Father Gill's UnDebunkable Case?

[S2F]

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.

[S2F]

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'.

[quillius]

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.

[quillius]

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

[S2F]

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.

Hmmm, I'm sensing a little ambiguity there.

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

[quillius]

Thanks for digging that up and sharing it Quill.

Hmmm, I'm sensing a little ambiguity there.

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.

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).

[S2F]

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.

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).

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.

[quillius]

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.

[bison]

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 February 6, 2013 by bison

[quillius]

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''?

[bison]

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.

[psyche101]

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.

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.

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

* 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.

"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.

* 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.

* 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.

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?

* So, ET?! 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.

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.

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?

[psyche101]

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.

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

With Mokele Mbembe, there was not one.

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.

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.

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

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

[psyche101]

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.

[psyche101]

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

You stil have got it mate

[DONTEATUS]

me thinks Father Gills knew his fine Scotch !

[psyche101]

not quite seeing how this relates back to the tapes from the interviews?

Just historical record, thought it might come in handy.

There has been some suggestion of nearby military having something to do with it, but have found that quite fragile with research done to date, but of course its not ruled out just yet...especially when bearing in mind words by 'Ben Rich'

But if you go by what he said, you have no chance of finding out anything concrete.

also not sure how teh Corona satellite accounts for people on viewing deck?

It does not, but it focus on the craft. I personally think the refraction theory is the best one on offer so far. With the Min Min hypothesis twist of course.

[psyche101]

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 ....

Humans are not the anomaly, the performance of the craft is. It is what needs to be qualified, only then any such assumption might be valid. Before that, it's just a game.

[1963]

not quite seeing how this relates back to the tapes from the interviews?

also not sure how teh Corona satellite accounts for people on viewing deck?

Of course It doesn't Quillius!...it is merely yet another inept spanner that that poster is trying to toss into the equation , as his/her latest attempt to deprecate the actual data supplied by the witnesses!

Firstly this particular poster is , in their unfailing manner of refusing to accept that a spade ...is sometimes a spade! ..unless of course, it fits with their in-built belief system that there is always a prosaic answer to any situation that points to 'something more'!.Now since I have had this poster on my 'ignore-list' for ages now and only ever catch bits of their quotes in other peoples posts, I have to assume that either not as 'bright' as I had previously given credit to,..or is just routinely practicing his/her well honed and obvious obfuscation method of muddying the waters of a case with damn good testimony!.As is plainly demonstrated by the serious attempt to tout the outlandish 'Time Traveller Hypothesis' early on in the thread!! ....

....and then came the usual 'cut and paste' jobs to push the 'debunk-at-all-cost's agenda' that can be found on all of the predictable sceptoid-sites...'spent nuclear rods', refracted mirages, etc,...and as far as I can ascertain is currently in the process of mooting several highly unsupported ideas... from my friend Karl 12's unlikely 'U.S Secret Flying Platform Possibility'...to Martin Kottmeyer's fanciful 'Squid-boat Hypotheses' , and now the even more nonsensical 'Misidentified Corona Satellite explanation', [which incidentally has also been covered in the link to the AU thread that he provided]....the gist being that the Corona missions of the time, were a series of experimental spying devices that were launched from Cook Air Force Base in California, and orbited over the 'north pole'..between 6-7000 miles from Boianai!...and not to mention that there doesn't seem to be any successful launches of the satellites in Father Gill encounter timeframe!...and not least of the problems in trying to shoehorn the Corona missions into the 'ah!..i've cracked it' scenario, is that no matter how I try...I cannot find the 'smoking-gun documentation' that records that a four man crew of astronauts were commissioned to stand on top of these dodgy-satellites, waving their arms to missionaries and dozens of other verified witnesses in New Guinea!!

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:CORONA_lifecycle_video.ogv

btw Q...I am still struggling to get those Hynek interview tapes, but haven't given up yet! lol..and does this link to UFO Evidence site not work for you....?

http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case67.htm

Also, I just realised that I haven't mentioned another point that has been on my mind for a while...and it may well be a point better left there lol,,,but here we go...its the part near the end of Gill's statement....

"

11.20 p.m.

11.30 p.m.

Sunday, 28/6/59.

No sign of U.F.O.

Only 1 U.F.O. practically overhead. Slightly north. Very high, but clearly distinguishable, due to hovering. (Fr. Gill uses the word 'hover' in the sense of wavering movement in a small area).

Same U.F.O. - moved to southern position, but still more or less overhead.

3 U.F.O.'s in almost straight line – all high, sky clear.

8 U.F.O.'s. This is the greatest number seen at one time, one fairly low, but except for occasional 'hover', no activity seen on board.

A sharp metallic and loud bang on Mission roof, as though a piece of metal had dropped from a great height. No roll of 'object' down roof slope afterwards. Outside, 4 UFO's in a circle round station. All high.

To bed, and UFOs still there.

Monday 29/6/59

Roof examined. No apparent sign or mark or dent, which one might expect from last night's noise.

....I wondered if anyone..ie Hynek or any of the other interested visitors to the mission, had thought that being as the mission roof is sloped and not flat,..that any solid object that may have fallen from a great height, would be likely to either smash through the roof, [which apparently it did not] ..or simply glance off the slopes of the roof and could conceivably be lying around the vicinity , maybe under some foliage waiting for some interested party to find via a metal detector or something?

Cheers Buddy.

[Esoteric Toad]

UnDebunkable and yet completely unverifiable. Nothing but another story, period. JMO.

[psyche101]

Say what you like 63, It's not like it will bother me. But then again you always have.

If Anything, I want to say thank you for this thread. It is very illustrative, and without doubt a case that deserves more attention than it has received to date. And it actively exposes the one sided mindset of UFOlogy. Being considered a "Solid Case" my probing into alternate solutions has surely colourfully illustrated the mindset of the ETH'ers and I feel this thread well shows not only why the UFO phenomena wears a tin foil hat, but why it deserves one.

It also well demonstrates just how valuable eyewitness testimony is to a diehard ETH'er. Which is "It is great when it says what I want it to", and shows that even The Fathers testimony is not sacred. His reputation where an ET angle is certainly held up, even though it is an assumption as not one person who says Father Gill is a fine person has actually met him, or read more than this case about him. Not to mention not one person can state "What can only be described as ET in Father Gill's description". Catholic priests have something of a dubious reputation these days, yet even with this high praise, his actual words are discarded. He could not possibly be seeing human's no matter what he said, he got every aspect of the story right, except that it was ET, and he did not see humans, he saw ET's that looked something like humans. That is how it goes isn't it? It does not matter that the craft is too small to traverse space, it does not matter that the craft does not seemed to be designed for space, it does not matter that the craft never entered space, and we know that better than your extensive knowledge of Black Op's no matter what you claim. But we can overlook all that because it hovered, and took of at great speed, faster than a conventional plane in 1959, as far as a Catholic Missionary is concerned.

The thread also illustrates the limited inderstanding of time dilation, whilst the fellow above might look somewhat comical the the replica of the movie version of HG wells time machine, the globe does not consider Sergei Avdeyev comical one bit, seeming as he did travel through time, and has been verified as having aged 20 milliseconds less than the rest of the globe by way of atomic timekeeping. Hardly science fiction. But force fields, warp drive and the like, all of the ETH'ers seem to find second nature, as if commonplace.

If anything, you have given everyone a good reason to dimiss the credulous claims at first sight, as I can see, unless the answer is ET, you do not consider anything an answer. If anything, this has indeed been an illustrative experience, although not one bit surprising. I hope science stops giving this fringe element the time of day, as science has wasted far too much time and resources proving themselves to the crackpots who already "have the answer". ETH'ers are a blight on science, and will continue to be as long as they insist that they get to make the rules. The entire faction should just be ignored.

If we go back through the thread, I never once offered any solutions as "The Answer" not one. I still have not, but favour Martin Kottmeyer's solution over what has been presented to date with perhaps some help from Professor Jack Pettigrew's work. I have presented alternatives, and tried to get (to no avail) people to consider alternatives. Heretic!!! No ET in my suggestions!! But as you do not read the posts you would have missed that, yet you feel qualified to comment upon such. Speaks volumes that. But not closed minded are you, never jump to conclusions do you LOL.

Undebunkable does not mean ET. Neither thread you made proves that.

And thank you for having me on ignore. I consider that a courtesy.

Edited February 8, 2013 by psyche101

[Space Commander Travis]

I'd decided it wasn't worth arguing interminably about this any more, but just a small point:

It also well demonstrates just how valuable eyewitness testimony is to a diehard ETH'er. Which is "It is great when it says what I want it to", and shows that even The Fathers testimony is not sacred. His reputation where an ET angle is certainly held up, even though it is an assumption as not one person who says Father Gill is a fine person has actually met him, or read more than this case about him. Not to mention not one person can state "What can only be described as ET in Father Gill's description". Catholic priests have something of a dubious reputation these days, yet even with this high praise, his actual words are discarded.

the late Rev. William Booth Gill was actually the head of the Anglican mission at Boiani, ('Father' is customarily used for Catholic priests, of course, which was a point I questioned initially, but it appears that Anglican priests can be addressed as 'Father' if they wish.)

Apart from that, there's no point arguing interminably when people have such dogged beliefs, so I'll leave everyone to it.

I suppose this will be interpreted by those who insist on taking an adversarial stance and arguing interminably that their beliefs must be the only true ones, as "climbing down" and that they've "won" and so on, and they're quite welcome to if they like. So have a nice day, please.

[1963]

I'd decided it wasn't worth arguing interminably about this any more, but just a small point:

the late Rev. William Booth Gill was actually the head of the Anglican mission at Boiani, ('Father' is customarily used for Catholic priests, of course, which was a point I questioned initially, but it appears that Anglican priests can be addressed as 'Father' if they wish.)

Apart from that, there's no point arguing interminably when people have such dogged beliefs, so I'll leave everyone to it.

I suppose this will be interpreted by those who insist on taking an adversarial stance and arguing interminably that their beliefs must be the only true ones, as "climbing down" and that they've "won" and so on, and they're quite welcome to if they like. So have a nice day, please.

Hey Vetinari ["still can't get used to punching that into the keyboard 7".lol]

What's with the 'whimpy post'?....Don't be so silly man...you know that your opinions, musings,witty banter and general contributions are both worthy and welcome in any thread!

And If the sentiment in the above post of yours is a genuine feeling of your posts and thoughts within , are being disparaged by other posters..[and I wholeheartedly hope that i'm not included in this]..then all that I can suggest is don't just allow yourself to be browbeaten , and skulk-off in disappointment! No my friend, I suggest that you do something about it!!

For example, if the problem is,.. as I suspect, ..with 'a certain rather rude poster' that continually insists that you are a fool if you do not fall in line with their every edict, theory, or inference.. [no matter how implausible]..that then for pity's sake man just tell him straight!....eg.."No Sergei Avdeyev did not Time Travel!...he merely experienced a miniscule fraction of time dilation,0.02 which he achieved by travelling in space at a speed of 27360 kmps for 747 days. Time dilation in essence is the name given for the slowing down of time's effect on Avdeyev's body, and not a reversal of time itself!"....or whatever other point that you want to make yourself from the many valid ones that I notice you have been trying to get over to that poster!...it's quite an easy thing to do, and i'm sure that the enjoyment of your time on the threads will be enhanced once you decide to stand your corner, and not just withdraw from the 'conversations' because a ..let's say , 'forceful personality' is constantly making you walk on egg-shells!

Failing that...there is always the option of.. 'choosing with whom to converse',..because 'some people' are not only less open minded than you appear to be, but in fact have their minds 'nailed shut' and can never be persuaded to consider an alternative answer to the one that they are predispositioned to defend!...

Anyway M'Lord...unless I have missed it?...I cannot remember seeing your own summary of just what exactly do you 'presently think' what happened in the Father Gill case,..Prosaic or Not?.and without inhibitions of any kind...the question is.... in your opinion, what did they see?

Cheers buddy.

Edited February 8, 2013 by 1963

[Grey Area]

Hey Vetinari ["still can't get used to punching that into the keyboard 7".lol]

if the problem is,.. as I suspect, ..with 'a certain rather rude poster' that continually insists that you are a fool if you do not fall in line with their every edict, theory, or inference.. [no matter how implausible]..that then for pity's sake man just tell him straight!....eg.."No Sergei Avdeyev did not Time Travel!...he merely experienced a miniscule fraction of time dilation,0.02 which he achieved by travelling in space at a speed of 27360 kmps for 747 days. Time dilation in essence is the name given for the slowing down of time's effect on Avdeyev's body, and not a reversal of time itself!"

Hi, dont post very often, its unusual I feel it necessary to post, but I do enjoy following the threads from time to time.

I feel compelled to set a few things straight here. Firstly, why would you post a Thread entitled 'Un-debunkable' and then not expect the usual skepticism to go with. And for the record I am a total skeptic. This thread from start smelled a bit of Troll.

On the point of time dilation. This is not a form of time travel, or an effect on the body, and you certainly cannot dilate time in order to travel backwards. Time Dilation is an 'Observed' effect that can be measured from the perspectives of two seperate, but synchronised viewpoints.

because 'some people' are not only less open minded than you appear to be, but in fact have their minds 'nailed shut' and can never be persuaded to consider an alternative answer to the one that they are predispositioned to defend!...

This thread should have been more aptly titled 'Unverifiable'. Because this is what this is, totally and utterly unverifiable. Witness testimony is the only thing we have here, and simply stating that the witnesses were teachers and Vicars and medical professionals and so on and so forth does not give someone an automatic reliability clause.

It needs to be accepted that there are other explanations, no matter how implausible, and that includes that they all simply concocted a story and then told it, for whatever reasons, and there always will be alternative explanations, because there is no way to verify the accounts of the witnesses

[Space Commander Travis]

Anyway M'Lord...unless I have missed it?...I cannot remember seeing your own summary of just what exactly do you 'presently think' what happened in the Father Gill case,..Prosaic or Not?.and without inhibitions of any kind...the question is.... in your opinion, what did they see?

Cheers buddy.

What does I reckon it might have been, then? Well, I'm glad you asked me that. That's a very good question, and it's one well worth asking. And once I've decided, if I ever do, I'll be the first to let you know.

But leaving politicians' answers out of it, if there was a Prosaic explanation, the only one that really seems at all feasible would be the idea that it was some kind of hovering platform-type device being evaluated by the Military. In support of this, we have the description of the people aboard it as looking like Humans. And if they were testing something like that, the jungles of south-east Asia would be just the sort of place where it would be useful. Perhaps the U.S. (presumably) Military had scented which way the wind was blowing, and had an idea that south-east Asia would be an area that would be of particular interest before long.

On the other hand, though, there's the fact that it seemed, from this report, to be working quite satisfactorily and safely; the crew didn't seem too concerned about anything, did they, in fact they seemed quite cheerful. Would a military crew, testing an important (and of course, highly secret) experimental machine, spare the time to drop by the natives and give them a wave? Would it not be sensible to keep something secret well awy from anywhere it might be seen? And then, if it did seem to be succesful, why was nothing more ever heard of such a device? Why were the skies of 'Nam not filled with hundreds of these versatile, silent, manouverable platforms, rather all those noisy helicopters? They'd surely have been just the job for inflitrating the Ho Chi Minh Trail or hutning down the Vietcong. And why has it never appeared in any of the books or articles about US experimental aircraft that have appeared since then?

Then, er, the Time machine; well, don't get me wrong, I'm only too pleased to see the notion of a Time machine being taken seriously rather than dismissed as Sci fi fantasy, but to try to argue that it's a serious suggestion, based entirely on the fact that the occupants of said Craft looked like Humans from the distance they were seen from, and that is has been demonstrated to be possible since Andrey Medvedev claims to have carried out experiments in time dilation, so that therefore in the future, Time machines may be as common as cars, and someone may have gone for a jaunt around Papua New Guinea in 1959, seems, well, to be extrapolating every bit as much as the idea that it may have been a Space craft, to be quite honest. I wouldn't want to say clutching at straws, but, well ....

In fact, surely it's less probable than a Spacecraft, since we know that Space travel, at modest speeds at any rate, is possible, and in fact we've done it ourselves, while we're a long, long way off being able to hop into the Time machine, crank it up to 88 mph, and away we go.

So, a Spacecraft, then? Well, this "viewing deck" seems to get some people immensely wound up, and cause them to reject it out of hand; might it be as simple as that one could only open the outside doors and go out 'on deck' at low altitude and low speeds, or in the hover, much like how one should only open the doors of an airliner once it's on the ground: perhaps the external doors were locked before it shot away at great speed, or perhaps the 'outside deck' was protected by a force field [oh no! Sci fi fantasy again! We can't have that! ], or simply covered over by something like a heat shield when it exited the atmosphere.

Or it might not have to exit the atmosphere at all; it might have been a purely atmospheric craft, like a lander or survey craft that undocked from a parent craft somewhere; perhaps the parent craft dipped into the atmosphere, launched the lander (perhaps one of several), and took off again out of the way.

So, while I wouldn't not possibly suggest that it must have been ET, as some insist that I keep shouting, I do not think any of the objections are conclusive objections against the idea. If it was something Militarty, why was nothing more ever heard of it, and, well... I wouldn't want to rule out a Time machine, but I think it would need rather more to support it than to say "they looked like Humans! A Spacecraft woudln't possibly have a viewing gallery!". I really don't think it's any less sci fi than a Spacecraft, and arguably more so, since we do know that spacecraft can be constructed, and so far, the ability to construct a Time machine is entirely hypothetical.

* Oh, I didn't mention the Nuclear angle, did I. Well, I think the fact that no one seemed to report any kind of radiation in the vicinity, and no one seemed to report any ill effects resulting from radiation, can really rule that out. Plus the fact that ideas for nuclear power plants aboard aircraft envisaged huge intercontinental bombers, not small devices that

* oh! yes, it was only 35 ft in diameter! Well, that's a conclusive argument against a Spacecraft, isn't it! no one's going to to go zipping across the immeasurable distances of Space in something that size!!

Well, perhaps not, but that's all the more argument in favour of the lander idea, isn't it. When compared with all the alternative suggestions, the more reasonable it seems.

** Oh, and, what were the other sugegstions, Venus or a Satellite? Well, I think you could safley say that those came from the same department that gave us Swamp gas.