Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
1963

Father Gill's UnDebunkable Case?

272 posts in this topic

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.

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

Other possible explanations? To be sure! It's their relative probability, based on our best knowledge, that appears to be of the essence. Noting the high improbability of the technological explanations, other than an ET space craft, it seems to boil down to this, or the witnesses were lying.

Science seems to mistrust the eyewitness reports of unsanctioned observers from among the general public. It appears that meteorites were kept out of the scientific canon for some time, because it seemed more likely that the witnesses made it all up, than that rocks fell from the sky. I wonder what our descendants will say about this sort of dismissal of extraterrestrial craft, having the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. hmm.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does I reckon it might have been, then? Well, I'm glad you asked me that. :blush: 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. :innocent:

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?

I am in total agreement with all you say, and have said the same in the past!...It is only common sense that if mankind was so far advanced as to have achieved the level of sophisticated-technology required for that speculation to be a 'serious possibility'...it only stands to reason that the world would be a very different place to what it presently is!

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 ....

Yes again but ,..'I would' want to say... "clutching at straws"!

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.

Again yes!...but....88 mph?

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! :unsure2: ], or simply covered over by something like a heat shield when it exited the atmosphere.

Or just maybe ...it wasn't a spacecraft at all?...Maybe it was merely a tool that was designed and built in that specific way, to perform a specific task?

And maybe this specifically designed tool was delivered to it's place of work, by the 'larger shuttle' that was reported by Mr. R L Smith and Mr. and Mrs Ronald Orwin , whom reported seeing a bronze flying disc that accompanied a larger red flying object , appear to "jump towards and disappear into the larger object"...and who knows, just maybe that larger red UFO [shuttle?] takes the disc along with the disc's operators back to the 'mothership' that was stealthily orbiting nearby ...or maybe even parked on the moon!?...[well..wer'e only speculating aren't we? lol]

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.

...or this!

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!! :clap:

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. :blush:

Well I think that has made your position pretty clear M'Lord!...please correct me if i'm wrong, but it appears that out of the 'available options', that if pressed, you favour the ETH above the rest...but unlike me...you are not willing to say so with any real certainty!

That's ok by me, because no matter how well anyone else thinks that they know how my mind works, and try to pigeon-hole me...the fact is that whilst I do believe this event to be of an 'extraterrestrial nature'...or perhaps the equally anomalous interdimensional-event?...either way, I am still open to a prosaic explanation, so long as it is a sound explanation, and not in the same league as the limp efforts that have already been touted! :tu:

Cheers Buddy.

Edited by 1963

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Not taken in that way at all, in fact good point. You have a nice day too. My main point is that people who throw themselves upon the ETH have no other recourse, they cannot think outside this box they think they are. For some reason the consensus seems to be, "if it is unexplained it is ET" that is not the case, and I feel it is not the case here. I believe enough anomalies exist to seriously question ET as an answer. People are not even willing to look at alternatives, they keep trying to explain the sighting as ET. The adversarial feeling in this thread is simply due to the fact that some people refuse to look at any option other then ET if stumped.THis contingent of the ETH I feel are taking the entire phenomena backwards at a rapid rate, and if such continues, I feel the tin foil hat may never come off.

There is no "win" in this case, I thought that became obvious early on in the piece. I cannot prove the refraction hypothesis any more than anyone here can put a finger on ET. Even thought it is a viable hypothesis, it is pushed to one side at the wave of a hand, and I imagine a sneer. If anything, this thread should have sparked more in depth conversation and critical thinking, some alternatives, some ideas, and something new would have been a bonus, yet alas, if it's not ET, it's regarded an insult. It is disappointing to have seen this place become so limited and one sided. It's "Us and Them" now. And that is the loss we all suffer. Professor Jack Pettigew's work on Min Min lights appears to open some doors that very well might answer this conundrum, but it will not be given a chance in here. No ET. If people did not take the 1896 Airship as a precedent, and I feel that can only be for personal reasons, then Vallee's flying saucer with propellors ought to qualify as a precedent in this area that indicates more options are required to be considered. But in the end, some socialism has been achieved. All the ETH'ers can get together and say how clever you all are, and thumb your nose at me for actually trying to find an answer instead of falling to me knees and praising the Gods from other planets.

Same thing happened when Lost Shaman tried to offer a piece of Mylar to explain the Apollo 11 UFO. If anything, the ETH is indeed consistent. If not rather credulous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

There is no claim, atomic clocks have proven it. My main point is that it is a workable hypothesis right? You are lets say hypothesising Mother Ships to cross space (my objection being that you are adding elements, Father Gill already has a mothership and it's 35 foot across), which you say are likely using a wormhole to get close, and then use a scout-ship right? The hypothesis with regards to actually creating one of these things is that making a "Short" Wormhole" is a great deal easier than making a "Long" Wormhole. If a "Wormhole" Is something that can actually be created to offer a shortcut through space, then we could make a time machine long before we could travel to distant stars. About one year quicker than going to Alpha Centauri at 99% of c to create a Wormhole 500 years into the future from now, with what we know now. The spacecraft we have now are not operating in any realm that would achieve this in any time frame, like the drag car that will not make a quarter mile in under one second they are not engineered to do so, and the performance described is also not something the craft we build can do, so something completely different must be in place. A time machine would appear to "Zip" away and not require inertia, as was pointed out earlier in the thread, space is on the move. Time travel means space travel. And for all we know, that might even be how "Wormholes" are distributed for use if anyone is making them. So if the craft is not of the same performance, it seems incorrect to evaluate it as ET based on the performance. They are very exotic explanations, I feel the the refraction hypothesis is the most likely out of everything put forth to date.

** 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. :blush:

Hrmmzzz, really? Very appropriate comment IMHO. That "department" is of the highest order where both sides of this debate are concerned, and is held up by UFOlogy on a constant basis as some type of holy grail.

Swamp Gas came from J. Allen Hynek. Probably the best chance UFOlogy ever had to get an answer on this, until like this thread, he said one thing that upset the die hards, and was ousted from the community for it. I think UFOlogists that hold Hynek up as some sort of benchmark are hypocrites considering:

From WIkipedia:

It was during the late stages of Blue Book in the 1960s that Hynek began speaking openly about his disagreements and disappointments with the Air Force. Among the cases where he openly dissented with the Air Force were the highly publicized Portage County UFO chase (where several police officers chased a UFO for half an hour), and the encounter of Lonnie Zamora. A police officer, Zamora reported an encounter with a metallic, egg-shaped aircraft near Socorro, New Mexico.

2 actual cases that indeed are compelling and in my opinion are far better candidates where ET is concerned. In fact I would say Portage County deserves this title better than Father Gill's case considering the details.

In late March 1966, in Michigan, two days of mass UFO sightings were reported, and received significant publicity. After studying the reports, Hynek offered a provisional hypothesis for some of the sightings: a few of about 100 witnesses had mistaken swamp gas for something more spectacular. At the press conference where he made his announcement, Hynek repeatedly and strenuously made the qualification that swamp gas was a plausible explanation for only a portion of the Michigan UFO reports, and certainly not for UFO reports in general. But much to his chagrin, Hynek's qualifications were largely overlooked, and the words "swamp gas" were repeated ad infinitum in relation to UFO reports. The explanation was subject to national derision.

And that is that day that UFOlogy shot itself in the foot and showed it's true colours. This thread is repeating that very mistake the way I see it. But that is the arrogance of the ETH - a case that is undebankably ET, yet ET was never qualified. That is good enough for a Stanton Friedman novel. But I have agreed from page ione, that neither planetary explanation is workable too, like the ET claim, these explanations leave too many questions unanswered. But they hardly come from the same camp as swamp gas. That is an event that UFOlogy really ought to be rather red faced about, but like the ETH'ers I see, they are never wrong. They all think they are smarter and more experienced than J. Allan, so Hynek was considered wrong. Plasma is another thing we have UFOLogy to thank for holding back progress. No secret why. That alone ought to be enough for a good long look in the mirror I reckon.

Ya know, it strikes me that UFOlogists and ETH'ers ought to be painfully aware of that past blunder, and try to bury it, but they do not, they use it to mock the very phenomena which it sought to uphold. How is such a mindset ever supposed to see rationality?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Hi Grey Area

I would like to see you post more often. You may not have much to say, but when you do have something to say, it contributes greatly IMHO. I felt the title was one that had an adversarial tone to begin with as well, but the OP likes to go for the throat as opposed to discuss a case where skeptics are concerned to my experience.

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.

Agreed, and it is no answer to be sure. It does seem to fit the actual description better than ET, and my point was merely to illustrate that time travel is viable and we have a working model, whereas we do not with warp travel, which was touted as more likely. Until we get that working model, I do not believe it is a more likely answer and time travel seems to be a more viable technology - hypothetically anyway. Yet, at best, ET is a stab in the dark, no answer at all. With the woo woo in here, had I been inclined I could probably throw the Philadelphia experiment at this hypothesis, whilst I view it as a tall tale, many of these proponents of ET I have no doubt would be happy to argue otherwise.

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

I could not agree more, and no matter what explanation is offered, it is more than obvious that no option other than ET is likely to be considered. Vallee's flying saucer with propellors is one such precedent that questions such a straight line solution. I am more than willing to have a good look at all testimony, but even these guys canot tell me "What can only be described as ET in Father Gill's description" as I believe his recollection does not qualify ET as an answer. Too many questions.

Thank you for your input. I enjoyed your perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other possible explanations? To be sure! It's their relative probability, based on our best knowledge, that appears to be of the essence.

I do not believe that for one second. You have made your mind up already, as is illustrated in the last line of this very post. It is easier to make a short wormhole than a larger one, and that being the case, if we ever could make a wormhole, then it seem likely we woud start with simpler solutions.

Noting the high improbability of the technological explanations, other than an ET space craft, it seems to boil down to this, or the witnesses were lying.

It does not boil down to that at all. Serious questions have been raised about the practicality of ET as an answer, but like the bodies you ETH'ers claim to despise, you do exactly the same thing, and consider alternate explanations an insult you your "undebunkable" case. Hell, that title say's more than enough!

You are offering Warp Hypothesis as an answer!

The main problem is that only exotic explanations have been considered at all. I guess it is in the ETH bloodline. The Prosaic has been dismissed, but on personal grounds, not one person has pointed out why it is impossible. If ET was indeed so much as a viable option here, then someone should be able to answer the question :

"What in Father Gill's Description can only be described as ET".

Until that can be answered, you are qualifying guesses with guesses, and pompously judging yourself to have found the answer.

Science seems to mistrust the eyewitness reports of unsanctioned observers from among the general public.

Not science, just results - actual proof. Science is a pursuit of knowledge, not the container of it.

The Innocence Project under the Global Griffith University has taken a sample of cases including Death Row candidates that were convicted by eyewitness testimony. Of these cases, 75% were overturned by DNA evidence. I am not sure how that is not seen as an alarming indicator that eyewitness testimony requires much more supportive evidence to be considered accurate. Some people had spent up to ten years in death row as a result of faulty testimony, I shudder to think how many have perished for the same.

It's all at the Griffith IP Website if you care to look.

They are real numbers, and dealing with real lives. Considering the results to date, it seems more than foolish to accept any testimony as entirely faultless.

It appears that meteorites were kept out of the scientific canon for some time, because it seemed more likely that the witnesses made it all up, than that rocks fell from the sky.

Same thing the Cryptozoologists say about the Gorilla. Such an arrogant stance, the above of course is not true at all, that is the view of Western Science only, ancient Greece recognised rocks as coming form the sky, and in fact worshiped them because of just that. Visitors to the temple of Apollo at Delphi, for example, reported that a stone, reputed to have fallen from the sky, was on display there and each day was anointed by the resident priests.

So the ancient Greeks knew that stones could, and did, fall from the sky. They used observation, common sense and the genuine power of reason to establish this. Rocks and stones that fell to the ground were not really falling stars they reasoned, because the celestial population of stars remained the same.

Aristotle, however, the great Greek philosopher, was one who thought he had debunked this concept. He thought that rocks could not fall from the sky because the heavens were perfect and could not possibly have loose pieces floating around to fall to Earth. Aristotle was forced to change his position somewhat after a meteorite fell at Thrace near Aegospotami. He reasoned that strong winds had lifted an earth rock into the sky, then dropped it. Other learned men of the time favoured an alternate theory. They held that meteorites somehow formed in the sky during violent thunderstorms, suggesting that particles inside the clouds consolidated because of the heat during a lighting flash. For this reason the rocks were sometimes referred to as thunderstones. Exotic explanations as a springboard back to an answer Greeks already had. This is where the refraction hypothesis again should be considered as opposed to immediately dismissed without reasoning.

Despite the varying views, a consensus was somehow arrived at. Being a temporary phenomenon, it was agreed, shooting stars had to be something within the atmosphere. These objects were therefore named Meteors meaning 'things in the air'. The idea that stones can fall out of the sky was also denounced by the Académie Française des Sciences, Europe's leading rational authority as an unscientific absurdity. This was a mindset that continued to propagate, and that is why we do not have hardly any meteorites that predate 1790.

But you lot do not see yourselves like the Académie, do you? But look at your last sentence in this post. You have the answer, whilst I admit to still guessing.

But even they had to succumb to Physical Evidence. It was not some fringe developer that unraveled the mystery, far from it, on the night of the 26th of April 1803 the people of L'Aigle were woken by the thunderous noise of more than 2000 rocks falling from the sky. This undeniable display of meteorites also woke up the Académie Française who were compelled to take notice. They appointed a commission to investigate the event, the result of which was finally a reluctant admission that stones could indeed fall from the sky. And thusly Western Science was brought up to speed. Many Ancient hypotheses managed to see the light of day, once one was allowed to consider such without the help of God, such as is the case here. If we are ever allowed to consider the case as not having ET as a component, who knows, maybe an answer might even be obtainable.

I see such ambiguous comments as purposefully trying to undermine science, and it's valuable results. I see such often from the ETH side of the fence. I do not feel such tactics are honorable. Such ambiguous prose however, does have a remarkable impact in the ignorant.

I wonder what our descendants will say about this sort of dismissal of extraterrestrial craft, having the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. hmm.

In November of 1492, a 280-pound meteorite fell in a wheat field near the village of Ensisheim, France. A young boy witnessed it and led the townspeople to a three-foot deep crater where it lay. The people thought the object to be of supernatural origin.

Indeed, however, I see it being a hallmark of the credulous. Those who could not think beyond ET. As we develop, and make contact, I expect many mirthful realisations as the current ETH comes undone. There are people with qualifications that actually are beneficial to such studies, and whom have a true insight that excludes the pop culture mindset propagated by 1950's novelists. They are pointing the way this will unfold, not the Frank Kimbler's of the world. I would pay money to time travel to see the current ETH in antiquity. I think it would be a wonderful and hearty belly laugh.

Good to know you have this one answered though, my arrogant approach has only resulted in many options. Which I completely believe the UFO phenomena to be, a number of things, and not just one explain all answer for every recorded event in antiquity.

Edited by psyche101
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hello all (especially 1963 and Psyche, to whom I owe a response.)

Apologies for my absence, its been a hectic few weeks for me and I havent been able to post or research at all.

I would stilll very much like to continue with this case to see where it may lead us.

I assume still no joy with the tapes 1963?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hello all (especially 1963 and Psyche, to whom I owe a response.)

Apologies for my absence, its been a hectic few weeks for me and I havent been able to post or research at all.

I would stilll very much like to continue with this case to see where it may lead us.

I assume still no joy with the tapes 1963?

You are off the hook if you wish mate. I think my point is well made, This is most certainly not concrete evidence we are being visited, it is not even evidence of ET, it is another leap of faith taken and arrogantly expressed as iron clad when it is not. Father Gill's case offers more questions, not any answers. Whilst I favour a refraction hypothesis out of candidates so far submitted, it is clear that hypothesis (which it actually is as opposed the the ET claim being based on actual observations and local conditions) will not be given the time of day by anyone but your good self, proving yourself far superior to all of your peers. My only wish is that silly claims like this demonstrate the tin foil hat phenomena, and that more people are inspired by your methods of investigation and start to consider the subject as more than simple entertainment. At the end of the day, that is how I see this particular thread, created for entertainment and to taunt critical thinkers. Just the title is arrogant enough, and demonstrates the mindset of the faithful. The case itself fascinating, intensely interesting, but it does not prove ET has made it here. It is a shame to see such an intriguing case wasted solely on ET to be frank. Considering the examples of Vallee's flying saucer with propellors and the 1896 airship, there is more to scratch one's head about then that which 1950's Sci Fi offers us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are off the hook if you wish mate. I think my point is well made, This is most certainly not concrete evidence we are being visited, it is not even evidence of ET, it is another leap of faith taken and arrogantly expressed as iron clad when it is not. Father Gill's case offers more questions, not any answers. Whilst I favour a refraction hypothesis out of candidates so far submitted, it is clear that hypothesis (which it actually is as opposed the the ET claim being based on actual observations and local conditions) will not be given the time of day by anyone but your good self, proving yourself far superior to all of your peers. My only wish is that silly claims like this demonstrate the tin foil hat phenomena, and that more people are inspired by your methods of investigation and start to consider the subject as more than simple entertainment. At the end of the day, that is how I see this particular thread, created for entertainment and to taunt critical thinkers. Just the title is arrogant enough, and demonstrates the mindset of the faithful. The case itself fascinating, intensely interesting, but it does not prove ET has made it here. It is a shame to see such an intriguing case wasted solely on ET to be frank. Considering the examples of Vallee's flying saucer with propellors and the 1896 airship, there is more to scratch one's head about then that which 1950's Sci Fi offers us.

I think maybe its best not to continue with this thread as there is some bad feeling and I personally respect and enjoy conversing with both 1963 and yourself.

As a parting shot though have a think about this question:

'what would you give more weight to as an indication of ET ' appearance or performance'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a parting shot though have a think about this question:

'what would you give more weight to as an indication of ET ' appearance or performance'?

Considering the D-Dalus that I mentioned in this link LINK, and the exposure it has had, appearance would be a better indicator of what a craft is capable of, and what it's design paramaters permit. Again, Vallee's flaying saucer with propellors comes to mind. He was convinced that he had a solid case for ET until that detail popped up.

Edited by Saru
Removed derrogatory personal remark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You gotta Love a propellors kinda-guy ! Nothing Says FTL than a Blade smashing thru our thick air Like An E.T design Chopper! Anyone for another Blackhawk Down?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hello all (especially 1963 and Psyche, to whom I owe a response.)

Apologies for my absence, its been a hectic few weeks for me and I havent been able to post or research at all.

I would stilll very much like to continue with this case to see where it may lead us.

I assume still no joy with the tapes 1963?

hello all (especially 1963 and Psyche, to whom I owe a response.)

Apologies for my absence, its been a hectic few weeks for me and I havent been able to post or research at all.

I would stilll very much like to continue with this case to see where it may lead us.

I assume still no joy with the tapes 1963?

Hi Quillius, I too am no stranger to a hectic way of life and can well understand your predicament!

Anyway my friend...you are correct in your assumptions about the tapes!...getting hold of those little blighters is like trying to crack the euromillions!...the closest that I have got is get a photograph of their probable location... :rolleyes: ...

IMG_0010.JPG

this is the evidence library at CUFOS-Michigan , and I have emailed a request for information to the big cheese there 'Michael Swords', a couple of weeks ago, but as of yet...nothing!!

...but as I have a couple of 'top-lads' SD and Karl 12 on the case,...I haven't given up yet! :yes:

But on a more positive note....I have been trying to locate any of the other surviving witnesses [who's account of the incidents that we have not heard yet...such as Steven Moi etc] ...and whilst I was finding out that Reverend David Durie had sadly passed away ,[the man whom received the two original letters from Father Gill]...I managed to find his son, the Reverend Dr. Mark Durie, who is himself scholar and vicar of St Mary's Anglican Church in Caulfield, Victoria, Australia.,...and emailed the guy and asked if there was any chance that he could add anything that he knew [through his father] about the events?[if he didn't mind, that is!]

And to the man's credit, he as so far given me a couple of replies!....this is the first one....

Hello Alex,

Add sender to Contact

s

I am happy to respond. My father David also saw the flying object but it did not approach the place where he was. He had been a navigator with the RAAF during the war and it was clear to him from the speed and ovement of the object that it was not man-made. My father has passed away but I can check whether he referred to it in his autobiography. My mother is still alive and may have seen the object in the sky over Dogura as well. I shall ask her. Mark

Sent from my iPhone

...and then the second email...

My mother also saw the object, together with my Father and students at St Aidan's College.

It was a light in the distance, moving with great speed and suddenly stopping and hovering.

My Father commented that no man-made flying object could move and stop in that way and at that speed.

This sighting occurred at the time when Father Gill made his report.

Mark

....Sounds like a promising start to me!...I'll get back to you when I learn more . :tu:

Cheers Buddy.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You gotta Love a propellors kinda-guy ! Nothing Says FTL than a Blade smashing thru our thick air Like An E.T design Chopper! Anyone for another Blackhawk Down?

OK, I am ready to go......................................

BeaniePropellerCap-.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I am ready to go......................................

BeaniePropellerCap-.jpg

Good Bye Yellow Brick Road , E.T done come and Gone ! BUt they did Leave us a Great Piano player !

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are off the hook if you wish mate. I think my point is well made, This is most certainly not concrete evidence we are being visited, it is not even evidence of ET, it is another leap of faith taken and arrogantly expressed as iron clad when it is not. Father Gill's case offers more questions, not any answers. Whilst I favour a refraction hypothesis out of candidates so far submitted, it is clear that hypothesis (which it actually is as opposed the the ET claim being based on actual observations and local conditions) will not be given the time of day by anyone but your good self, proving yourself far superior to all of your peers.

You mean far superior to all these loons who just keep banging on about ET? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You mean far superior to all these loons who just keep banging on about ET? :P

I was trying for more diplomacy than that where the OP is concerned, but hey, there you go, it's blunt now.

But I do think it might be more constructive to try and consider why the craft might look like it does, rather than try to consider why ET would have a craft like that. That would be a different conversation to Father Gill's recollection I would think.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heres a Great quote by Mark Boslough a Sandia National Lab physicist " When somebody is making a claim that something extraordinary happened,somthing out of the ordinary and with a very low probability,and they have ambiguous evidence,then the default is that it didnt Happen " :tu:

Dang those pesky brainiacs !

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heres a Great quote by Mark Boslough a Sandia National Lab physicist " When somebody is making a claim that something extraordinary happened,somthing out of the ordinary and with a very low probability,and they have ambiguous evidence,then the default is that it didnt Happen " :tu:

Dang those pesky brainiacs !

Then what do you consider that it probably was?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then what do you consider that it probably was?

Just remember the key words from Father Gill`s "In my Book "

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just remember the key words from Father Gill`s "In my Book "

Care to elaborate further?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Care to elaborate further?

i'm not sure, but i think it's got something to do with religion and all... in the sense that if individuals preach nonsense as factual happenings, then what are the odds that they were interpreting reality as it was or were rather just making up stuff which is quite prevalent in the day to day business of such folks :unsure2:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm not sure, but i think it's got something to do with religion and all... in the sense that if individuals preach nonsense as factual happenings, then what are the odds that they were interpreting reality as it was or were rather just making up stuff which is quite prevalent in the day to day business of such folks :unsure2:

A profound observation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.