12 replies to this topic

[Scudbuster]

Very interesting documentary of an encounter that occurred near an Australian grade school in 1966....... and the immediate heavy suppression of the event that followed:

Edited by Scudbuster, 02 June 2012 - 11:57 PM.

[zoser]

Scudbuster, on 02 June 2012 - 11:54 PM, said:

Very interesting documentary of an encounter that occurred near an Australian grade school in 1966....... and the immediate heavy suppression of the event that followed:

I like this case for the simple reason that children make interesting witnesses.  They are not trained expert reliable witnesses; they are prone to the effects of imagination or intoxication after this kind of experience; however collectively because of their innocence and lack of bias, they will say what they see.  One has to look at the collective evidence rather than individual testimony.

The Broadhaven and Zimbabwe UFO incidents are other similar cases where the principle witnesses are children.

[Chrlzs]

Covered in some detail from this post at another forum onwards..  That thread got closed due to the behavior of the presenter, but it covers most of the 'claimed' aspects of the case, and reveals that a lot of it is unsupported, exaggerated or misreported.

It was only a fairly minor story when it was first reported (I used to live near that region),and frankly, seeing how the story got blown up by media and ufologists is an education in how not to investigate...

May I ask what aspects of the case you find most compelling?  In particular, I would invite you to carefully examine the *initial* reports, and then watch what happens in later reports.  It's rather amusing (and a little depressing..).  As I pointed out over on that other thread, it's a wonderful example of 'Chinese Whispers'.

I'm happy to help with links.. and I would suggest you spend a bit of time looking at the background properly first, rather than relying on a video.

BTW, Tanya is fine...  

[zoser]

Chrlzs, on 03 June 2012 - 08:23 AM, said:

Covered in some detail from this post at another forum onwards..  That thread got closed due to the behavior of the presenter, but it covers most of the 'claimed' aspects of the case, and reveals that a lot of it is unsupported, exaggerated or misreported.

It was only a fairly minor story when it was first reported (I used to live near that region),and frankly, seeing how the story got blown up by media and ufologists is an education in how not to investigate...

May I ask what aspects of the case you find most compelling?  In particular, I would invite you to carefully examine the *initial* reports, and then watch what happens in later reports.  It's rather amusing (and a little depressing..).  As I pointed out over on that other thread, it's a wonderful example of 'Chinese Whispers'.

I'm happy to help with links.. and I would suggest you spend a bit of time looking at the background properly first, rather than relying on a video.

BTW, Tanya is fine...  

The saying 'there is no smoke without fire' says it all really.  Also it is by no means an isolated case; I'm sure you know about Broadhaven and Zimbabwe.  Australia does has it's fair share of sightings; there is no trace evidence that I am aware of in this particular case, however the witness testimonies are compelling.  I didn't hear one of the witnesses (now middle aged adults), confessing that the whole thing 45 years ago was a child hood prank!  It would have been far easier to do so than to maintain their original story.

[Hazzard]

Chrlzs, on 03 June 2012 - 08:23 AM, said:

Covered in some detail from this post at another forum onwards..  That thread got closed due to the behavior of the presenter, but it covers most of the 'claimed' aspects of the case, and reveals that a lot of it is unsupported, exaggerated or misreported.

It was only a fairly minor story when it was first reported (I used to live near that region),and frankly, seeing how the story got blown up by media and ufologists is an education in how not to investigate...

May I ask what aspects of the case you find most compelling?  In particular, I would invite you to carefully examine the *initial* reports, and then watch what happens in later reports.  It's rather amusing (and a little depressing..).  As I pointed out over on that other thread, it's a wonderful example of 'Chinese Whispers'.

Pretty much like Roswell then,... a perfect example of retrospective falcification.

[Chrlzs]

zoser, on 03 June 2012 - 08:38 AM, said:

The saying 'there is no smoke without fire' says it all really.

Well, yes, I guess it does..  As you would surely know, it is possible, indeed common, for there to be smoke without fire...

Quote

I didn't hear one of the witnesses (now middle aged adults), confessing that the whole thing 45 years ago was a child hood prank!  It would have been far easier to do so than to maintain their original story.

'Maintain' their stories?  The stories grew with each retelling, as stories do.  Even if you just look at the original reports they are not at all consistent, and the best guess is probably that weather balloon (yes, sometimes it IS a weather balloon!).  And no-one has said it was most likely a childhood prank (- an adult prank is a more likely possibility anyway...).

Did you also not notice the rather astonishing CHANGES to the stories and reports?  The gaping holes, contradictions and complete lack of photographic evidence, especially of the alleged scorched areas (which were later *faked* in another report!!)?  Of course that lack of evidence is now 'explained' by a huge cover up.. despite the diverse range of folks who had easy access to the area, none of which has come forward to tell of their cameras being confiscated.  Sigh.

I don't have time right now, but I'm happy to go into more specific details later.  One thing I will post is this link to a post on ATS (the whole thread is interesting) which shows BOTH of the initial reports in the local newspaper.  One of those pages is very hard to find elsewhere on the web, but here's a larger copy of that page, and here's the other..

Note carefully that only several people initially claimed they saw 'something'.  Later it somehow became 200...  As I said, the changes in the stories are a great example of why you should NEVER put much faith in witness testimony.  Let alone a media beat-up.

And I just *love* the dramatic embellishment of the student who left the school some time later - but that got chinese-whispered into her being taken away by the military (or in an ambulance, depending on which whisper you like) on the day of the incident and never seen again {cue Twilight Zone music}..   But you'll notice the initial reports mention no such thing - and let me assure you that Oz schools of those days did keep class records, class photographs were taken, etc (I can show you mine for 1966, from just down the road..), so it would be pretty trivial to investigate that properly.  But stories and anecdotes are so much more fun!

Edited by Chrlzs, 03 June 2012 - 11:19 AM.

[Slave2Fate]

Chrlzs, on 03 June 2012 - 11:00 AM, said:

But stories and anecdotes are so much more fun!

Hey Chrlzs, embellishment seems to be a hallmark of the UFOlogy crowd. At least that's the way it seems when you really dig in to a case.

[zoser]

Slave2Fate, on 03 June 2012 - 01:32 PM, said:

Hey Chrlzs, embellishment seems to be a hallmark of the UFOlogy crowd. At least that's the way it seems when you really dig in to a case.

I'm not aware of any embellishment or inconsistencies in the testimonies.  Bearing in mind that no-one would reasonably expect recollections to be flawless after 40 or so years.  All I detected after researching the case was a group of children that witnessed something extraordinary, and it has left an indelible mark on them.  That's it.

[psyche101]

zoser, on 03 June 2012 - 02:55 PM, said:

I'm not aware of any embellishment or inconsistencies in the testimonies.  Bearing in mind that no-one would reasonably expect recollections to be flawless after 40 or so years.  All I detected after researching the case was a group of children that witnessed something extraordinary, and it has left an indelible mark on them.  That's it.

As Chrlzs pointed out with the news articles, "several" became 200. This embellishment seems to have risen from the number of children at play at the time, which as far as I can tell was approximately 200. This became the number of witnesses. That is a pretty big one right of the bat.

Witnesses claimed that they were told not to speak out by the military, yet within hours a teacher had given the press his version of events.

Some saw objects landing, some did not, some saw burn marks in the ground, other say the craft never made contact with the ground

Possibilities:

A weather balloon was released earlier that day, and prevailing winds would have it placed right where the sighting took place

The object was headed in the direction of local Morabin Airport, which means there should be RADAR confirmation but there is not, lending to the possibility that it was a scheduled flight. The Australian Skeptics society strongly consider experimental craft, or a wind drone.


Whatever it might have been it remains unexplained. There are no records of it entering or leaving space, only moving toward the direction of the local airport. As such, an otherworldly explanation seems unlikely or at the very least not the most likely option.

[psyche101]

zoser, on 03 June 2012 - 08:10 AM, said:

I like this case for the simple reason that children make interesting witnesses.

I disagree, I do not think Children make good witnesses at all. Their drawings and reinterpretation have to be deciphered which means to individual take son an unknown, with two sets of influence/bias. And people have this warm fuzzy feeling that stops them from asking the hard questions. This is why Ruwa remains a mystery when I do not think it was a mystery at all. People just feel strange and or bad about questioning kids.

Quillius and I went into this on the Ruwa case, a child can draw a picture of what looks like a dog to you and I, but for all we know, it might well be a dragon. That is where double interpretation comes in and takes value out of any information.

[zoser]

psyche101, on 04 June 2012 - 01:16 AM, said:

I disagree, I do not think Children make good witnesses at all. Their drawings and reinterpretation have to be deciphered which means to individual take son an unknown, with two sets of influence/bias. And people have this warm fuzzy feeling that stops them from asking the hard questions. This is why Ruwa remains a mystery when I do not think it was a mystery at all. People just feel strange and or bad about questioning kids.

Quillius and I went into this on the Ruwa case, a child can draw a picture of what looks like a dog to you and I, but for all we know, it might well be a dragon. That is where double interpretation comes in and takes value out of any information.

Yep I guess you have really wrapped this one up too.  Another fake story.

[psyche101]

zoser, on 04 June 2012 - 08:31 AM, said:

Yep I guess you have really wrapped this one up too.  Another fake story.

It really burns you when these things have a very likely prosaic explanation don't you? Just because I bother to look around and try to solve these mysteries instead of putting my hands to my face with big OMG's! every couple minutes does not mean I am out to destroy your fantasies, I just call it like it is. Maybe if you were not so lazy and did a little research yourself, you might not go off half cocked like you did so foolishly with the Aztec case?

Children do make difficult witnesses to work with for the reasons I stated, do you deny that?

[DBunker]

Hazzard, on 03 June 2012 - 10:28 AM, said:

Pretty much like Roswell then,... a perfect example of retrospective falcification.

Like most of these fantastic stories they seem to start with something mundane but unexplained. Not because we have ET visitors but because of the fact that we lack sufficent evidence to identify what really happened.

Then the story snowballs from there...... not even to mention the interest charlatans and attention seekers have.