271 replies to this topic

[psyche101]

SwampgasBalloonBoy, on 24 January 2013 - 05:11 AM, said:

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

Then alas I have failed. It should show you that other options exist. I think a spaceship with viewing decks is ludicrous.

SwampgasBalloonBoy, on 24 January 2013 - 05:11 AM, said:

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.

I already did, it is too small. You need to propel the thing, the need to feed the occupants, and if these are aliens are from a planet with gravity then they need some sort of gravity and workout to keep muscles in shape. It is just too small. In fact I think it is ridiculous to consider that a 35 foot ship can cross space. Honestly, all this tells me is that you have grasp on space itself.

I am not assuming that just we cannot do it. I know that space takes a long time to cross, and that ship is not built for long distance journeys, the description is an observation vehicle. It is not assuming we are the smartest, I do not have to be the smartest person on earth to know I will die if I stand in a volcano. Physics and practicality negate long distance Interstellar travel in such a small craft.

SwampgasBalloonBoy, on 24 January 2013 - 05:11 AM, said:

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

No, I just do not see ET, I see an exotic craft, you have made the leap that because the craft is exotic, and the described humans must be ET.

What specifically points at ET in Father Gills description, Can I ask you to outline the points please?

[psyche101]

SwampgasBalloonBoy, on 24 January 2013 - 05:20 AM, said:

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.

Please bold where exactly you feel the ambiguity lies in the following:

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.

SwampgasBalloonBoy, on 24 January 2013 - 05:20 AM, said:

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?

That is what I am trying to eliminate. Assumption.
Is ET a possibility? You tell me, what specifically points at ET in this case? Do the Occupants sound like ET? Is the craft what we would understand as being capable of Interstellar travel? No embellishment's just with Father Gill's actual description.

Edited by psyche101, 24 January 2013 - 05:40 AM.

[SwampgasBalloonBoy]

psyche101, on 24 January 2013 - 05:35 AM, said:

Then alas I have failed. It should show you that other options exist. I think a spaceship with viewing decks is ludicrous.



I already did, it is too small. You need to propel the thing, the need to feed the occupants, and if these are aliens are from a planet with gravity then they need some sort of gravity and workout to keep muscles in shape. It is just too small. In fact I think it is ridiculous to consider that a 35 foot ship can cross space. Honestly, all this tells me is that you have grasp on space itself.

I am not assuming that just we cannot do it. I know that space takes a long time to cross, and that ship is not built for long distance journeys, the description is an observation vehicle. It is not assuming we are the smartest, I do not have to be the smartest person on earth to know I will die if I stand in a volcano. Physics and practicality negate long distance Interstellar travel in such a small craft.



No, I just do not see ET, I see an exotic craft, you have made the leap that because the craft is exotic, and the described humans must be ET.

What specifically points at ET in Father Gills description, Can I ask you to outline the points please?

Human as far as we know can't seemed to do what was described. Are there any proof that we can? are there any proof of time travelling human? Then what the hell is it if it isn't ET?

[SwampgasBalloonBoy]

psyche101, on 24 January 2013 - 05:39 AM, said:

Please bold where exactly you feel the ambiguity lies in the following:

Quote

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).

possibly does not meant definitely. it leave open that it might not be.

psyche101, on 24 January 2013 - 05:39 AM, said:

That is what I am trying to eliminate. Assumption.
Is ET a possibility? You tell me, what specifically points at ET in this case? Do the Occupants sound like ET? Is the craft what we would understand as being capable of Interstellar travel? No embellishment's just with Father Gill's actual description.

Is ET even a possibility in this case?
This is a simple question of yes or no. I can't tell you what to think. I know where I stand. I would like to know where you stand.

[psyche101]

SwampgasBalloonBoy, on 24 January 2013 - 05:44 AM, said:

Human as far as we know can't seemed to do what was described. Are there any proof that we can? are there any proof of time travelling human? Then what the hell is it if it isn't ET?

What was described that humans cannot do? Build a machine as described? Granted that seems to be the case, but you do not know if it is anymore than you do if Aliens are actually visiting us.

Again, and not for the first time. Time Travel is but one possible option to consider, not in any way a conclusion nor answer. Please list what human cannot do, which was in Father Gills description.

What the hell indeed, what I am asking you  is why specifically ET? Why should no other avenue be explored? Time travel does not sound viable to you, great, you have not really qualified a reasons other than you feel development on warp drive is more viable. Why is ET the best option? Again, when did this craft head into space?

[psyche101]

SwampgasBalloonBoy, on 24 January 2013 - 05:53 AM, said:

possibly does not meant definitely. it leave open that it might not be.

I posted this.

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.

That is quite definitive, and supported by the statement you supplied which includes the word possibly. What are they describing above? As the Main Ship? The 35 foot saucer with a viewing platform.

SwampgasBalloonBoy, on 24 January 2013 - 05:53 AM, said:

Is ET even a possibility in this case?
This is a simple question of yes or no. I can't tell you what to think. I know where I stand. I would like to know where you stand.

But it is not a simple yes or no answer. I have already said, what makes this ET? To me, the only possible ET connection is the performance of the craft, no other aspect fits in with ET. So the performance of the craft allows for advanced technologies but nothing else points at ET. Not the occupants, not the interaction, not the design of the craft, so a better answer must exist. Like the one Vallee spoke of that had propellors on it. Some things just do not add up, which to me, makes ET a less viable as an option. ET can be included as advanced tech in speculation, so in that respect, it could be linked to ET, but it is overshadowed by other, and to me more important, anomalies. So ET is likely to be incorrect. The performance seems ET, but the design does not. How do you get a straight answer when we do not have enough information to offer one? Again, it's like the airship, how can it exist when people saw it? It is not ET, but we did not have that capability at the time, so how do these things happen?

Have you had a look at anything Jacques Vallee has done?

Edited by psyche101, 24 January 2013 - 06:02 AM.

[SwampgasBalloonBoy]

psyche101, on 24 January 2013 - 05:53 AM, said:

What was described that humans cannot do? Build a machine as described? Granted that seems to be the case, but you do not know if it is anymore than you do if Aliens are actually visiting us.

Again, and not for the first time. Time Travel is but one possible option to consider, not in any way a conclusion nor answer. Please list what human cannot do, which was in Father Gills description.

What the hell indeed, what I am asking you  is why specifically ET? Why should no other avenue be explored? Time travel does not sound viable to you, great, you have not really qualified a reasons other than you feel development on warp drive is more viable. Why is ET the best option? Again, when did this craft head into space?

list what human cannot do? what the heck. as you pointed out. the most important are the flying machines and the description of what those machine are capable of. Obviously human can wave and walk around a deck. Human can talk, but these "humans" chose not to.

How the heck can human travel back and forth in time? How should I know? Base on my limited logical mind, I just can't see the logic for it. It might be possible, but there's nothing to suggest human being actually are doing it. What other option do you suggest?

[SwampgasBalloonBoy]

psyche101, on 24 January 2013 - 06:02 AM, said:

I posted this.






That is quite definitive, and supported by the statement you supplied which includes the word possibly. What are they describing above? As the Main Ship? The 35 foot saucer with a viewing platform.

indeed you did post it, #44. Are you definite that the "mother ship" is 35 ft? then what size are the smaller ship?

psyche101, on 24 January 2013 - 06:02 AM, said:

But it is not a simple yes or no answer. I have already said, what makes this ET? To me, the only possible ET connection is the performance of the craft, no other aspect fits in with ET. So the performance of the craft allows for advanced technologies but nothing else points at ET. Not the occupants, not the interaction, not the design of the craft, so a better answer must exist. Like the one Vallee spoke of that had propellors on it. Some things just do not add up, which to me, makes ET a less viable as an option. ET can be included as advanced tech in speculation, so in that respect, it could be linked to ET, but it is overshadowed by other, and to me more important, anomalies. So ET is likely to be incorrect. The performance seems ET, but the design does not. How do you get a straight answer when we do not have enough information to offer one? Again, it's like the airship, how can it exist when people saw it? It is not ET, but we did not have that capability at the time, so how do these things happen?

Have you had a look at anything Jacques Vallee has done?

It is actually a simple question. I only asked whether ET is an option. is ET a possibility. Instead, you concluded that "ET is likely to be incorrect".
this show me you obviously has your bias, which you often accused the "believers" of having. Then what is likely the correct answer for you?

be back tomorrow.

[psyche101]

SwampgasBalloonBoy, on 24 January 2013 - 06:08 AM, said:

list what human cannot do? what the heck. as you pointed out. the most important are the flying machines and the description of what those machine are capable of. Obviously human can wave and walk around a deck. Human can talk, but these "humans" chose not to.

And not even the flying machine, the performance of it. We had these in 1955.





http://www.youtube.c...&v=7XzDMlhk4Sw#!

LINK

SwampgasBalloonBoy, on 24 January 2013 - 06:08 AM, said:

How the heck can human travel back and forth in time? How should I know? Base on my limited logical mind, I just can't see the logic for it. It might be possible, but there's nothing to suggest human being actually are doing it. What other option do you suggest?

Indeed, it might be possible it might not. The NASA article I linked to indicates that it is theoretically possibly, but where I am mostly going there is you say it is impossible to travel through time, but when you are travelling at a percentage of c, that is essentially exactly what you are doing.

Other options, well look at that picture above, and look at Father Gill's description, Railing, 4 legs, missing the beam of light I grant, but we have some basic parallels there, could it be private enterprise? Or as I did actually already suggest a space elevator? As the idea has been bandied about quite a bit.

Or could it be a covert operation to do with Rainbow bombs. As the entire operation was out of Father Gills view, he possibly might have the exit trails confused, and the craft he saw might be slowly ambling way whilst a nuclear device heads away to a target.

But we are heading back into speculation. I think we should try to stick as closely as we can with the actual description. It has no answers, but it might have a direction to follow.

Edited by psyche101, 24 January 2013 - 06:30 AM.

[psyche101]

SwampgasBalloonBoy, on 24 January 2013 - 06:25 AM, said:

indeed you did post it, #44. Are you definite that the "mother ship" is 35 ft? then what size are the smaller ship?

No, as per the description it is roughly 35 foot. That is not gong to translate into much more now is it? What measurement do you think we should be using?

SwampgasBalloonBoy, on 24 January 2013 - 06:25 AM, said:

It is actually a simple question. I only asked whether ET is an option. is ET a possibility. Instead, you concluded that "ET is likely to be incorrect".
this show me you obviously has your bias, which you often accused the "believers" of having. Then what is likely the correct answer for you?

be back tomorrow.

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. However, that does not mean I could not entertain the idea if better information were to become available that support such a conclusion. At the moment, the viewing deck and size make it not an ET spaceship.

Why is it hard to say "This part of the recollection can only be ET and nothing else?


As mcrom might say:

[quillius]

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.

- 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....

[1963]

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.

- 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....

Hi Quillius, I trust you are well my friend!

I confess to being a little unsure of your points on  the Ruwa Incident Q?...I agree that there are similarities between the sketches of the crafts in each of the cases, but am uncertain as to whether you feel that this is a negative aspect in validity of the Father Gill case...or the Ruwa testimony ?
I think that the Papua encounter being 35 years before the Zimbabwe case means that perhaps you are either mulling over the possibilities of a type of 'copycat hoaxing' on behalf of the African school?...or that you are connecting the two incidents and suggesting a link with the 'unknown-visitors' in both events?
Either way, I think that it is pretty possible...but have to say that the latter theory is more in my way of thinking, because as you might suspect, I give a great amount of credence to 'both' of these cases, even though I do not see a single  reasonable alternative to the ETH for the Gill case. In my humble opinion ...the Ruwa case ,and even the Westall case are not so far behind!

As for the apparent nonchalance of the Reverend and his flock in breaking away from their observations to perform their church service?...Well I have to say that , that didn't go unnoticed with me when I first read the testimony?...But after ruminating the case for quite some time afterwards,...it became clear to me that it wasn't such a strange thing for the minister to do after all.
The facts are that throughout the 3 day encounter, the Reverend Gill and his co-witnesses did not realise that the strange scene that they were watching were not in fact 'American's' operating their 'Technology' as Father Gill said that they had assumed. And so as the 'American's in their wonderfully advanced airship/platform' didn't look likely to land, he thought nothing of carrying out his vocational-duty by performing the service as normal. ...And also in his testimony, Gill does exude an air of confidence in his belief that the object was going to be present even when he broke off from his observations to have a spot of dinner!
Besides the fact that it is unknown if there was some kind of sentry left outside of the chapel with instructions to barge in and tell them of any interesting developments?

UFOnauts walking around their ships rare?...well I haven't got much time to find the numbers of these reports just now Q,...so i'll link you to an excellent thread that has been compiled by a good friend of mine over at AU, if you are interested in browsing ....


http://www.alien-ufos.com/ufonauts/


Cheers buddy.

[SwampgasBalloonBoy]

psyche101, on 24 January 2013 - 06:28 AM, said:

And not even the flying machine, the performance of it. We had these in 1955.





http://www.youtube.c...&v=7XzDMlhk4Sw#!

LINK




Indeed, it might be possible it might not. The NASA article I linked to indicates that it is theoretically possibly, but where I am mostly going there is you say it is impossible to travel through time, but when you are travelling at a percentage of c, that is essentially exactly what you are doing.

Other options, well look at that picture above, and look at Father Gill's description, Railing, 4 legs, missing the beam of light I grant, but we have some basic parallels there, could it be private enterprise? Or as I did actually already suggest a space elevator? As the idea has been bandied about quite a bit.

Or could it be a covert operation to do with Rainbow bombs. As the entire operation was out of Father Gills view, he possibly might have the exit trails confused, and the craft he saw might be slowly ambling way whilst a nuclear device heads away to a target.

But we are heading back into speculation. I think we should try to stick as closely as we can with the actual description. It has no answers, but it might have a direction to follow.

Very nice looking pic indeed. I wonder how many shots it take to hit the target since the thing shake worst than a drug addict.

This thing must be completely silence or the witnesses must be completely deaf. I guess it's perfectly reasonable for some secret military project to be parading around and putting on a light show for the local on multiple occasions. Hell, at least it's more believable than the time travel thingy. Keep going, Psyche! You're getting closer and closer to believability, my friend.

May I asks you to clarify one thing for me, Psyche. Do you believe with 100% certainty that those beings were real humans? based on the witness using "human", "men" to describe them. And were adamant that they saw (real) human beings, even though they were more or less 400 ft away. Keep in mind the "men" never spoken a word to them.

[bison]

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.

[psyche101]

SwampgasBalloonBoy, on 24 January 2013 - 11:27 PM, said:

Very nice looking pic indeed. I wonder how many shots it take to hit the target since the thing shake worst than a drug addict.

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.

SwampgasBalloonBoy, on 24 January 2013 - 11:27 PM, said:

This thing must be completely silence or the witnesses must be completely deaf. I guess it's perfectly reasonable for some secret military project to be parading around and putting on a light show for the local on multiple occasions. Hell, at least it's more believable than the time travel thingy. Keep going, Psyche! You're getting closer and closer to believability, my friend.

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.

SwampgasBalloonBoy, on 24 January 2013 - 11:27 PM, said:

May I asks you to clarify one thing for me, Psyche. Do you believe with 100% certainty that those beings were real humans? based on the witness using "human", "men" to describe them. And were adamant that they saw (real) human beings, even though they were more or less 400 ft away. Keep in mind the "men" never spoken a word to them.

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?