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

#226    S2F

S2F

    Bloodstained Hurricane

  • Member
  • 7,180 posts
  • Joined:22 May 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Right behind you!

  • I know someday
    you'll have a beautiful life
    I know you'll be a sun
    In somebody else's sky
    But why can't it be mine? -Pearl Jam

Posted 06 February 2013 - 11:11 AM

View Postquillius, on 06 February 2013 - 11:04 AM, said:

Hey S2F, I can see where Psyche is coming from, although I would just add that 'human' looking aliens have been very popular in reports over the years.

I am compiling everything I can find in Father Gills or other witnesses own words and see how they all compare with regards to teh human element

Excellent, let us know what you find. In my opinion the human occupants is something that sticks out like a sore thumb. It almost seems out of place among the rest of his testimony. It's definitely an odd account. :tu:

"You want to discuss plausibility then you have to accept reality." -Mattshark

"Don't argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience." -Obviousman

You know... the plural of ``anecdote'' is not ``data''. Similarly, the plural of ``random fact'' is not ``mystical symbolism''. -sepulchrave


#227    S2F

S2F

    Bloodstained Hurricane

  • Member
  • 7,180 posts
  • Joined:22 May 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Right behind you!

  • I know someday
    you'll have a beautiful life
    I know you'll be a sun
    In somebody else's sky
    But why can't it be mine? -Pearl Jam

Posted 06 February 2013 - 11:19 AM

View PostLord Vetinari, on 06 February 2013 - 11:05 AM, said:

Entirely possible, of course, that he may have described the people aboard the craft as "human" when he meant that they looked like Humans; i.e. bipedal and about the same size; but then; how could you be sure they were the same size as a Human unless you were quite sure about the size of the Craft itself? The notion of them being Human is one of the major reasons for insisting on an Earthly explanation, isn't it ... if we're prepared to consider that they might not have been Human, just humanoid, well, that leaves the floor wide open, doesn't it ....

At one point during his testimony he said the occupants appeared to be human beings, which seems awfully specific if he only meant 'humanoid'.

"You want to discuss plausibility then you have to accept reality." -Mattshark

"Don't argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience." -Obviousman

You know... the plural of ``anecdote'' is not ``data''. Similarly, the plural of ``random fact'' is not ``mystical symbolism''. -sepulchrave


#228    quillius

quillius

    52.0839 N, 1.4328 E

  • Member
  • 5,295 posts
  • Joined:04 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:LONDON

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

Posted 06 February 2013 - 11:47 AM

View PostSlave2Fate, on 06 February 2013 - 11:19 AM, said:

At one point during his testimony he said the occupants appeared to be human beings, which seems awfully specific if he only meant 'humanoid'.

yes although he used the word 'appeared' plsu we do not fully know what exactly made he think they appeared human?
an example is this wording
'
‘’all he could be sure of was they  had the outline of normal human beings from the waist up’’
so if just the outline then humanoid works and was basically not used by Father Gill as a phrase in which we may be more familiar with. However this is an example of some wording which is not in Father Gills own words but that of someone else relaying Father Gs response to his question.


#229    quillius

quillius

    52.0839 N, 1.4328 E

  • Member
  • 5,295 posts
  • Joined:04 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:LONDON

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

Posted 06 February 2013 - 01:02 PM

I have started compiling some quotes by Father G and co with regards to the 'beings'

Please can you just copy and paste the list if you have more to add. There is more at Ufoevidence.com however the links i had dont seem to work anymore (hmmm)

anyhow here they are :

‘’and there is no doubt whatever that they are handled by beings of some kind’’.
Words taken from a letter to David Durie sent by F.Gill 27/06/1959

From original notes written by Father Gill...
6.55 he writes ‘’man? ‘’ he then continues to refer to the beings as ‘men; although the first use of the word man was followed by a question mark potentially suggesting his uncertainty

‘’of what we assume to be human activity or beings of some sort on the object itself".
These are Father Gills own words.

‘’We watched figures appear on top - four of them - there is no doubt that they were human’’.
These are also Father Gills own words.

‘’the fact that we saw what appeared to be human beings on it’’
Father Gills own words


#230    S2F

S2F

    Bloodstained Hurricane

  • Member
  • 7,180 posts
  • Joined:22 May 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Right behind you!

  • I know someday
    you'll have a beautiful life
    I know you'll be a sun
    In somebody else's sky
    But why can't it be mine? -Pearl Jam

Posted 06 February 2013 - 02:40 PM

View Postquillius, on 06 February 2013 - 01:02 PM, said:

I have started compiling some quotes by Father G and co with regards to the 'beings'

Please can you just copy and paste the list if you have more to add. There is more at Ufoevidence.com however the links i had dont seem to work anymore (hmmm)

anyhow here they are :

‘’and there is no doubt whatever that they are handled by beings of some kind’’.
Words taken from a letter to David Durie sent by F.Gill 27/06/1959

From original notes written by Father Gill...
6.55 he writes ‘’man? ‘’ he then continues to refer to the beings as ‘men; although the first use of the word man was followed by a question mark potentially suggesting his uncertainty

‘’of what we assume to be human activity or beings of some sort on the object itself".
These are Father Gills own words.

‘’We watched figures appear on top - four of them - there is no doubt that they were human’’.
These are also Father Gills own words.

‘’the fact that we saw what appeared to be human beings on it’’
Father Gills own words

Thanks for digging that up and sharing it Quill. :tu:

Hmmm, I'm sensing a little ambiguity there. :lol:

I guess using Father Gill's phrasing to make a determination isn't going to be so cut and dry.

"You want to discuss plausibility then you have to accept reality." -Mattshark

"Don't argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience." -Obviousman

You know... the plural of ``anecdote'' is not ``data''. Similarly, the plural of ``random fact'' is not ``mystical symbolism''. -sepulchrave


#231    quillius

quillius

    52.0839 N, 1.4328 E

  • Member
  • 5,295 posts
  • Joined:04 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:LONDON

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

Posted 06 February 2013 - 03:00 PM

View PostSlave2Fate, on 06 February 2013 - 02:40 PM, said:

Thanks for digging that up and sharing it Quill. :tu:

Hmmm, I'm sensing a little ambiguity there. :lol:

I guess using Father Gill's phrasing to make a determination isn't going to be so cut and dry.

no worries, like I said there is more and I am sure with the amount of work 1963 has already done, there will be more. :tu:

Yes I understand your reservation with regards to the ambiguity. To be honest there are lots more that I have seen...however....(ok here goes).....parts of this ambiguity actually strengthen the case for ET (IMO), ok better explain why or how I could possibly rescue that sentence with a little logic... there is only one bit of wording by Father Gill that stresses with any amount of certainty that its humans, this part ' there is no doubt that they were human’’ the rest allows for other interpretations to be reached.....I would dare suggest that if all he did see was a humanoid shaped outline (with no prior bias belief in aliens/nordics/grays etc etc) then the human is the closest association he could make, in fact it was the only one, so naturally he would be certain they were human, as soon as we apply the possibility that the reasoning behind his certainty isnt reached by a sound process, then we can say that his certainty in this regard is irrelevant.

gosh that was a mouthful, let me try a simpler summary, he saw human shaped outlines from waist up. They seem to have two arms. He couldnt see faces/expressions. He knows of nothing else that could look like a human outline therefore (maybe) incorrectly concludes humans.Basically,  I think we should focus on what he saw rather than the conclusions he reached (in bold). :tu:


#232    S2F

S2F

    Bloodstained Hurricane

  • Member
  • 7,180 posts
  • Joined:22 May 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Right behind you!

  • I know someday
    you'll have a beautiful life
    I know you'll be a sun
    In somebody else's sky
    But why can't it be mine? -Pearl Jam

Posted 06 February 2013 - 03:46 PM

View Postquillius, on 06 February 2013 - 03:00 PM, said:

no worries, like I said there is more and I am sure with the amount of work 1963 has already done, there will be more. :tu:

Yes I understand your reservation with regards to the ambiguity. To be honest there are lots more that I have seen...however....(ok here goes).....parts of this ambiguity actually strengthen the case for ET (IMO), ok better explain why or how I could possibly rescue that sentence with a little logic... there is only one bit of wording by Father Gill that stresses with any amount of certainty that its humans, this part ' there is no doubt that they were human’’ the rest allows for other interpretations to be reached.....I would dare suggest that if all he did see was a humanoid shaped outline (with no prior bias belief in aliens/nordics/grays etc etc) then the human is the closest association he could make, in fact it was the only one, so naturally he would be certain they were human, as soon as we apply the possibility that the reasoning behind his certainty isnt reached by a sound process, then we can say that his certainty in this regard is irrelevant.

gosh that was a mouthful, let me try a simpler summary, he saw human shaped outlines from waist up. They seem to have two arms. He couldnt see faces/expressions. He knows of nothing else that could look like a human outline therefore (maybe) incorrectly concludes humans.Basically,  I think we should focus on what he saw rather than the conclusions he reached (in bold). :tu:

Do you know if there is a timeline for these (or other) testimonies from Father Gill? I'm just wondering that it would be better to use his initial claim/s (ie human or 'beings') rather than later ones that could conceivably be clouded by bias or influence.

"You want to discuss plausibility then you have to accept reality." -Mattshark

"Don't argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience." -Obviousman

You know... the plural of ``anecdote'' is not ``data''. Similarly, the plural of ``random fact'' is not ``mystical symbolism''. -sepulchrave


#233    quillius

quillius

    52.0839 N, 1.4328 E

  • Member
  • 5,295 posts
  • Joined:04 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:LONDON

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

Posted 06 February 2013 - 03:52 PM

View PostSlave2Fate, on 06 February 2013 - 03:46 PM, said:

Do you know if there is a timeline for these (or other) testimonies from Father Gill? I'm just wondering that it would be better to use his initial claim/s (ie human or 'beings') rather than later ones that could conceivably be clouded by bias or influence.

there are timelines and I should have dug these out along with the claims I posted. Maybe once 1963 or anyone else (or once the broken links work again so I can get the rest of the quotes), we can copy and paste them all into one post with timelines as a point of reference for discussion. As mentioned before, I think the same should be done for all craft descriptions and those relating to performance.

Although in addition to these the 'missing' tapes that 1963 has pointed out would be very interesting also as it would hopefully add more to the main points raised above regarding the beings and craft.


#234    bison

bison

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,640 posts
  • Joined:13 Apr 2011

Posted 06 February 2013 - 04:58 PM

View Postquillius, on 06 February 2013 - 09:37 AM, said:

ok, I understand what you are saying now and think its a very good point. The only part that confuses me slightly is that for this to work wouldnt the particles have to be 'flat' as per your box comparison....let me try and explain (although not sure how)

lets first take a credit card and imagine it is slightly opaque but we can just about see through it when viewing it face on. Now from the side view the opaqueness is at its maximum and you will not be able to see through it. I believe this is what you describe which I understand. Now imagine we have a cigarette box say with the same level of opaqueness as the credit card. (actually can we change a cigarette box to something more square as opposed to oblong), so now when we look at the square box the thickness (opaqueness) is the same whatever our viewing angle......

so the question why do the ionized particles produce a credit card layer rather than a box....(assuming that is the case)?/?
I could probably explain what I have in mind with a diagram in short order, but have no idea how to produce one on an internet forum. The reference to a box-like field of ionization was merely a handy simplification, not intended as a realistic description of its shape. In reality it would probably assume the general shape of whatever it surrounded.  
Call it an oval, with the broad side facing the observer, about twice as broad as it is thick, front to back. I believe the effect I described would still exist. Imagine a line passing through the short axis of the oval. This represents the line of sight, looking directly at one of the figures.
Imagine a second, concentric oval inside the first one, somewhat, but not greatly smaller, to represent the body of the figure. Let the distance from the edge of the area of ionization to the surface of the figure be one unit long.
Next, imagine a line slightly to either side of the figure, but still passing completely through the ionized zone around it. This line appears, in the diagram I have before me, to be about two units long.  
I am assuming that a view through twice the depth of ionized air makes for roughly twice the amount of luminosity. I also assume that the lesser luminosity in the view directly at the figure is dim enough to have been disregarded by the witnesses, in favor of the brighter surround, and was also presumably obscured by the other sources of light described.

Edited by bison, 06 February 2013 - 05:01 PM.


#235    quillius

quillius

    52.0839 N, 1.4328 E

  • Member
  • 5,295 posts
  • Joined:04 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:LONDON

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

Posted 06 February 2013 - 05:05 PM

View Postbison, on 06 February 2013 - 04:58 PM, said:

I could probably explain what I have in mind with a diagram in short order, but have no idea how to produce one on an internet forum. The reference to a box-like field of ionization was merely a handy simplification, not intended as a realistic description of its shape. In reality it would probably assume the general shape of whatever it surrounded.  
Call it an oval, with the broad side facing the observer, about twice as broad as it is thick, front to back. I believe the effect I described would still exist. Imagine a line passing through the short axis of the oval. This represents the line of sight, looking directly at one of the figures.
Imagine a second, concentric oval inside the first one, somewhat, but not greatly smaller, to represent the body of the figure. Let the distance from the edge of the area of ionization to the surface of the figure be one unit long.
Next, imagine a line slightly to either side of the figure, but still passing completely through the ionized zone around it. This line appears, in the diagram I have before me, to be about two units long.  
I am assuming that a view through twice the depth of ionized air makes for roughly twice the amount of luminosity. I also assume that the lesser luminosity in the view directly at the figure is dim enough to have been disregarded by the witnesses, in favor of the brighter surround, and was also presumably obscured by the other sources of light described.

Hey Bison, ok I get it now, the bolded part alone got me there...I think.....

did you note the wording by father Gill when mentioneding the glow going around ''every contour of the beings and the craft''?


#236    bison

bison

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,640 posts
  • Joined:13 Apr 2011

Posted 06 February 2013 - 05:58 PM

View Postquillius, on 06 February 2013 - 05:05 PM, said:

Hey Bison, ok I get it now, the bolded part alone got me there...I think.....

did you note the wording by father Gill when mentioneding the glow going around ''every contour of the beings and the craft''?
Yes, and that does sound like both the figures and craft were electrically charged in common, so as to produce air ionization. This could be intentional. Ionization can act as a sort of filter or barrier, perhaps in this case to keep germs out.  It might also be an effect of whatever drives the craft. This may involve an electromagnetic control of gravity. An intriguing idea, since electromagnetism is a much stronger force than gravity, and much easier to generate.


#237    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 33,978 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 07 February 2013 - 01:41 AM

View PostLord Vetinari, on 06 February 2013 - 08:28 AM, said:

Please try to understand. I don't know whether you do have difficulty understanding*, but when did I say its just gotta be ET tech? Tell me that, please.

Every answer you give. How does this cross space? In a mother ship. Why a viewing deck o a spaceship, it has a force field around it. ET would use it to observe. I am starting to think you are not even realising yourself that you are doing it.

View PostLord Vetinari, on 06 February 2013 - 08:28 AM, said:

And please stop banging on about robots. If you keep banging on about robots, that can only demonstrate that you do not take the slightest notice of anything I have tried, again and again and again, to explain, and you deliberately not not take any notice. If you do not understand the difference between the robots that you keep on about, and robotic craft or probes, then I can only assume that you do have difficulty understanding, or you deliberately misunderstand in order to be sarcastic.

When have I described a robot? Not once. You keep telling me what I am thinking. Yes the above comment was sarcastic.

I keep telling you I think this is what you are talking about, and it is as far as I can tell.

Posted Image


So each time from here on in that you mention C3PO I will link you back to this post OK.

View PostLord Vetinari, on 06 February 2013 - 08:28 AM, said:

* Rude? no, just blunt. blunt is good.

Got the crap out of the way, didn't it. Finally you are at least trying to qualify your guesses instead of just making them and insisting they be accepted.

View PostLord Vetinari, on 06 February 2013 - 08:28 AM, said:

"you ignore the bulk of my replies to focus on snippets that you feel you can sway."? It's called not quoting the whole post in order to save space. It is in fact a courtesy.

" I find it rude that you skim my posts, refuse to adress them, and then continue to meander down a path I have already said I do not wish to wander, that being imagination."? What else can one do in this instance, when all of the possible explanations that have been put forward are all equally imaginative? A time machine, or a nuclear powered hovering platform, or an ET craft? I'd say they're all equally imaginative, and there's no more reason to favour one over the other. There are objections to all of them, these objections being:


You could debate the points I put forward instead of just offering your imagined idea of ET tech.

View PostLord Vetinari, on 06 February 2013 - 08:28 AM, said:

* Time machine: still entirely hypothetical, and raises just as many questions as the ET theory as to why the hypothetical they would choose to go back to that particular place & time from wherever they started out from. Simply suggesting Time machine purely on the basis that the occupants were reported as looking like Humans, and that you don't think it would be likely to be able to walk out on "deck" on a spacecraft, is surely leaping to an conclusion every bit as much as that it was ET.

One man has time travelled, no warp drive has made it to prototype. That is here an now, not in some hypothetical future. And making a short wormhole is far easier than one to a distant point in the galaxy with what we know.

No it is not leaping to any conclusion, I fail to see how you could insist it. They are reasons why it is not ET, not reasons why this is time travel, but time travel is theoretically easier to do. They were reported has having the appearance of human beings, not looking a bit like us. It is a significant fact and I do not feel it should be glossed over.

I cannot begin to express how many times I have insisted that time travel is not an answer, it fits better than ET in Father Gills description. It is not a matter of making one fit because of one's opinion of the mode of travel, it is a matter of exploring options. I have said that stright and ooutright so many times that I am not sure I missed it. Without inventing motherships and forcefilds, what do we have, and is ET still a viable candidate? No.
What it does illustrate is that it is more viable than ET because of the craft and the occupants WITHOUT adding to the description provided by Father Gill. That is why UFOlogy wears a tin foil hat. That additional information that comes from imagination.  

View PostLord Vetinari, on 06 February 2013 - 08:28 AM, said:

* Nuclear Powered flying Platform: the facts (as opposed to "We don't know what they might have done in secret") are that no such thing has ever been constructed, as far as anyone knows. The practicalities of such a thing would be almost impossible to get round; the ideas for nuclear powered aircraft that were floated in the 1950s were for enormous intercontinetal bombers. The idea of being able to fit a reactor in something 35 ft in diameter, in 1959, I'm afraid does put it in entirely the same realm of the hypothetical as ET. And the suggestion is that this might account for the 'glow', if these were exposed reactor rods? can you imagine how much radiation that would scatter over the jungle and the good Fr. Gill and his colleagues? did any of them report so much as any hint of being exposed to radiation at all? Has any unexplained radioactivity bveen reported from the area where this occurred? Not to mention that the "crew" didn't seem to be too concerned, and you'd have thought that if it was something as ultra-sensitive as anything Nuclear powered, they'd be extremely unlikely to let it go wandering wherever they liked, and would keep it in very carefuly controlled airspace (for instance, the Nellis/Groom Lake range), and have it closely escorted at all times. The comparison with the Cash/Landrum incident in Texas is probably a red herring, as that was 21 years later, and they didn't seem to have made any progress, in fact even less so? So I think we can rule out anything Nuclear powered; anything terrestrial at any rate.

This too is not the only mode of flight I offered. Although most designs are modern, the hovering capabilities are not impossible and we are talking about a 40 year gap. Not 100 or 200 years.
OK, one good point you have above. Perhaps it might be difficult to fit such engines in such a small craft, that could indeed rule out NERVA prototypes. Do I hear an echo? The same was said about an interstellar craft a few pages back. But the magical powers of ET were invoked to make that problem go away. If it applies to us, it applies to ET. If we are going to stray from the description and make everything up, then we might as well write a novel based on the title of the claim.
But does that all eliminate black ops?

If black ops are eliminated based upon the very limited knowledge of the area that UM members have, then I do not see why I cannot invoke this picture, and say, it's not there, it's not ET.

Posted Image


It's the same thing the way I see it. I have as much knowledge of Alien spacecraft as anyone does here with Black Ops. The projects that have been presented are not covert.

Seen the latest design for a steam powered spaceship?


Posted Image

View PostLord Vetinari, on 06 February 2013 - 08:28 AM, said:

* So, ET?! :cry:  Something 35 ft in diamater needn't be impossible to be a space craft in itself, if it was designed for relatively short distances and not for interstellar travel; but then, an insterstellar craft might not have to be the size of the USS Enterprise, if the race constructing them had developed non-conventional methods of getting about; look at Carl Sagan's strange contraption in Contact. So, the "viewing gallery"?  Well, if it did not need to go into Space at all, but was designed to operate purely in atmosphere, that needn't be any more difficult from an aerodynamic point of view than the gondola of an Airship. It was, however, reported as taking off very quickly at very high speed, so if it was an Airship it would have to be a pretty unconventional one. Who would have been able to construct something like that in 1959? But, if the "open deck" was protected by some kind of, well, if I said "force field", people would start talking about Star Trek again, and completely disregard everything else I've said. But that might be a not entirely irrational explanation for the "glow" surrounding the peoples on board, might it not? And that might mean that people on the "deck" would be protected from the effects of the air at high speeds. There might also be the simple idea that the "open deck" was closed off at high speeds, and when preparing to exit the atmosphere, when it might be covered by aerodynamic fairings, much in the manner of re-entry shields on our early Spacecraft.

There you go again. I cannot think of anything, so ET is all that is left. No, it is not. The 1896 Airship, and Vallee's flying saucer with propellors are other such anomalies in antiquity which proved a precedent that ET is not the only other answer when you cannot think of anything else. They were not ET, they have not been explained to this day, they involved what people took to be "human beings" on them.

You mention size yourself for the Nuclear option above, but here it is factored out due to ET magic. Why does size not apply to ET? As far as I can see we do not factor it in because we imagine ET can do anything. Well that seems to put God into the ring too doesn't it. But then you invoke the MOthership, but of course, you are not pushing an ET option, that nobody saw, and if it was so far we could not see it, the observation craft has several months of travel even at the speeds described to get back to it. Seems pretty pointless I would say, and all this to spy in another species, who are at war and paranoid?

Who saw the deck "Close of"?
Because
I want to only consider Father Gills words. Not add to them. That is where we might as well just forget the whole thing. Above, again you are making qualifications to make this ET. None of that is required with the options I have put forth, with the options I have put forth they still work in Father Gill's testimony as it stands. I do need to add bits or make qualifications that nobody can verify to the story as it stands. I want to consider viable options, not find a way that this could be ET. That is where you and I are seeing this completely differently. You have not considered nor offered so much as a single thought that is not ET orientated. Every option is to qualify ET, as I said, I am not even sure you realise you are doing it.

The question is not who's is it, it is who could use that thing, where, and why. It's performance is the only anomaly in the story. Other than that, the recollection is unremarkable. What you are doing is taking that performance, and building a story from it. That is not the point here. I do not wish to make a ET story out of this, I want to resolve it if that is possible. The reflection theory is better than any of these so far. It can even explain the glow.

Posted Image

View PostLord Vetinari, on 06 February 2013 - 08:28 AM, said:

So, is it any more likely that it may have been ET? There's no proof that it was, and there are questions regarding the design of the craft. However, these questions could be answered if it was not designed to operate in Space, but, perhaps, may have been launched from some other craft. But the other two explanations are every bit as hypothetical, and they depend on the existence of technology of which there's no more proof of their existence, or even that it's possible to construct them, than ET.

They do not depend on magical properties. Like crossing space in a 35 foot craft without adding to the original recollection.
ET is not on a level playing field, because the options that I have offered are here, they are now, they do exist, and we know they exist, I am suggesting tweaks to older technology in line with some of the new tech we are seeing now. The existence of the proposed technology is not in question, if they were ever used for something like this is. That is a huge head-start on ET. And again, Vallee's saucer with propellors and the 1896 Airship are anomalies that I feel fit close to this category then ET. And I am not sure how or why you refuse that. As such, there simply has to be another avenue. I am trying to find it. And I do not wish to get bogged down in using the recollection to write a new star wars saga. It is what it is, and it's all we have.

View PostLord Vetinari, on 06 February 2013 - 08:28 AM, said:

I do hope that addresses some of the issues with which you were having difficulty.

To a point, and a vast improvement on the previous, however it only puts us back where I thought we had started. You still have not told me what in Father Gill's description can only be ET. You have not accepted my guesses, and that is fine, I even agree you have a point about the Nuclear propulsion. Can you get past ET? Can you offer anything more than expanding the description to make the craft more ET like?

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. - Dr Who

#238    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 33,978 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 07 February 2013 - 02:07 AM

View Postquillius, on 06 February 2013 - 09:51 AM, said:

Gidday Psyche,

I think this mind set would be far less prevelant in 'teachers' and 'nurses' that made up a large part of the 'witnesses' in Father Gills case.

Heya Mate

Maybe, the name Stephen Moi sounds very traditional to PNG. Have you ever been there? It really is another world.
I work with a company that sent a rep there to size up the cabling for a mining camp. During the inspection, he lost his head to a native - literally. It a bloody scary place mate.

View Postquillius, on 06 February 2013 - 09:51 AM, said:

Also at what point would they think its a step too far?

With Mokele Mbembe, there was not one.

View Postquillius, on 06 February 2013 - 09:51 AM, said:

I dont buy this one for various reasons. A few of those reasons would be the
-descriptions of how high the UFO was initially,
- other speed and manouvers that were described
- the underneath of craft described...to the extent of 'non'retractable' legs

there are more reasons, I think this is a non-starter IMO

Speed and maneuvers - temperature inversion of a proposed reflected image, and the legs, being stationary always stuck out to me, if the thing came from space they would burn up upon entry to the atmosphere.


However the poles that stick out from the sides of a Squid boat that hold the nets would look like this, if it was reflected into a seemingly strange location.


Quote

Underneath it had four legs in pairs pointing diagonally downwards these appeared to be fixed, not retractable,

Again, fixed legs would not be a great idea where atmosphere entry is required.

Posted Image

Posted Image


I know the initial hypothesis is of a false horizon, but I'd like to add this to that.

LINK - The Min Min light and the Fata MorganaAn optical account of a mysterious Australian phenomenon



Quote

Methods and Results: An optical explanation of the Min Min light phenomenon is offered, based on a number of direct observations of the phenomenon, as well as a field demonstration, in the Channel Country of Western Queensland. This explanation is based on the inverted mirage or Fata Morgana, where light is refracted long distances over the horizon by the refractive index gradient that occurs in the layers of air during a temperature inversion. Both natural and man-made light sources can be involved, with the isolated light source making it difficult to recognise the features of the Fata Morgana that are obvious in daylight


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. - Dr Who

#239    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 33,978 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 07 February 2013 - 02:17 AM

View PostSlave2Fate, on 06 February 2013 - 03:46 PM, said:

Do you know if there is a timeline for these (or other) testimonies from Father Gill? I'm just wondering that it would be better to use his initial claim/s (ie human or 'beings') rather than later ones that could conceivably be clouded by bias or influence.

I do not feel it is fair to consider anything after the actual sighting. Bill Chalker got his hooks into Father Gill as did several UFOlogists. Once they contaminate Father Gill, one can remember an event in a different way.

To be Frank, I think it is cherry picking to try to insist that "men" and "Human Beings" should be considered otherwise based upon the performance of the craft. There is not two ways about it, Father Gill specified men and human beings on multiple occasions. I do believe deviating from that is second guessing Father Gill, and if we do that, we might as well assume he was off his nut on Kava with all of his colleagues and it was just a helicopter all along. The craft is the anomaly, and it should be the focus. I still think the refraction hypothesis has legs.

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. - Dr Who

#240    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 33,978 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 07 February 2013 - 02:20 AM

View Postquillius, on 06 February 2013 - 01:02 PM, said:

I have started compiling some quotes by Father G and co with regards to the 'beings'

Please can you just copy and paste the list if you have more to add. There is more at Ufoevidence.com however the links i had dont seem to work anymore (hmmm)

anyhow here they are :

‘’and there is no doubt whatever that they are handled by beings of some kind’’.
Words taken from a letter to David Durie sent by F.Gill 27/06/1959

From original notes written by Father Gill...
6.55 he writes ‘’man? ‘’ he then continues to refer to the beings as ‘men; although the first use of the word man was followed by a question mark potentially suggesting his uncertainty

‘’of what we assume to be human activity or beings of some sort on the object itself".
These are Father Gills own words.

‘’We watched figures appear on top - four of them - there is no doubt that they were human’’.
These are also Father Gills own words.

‘’the fact that we saw what appeared to be human beings on it’’
Father Gills own words


LOL @ Small text :D

You stil have got it mate :D

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. - Dr Who




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users