I would assumes it's easier to wave in a costume than vocalizing human speech. Some reports of aliens do not speak physically as we do. Another earthly example, if we wave to a chimpanzee, they could mimic and wave back. Could they talk to us or we to them?

Should ETs not know what a viewing deck is and it's impossible for them to build one? as for why? why do millionaire paid the Russian to take them into space? probably ETs do know what a vacation is? or are they all work and no play? If NASA sell ticket to Mars and I can afford it, why the hell not? "Hey, let go to Earth to see the crazy humans" is one possibility.


#37    SwampgasBalloonBoy

SwampgasBalloonBoy

    Apparition

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

Posted 24 January 2013 - 02:26 AM

View Postpsyche101, on 24 January 2013 - 01:42 AM, said:

The mother ship in the report is the 35 foot craft with the men on it.





Notice the bolded?

Is it the mother ship that was "35 ft" or one of the smaller one that got close? I haven't able to figure this out. 35 ft is hardly conclusive.

"Unfortunately, as they did not land, this is very hard to estimate. Fr. Gill estimates that, assuming the men to have been of normal size (about 6 ft.) the machine would have had a diameter of roughly 35 ft. at the base and 20 ft. on the upper 'deck'. However, if this is correct, the machine must have been further away than he thought, as a width of 5 inches at arm's length would give a diameter of nearly 60 ft. (incidentally the estimated size of Mr Evennett's object). [See next post.] If the men were smaller, the machine must have been considerably less than 35 ft. However, all these estimates are mere guesswork, and of little scientific value, except as approximations"

So in this situation you take their words for it without requiring any "scientific evidence"? "no doubt they are human" :lol:. without at least pulling their skin or check out their privates?


#38    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 30,033 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 24 January 2013 - 04:07 AM

View PostSwampgasBalloonBoy, on 24 January 2013 - 01:58 AM, said:

How could it be wandering away from what father Gill presented? He said he saw "human", "men". From the distance he saw them, he concluded them to be "human". I agreed that what he saw was "human". But was he close enough to pulled on their skin to make sure? I just throw out the possibility that it could be "wolf in sheep clothing". The same way you're pulling out the "human time travel". Since you've study the subject enough, I don't have to tell you of claims that ETs somehow make themselves looked human. There are theory that some MIB could be alien in disguise.

I do not see the possibilities as the same. I am working with words from the transcript. You are making up a scenario to qualify another scenario that you favour. As I have said numerous times now, I do not particularly favour time travellers, it was an inspirations of humans on what seems to be a viewing deck on what is described as a small observational craft. I am more than open to any other suggestion that can qualify how humans might be on board a craft that appears as  per the description. It sounds like a terrestrial vehicle with the balcony. If it was qualified as an ET craft, then I would entertain the idea of a costume, if that is even needed. for all we know it seems just as likely that another race could look juts like us without need for costume, but that is not what we have, what we have are Father Gill's words of

- no doubt that they are human

You keep re-writing that based on the craft description.

View PostSwampgasBalloonBoy, on 24 January 2013 - 01:58 AM, said:

The costume theory could also explain why the beings don't talk back. They only waved. Shouldn't human from the future be able to say "hello"?

They would have to be quite loud.



Quote


the object came down at about, I should say, 400
feet, maybe 450 feet, perhaps less, maybe 300 feet.




View PostSwampgasBalloonBoy, on 24 January 2013 - 01:58 AM, said:

Or does somehow saying hello effect the time continuum but waving does not? I would assumes it's easier to wave in a costume than vocalizing human speech. Some reports of aliens do not speak physically as we do. Another earthly example, if we wave to a chimpanzee, they could mimic and wave back. Could they talk to us or we to them?

I do know if it has any affect on anything, as I mentioned to Bison, there is more than one viable paradox, I do not even know which might apply. Some reports clams telepathy is possible, it depends how far down the rabbit hole you want to go. I am just trying to work with what  we have got, and leaving imagination out of it.

View PostSwampgasBalloonBoy, on 24 January 2013 - 01:58 AM, said:

Should ETs not know what a viewing deck is and it's impossible for them to build one? as for why? why do millionaire paid the Russian to take them into space? probably ETs do know what a vacation is? or are they all work and no play? If NASA sell ticket to Mars and I can afford it, why the hell not? "Hey, let go to Earth to see the crazy humans" is one possibility.

Oh come on now. A viewing deck on a spaceship is like fly screens on a submarine. You just do not want to admit it. Bloody hell, Bison tells me that we can apply what we know to come up with an answer of ET, yet nobody can say what is definitively ET. Bison says we cannot guess what an ET craft might be like, but this fits the bill for an ET craft? Wut? Is that not contradictory? All anyone can say is the craft is a conundrum. Why remove focus for that which is perplexing, and overlook it to jump to it is ET craft, therefore the humans described must be ET that looks like humans.

If we want to go down that basic path, then

Why is this ET and not black Ops?

When did the craft go into, or come from, space?

Or is that why everyone is so upset about me separating elements of the story? Because it actually does show that this is not definitive proof of ET, it is proof of an anomalous report?

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.


#39    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 30,033 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 24 January 2013 - 04:19 AM

View PostSwampgasBalloonBoy, on 24 January 2013 - 02:26 AM, said:

Is it the mother ship that was "35 ft" or one of the smaller one that got close? I haven't able to figure this out. 35 ft is hardly conclusive.

It seems pretty clear to me that he is describing the craft with the men on it as the mother ship.

View PostSwampgasBalloonBoy, on 24 January 2013 - 02:26 AM, said:

"Unfortunately, as they did not land, this is very hard to estimate. Fr. Gill estimates that, assuming the men to have been of normal size (about 6 ft.) the machine would have had a diameter of roughly 35 ft. at the base and 20 ft. on the upper 'deck'. However, if this is correct, the machine must have been further away than he thought, as a width of 5 inches at arm's length would give a diameter of nearly 60 ft. (incidentally the estimated size of Mr Evennett's object). [See next post.] If the men were smaller, the machine must have been considerably less than 35 ft. However, all these estimates are mere guesswork, and of little scientific value, except as approximations"

And what else would you use? Approximations of approximations designed to suit ET? Or do we run with what we have? If we are going to rewrite it, why consider Father Gill viable at all?

View PostSwampgasBalloonBoy, on 24 January 2013 - 02:26 AM, said:

So in this situation you take their words for it without requiring any "scientific evidence"? "no doubt they are human" :lol:. without at least pulling their skin or check out their privates?

Again, as above, what would you have me do? I have no opportunity to go touch them, nobody does, as opposed to putting extra lines into the story, I merely try to use what we do have as well as it can be used, and in the tightest detail. It is after all, all we have to work with. Yes of course, I do find that I have to take the words at face value, and to be fair, I like the Father's Description, It is quite vanilla. That is how testimony should be, unbiased and as clear as is possible. The Father is not saying this is ET, he is saying this looks like humans on something the likes of which I have never seen. Biased people are doing that for him. Even the premise of this thread "The Undebunkable Case" Well funny thing is, I agree, but that does not make it definitive proof of ET, not by a long shot. All we have are some leaps of faith. It is a most excellent case, and I chastise myself for not including it in the three I mentioned as the most perplexing cases to flush out of the thousand of pages on the BE thread. It is a conundrum, not ET. Just like the Mystery Airship of 1896. Personally, I find that enough to pique my interest.

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.


#40    SwampgasBalloonBoy

SwampgasBalloonBoy

    Apparition

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

Posted 24 January 2013 - 04:27 AM

View Postpsyche101, on 24 January 2013 - 04:07 AM, said:

I do not see the possibilities as the same. I am working with words from the transcript. You are making up a scenario to qualify another scenario that you favour. As I have said numerous times now, I do not particularly favour time travellers, it was an inspirations of humans on what seems to be a viewing deck on what is described as a small observational craft. I am more than open to any other suggestion that can qualify how humans might be on board a craft that appears as  per the description. It sounds like a terrestrial vehicle with the balcony. If it was qualified as an ET craft, then I would entertain the idea of a costume, if that is even needed. for all we know it seems just as likely that another race could look juts like us without need for costume, but that is not what we have, what we have are Father Gill's words of

- no doubt that they are human

You keep re-writing that based on the craft description.



They would have to be quite loud.








I do know if it has any affect on anything, as I mentioned to Bison, there is more than one viable paradox, I do not even know which might apply. Some reports clams telepathy is possible, it depends how far down the rabbit hole you want to go. I am just trying to work with what  we have got, and leaving imagination out of it.



Oh come on now. A viewing deck on a spaceship is like fly screens on a submarine. You just do not want to admit it. Bloody hell, Bison tells me that we can apply what we know to come up with an answer of ET, yet nobody can say what is definitively ET. Bison says we cannot guess what an ET craft might be like, but this fits the bill for an ET craft? Wut? Is that not contradictory? All anyone can say is the craft is a conundrum. Why remove focus for that which is perplexing, and overlook it to jump to it is ET craft, therefore the humans described must be ET that looks like humans.

If we want to go down that basic path, then

Why is this ET and not black Ops?

When did the craft go into, or come from, space?

Or is that why everyone is so upset about me separating elements of the story? Because it actually does show that this is not definitive proof of ET, it is proof of an anomalous report?


suggesting they're human from the future is not making up a scenario? what the heck? could you please explain what should a spaceship look like? there shouldn't be any viewing deck?

could you please explain why black op would show up on multiple occasions? and freaking waving around? I thought they're all about secret?

could you admit that if there is a race more advance than human, could they make themselves human costume, the same way we are able to or even better?


#41    SwampgasBalloonBoy

SwampgasBalloonBoy

    Apparition

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

Posted 24 January 2013 - 04:36 AM

View Postpsyche101, on 24 January 2013 - 04:19 AM, said:

It seems pretty clear to me that he is describing the craft with the men on it as the mother ship.



And what else would you use? Approximations of approximations designed to suit ET? Or do we run with what we have? If we are going to rewrite it, why consider Father Gill viable at all?



Again, as above, what would you have me do? I have no opportunity to go touch them, nobody does, as opposed to putting extra lines into the story, I merely try to use what we do have as well as it can be used, and in the tightest detail. It is after all, all we have to work with. Yes of course, I do find that I have to take the words at face value, and to be fair, I like the Father's Description, It is quite vanilla. That is how testimony should be, unbiased and as clear as is possible. The Father is not saying this is ET, he is saying this looks like humans on something the likes of which I have never seen. Biased people are doing that for him. Even the premise of this thread "The Undebunkable Case" Well funny thing is, I agree, but that does not make it definitive proof of ET, not by a long shot. All we have are some leaps of faith. It is a most excellent case, and I chastise myself for not including it in the three I mentioned as the most perplexing cases to flush out of the thousand of pages on the BE thread. It is a conundrum, not ET. Just like the Mystery Airship of 1896. Personally, I find that enough to pique my interest.

Seemed pretty clear to you? heck, he wasnt so sure himself, so how could it be clear to you?

so you take it literally that they are in fact human and the ship was definitely 35 ft with definitely a rail? I guess you only take it literally when it suit your belief, right?


#42    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 30,033 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 24 January 2013 - 04:44 AM

View PostSwampgasBalloonBoy, on 24 January 2013 - 04:27 AM, said:

suggesting they're human from the future is not making up a scenario? what the heck? could you please explain what should a spaceship look like? there shouldn't be any viewing deck?

No it is not. It is supposed to make you think, not hand you a new answer.

How big is space? How much energy would it take to cross it? How long would it take? How do the occupants take the trip? Conscious or not?

Are you telling me that a ship 35 feet across with a viewing platform sounds like something that can cross space? A Spaceship needs to be large enough to hold engines of some sort, supplies, and there would be no point in the ship without instruments.

From what we know, a 35 foot circle is not big enough to cross space. There is one planet in this system they could use the platform on.

View PostSwampgasBalloonBoy, on 24 January 2013 - 04:27 AM, said:

could you please explain why black op would show up on multiple occasions? and freaking waving around? I thought they're all about secret?

Military or testing exercises, break down, and hey, if people are waving at you, what do you do? Yo wave back. That is what we do. If someone has seen you, not much you can do about it can you. Considering the platform it could even be a black op space elevator ideal. Maybe the beam of light purported to come out of the top links so a satellite as a tether and the viewing deck is a freight deck.

Imagination can take you anywhere you want to go, but I am trying to avoid that a little if possible. I would like to see imagination offfer new directions, but that does not seem to be the case here. Imagination is being used to qualify a biased conclusion.

View PostSwampgasBalloonBoy, on 24 January 2013 - 04:27 AM, said:

could you admit that if there is a race more advance than human, could they make themselves human costume, the same way we are able to or even better?

Of course, but I see no need for it.

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.


#43    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 30,033 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 24 January 2013 - 04:50 AM

View PostSwampgasBalloonBoy, on 24 January 2013 - 04:36 AM, said:

Seemed pretty clear to you? heck, he wasnt so sure himself, so how could it be clear to you?

By the report you referred to, That is where I copied this from, right under the table you copied.


Quote

As indicated by his notes made at the time and in numerous interviews, Rev. Gill saw a bright white light in the north western sky. It appeared to be approaching the mission. The object appeared to be hovering between three and four hundred feet up. Eventually 38 people, including Rev. Gill, Steven Gill Moi (a teacher), Ananias Rarata (a teacher) and Mrs. Nessie Moi, gathered to watch the main UFO, which looked like a large, disc-shaped object. It was apparently solid and circular with a wide base and narrower upper deck. The object appeared to have 4 "legs" underneath it. There also appeared to be about 4 "panels" or "portholes" on the side of the object, which seemed to glow a little brighter than the rest. At a number of intervals the object produced a shaft of blue light which shone upwards into the sky at an angle of about 45 degrees.
What looked like "men" came out of the object, onto what seemed to be a deck on top of the object. There were 4 men in all, occassionally 2, then one, then 3, then 4. The shaft of blue light and the "men" disappeared. The object then moved through some clouds. There were other UFO sightings during the night.



Saturday, 27/6/59
Large U.F.O. first sighted by Annie Laurie at 6 p.m. in apparently same position as last night (26/6/59) only seemed a little smaller, when W.B.G. saw it at 6.02 p.m. I called Ananias and several others and we stood in the open to watch it. Although the sun had set it was still quite light for the following 15 minutes. We watched figures appear on top - four of them - no doubt that they are human. Possibly the same object that I took to be the "Mother" ship last night. Two smaller U.F.O's were seen at the same time, stationary. One above the hills west, another overhead. On the large one two of the figures seemed to be doing something near the centre of the deck - were occassionally bending over and raising their arms as though adjusting or "setting up" something (not visible). One figure seemed to be standing looking down at us (a group of about a dozen). I stretched my arm above my head and waved. To our surprise the figure did the same. Ananias waved both arms over his head then the two outside figures did the same. Ananias and self began waving our arms and all four now seemed to wave back. There seemed to be no doubt that our movements were answered. All mission boys made audible gasps (of either joy or surprise, perhaps both).


View PostSwampgasBalloonBoy, on 24 January 2013 - 04:36 AM, said:

so you take it literally that they are in fact human and the ship was definitely 35 ft with definitely a rail? I guess you only take it literally when it suit your belief, right?

If you think the Father is incorrect in his description, then why is the case interesting at all? One could say he stuffed the whole thing up, and it was a Helicopter. I was hoping we might go beyond such basic knee jerk reactions. You either take him at his word, or you do not. It is all we have, I am not sure what else you would have me do. The description is bland, it makes no assumptions, so why embellish it with an ET direction? Why not take it for what it is? That Fathers profession is why he is given the credence to begin with is it not? Does that not apply to his recollection?

Edited by psyche101, 24 January 2013 - 04:51 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.


#44    SwampgasBalloonBoy

SwampgasBalloonBoy

    Apparition

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

Posted 24 January 2013 - 05:11 AM

View Postpsyche101, on 24 January 2013 - 04:44 AM, said:

No it is not. It is supposed to make you think, not hand you a new answer.

How big is space? How much energy would it take to cross it? How long would it take? How do the occupants take the trip? Conscious or not?

Are you telling me that a ship 35 feet across with a viewing platform sounds like something that can cross space? A Spaceship needs to be large enough to hold engines of some sort, supplies, and there would be no point in the ship without instruments.

From what we know, a 35 foot circle is not big enough to cross space. There is one planet in this system they could use the platform on.



Military or testing exercises, break down, and hey, if people are waving at you, what do you do? Yo wave back. That is what we do. If someone has seen you, not much you can do about it can you. Considering the platform it could even be a black op space elevator ideal. Maybe the beam of light purported to come out of the top links so a satellite as a tether and the viewing deck is a freight deck.

Imagination can take you anywhere you want to go, but I am trying to avoid that a little if possible. I would like to see imagination offfer new directions, but that does not seem to be the case here. Imagination is being used to qualify a biased conclusion.



Of course, but I see no need for it.

Yes, time travel scenario does make me think. I think it's ludicrous. Please tell me why it's not possible for a 35 ft ship to cross space. To assume that we can't do it so it can't be done is to assume human are the smartest creature in the universe.

Yes imagination can take us anywhere, but it seemed to stop just before reaching ETs in your case.


#45    SwampgasBalloonBoy

SwampgasBalloonBoy

    Apparition

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

Posted 24 January 2013 - 05:20 AM

View Postpsyche101, on 24 January 2013 - 04:50 AM, said:

By the report you referred to, That is where I copied this from, right under the table you copied.







If you think the Father is incorrect in his description, then why is the case interesting at all? One could say he stuffed the whole thing up, and it was a Helicopter. I was hoping we might go beyond such basic knee jerk reactions. You either take him at his word, or you do not. It is all we have, I am not sure what else you would have me do. The description is bland, it makes no assumptions, so why embellish it with an ET direction? Why not take it for what it is? That Fathers profession is why he is given the credence to begin with is it not? Does that not apply to his recollection?

So in the description you took "possibly the same object..." to mean "definitely the same object" ? so the 35 ft ship is definitely the "mother ship" in your opinion? If you took him at his words, then he couldn't identify definitely which one is the mother ship.

You know what? we could go on and one. assumption is counter with another, one possibility is counter by another. I just have to ask you one question, Is ET even a possibility in this case?





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users