271 replies to this topic

[psyche101]

bison, on 25 January 2013 - 12:05 AM, said:

That thing was the Hiller flying platform. A prototype was put together by the Office of Naval Research in 1955. Found impractical, it never went into production. Like other ground effect vehicles, it could not rise more than a few feet; was quite limited in speed. A military experiment. I doubt very much that private industry would have been interested, or that they could have been done much to improve its performance--running up against the laws of physics, and aerodynamics.

And yet every believer is quick to jump on statements made by Ben Rich? We have the means to tale ET home, but we cannot build a flying platform hey?

How do you know this is not an inspiration for something more exotic? For instance, 4 adjustable fans would increase stability wouldn't it.

Edited by psyche101, 25 January 2013 - 03:22 AM.

[psyche101]

quillius, on 24 January 2013 - 10:03 AM, said:

I am glad to se this thread gaining momentum, I have been diggin into it myslef in the background.

2 quick points-

- I find the it very strange that they all carried on for a one hour church service whilst a craft sat outside.....I really am struggling with this bit.

Gidday!

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

quillius, on 24 January 2013 - 10:03 AM, said:

- I have also noticed how the craft 'sketches' seem to match some of teh Ruwa drawings quite well, at least those of the older children who seem to be better artists (more accurate???)...the other striking similarities I find are 'beings' walking on top of UFO (Ruwa had similar descriptions)...this is not so common amongst any UFO cases I have read apart from these two. And lastly the tight fitting costumes....

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

Edited by psyche101, 25 January 2013 - 03:22 AM.

[SwampgasBalloonBoy]

psyche101, on 25 January 2013 - 03:09 AM, said:

I wonder if any amount of shots would suffice. The video of the platform shows it to be extremely unstable. It in no way can explain Father Gills recollection, but it does show that we were looking at this concept early in the piece.



It works on a fan, it's not that loud, like a Hovercraft. But again, I do not thin fan technology is what the Father describes, I think he would have seen a massive fan underneath such an object? It does provide all the lift, and is the entire circumference of the base. Similarities I noticed in this design were the "rail" even if as opposed to a balcony, tapering shape and landing legs. All aspects are in Father GIll's recollection.

You keep missing the point. I do not want people to believe  me, I want people to work with me. It is indeed an excellent case, and I fell it deserves a bit more than "This is ET or the witnesses are lying/hallucinating. I was hoping with some effort, and many eyes, a=that someone might see things I have missed.



It seems more than reasonable to accept they were humans, yes. As mentioned, not just appearance, but interaction. The only reason you think they are ET is because of the described performance of the craft is it not? That is the anomaly. Not the people. You are assuming this is definitely ET, I think that is jumping the gun when they look and act like humans, and were described as such. I have asked many questions that you have not answered, so again I ask, what specifically about this case can only be ET, and nothing else?

I think you got me wrong, Psyche. I do not think it's definitely ET. I only believe that it's more plausible than time travelling human. I don't think we can be definite with anything in this case. Which is why I only ask whether you would consider whether ET is a possibility. No matter how small it is, is it a possibility? you refused to answer. I asked whether you are definite about them being real human. You refused to answer. I find its perplexing. Even if I think time travel is ludicrous, i do not completely put it off the table. Even if there are only 0.0000000001% chance that it's possible.

Do you think it's a possibility that they could not be real human and actually "wolf in sheep clothing"? Because if you completely ruled this out, then there's only option between gov't black ops or human from the future(assuming the event did indeed occurred).

[psyche101]

SwampgasBalloonBoy, on 25 January 2013 - 04:37 AM, said:

I think you got me wrong, Psyche. I do not think it's definitely ET. I only believe that it's more plausible than time travelling human. I don't think we can be definite with anything in this case. Which is why I only ask whether you would consider whether ET is a possibility. No matter how small it is, is it a possibility? you refused to answer. I asked whether you are definite about them being real human. You refused to answer. I find its perplexing. Even if I think time travel is ludicrous, i do not completely put it off the table. Even if there are only 0.0000000001% chance that it's possible.

I am not sure how you missed these answers.

Quote

Then what is likely the correct answer for you?

Well as I said, from a performance point of view, ET fits into the possible Advanced tech, but that even is a guess. So if I had a gun to my head I would say no.

Quote

Do you believe with 100% certainty that those beings were real humans?

It seems more than reasonable to accept they were humans, yes.

Quote

Yes, time travel scenario does make me think. I think it's ludicrous

Well this is the impasse I hope to crack. What was considered at the start of this thread? Only ET. It was considered a case that cannot be dented as being proof of ET. It is not. Then I suggested time travel, then black ops came along. I think it has progressed already from an "undebunkable" case. More parameters exist. When I suggested time travel, I did not even consider that it might be impossible, just like ETH'ers believe that FTL is quite common amongst every species that is not human. Not because it removes ET, but because without looking deep into the theory, plain and simple, time travel is as possible as FTL. Maybe even more so for all we know at this point in time, because it breaks no laws of relativity. It might not be possible at all, but why can it not be considered quite plausible if FTL is? And I gave more reasons than that. That craft is too small. Look at the rebuttal from bison of all people! TIme travel is unlikely, but he will go on and tell me how FTL is almost here, and how some dodgy bloke has found a piece of Roswell saucer. But should I point out that a viewing deck is like fly screens on a Submarine, I suddenly get "You do not know what an Alien craft might have on it!" I mean, fair go.

What about the many questions I have asked? Namely, what part of this description can only be ET and nothing else? From what I can tell, the way the craft left, came, and hovered is the anomaly. Because we cannot figure it out, people say ET, and how is that not simply attributing a problem to a higher power? Passing the buck to the almighty and telling ourselves "well, this will stick". If it is ET, is there anything we can actually pu against it? Some people say Well, UFO's exhibit amazing behaviour! That means squat too, as no UFO has been proven to come form another planet to date. People like to think they do, but not one person on earth can confirm that. An assumption is being used to qualify an assumption. It just does not work like that.
I do not feel that ET is more plausible, because the spacecraft does not seem to be built for space. I find that as well as the Fathers comments take the wind out of those sails.

SwampgasBalloonBoy, on 25 January 2013 - 04:37 AM, said:

Do you think it's a possibility that they could not be real human and actually "wolf in sheep clothing"? Because if you completely ruled this out, then there's only option between gov't black ops or human from the future(assuming the event did indeed occurred).

No, because the more I think about it, the less I believe that described craft ever went into or came out of space. It is just not designed for it, every single thing about the description, other than the performance I grant, screams human. Too small, viewing decks negate space travel.

Edited by psyche101, 25 January 2013 - 05:15 AM.

[SwampgasBalloonBoy]

psyche101, on 25 January 2013 - 05:09 AM, said:

I am not sure how you missed these answers.











Well this is the impasse I hope to crack. What was considered at the start of this thread? Only ET. It was considered a case that cannot be dented as being proof of ET. It is not. Then I suggested time travel, then black ops came along. I think it has progressed already from an "undebunkable" case. More parameters exist. When I suggested time travel, I did not even consider that it might be impossible, just like ETH'ers believe that FTL is quite common amongst every species that is not human. Not because it removes ET, but because without looking deep into the theory, plain and simple, time travel is as possible as FTL. Maybe even more so for all we know at this point in time, because it breaks no laws of relativity. It might not be possible at all, but why can it not be considered quite plausible if FTL is? And I gave more reasons than that. That craft is too small. Look at the rebuttal from bison of all people! TIme travel is unlikely, but he will go on and tell me how FTL is almost here, and how some dodgy bloke has found a piece of Roswell saucer. But should I point out that a viewing deck is like fly screens on a Submarine, I suddenly get "You do not know what an Alien craft might have on it!" I mean, fair go.

What about the many questions I have asked? Namely, what part of this description can only be ET and nothing else? From what I can tell, the way the craft left, came, and hovered is the anomaly. Because we cannot figure it out, people say ET, and how is that not simply attributing a problem to a higher power? Passing the buck to the almighty and telling ourselves "well, this will stick". If it is ET, is there anything we can actually pu against it? Some people say Well, UFO's exhibit amazing behaviour! That means squat too, as no UFO has been proven to come form another planet to date. People like to think they do, but not one person on earth can confirm that. An assumption is being used to qualify an assumption. It just does not work like that.
I do not feel that ET is more plausible, because the spacecraft does not seem to be built for space. I find that as well as the Fathers comments take the wind out of those sails.



No, because the more I think about it, the less I believe that described craft ever went into or came out of space. It is just not designed for it, every single thing about the description, other than the performance I grant, screams human. Too small, viewing decks negate space travel.

No, I have not missed your answers. I expected a more direct answer. Instead of answering a yes or no question with a yes or no answer, you go about it in a convoluted way like a politician.

Your answer to my last question tell me all I needed to know. Since you believe that there is no chance of them being anything other than human, I see no point in us having any more debate on the matter. Since ET is not even a possibility in your book, it would be a moot point for me to bring up any suggestion because I am an ET guy afterall. You said you would only consider ET as an option if more evidences pointed that way. After more than 50 years, I don't think we're going to get more than what's already available.

See you in some other case, Psyche. I'll still be lurking in the background of this case, though.

[psyche101]

SwampgasBalloonBoy, on 25 January 2013 - 05:31 AM, said:

No, I have not missed your answers. I expected a more direct answer. Instead of answering a yes or no question with a yes or no answer, you go about it in a convoluted way like a politician.

A politician will never give you a straight answer, I  did give you yes and no. I qualified that yes and no, because of the question. You said can this be ET. Nobody on earth can answer that question definitively  not anyone is this forum, not any place. What I was saying is that I do not believe this is ET, but because ET has a small stake in the performance statistics, and totally by way of assumption, nothing qualified, then ET still has to be counted someplace, even though it is a very minimal option. Something like how you described your view of time travel I suppose. And as such, if someone can answer the question that I keep asking, something I have not seen yet may change my mind. Hell, I was convinced MOGUL explained Roswell, it is far superior as a realistic explanation to the ET nonsense, but when I saw Lost Shamans Hypothesis I tried to falsify it. I could not. Something new altogether came along that outdid the previous directions of investigation.

So I keep asking the question, pushing the boundaries. You are the only one with the fortitude and guts to stand up to a skeptic and say what you think and challenge the alternative. I admire that. Bison had a couple of posts. And considering he gives Steve Colbern the time of day, his position in this thread is most perplexing. I understand why he does not like me all that much. I am pretty blunt and pretty forward. And I was right about Frank Kimbler. He was full of it from day one. But hey, that's me. I speak up. I am a happy drinker though, not a bluer. When I get the opportunity. More of an energetic conversationalist I like to think.

Still, I would remain interested if someone could answer the question

What aspect of this case can only be ET?

Do you not find it strange that when faced with that which is commonly accepted, that nobody has an answer? If we are so positive this is ET, then why can nobody say what part of this comes from another planet? People have gone as far as imagining wormholes and the like, but refuse to so much as consider time travel. Yet any percentage of c is time travel, not to mention that NASA says it is theoretically possible, just like a wormhole. And yet, for this I am considered skeptic. What about the people who only believe in half of space-time? The space bit? Are they not skeptics in their own way?

It is because the reported performance of the craft is extraordinary. Nothing else. I maintain that as Father Gill said, this is significant. Many people have seen things they thought were UFO's but fro Earth. Kenneth Arnold did not think what he saw came from space.

SwampgasBalloonBoy, on 25 January 2013 - 05:31 AM, said:

Your answer to my last question tell me all I needed to know. Since you believe that there is no chance of them being anything other than human, I see no point in us having any more debate on the matter. Since ET is not even a possibility in your book, it would be a moot point for me to bring up any suggestion because I am an ET guy afterall. You said you would only consider ET as an option if more evidences pointed that way. After more than 50 years, I don't think we're going to get more than what's already available.

Maybe we are not but without questioning, it has no chance of ever moving forward does it.

If ET is a possibility, why can you not tell me what is specifically ET in this recollection? We do not seem to have a craft like that. Is that enough to invoke ET? I really do not think so, and specifically because of tales like the 1896 Airship. That still remains unexplained, and it was not ET.

Do you honestly feel that because the performance described by the craft that we should assume everything about and on it? What about the simple fact that the thing was most certainly not built for space? Or that is never went into space, and not one UFO ever has been recorded as such, despite the claims of RADAR and the like. I have asked you these before, How can it be ET considering all this?
How? so far I have heard that spaceships just might go into warp, and exit this massive burst of energy inside our atmosphere! Then to make the part of the story that is described as "definitely humans" you come up with suits. Can you see my problem here? You keep making things up to run with a preferred conclusion, based on the performance of the craft. Apart form the takeoff, and the hovering, nobody would say this is ET would they? So why keep changing the rest of the story to suit the takeoff bit, because it sounds like what we might expect from ET? Is that not taking the smallest, if not most grandiose, part of the story and building on that? How is that not bias?
That is the ET shoehorn. If some think even the tiniest aspect can built into ET, they will, and then insist it is the only answer. And lets face it, one aspect here suggests merely the possibility of advanced technology. Nobody has seen such a thing here, so we decide to move to the next planet? That might not be what you are doing, but the ETH is pushing you in that direction. Personally, I think that Portage County ET drones are more likely than this, because all we have is performance characteristics to work with. If you want ET, I feel the best bets are Portage County (Maybe) and the WOW! signal. Not a floating platform with a viewing deck and men on it.

SwampgasBalloonBoy, on 25 January 2013 - 05:31 AM, said:

See you in some other case, Psyche. I'll still be lurking in the background of this case, though.

Good luck with it, and thank you for the debate. Again, I respect and admire your fortitude. Many lack what you have. All I would suggest is stick to your guns, but make sure your gunpowder is dry.

And if you ever want to answer that question, I'll be listening

Edited by psyche101, 25 January 2013 - 07:04 AM.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

psyche101, on 25 January 2013 - 03:11 AM, said:

And yet every believer is quick to jump on statements made by Ben Rich? We have the means to tale ET home, but we cannot build a flying platform hey?

How do you know this is not an inspiration for something more exotic? For instance, 4 adjustable fans would increase stability wouldn't it.

i doubt if they'd have been able to perfect such a thing by 1959.

[psyche101]

Lord Vetinari, on 25 January 2013 - 08:08 AM, said:

i doubt if they'd have been able to perfect such a thing by 1959.

I doubt that flying saucer would have viewing platforms

Maybe it was not perfected. It was broken down. Maybe it was never supposed to take of like a rocket, and maybe that is why we never saw one again!

Edited by psyche101, 25 January 2013 - 08:19 AM.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

psyche101, on 25 January 2013 - 08:18 AM, said:

I doubt that flying saucer would have viewing platforms

Maybe it was not perfected. It was broken down. Maybe it was never supposed to take of like a rocket, and maybe that is why we never saw one again!

Good point. Pilot (twisting throttle) what does this do - waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy.............
*beats Yuri Gagarin into orbit by two years, but sadly, as he was a member of the Secret Special Forces, he was never given the credit
* or ever seen again

Edited by Lord Vetinari, 25 January 2013 - 09:09 AM.

[Chrlzs]

Whilst browsing idly over all this - I was stopped in my tracks by:

SwampgasBalloonBoy, on 25 January 2013 - 05:31 AM, said:

...
After more than 50 years, I don't think we're going to get more than what's already available.
...

????  So let me get this straight - nowadays, with:
- ever increasing numbers (and quality) of systems observing the skies
- high quality affordable video and still photography equipment (not to mention telescopes (oops I just did) all at prices undreamt of 50 years ago
- an uncensored communications network (Internet) to link everything up and provide easy access to every previous 'case' and allow intense scrutiny from experts and amateurs alike
- the thriving amateur astronomy enthusiasts across the globe giving unprecedented monitoring...

Yet you think that the 'golden age' is over?  What an extraordinary thing to say..

And yet... I sense this same air of resignation in others here too - without naming names, it seems a few of the 'old school' of ET=Alienz believers have pretty much lost interest in any new sightings, while poring endlessly over & repeating old cases that have long failed to provide the proverbial smoking gun...  So, has closer & better scrutiny driven the ET's away or into hiding...?

There is another possible explanation for this, and I think it's pretty dang obvious what it might be..



PS - psyche, you didn't read your pm's again..!  I called by the Tavern tonight, but couldn't find you..  However, it most certainly wasn't a wasted visit - now I understand what you mean by it being the place to be.. Niiiice...!!      

[Slave2Fate]

Chrlzs, on 25 January 2013 - 09:35 AM, said:

PS - psyche, you didn't read your pm's again..!  I called by the Tavern tonight, but couldn't find you..  However, it most certainly wasn't a wasted visit - now I understand what you mean by it being the place to be.. Niiiice...!!      

Ah, to share a beer (or six) with you guys would be quite enjoyable I'd imagine. Maybe some day I'll make it to Oz...

[Chrlzs]

S2F, I'm sure I can speak for Psyche and say you'd be very welcome - I like reading your posts and your avatar always gives me a smile..!  Sadly I don't get out of the country much to offer the reverse.. but if you're ever down under *anywhere* give us a heads up - airfares are pretty cheap down here and I'm good for any excuse to go somewhere new..



As an aside, on re-reading SGBB's post I may be misinterpreting his intent - perhaps he was just referring to this case alone.  If so, I unreservedly apologise for the misread and any inferences I made on that basis..  Sorry, SGBB.


I may raise this overall issue in a new thread, instead - because I'd really like to hear some answers on whether folks agree, and if so why, that there are so very, very few recent cases worth looking at, despite our much better ability to record and examine them..

[zoser]

1963, on 22 January 2013 - 11:21 PM, said:

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.

Similar in many ways to this:

[zoser]

And this:

[zoser]

As you say undebunkable.

No radar or stamp of officialdom needed.  At least not by those with an ounce of ken.