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

Why wouldn't they be smart enough to guard against the unknown? You assumed they just stumbled upon the earth and it was their maiden voyage. Aren't there reports of UFOs even before this event? I don't think it's ludicrous to assume they could be from the same place. For example, before Neil Armstrong step foot on the Moon, don't you think NASA would take every precautions based on what they know about the Moon and space travel at that point? If us human can do so, why wouldn't a more technological advance race?

Are there reports that match this one? Ones that you could say are close enough in description to say, it would appear this craft has been seen in X location, so we might surmise this is an ongoing thing, or are you relying on "reports in general" to back that ideal?

Yes NASA did take every precaution, yet Apollo 13 still happened didn't it? Quarantine has always been something that bothered me about UFO reports. It just does not happen, yet it has the potential to wipe out entire planets. All you are doing is assuming this is an advanced race, with advanced knowledge, because the craft is described as foreign in design and performance. That is what I feel should be isolated, and the only chance one has of understanding the event at all. What do you feel we should do? Just pretend this is definitely ET and be happy with that, and consider it proof? I do not think that would be conclusive, and it would also make the ETH look even more credulous. Like any conclusion, it has to be qualified, or it is not a conclusion. At best, it can be regarded a hypothesis. The exotic nature of the performance craft (hovering, high speed exit) is why ET is suggested, not the occupants, not the design of the craft. not the contact. All of this is happily glossed over to expedite ET to the finish line.

It would be a darn good start to be able to learn from another culture through "TV". That's a lot more than the many explorers who risked life and limbs to venture into the unknown of places such as the Amazon. Can you imagine an unknown tribe putting arrows into your body? I am sure they would love to get to know what to expect through "TV".

It would be a start, no more.

Again, you are making assumptions, if those explorers were watching tribes in the Amazon, they would see tribes hunting, celebrating, and living normal lives. They would not see what happens when a totally new type of species makes contact with them. It might be helpful, it might not. Regardless, the possibility exists, and I do not feel brushing it away os conducive to any real conclusion. I know we have much trouble with communication, heck, I do not post to "The L" because I just cannot understand him. How is another species to overcome this? Another species might communicate through gesture,or even light patterns. These did not, they waved back. That just seems awful familiar to me for an Alien, and I think bias allows you, and others, to simply "brush this off" again, based entirely on the craft. Yet you refuse to isolate the craft for the process of elimination. To me, that reeks of a preconceived conclusion. I expect that of some others who have posted in this thread for sure, but I see nothing wrong with analysing this as a "sighting" and not "ET contact".

here's another of your assumption. you assumes they wouldn't know whether a gesture is friendly or not? If human scientists can learn to tell when an animal is about to attack or when they're relax through observations, you don't think a highly advanced race can? I can learn enough about Gorilla through reading and TV to know I would be a fool to get close to them so they can glare at me. And it's perfectly sensible to think previous report of UFOs are possible connection, it possible they're from the same place.

Don't you think Neil Armstrong would tell the crew of later Moon mission of what to be prepare for?

I am assuming it for what it is, a one of with a bizarre description. You are assuming a highly advanced species has been spying on us for decades, knows everything about us, and although they keep stealth from the world to a point where no actual proof exists.

Please note, as nobody seems to be picking this up, I do not say that time travel is the answer. I suggested it as one possible alternative to ET based on the description from Father Gill and the fact that he too finds the human being components significant. He was the actual person and he says he thinks these were humans, yet UFO buff's are all saying, "well, he does not believe in ET, of course he is wrong!" but then in the same breath taking each and every aspect as gospel.

Do you see nothing wrong with that?

Yes I think Neil would relay his experience. How would that even help an Astronaut today going to the dark side of the moon?

You are watching a Gorilla on a TV as you say, narrated. I am not entirely sure you might come to the same conclusions from watching a trail cam.

I wouldn't know what it take to travel long distance in space or how such spaceships should look like. Father Gill did mention some sort of "mother ship". could they have traveled in it? and the smaller ships are use for close observation? maybe that's why they were designed with some sort of rail. Another earthly example, if someone goes on a safari, would they be some sort of modified vehicle with open top for better observation?

And there is the ET shoehorn.

There is absolutely nothing to suggest a Mothership every existed, but that imagined assumption does make this instance easier to qualify as ET. The seeming anomalies that I have mentioned about the craft can only be explained by a Mothership right? So the logic is that a Mothership probably exists?

That is a straw-man if ever I heard one. You are making things up to make ET sound like the best option. Heck, some have even suggested it is not reasonable to suggest that a viewing deck on a spaceship is illogical!!! Based on what? But a mothership is just assumed to exist when the anomalies in design are pointed out to qualify them?

That some imagined species that does things we cannot understand might posses such technology and they might be visiting is?

And yet after all of that, time travel is outrageous? Even though traveling at, or a percentage of c is a form of time travel?

I am an amateur astronomer, and I simply do not believe that a giant mothership can be in our solar system, and remain undetected. Show me the mothership, and I would consider ET a viable option, until then viewing decks on a spaceship are like fly screens on a submarine.

Another precedent I can think of, but am unable to fid the link to, is a case Vallee discussed. He was convinced he had the read deal, and though he was going to garner some solid proof from a story about a farmer who saw a UFO land on a roadway, nearby him. It was circular, large, lights all round, landing platform, and I think Vallee even described landing mark's. I do not remember anything about an occupant.

Yet the description included the propulsions system in this case. That was what really had Vallee scratching his head. This farmer insisted the thing made quite a roar as it took off, as it was powered by a series of propellors around the rim of the craft. At which point Vallee became rather confused, as we all know, propellors are not a great deal of help in space. Like the Airship of 1896, seemingly advanced technology, but is just does not fit into our historical record.

Not seeing whether it leave or enter the atmosphere is no indication that nothing had.

I beg to differ. If it is a space ship it went into space. If it went into space, someone saw it.

From all these reports you call on as a precedent that indicate to you that we have been visited for some time now, not one instance has been recorded going into, or leaving the solar system. Not a single one. How are they a precedent for ET when not a single one every has been proven to enter space?

If the craft is extraordinary, you said it yourself, then why shouldn't the occupants be extraordinary also? As far as we know, the human race is the most advance on earth. But has human proven they can build such extraordinary craft? if not human, then what other advance earth specie could have done it? I really don't know if the 1896 airship or witch claims are connect.

Well, I really do not know what Skunkworks have achieved, but I am running with that this is beyond technology available to us today. I do not want to go the black ops path, as I cannot recall a project that comes close to fitting this bill. Some hover platforms were devised, but I do not know of any that worked, certainly not of this size or description. Nor in this part of the world. I do not see how black ops can be qualified, and personally, see it as weak as an ET answer. I just want to push that boundary is all, and see if anything falls out when I rock the boat. Vallee put my inspiration on this case best when I quoted him the page before:

To me that's why puzzles like UFOs are interesting. I don't have a personal theory to "explain" them, but I see them as an opportunity to pose new questions. If it's true that information resides in the questions we ask, coming up with novel problems may be more important than having answers, at this stage of our very limited understanding of the universe.

I do not say "Yes this is time travel" but I am not comfortable with "This is proof of ET " either. Has anyone ever considered options for this as more than hallucination or ET? I do not think so. I wonder to myself, why not? Are we happy to say "yes this is ET" based on our own conclusions? It would seem so for many. Not I. I think there is more to this case, and that this good description deserves more than a smug this is ET conclusion, beat that skeptics. It is not because as far as I can see it is a conundrum. Questions remain, no matter how you look at the recollection including the ET angle, and as I said, this is not the first time we have recorded such strange happenings, and they cannot possible all be attributed to ET. As such, it seems reasonable to assume "Something" else might be going on. Vallee has been treading this path for a while, and like the saucer with propellors, or the 1896 airship, or for that sake the witch hunts and the Fatima event, all suggest that ET is to narrow a parameter to consider for every such anomalous event. As such, this is not at all proof of ET, it is proof that we cannot explain everything we see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, psyche, me again;

Hi LV

Do not be sorry, I am sorry for being cranky, you pose good questions. If I might add, particularly so over the last 6 months or so.

this is what I always say, that if we were to discover a Planet that we could reach and which might potentially host Life, it would surely be sensible to study it carefully first and get to know the culture and how, as best you could, not to cause offence before taking the step of making official Contact, would it not? Rather than sending a message saying "here we are"?

I think we are at an impasse here. I feel that "spying" would be more likely to be seen as offensive, and end first contact before it happens. It is just not how we do tings, We just blunder on in and make ourselves welcome. To much so in Cook's case at Hawaii.

I respect you feel this way, but I feel you have not convinced ne that spying is the best option. I feel honesty is the best policy in all situations.

I feel what you propose is too big a risk. Remember even the prime directive that is referred to from telly is only for pre warp civilisations. Assuming warp is actually possible, and untraceable by us. And it was broken by Janeway every other week anyway. In fact, it gets broken all the time on Star Trek.

And people also often say, in relation to, say, certain incidents in New Mexico for example, that ETs, if they were able toc ross the immeasurable distances of Space, would not possibly be foolish enough to make an error or have a technical hitch and crash. But as you say above, anything could happen if you're stepping into the Unknown, couldn't it.

Yes, anything could happen, but not due to the reasons we have been given like a Thunderstorm, or a Death ray. I mean really, some people actually entertain that we shot something down with a freaking death ray. To get to our planet, you will not be able to not help but notice the other ones. Jupiter's storms make out worst cyclones look like a mild day in the park. A claim has to make some sort of sense. Almost every planet Kepler has found has been a Gas giant. They are abundant in the Universe, and each and every one of them are covered in storm's thousands of times more powerful than what you see here. To consider our mild "winds" by comparison to what one must go right past t get here, it strikes me as ludicrous to suggest local weather as a crash factor. If a crash, then why the crash, not "just a crash, believe me" when other options do indeed exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could they be interdimensional I mean that would possibly take care of the whole space travel question, although im not sure about the ins and outs of them manifesting themselves to be seen

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I had to choose between which was the more likely, a spacewarp or time travel, I'd have to say the former. NASA scientists are testing the physical basis of a space warp, and thinking seriously about the possibilities of its use for stellar space travel. Is any recognized scientist doing the same for time travel?

Exactly! You are choosing. I am not. I am trying to scrape up as many options as I can. The first page, I came up with one, I may come up with more with a bit of luck.

NASA has this to say on time Travel

askastro_banner.jpg

The Question

(Submitted March 26, 1997)

Can humans go back or forward in time ( in the future )? If yes then how?

The Answer

An interesting question....can humans travel back and forward in time. I presume that you are asking about travel in time like you see on television or in the movies. But let me take a more scientific (if simplified) approach.

The laws of science do not distinguish between the forward and backward directions of time -- yet they do distinguish the past from the future (time increases as disorder increases). There are some solutions to the equations of General Relativity which would allow for travel back and forth in time....(1) would require that you move faster than the speed of light, but we know that this cannot be done; (2) would require space-time to be very warped and a sort of "tunnel" between two space-time points to be present (called a "wormhole"). Such tunnels would not last long enough on their own for anyone to travel through them (unless the traveler discovered some way or built some machine which would keep the tunnel open). There are all sorts of other conditions which would have to be imposed on space-time in order for human beings to travel into the past. All of these conditions tend to conspire against time travel being more than a theoretical possibility. But, as of 1997, our understanding of physics causes the possibility of time travel to remain an open question. NOTE: What I have said here is related to big objects like humans...and my comments do not necessarily apply to very small (subatomic) objects.

Hope this helps,

Laura Whitlock

LINK

They say you use wormholes for time travel. Considerng the current state of both hypotheses, I do not see anything wrong wot at least brining both options to the table?

In any case, no extraordinary new physics discovery is actually necessary to travel to the stars. At a tenth the speed of light, it would still have been possible for elder civilizations in this galaxy to have filled it, long ago. The fact that this is not obvious to us could merely mean that extraterrestrials, like ourselves, do not populate and develop every corner of the territory that have reached.

A tenthof the speed of light is not an advanced craft. We can do that. What we are talking about is a craft that whisked away at high speed in a changing light display. If a time ship were possible I imagine this would be the sort of effect it might generate. What we are seeing is not an ambling spaceship such as we have designed. The description of the craft is extraordinary.

Is a 35 foot ship too small to travel in deep space? I couldn't say, really; there are too many unknowns. The vehicle in the Gill case could have been a short range excursion craft launched from a larger one.

The ship is described as appearing about 2 &1//2 degrees across. Judging by the drawings made by the witnesses, the beings would have appeared proportionately quite small.

As far as we know, yes it is, and Aliens have to obey physics just as we do.

If we go as far as our imagination can take us, then time travel is most perfectly viable as an answer. Just as much so as ET. See what I am illustrating here, not that this is time travel but that it does not have to be ET. As previously mentioned, if Jacques Vallee considers this option in general, why is it not viable?

And as shown above, the mothership is made up to support a made up conclusion. That just does not work. I cannot entertain a mothership unless you can qualify it somehow, or at least prove this craft actually went into space.

It is not clear that details of their appearance, which would have classed them as humanoid, rather than human could have been perceived. Father Gill referred to them as 'men'. That term covers quite a lot of territory, really, even among humans. All adult males, from a two foot 'dwarf' to a seven foot Tutsi are called 'men'. The same term seems flexible enough to apply to basically humanoid beings, not of this Earth.

Yet Father Gill saw this aspect as significant. Should that not be a focus of his words as well? Why do you think the Father thought that the fact he thought he saw "what appeared to be Human beings" - his words, on the ship?

A: Well, of course, the whole thing was most extraordinary; the fact that we saw what appeared to be humans beings on it, I think, is the important thing.

Like I keep saying, I think this is important too, but whilst taking his recollection into account, no person who is Pro ET consideres this significant? Why is that? I cannot fathom why some feel they may interpret parts of the recollection, yet insist others are accurate. The only answer I get is "we have no craft like that so he must be seeing aliens that look like us" why not have a look at the angle, where might we get something that could fit this description?

Why jump to the ET conclusion based on ignorance of the performance described? That is just attributing the unknown to a higher power is it not?

It doesn't seem too extraordinary that intelligent extraterrestrials could have learned enough about us to engage correctly in simple interactions with us. Dian Fossey and Jane Goodall managed to do this with gorillas and chimpanzees, using only very modest technology.

And they spent years living in the middle of them. That assumption has to be made for this ideal to work, yet this particular craft has been described once only. It is a series of leaps that leads to ET, not any solid information.

The 1896-97 'airship' cases seem to be a mixed bag. Some reports of a long, elliptical, lighted craft traveling through the air; some journalistic hoaxes, with details based on the expectations and preoccupations of the era.

It is an anomaly where what looks like humans are on board a craft that is advanced for it's time. As mentioned, it is not the only one. It seems shortsighted to dismiss Vallee's work in this instance. As far as I know, he is the only one out there looking at this most strange aspect.

Another note, I have not even said this is NOT ET, I have asked, why is it ET. Because I feel more than one option exists i the current circumstance. I do not believe I have received a satisfactory answer to qualify ET as a candidate, just the old "Must be an advanced species because we do not have craft like that in our closet" which I feel is merely invoking a higher power. If we canot put what we do know against this instance to qualify it, such as questioning viewing decks on a spaceship, what is the point in gaining knowledge in the first instance? Posing the question just might prompt someone to qualify the answer, or it might be a nail in the coffin. Either way, it is progress is it not? Is that not the objective of the discussion?

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could they be interdimensional I mean that would possibly take care of the whole space travel question, although im not sure about the ins and outs of them manifesting themselves to be seen

I honestly do not see why such is any more exotic than Aliens to be frank. More options. Good to see more thinking about the problem, and not simply accepting a conclusion. It may not even be inter-dimensional beings, but a ship that can travel inter-dimensionally to overcome the problems associate with folding space. Who knows! But that I think is the problem. I think maybe we should break this undebunakable case down into it's smallest components and analyse them. We have some recognisable statements, I think we should focus on those and see if we can make sense of them.

goldstar.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reply to 1963; Yes the video's sound is quite rough, even through earphones. Perhaps it could be 'cleaned up' via some technical means. They've taken some very old sound recordings (on cylinders) and done wonders with them.

On time travel: The idea seems to be that they would break free of the time stream, and could jump back into it at whatever point desired. This either creates paradoxes, when traveling into the past, or, it's speculated, one is automatically shunted on to the time stream of another universe in which the changes one introduced into the past already existed! It all seems remarkably speculative to me.

On the beings seen on the craft in the Gill case: Father Gill's drawings do show quite small figures, and only the upper half of them, at that. We don't know if their legs are of the same proportionate length as ours, or shorter, as reported of many flying saucer occupants. The view apparently wasn't close up enough to see much more than could be conveyed by 'stick figures'. One of Fr. Gill's drawings has, within the written caption, the word "men", just like that, in quotes. This supports the tentative and figurative nature of the identification, not the severely literal interpretation that has been suggested.

Underwater extraterrestrial bases on Earth, or on other planets in this solar system seem entirely possible. We have explored so little of our own oceans with any great acuity, and the other planets even less so.

So, what did Father Gill and his flock see? I don't know, or course, but the simplest explanation seems to be extraterrestrials. Not , as some would charge, simply because it is a fashionable, or appealing explanation, but because it takes account of probabilities that our rudimentary knowledge of the universe already suggest. It also answers questions that have been raised, and not, in my opinion, satisfyingly answered, about life in the universe, and the directions in which that life will develop.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Psyche, I think this could solve the conundrum regarding the observation of "human", "men". I have to admit, Father Gill and the other did say they saw "men". The most important question is, "ARE THOSE REALLY HUMAN?".

Wouldn't it be possible for the beings to want to get close to the villagers for better observation without frightening them? Could they be in some sort of human costume?

Look at what Hollywood costume maker are able to do. They can create realistic looking alien suit. Imagine if they put a man in a Predator costume(great action movie), and send him back to the villagers. Would the villagers have described seeing a "monster" and would ran for their life? Hell I would. If human are able to create very realistic looking costume, I would expect even better from a more advanced race. Yes, human had been known to create animal costumes to get close to them without frighten them. Why wouldn't a more advanced race thought of it?

Could they be in human costume? Why? Is the not really wandering away from what Father Gill has presented?

I think you are just really trying hard to come up with ways to call what Father Gill saw Alien, when he never used the word. That's the rub here. Aliens are not described, aliens are not mentioned. An exotic macine is. Man builds machines. I do not think we can build this just yet. Maybe we can, but that would to me be no better than saying that maybe he saw an alien and just didn't know it, but we know better and can interpret for him. I mean, can you rule out a secret project that nobody has seen yet? We do not now what goes on at Skunkworks, this might be the forerunner of some amazing technology that we still will not see for yet another 50 years. Can that be proven incorrect any more than an alien? I want to take that up a notch, and see if anything can be recognised when pulled down to it's smallest components.

The basic facts are nobody says aliens. People say the craft suggests that. People who were not there say this is Aliens, people who were there say I do not know. They did not look alien.

Again, what is more plausible? ETs can get here or time travelling human?

What is more plausible? ETs can make themselves "appeared human" or time travelling human?

What is proven? Human can create realistic costume or time travelling human?

What is more plausible?

That spaceships will have viewing decks?

That ET will certainly be instantly familiar with us in culture and appearance?

Didn't the skeptics always said, "the simplest explanation is the best"? Well, time travelling is too complex for me, costumes seemed much, much simpler. i can go to a store and buy an alien costume. If I have much more money, I could hire Hollywood artists to create much better one. Even if I am the richest man in the world, there's no way I could get a time machine.

Yes, but time travel is not the only option, and from what NASA say, it is theoretically possible. Yes you can buy a costume, but can you say that is indeed the case here? I am going a step further back. I am back at the description of human being, and trying to understand that. Separate from the craft. The process of elimination. That strikes me as more productive than imagining what things might be. If we can qualifying thing out of this description, we have a head start, and I do not see Aliens as ever being qualified as a definite answer. It's no more convincing than black ops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And there is the ET shoehorn.

There is absolutely nothing to suggest a Mothership every existed, but that imagined assumption does make this instance easier to qualify as ET. The seeming anomalies that I have mentioned about the craft can only be explained by a Mothership right? So the logic is that a Mothership probably exists?

That is a straw-man if ever I heard one. You are making things up to make ET sound like the best option. Heck, some have even suggested it is not reasonable to suggest that a viewing deck on a spaceship is illogical!!! Based on what? But a mothership is just assumed to exist when the anomalies in design are pointed out to qualify them?

That some imagined species that does things we cannot understand might posses such technology and they might be visiting is?

And yet after all of that, time travel is outrageous? Even though traveling at, or a percentage of c is a form of time travel?

I am an amateur astronomer, and I simply do not believe that a giant mothership can be in our solar system, and remain undetected. Show me the mothership, and I would consider ET a viable option, until then viewing decks on a spaceship are like fly screens on a submarine.

If the "mother ship" does indeed exist, would it better explain the "peculiar" design of what seemed to be "rail"? In that case, I did not make up the assumption of a mother ship out of thin air, Psyche. It was in the report. It's the assumption of the witness, the man who was there! If you look at the 1st link in the op.

Here an excerpt:

Clouds patchy

8.50

Big one stationary and larger – the original?

Others coming and going through the clouds. As they descend

through clouds, light reflected like large halo on the ground –

no more than 2000', probably less. All U.F.O.'s very clear –

satellites?

Mother ship” still large, clear, stationary.

9.05

Nos. 2, 3, 4 gone.

9.10

Mother ship gone – giving red light.

No. 1 gone (overhead) into cloud.

9.20

Mother” back.

9.30

Mother” gone across sea to Giwa – white,

red, blue, gone.

9.46

Overhead U.F.O. reappears, is hovering.

10.00

10.10

Still there, stationary.

Hovering, gone behind cloud.

10.30

Very high, hovering in clear patch of sky between clouds.

10.50

11.04

Very overcast, no sign of U.F.O.

Heavy rain. IQA!!! (Wedau language! Finished.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On time travel: The idea seems to be that they would break free of the time stream, and could jump back into it at whatever point desired. This either creates paradoxes, when traveling into the past, or, it's speculated, one is automatically shunted on to the time stream of another universe in which the changes one introduced into the past already existed! It all seems remarkably speculative to me.

It may create paradoxes. Do we visit the same time stream? And again, which paradox? The "Grandfather" paradox. or the "rolling film" paradox? It is remarkably speculative, and as I keep saying not an answer, but one possible option. Others are bound to exist. A mothership is alos remarkably speculative as is underwater bases.

Do you feel that Vallee is not to be considered?

On the beings seen on the craft in the Gill case: Father Gill's drawings do show quite small figures, and only the upper half of them, at that. We don't know if their legs are of the same proportionate length as ours, or shorter, as reported of many flying saucer occupants. The view apparently wasn't close up enough to see much more than could be conveyed by 'stick figures'. One of Fr. Gill's drawings has, within the written caption, the word "men", just like that, in quotes. This supports the tentative and figurative nature of the identification, not the severely literal interpretation that has been suggested.

Underwater extraterrestrial bases on Earth, or on other planets in this solar system seem entirely possible. We have explored so little of our own oceans with any great acuity, and the other planets even less so.

No we do not know, what he do know is that Father Gill used the term men, and human beings. ETH'ers are taking a leap, and dismissing the Father's words, and reinterpreting them for him. It stries me as condescending to accept part of the story, and interpret much more to qualify ET.

I am not the one taking the leap here, the ETH is.

Show me an underwater base, and I will apologise. Until that time comes as far as I am concerned it is just applying imagination to qualify and imaginatie response. The sea floor is better mapped than you make out.

So, what did Father Gill and his flock see? I don't know, or course, but the simplest explanation seems to be extraterrestrials. Not , as some would charge, simply because it is a fashionable, or appealing explanation, but because it takes account of probabilities that our rudimentary knowledge of the universe already suggest. It also answers questions that have been raised, and not, in my opinion, satisfyingly answered, about life in the universe, and the directions in which that life will develop.

That sounds an awful lot like the Vallee quite I posted.

I do not know either. I do not see how the simplest explanation is ET when this never has been proven to have left the planet. And no stories indicate such. The craft is described as something we canot qualify - from the description. The occupants are described as human. ET is a leap made from the described performance. Because we cannot put a craft to this you assume that it cannot be from here, but the occupants as described can and indeed are. Rudimentary knowledge suggests that a viewing platform ion a spacecraft is nonsense, but you see no problem in brushing that aside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the "mother ship" does indeed exist, would it better explain the "peculiar" design of what seemed to be "rail"? In that case, I did not make up the assumption of a mother ship out of thin air, Psyche. It was in the report. It's the assumption of the witness, the man who was there! If you look at the 1st link in the op.

Here an excerpt:

Clouds patchy

8.50

Big one stationary and larger – the original?

Others coming and going through the clouds. As they descend

through clouds, light reflected like large halo on the ground –

no more than 2000', probably less. All U.F.O.'s very clear –

satellites?

Mother ship” still large, clear, stationary.

9.05

Nos. 2, 3, 4 gone.

9.10

Mother ship gone – giving red light.

No. 1 gone (overhead) into cloud.

9.20

Mother” back.

9.30

Mother” gone across sea to Giwa – white,

red, blue, gone.

9.46

Overhead U.F.O. reappears, is hovering.

10.00

10.10

Still there, stationary.

Hovering, gone behind cloud.

10.30

Very high, hovering in clear patch of sky between clouds.

10.50

11.04

Very overcast, no sign of U.F.O.

Heavy rain. IQA!!! (Wedau language! Finished.)

The mother ship in the report is the 35 foot craft with the men on it.

As indicated by his notes made at the time and in numerous interviews, Rev. Gill saw a bright white light in the north western sky. It appeared to be approaching the mission. The object appeared to be hovering between three and four hundred feet up. Eventually 38 people, including Rev. Gill, Steven Gill Moi (a teacher), Ananias Rarata (a teacher) and Mrs. Nessie Moi, gathered to watch the main UFO, which looked like a large, disc-shaped object. It was apparently solid and circular with a wide base and narrower upper deck. The object appeared to have 4 "legs" underneath it. There also appeared to be about 4 "panels" or "portholes" on the side of the object, which seemed to glow a little brighter than the rest. At a number of intervals the object produced a shaft of blue light which shone upwards into the sky at an angle of about 45 degrees.

What looked like "men" came out of the object, onto what seemed to be a deck on top of the object. There were 4 men in all, occassionally 2, then one, then 3, then 4. The shaft of blue light and the "men" disappeared. The object then moved through some clouds. There were other UFO sightings during the night.

Saturday, 27/6/59

Large U.F.O. first sighted by Annie Laurie at 6 p.m. in apparently same position as last night (26/6/59) only seemed a little smaller, when W.B.G. saw it at 6.02 p.m. I called Ananias and several others and we stood in the open to watch it. Although the sun had set it was still quite light for the following 15 minutes. We watched figures appear on top - four of them - no doubt that they are human. Possibly the same object that I took to be the "Mother" ship last night. Two smaller U.F.O's were seen at the same time, stationary. One above the hills west, another overhead. On the large one two of the figures seemed to be doing something near the centre of the deck - were occassionally bending over and raising their arms as though adjusting or "setting up" something (not visible). One figure seemed to be standing looking down at us (a group of about a dozen). I stretched my arm above my head and waved. To our surprise the figure did the same. Ananias waved both arms over his head then the two outside figures did the same. Ananias and self began waving our arms and all four now seemed to wave back. There seemed to be no doubt that our movements were answered. All mission boys made audible gasps (of either joy or surprise, perhaps both).

Notice the bolded?

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could they be in human costume? Why? Is the not really wandering away from what Father Gill has presented?

I think you are just really trying hard to come up with ways to call what Father Gill saw Alien, when he never used the word. That's the rub here. Aliens are not described, aliens are not mentioned. An exotic macine is. Man builds machines. I do not think we can build this just yet. Maybe we can, but that would to me be no better than saying that maybe he saw an alien and just didn't know it, but we know better and can interpret for him. I mean, can you rule out a secret project that nobody has seen yet? We do not now what goes on at Skunkworks, this might be the forerunner of some amazing technology that we still will not see for yet another 50 years. Can that be proven incorrect any more than an alien? I want to take that up a notch, and see if anything can be recognised when pulled down to it's smallest components.

The basic facts are nobody says aliens. People say the craft suggests that. People who were not there say this is Aliens, people who were there say I do not know. They did not look alien.

What is more plausible?

That spaceships will have viewing decks?

That ET will certainly be instantly familiar with us in culture and appearance?

Yes, but time travel is not the only option, and from what NASA say, it is theoretically possible. Yes you can buy a costume, but can you say that is indeed the case here? I am going a step further back. I am back at the description of human being, and trying to understand that. Separate from the craft. The process of elimination. That strikes me as more productive than imagining what things might be. If we can qualifying thing out of this description, we have a head start, and I do not see Aliens as ever being qualified as a definite answer. It's no more convincing than black ops.

How could it be wandering away from what father Gill presented? He said he saw "human", "men". From the distance he saw them, he concluded them to be "human". I agreed that what he saw was "human". But was he close enough to pulled on their skin to make sure? I just throw out the possibility that it could be "wolf in sheep clothing". The same way you're pulling out the "human time travel". Since you've study the subject enough, I don't have to tell you of claims that ETs somehow make themselves looked human. There are theory that some MIB could be alien in disguise.

The costume theory could also explain why the beings don't talk back. They only waved. Shouldn't human from the future be able to say "hello"?

Or does somehow saying hello effect the time continuum but waving does not? I would assumes it's easier to wave in a costume than vocalizing human speech. Some reports of aliens do not speak physically as we do. Another earthly example, if we wave to a chimpanzee, they could mimic and wave back. Could they talk to us or we to them?

Should ETs not know what a viewing deck is and it's impossible for them to build one? as for why? why do millionaire paid the Russian to take them into space? probably ETs do know what a vacation is? or are they all work and no play? If NASA sell ticket to Mars and I can afford it, why the hell not? "Hey, let go to Earth to see the crazy humans" is one possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The mother ship in the report is the 35 foot craft with the men on it.

Notice the bolded?

Is it the mother ship that was "35 ft" or one of the smaller one that got close? I haven't able to figure this out. 35 ft is hardly conclusive.

"Unfortunately, as they did not land, this is very hard to estimate. Fr. Gill estimates that, assuming the men to have been of normal size (about 6 ft.) the machine would have had a diameter of roughly 35 ft. at the base and 20 ft. on the upper 'deck'. However, if this is correct, the machine must have been further away than he thought, as a width of 5 inches at arm's length would give a diameter of nearly 60 ft. (incidentally the estimated size of Mr Evennett's object). [see next post.] If the men were smaller, the machine must have been considerably less than 35 ft. However, all these estimates are mere guesswork, and of little scientific value, except as approximations"

So in this situation you take their words for it without requiring any "scientific evidence"? "no doubt they are human" :lol:. without at least pulling their skin or check out their privates?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How could it be wandering away from what father Gill presented? He said he saw "human", "men". From the distance he saw them, he concluded them to be "human". I agreed that what he saw was "human". But was he close enough to pulled on their skin to make sure? I just throw out the possibility that it could be "wolf in sheep clothing". The same way you're pulling out the "human time travel". Since you've study the subject enough, I don't have to tell you of claims that ETs somehow make themselves looked human. There are theory that some MIB could be alien in disguise.

I do not see the possibilities as the same. I am working with words from the transcript. You are making up a scenario to qualify another scenario that you favour. As I have said numerous times now, I do not particularly favour time travellers, it was an inspirations of humans on what seems to be a viewing deck on what is described as a small observational craft. I am more than open to any other suggestion that can qualify how humans might be on board a craft that appears as per the description. It sounds like a terrestrial vehicle with the balcony. If it was qualified as an ET craft, then I would entertain the idea of a costume, if that is even needed. for all we know it seems just as likely that another race could look juts like us without need for costume, but that is not what we have, what we have are Father Gill's words of

- no doubt that they are human

You keep re-writing that based on the craft description.

The costume theory could also explain why the beings don't talk back. They only waved. Shouldn't human from the future be able to say "hello"?

They would have to be quite loud.

the object came down at about, I should say, 400

feet, maybe 450 feet, perhaps less, maybe 300 feet.

Or does somehow saying hello effect the time continuum but waving does not? I would assumes it's easier to wave in a costume than vocalizing human speech. Some reports of aliens do not speak physically as we do. Another earthly example, if we wave to a chimpanzee, they could mimic and wave back. Could they talk to us or we to them?

I do know if it has any affect on anything, as I mentioned to Bison, there is more than one viable paradox, I do not even know which might apply. Some reports clams telepathy is possible, it depends how far down the rabbit hole you want to go. I am just trying to work with what we have got, and leaving imagination out of it.

Should ETs not know what a viewing deck is and it's impossible for them to build one? as for why? why do millionaire paid the Russian to take them into space? probably ETs do know what a vacation is? or are they all work and no play? If NASA sell ticket to Mars and I can afford it, why the hell not? "Hey, let go to Earth to see the crazy humans" is one possibility.

Oh come on now. A viewing deck on a spaceship is like fly screens on a submarine. You just do not want to admit it. Bloody hell, Bison tells me that we can apply what we know to come up with an answer of ET, yet nobody can say what is definitively ET. Bison says we cannot guess what an ET craft might be like, but this fits the bill for an ET craft? Wut? Is that not contradictory? All anyone can say is the craft is a conundrum. Why remove focus for that which is perplexing, and overlook it to jump to it is ET craft, therefore the humans described must be ET that looks like humans.

If we want to go down that basic path, then

Why is this ET and not black Ops?

When did the craft go into, or come from, space?

Or is that why everyone is so upset about me separating elements of the story? Because it actually does show that this is not definitive proof of ET, it is proof of an anomalous report?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it the mother ship that was "35 ft" or one of the smaller one that got close? I haven't able to figure this out. 35 ft is hardly conclusive.

It seems pretty clear to me that he is describing the craft with the men on it as the mother ship.

"Unfortunately, as they did not land, this is very hard to estimate. Fr. Gill estimates that, assuming the men to have been of normal size (about 6 ft.) the machine would have had a diameter of roughly 35 ft. at the base and 20 ft. on the upper 'deck'. However, if this is correct, the machine must have been further away than he thought, as a width of 5 inches at arm's length would give a diameter of nearly 60 ft. (incidentally the estimated size of Mr Evennett's object). [see next post.] If the men were smaller, the machine must have been considerably less than 35 ft. However, all these estimates are mere guesswork, and of little scientific value, except as approximations"

And what else would you use? Approximations of approximations designed to suit ET? Or do we run with what we have? If we are going to rewrite it, why consider Father Gill viable at all?

So in this situation you take their words for it without requiring any "scientific evidence"? "no doubt they are human" :lol:. without at least pulling their skin or check out their privates?

Again, as above, what would you have me do? I have no opportunity to go touch them, nobody does, as opposed to putting extra lines into the story, I merely try to use what we do have as well as it can be used, and in the tightest detail. It is after all, all we have to work with. Yes of course, I do find that I have to take the words at face value, and to be fair, I like the Father's Description, It is quite vanilla. That is how testimony should be, unbiased and as clear as is possible. The Father is not saying this is ET, he is saying this looks like humans on something the likes of which I have never seen. Biased people are doing that for him. Even the premise of this thread "The Undebunkable Case" Well funny thing is, I agree, but that does not make it definitive proof of ET, not by a long shot. All we have are some leaps of faith. It is a most excellent case, and I chastise myself for not including it in the three I mentioned as the most perplexing cases to flush out of the thousand of pages on the BE thread. It is a conundrum, not ET. Just like the Mystery Airship of 1896. Personally, I find that enough to pique my interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not see the possibilities as the same. I am working with words from the transcript. You are making up a scenario to qualify another scenario that you favour. As I have said numerous times now, I do not particularly favour time travellers, it was an inspirations of humans on what seems to be a viewing deck on what is described as a small observational craft. I am more than open to any other suggestion that can qualify how humans might be on board a craft that appears as per the description. It sounds like a terrestrial vehicle with the balcony. If it was qualified as an ET craft, then I would entertain the idea of a costume, if that is even needed. for all we know it seems just as likely that another race could look juts like us without need for costume, but that is not what we have, what we have are Father Gill's words of

- no doubt that they are human

You keep re-writing that based on the craft description.

They would have to be quite loud.

I do know if it has any affect on anything, as I mentioned to Bison, there is more than one viable paradox, I do not even know which might apply. Some reports clams telepathy is possible, it depends how far down the rabbit hole you want to go. I am just trying to work with what we have got, and leaving imagination out of it.

Oh come on now. A viewing deck on a spaceship is like fly screens on a submarine. You just do not want to admit it. Bloody hell, Bison tells me that we can apply what we know to come up with an answer of ET, yet nobody can say what is definitively ET. Bison says we cannot guess what an ET craft might be like, but this fits the bill for an ET craft? Wut? Is that not contradictory? All anyone can say is the craft is a conundrum. Why remove focus for that which is perplexing, and overlook it to jump to it is ET craft, therefore the humans described must be ET that looks like humans.

If we want to go down that basic path, then

Why is this ET and not black Ops?

When did the craft go into, or come from, space?

Or is that why everyone is so upset about me separating elements of the story? Because it actually does show that this is not definitive proof of ET, it is proof of an anomalous report?

suggesting they're human from the future is not making up a scenario? what the heck? could you please explain what should a spaceship look like? there shouldn't be any viewing deck?

could you please explain why black op would show up on multiple occasions? and freaking waving around? I thought they're all about secret?

could you admit that if there is a race more advance than human, could they make themselves human costume, the same way we are able to or even better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems pretty clear to me that he is describing the craft with the men on it as the mother ship.

And what else would you use? Approximations of approximations designed to suit ET? Or do we run with what we have? If we are going to rewrite it, why consider Father Gill viable at all?

Again, as above, what would you have me do? I have no opportunity to go touch them, nobody does, as opposed to putting extra lines into the story, I merely try to use what we do have as well as it can be used, and in the tightest detail. It is after all, all we have to work with. Yes of course, I do find that I have to take the words at face value, and to be fair, I like the Father's Description, It is quite vanilla. That is how testimony should be, unbiased and as clear as is possible. The Father is not saying this is ET, he is saying this looks like humans on something the likes of which I have never seen. Biased people are doing that for him. Even the premise of this thread "The Undebunkable Case" Well funny thing is, I agree, but that does not make it definitive proof of ET, not by a long shot. All we have are some leaps of faith. It is a most excellent case, and I chastise myself for not including it in the three I mentioned as the most perplexing cases to flush out of the thousand of pages on the BE thread. It is a conundrum, not ET. Just like the Mystery Airship of 1896. Personally, I find that enough to pique my interest.

Seemed pretty clear to you? heck, he wasnt so sure himself, so how could it be clear to you?

so you take it literally that they are in fact human and the ship was definitely 35 ft with definitely a rail? I guess you only take it literally when it suit your belief, right?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

suggesting they're human from the future is not making up a scenario? what the heck? could you please explain what should a spaceship look like? there shouldn't be any viewing deck?

No it is not. It is supposed to make you think, not hand you a new answer.

How big is space? How much energy would it take to cross it? How long would it take? How do the occupants take the trip? Conscious or not?

Are you telling me that a ship 35 feet across with a viewing platform sounds like something that can cross space? A Spaceship needs to be large enough to hold engines of some sort, supplies, and there would be no point in the ship without instruments.

From what we know, a 35 foot circle is not big enough to cross space. There is one planet in this system they could use the platform on.

could you please explain why black op would show up on multiple occasions? and freaking waving around? I thought they're all about secret?

Military or testing exercises, break down, and hey, if people are waving at you, what do you do? Yo wave back. That is what we do. If someone has seen you, not much you can do about it can you. Considering the platform it could even be a black op space elevator ideal. Maybe the beam of light purported to come out of the top links so a satellite as a tether and the viewing deck is a freight deck.

Imagination can take you anywhere you want to go, but I am trying to avoid that a little if possible. I would like to see imagination offfer new directions, but that does not seem to be the case here. Imagination is being used to qualify a biased conclusion.

could you admit that if there is a race more advance than human, could they make themselves human costume, the same way we are able to or even better?

Of course, but I see no need for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seemed pretty clear to you? heck, he wasnt so sure himself, so how could it be clear to you?

By the report you referred to, That is where I copied this from, right under the table you copied.

As indicated by his notes made at the time and in numerous interviews, Rev. Gill saw a bright white light in the north western sky. It appeared to be approaching the mission. The object appeared to be hovering between three and four hundred feet up. Eventually 38 people, including Rev. Gill, Steven Gill Moi (a teacher), Ananias Rarata (a teacher) and Mrs. Nessie Moi, gathered to watch the main UFO, which looked like a large, disc-shaped object. It was apparently solid and circular with a wide base and narrower upper deck. The object appeared to have 4 "legs" underneath it. There also appeared to be about 4 "panels" or "portholes" on the side of the object, which seemed to glow a little brighter than the rest. At a number of intervals the object produced a shaft of blue light which shone upwards into the sky at an angle of about 45 degrees.

What looked like "men" came out of the object, onto what seemed to be a deck on top of the object. There were 4 men in all, occassionally 2, then one, then 3, then 4. The shaft of blue light and the "men" disappeared. The object then moved through some clouds. There were other UFO sightings during the night.

Saturday, 27/6/59

Large U.F.O. first sighted by Annie Laurie at 6 p.m. in apparently same position as last night (26/6/59) only seemed a little smaller, when W.B.G. saw it at 6.02 p.m. I called Ananias and several others and we stood in the open to watch it. Although the sun had set it was still quite light for the following 15 minutes. We watched figures appear on top - four of them - no doubt that they are human. Possibly the same object that I took to be the "Mother" ship last night. Two smaller U.F.O's were seen at the same time, stationary. One above the hills west, another overhead. On the large one two of the figures seemed to be doing something near the centre of the deck - were occassionally bending over and raising their arms as though adjusting or "setting up" something (not visible). One figure seemed to be standing looking down at us (a group of about a dozen). I stretched my arm above my head and waved. To our surprise the figure did the same. Ananias waved both arms over his head then the two outside figures did the same. Ananias and self began waving our arms and all four now seemed to wave back. There seemed to be no doubt that our movements were answered. All mission boys made audible gasps (of either joy or surprise, perhaps both).

so you take it literally that they are in fact human and the ship was definitely 35 ft with definitely a rail? I guess you only take it literally when it suit your belief, right?

If you think the Father is incorrect in his description, then why is the case interesting at all? One could say he stuffed the whole thing up, and it was a Helicopter. I was hoping we might go beyond such basic knee jerk reactions. You either take him at his word, or you do not. It is all we have, I am not sure what else you would have me do. The description is bland, it makes no assumptions, so why embellish it with an ET direction? Why not take it for what it is? That Fathers profession is why he is given the credence to begin with is it not? Does that not apply to his recollection?

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it is not. It is supposed to make you think, not hand you a new answer.

How big is space? How much energy would it take to cross it? How long would it take? How do the occupants take the trip? Conscious or not?

Are you telling me that a ship 35 feet across with a viewing platform sounds like something that can cross space? A Spaceship needs to be large enough to hold engines of some sort, supplies, and there would be no point in the ship without instruments.

From what we know, a 35 foot circle is not big enough to cross space. There is one planet in this system they could use the platform on.

Military or testing exercises, break down, and hey, if people are waving at you, what do you do? Yo wave back. That is what we do. If someone has seen you, not much you can do about it can you. Considering the platform it could even be a black op space elevator ideal. Maybe the beam of light purported to come out of the top links so a satellite as a tether and the viewing deck is a freight deck.

Imagination can take you anywhere you want to go, but I am trying to avoid that a little if possible. I would like to see imagination offfer new directions, but that does not seem to be the case here. Imagination is being used to qualify a biased conclusion.

Of course, but I see no need for it.

Yes, time travel scenario does make me think. I think it's ludicrous. Please tell me why it's not possible for a 35 ft ship to cross space. To assume that we can't do it so it can't be done is to assume human are the smartest creature in the universe.

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the report you referred to, That is where I copied this from, right under the table you copied.

If you think the Father is incorrect in his description, then why is the case interesting at all? One could say he stuffed the whole thing up, and it was a Helicopter. I was hoping we might go beyond such basic knee jerk reactions. You either take him at his word, or you do not. It is all we have, I am not sure what else you would have me do. The description is bland, it makes no assumptions, so why embellish it with an ET direction? Why not take it for what it is? That Fathers profession is why he is given the credence to begin with is it not? Does that not apply to his recollection?

So in the description you took "possibly the same object..." to mean "definitely the same object" ? so the 35 ft ship is definitely the "mother ship" in your opinion? If you took him at his words, then he couldn't identify definitely which one is the mother ship.

You know what? we could go on and one. assumption is counter with another, one possibility is counter by another. I just have to ask you one question, Is ET even a possibility in this case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

Please tell me why it's not possible for a 35 ft ship to cross space. To assume that we can't do it so it can't be done is to assume human are the smartest creature in the universe.

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

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

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

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So in the description you took "possibly the same object..." to mean "definitely the same object" ? so the 35 ft ship is definitely the "mother ship" in your opinion? If you took him at his words, then he couldn't identify definitely which one is the mother ship.

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

As indicated by his notes made at the time and in numerous interviews, Rev. Gill saw a bright white light in the north western sky. It appeared to be approaching the mission. The object appeared to be hovering between three and four hundred feet up. Eventually 38 people, including Rev. Gill, Steven Gill Moi (a teacher), Ananias Rarata (a teacher) and Mrs. Nessie Moi,gathered to watch the main UFO, which looked like a large, disc-shaped object. It was apparently solid and circular with a wide base and narrower upper deck. The object appeared to have 4 "legs" underneath it. There also appeared to be about 4 "panels" or "portholes" on the side of the object, which seemed to glow a little brighter than the rest. At a number of intervals the object produced a shaft of blue light which shone upwards into the sky at an angle of about 45 degrees.

You know what? we could go on and one. assumption is counter with another, one possibility is counter by another. I just have to ask you one question, Is ET even a possibility in this case?

That is what I am trying to eliminate. Assumption.

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

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Saturday, 27/6/59

Large U.F.O. first sighted by Annie Laurie at 6 p.m. in apparently same position as last night (26/6/59) only seemed a little smaller, when W.B.G. saw it at 6.02 p.m. I called Ananias and several others and we stood in the open to watch it. Although the sun had set it was still quite light for the following 15 minutes. We watched figures appear on top - four of them - no doubt that they are human. Possibly the same object that I took to be the "Mother" ship last night. Two smaller U.F.O's were seen at the same time, stationary. One above the hills west, another overhead. On the large one two of the figures seemed to be doing something near the centre of the deck - were occassionally bending over and raising their arms as though adjusting or "setting up" something (not visible). One figure seemed to be standing looking down at us (a group of about a dozen). I stretched my arm above my head and waved. To our surprise the figure did the same. Ananias waved both arms over his head then the two outside figures did the same. Ananias and self began waving our arms and all four now seemed to wave back. There seemed to be no doubt that our movements were answered. All mission boys made audible gasps (of either joy or surprise, perhaps both).

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

That is what I am trying to eliminate. Assumption.

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

Is ET even a possibility in this case?

This is a simple question of yes or no. I can't tell you what to think. I know where I stand. I would like to know where you stand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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.