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

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

I posted this.

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

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

Is ET even a possibility in this case?

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

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

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

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted this.

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

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

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

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

It is actually a simple question. I only asked whether ET is an option. is ET a possibility. Instead, you concluded that "ET is likely to be incorrect".

this show me you obviously has your bias, which you often accused the "believers" of having. Then what is likely the correct answer for you?

be back tomorrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

hillerflying.jpg

!

LINK

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

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

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

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

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

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

It is actually a simple question. I only asked whether ET is an option. is ET a possibility. Instead, you concluded that "ET is likely to be incorrect".

this show me you obviously has your bias, which you often accused the "believers" of having. Then what is likely the correct answer for you?

be back tomorrow.

Well as I said, from a performance point of view, ET fits into the possible Advanced tech, but that even is a guess. So if I had a gun to my head I would say no. However, that does not mean I could not entertain the idea if better information were to become available that support such a conclusion. At the moment, the viewing deck and size make it not an ET spaceship.

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

As mcrom might say:

3544e8.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am glad to se this thread gaining momentum, I have been diggin into it myslef in the background.

2 quick points-

- I find the it very strange that they all carried on for a one hour church service whilst a craft sat outside.....I really am struggling with this bit.

- I have also noticed how the craft 'sketches' seem to match some of teh Ruwa drawings quite well, at least those of the older children who seem to be better artists (more accurate???)...the other striking similarities I find are 'beings' walking on top of UFO (Ruwa had similar descriptions)...this is not so common amongst any UFO cases I have read apart from these two. And lastly the tight fitting costumes....

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am glad to se this thread gaining momentum, I have been diggin into it myslef in the background.

2 quick points-

- I find the it very strange that they all carried on for a one hour church service whilst a craft sat outside.....I really am struggling with this bit.

- I have also noticed how the craft 'sketches' seem to match some of teh Ruwa drawings quite well, at least those of the older children who seem to be better artists (more accurate???)...the other striking similarities I find are 'beings' walking on top of UFO (Ruwa had similar descriptions)...this is not so common amongst any UFO cases I have read apart from these two. And lastly the tight fitting costumes....

Hi Quillius, I trust you are well my friend! :tu:

I confess to being a little unsure of your points on the Ruwa Incident Q?...I agree that there are similarities between the sketches of the crafts in each of the cases, but am uncertain as to whether you feel that this is a negative aspect in validity of the Father Gill case...or the Ruwa testimony ?

I think that the Papua encounter being 35 years before the Zimbabwe case means that perhaps you are either mulling over the possibilities of a type of 'copycat hoaxing' on behalf of the African school?...or that you are connecting the two incidents and suggesting a link with the 'unknown-visitors' in both events?

Either way, I think that it is pretty possible...but have to say that the latter theory is more in my way of thinking, because as you might suspect, I give a great amount of credence to 'both' of these cases, even though I do not see a single reasonable alternative to the ETH for the Gill case. In my humble opinion ...the Ruwa case ,and even the Westall case are not so far behind!

As for the apparent nonchalance of the Reverend and his flock in breaking away from their observations to perform their church service?...Well I have to say that , that didn't go unnoticed with me when I first read the testimony?...But after ruminating the case for quite some time afterwards,...it became clear to me that it wasn't such a strange thing for the minister to do after all.

The facts are that throughout the 3 day encounter, the Reverend Gill and his co-witnesses did not realise that the strange scene that they were watching were not in fact 'American's' operating their 'Technology' as Father Gill said that they had assumed. And so as the 'American's in their wonderfully advanced airship/platform' didn't look likely to land, he thought nothing of carrying out his vocational-duty by performing the service as normal. ...And also in his testimony, Gill does exude an air of confidence in his belief that the object was going to be present even when he broke off from his observations to have a spot of dinner!

Besides the fact that it is unknown if there was some kind of sentry left outside of the chapel with instructions to barge in and tell them of any interesting developments?

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

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

Cheers buddy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

hillerflying.jpg

!

LINK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That thing was the Hiller flying platform. A prototype was put together by the Office of Naval Research in 1955. Found impractical, it never went into production. Like other ground effect vehicles, it could not rise more than a few feet; was quite limited in speed. A military experiment. I doubt very much that private industry would have been interested, or that they could have been done much to improve its performance--running up against the laws of physics, and aerodynamics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

I wonder if any amount of shots would suffice. The video of the platform shows it to be extremely unstable. It in no way can explain Father Gills recollection, but it does show that we were looking at this concept early in the piece.

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

It works on a fan, it's not that loud, like a Hovercraft. But again, I do not thin fan technology is what the Father describes, I think he would have seen a massive fan underneath such an object? It does provide all the lift, and is the entire circumference of the base. Similarities I noticed in this design were the "rail" even if as opposed to a balcony, tapering shape and landing legs. All aspects are in Father GIll's recollection.

You keep missing the point. I do not want people to believe me, I want people to work with me. It is indeed an excellent case, and I fell it deserves a bit more than "This is ET or the witnesses are lying/hallucinating. I was hoping with some effort, and many eyes, a=that someone might see things I have missed.

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

It seems more than reasonable to accept they were humans, yes. As mentioned, not just appearance, but interaction. The only reason you think they are ET is because of the described performance of the craft is it not? That is the anomaly. Not the people. You are assuming this is definitely ET, I think that is jumping the gun when they look and act like humans, and were described as such. I have asked many questions that you have not answered, so again I ask, what specifically about this case can only be ET, and nothing else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That thing was the Hiller flying platform. A prototype was put together by the Office of Naval Research in 1955. Found impractical, it never went into production. Like other ground effect vehicles, it could not rise more than a few feet; was quite limited in speed. A military experiment. I doubt very much that private industry would have been interested, or that they could have been done much to improve its performance--running up against the laws of physics, and aerodynamics.

And yet every believer is quick to jump on statements made by Ben Rich? We have the means to tale ET home, but we cannot build a flying platform hey?

How do you know this is not an inspiration for something more exotic? For instance, 4 adjustable fans would increase stability wouldn't it.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am glad to se this thread gaining momentum, I have been diggin into it myslef in the background.

2 quick points-

- I find the it very strange that they all carried on for a one hour church service whilst a craft sat outside.....I really am struggling with this bit.

Gidday!

I find it acceptable mate. The Reverend did not believe in ET, and he is adamant what he saw was humans. It seems reasonable that when he went outside and saw what he took to be a military exercise, it did grab his attention, but I think like watching anything that stands still, after a while, you attention would wander. Mine would to I think. I would suppose that he figured it was just repairs, and he might have even thought, we will be seeing more of these things. I remember reading when one of the mystery airship crashed, at least one witness walked up to a member of the crew and chatted nonchalantly with him.

- I have also noticed how the craft 'sketches' seem to match some of teh Ruwa drawings quite well, at least those of the older children who seem to be better artists (more accurate???)...the other striking similarities I find are 'beings' walking on top of UFO (Ruwa had similar descriptions)...this is not so common amongst any UFO cases I have read apart from these two. And lastly the tight fitting costumes....

With the viewing deck? Might I ask you to proved a side by side example mate, can't see it myself. I always thought the best drawings to come out of Ruwa looked more like Jupiter2 from Lost in Space.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if any amount of shots would suffice. The video of the platform shows it to be extremely unstable. It in no way can explain Father Gills recollection, but it does show that we were looking at this concept early in the piece.

It works on a fan, it's not that loud, like a Hovercraft. But again, I do not thin fan technology is what the Father describes, I think he would have seen a massive fan underneath such an object? It does provide all the lift, and is the entire circumference of the base. Similarities I noticed in this design were the "rail" even if as opposed to a balcony, tapering shape and landing legs. All aspects are in Father GIll's recollection.

You keep missing the point. I do not want people to believe me, I want people to work with me. It is indeed an excellent case, and I fell it deserves a bit more than "This is ET or the witnesses are lying/hallucinating. I was hoping with some effort, and many eyes, a=that someone might see things I have missed.

It seems more than reasonable to accept they were humans, yes. As mentioned, not just appearance, but interaction. The only reason you think they are ET is because of the described performance of the craft is it not? That is the anomaly. Not the people. You are assuming this is definitely ET, I think that is jumping the gun when they look and act like humans, and were described as such. I have asked many questions that you have not answered, so again I ask, what specifically about this case can only be ET, and nothing else?

I think you got me wrong, Psyche. I do not think it's definitely ET. I only believe that it's more plausible than time travelling human. I don't think we can be definite with anything in this case. Which is why I only ask whether you would consider whether ET is a possibility. No matter how small it is, is it a possibility? you refused to answer. I asked whether you are definite about them being real human. You refused to answer. I find its perplexing. Even if I think time travel is ludicrous, i do not completely put it off the table. Even if there are only 0.0000000001% chance that it's possible.

Do you think it's a possibility that they could not be real human and actually "wolf in sheep clothing"? Because if you completely ruled this out, then there's only option between gov't black ops or human from the future(assuming the event did indeed occurred).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you got me wrong, Psyche. I do not think it's definitely ET. I only believe that it's more plausible than time travelling human. I don't think we can be definite with anything in this case. Which is why I only ask whether you would consider whether ET is a possibility. No matter how small it is, is it a possibility? you refused to answer. I asked whether you are definite about them being real human. You refused to answer. I find its perplexing. Even if I think time travel is ludicrous, i do not completely put it off the table. Even if there are only 0.0000000001% chance that it's possible.

I am not sure how you missed these answers.

Then what is likely the correct answer for you?

Well as I said, from a performance point of view, ET fits into the possible Advanced tech, but that even is a guess. So if I had a gun to my head I would say no.

Do you believe with 100% certainty that those beings were real humans?

It seems more than reasonable to accept they were humans, yes.

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

Well this is the impasse I hope to crack. What was considered at the start of this thread? Only ET. It was considered a case that cannot be dented as being proof of ET. It is not. Then I suggested time travel, then black ops came along. I think it has progressed already from an "undebunkable" case. More parameters exist. When I suggested time travel, I did not even consider that it might be impossible, just like ETH'ers believe that FTL is quite common amongst every species that is not human. Not because it removes ET, but because without looking deep into the theory, plain and simple, time travel is as possible as FTL. Maybe even more so for all we know at this point in time, because it breaks no laws of relativity. It might not be possible at all, but why can it not be considered quite plausible if FTL is? And I gave more reasons than that. That craft is too small. Look at the rebuttal from bison of all people! TIme travel is unlikely, but he will go on and tell me how FTL is almost here, and how some dodgy bloke has found a piece of Roswell saucer. But should I point out that a viewing deck is like fly screens on a Submarine, I suddenly get "You do not know what an Alien craft might have on it!" I mean, fair go.

What about the many questions I have asked? Namely, what part of this description can only be ET and nothing else? From what I can tell, the way the craft left, came, and hovered is the anomaly. Because we cannot figure it out, people say ET, and how is that not simply attributing a problem to a higher power? Passing the buck to the almighty and telling ourselves "well, this will stick". If it is ET, is there anything we can actually pu against it? Some people say Well, UFO's exhibit amazing behaviour! That means squat too, as no UFO has been proven to come form another planet to date. People like to think they do, but not one person on earth can confirm that. An assumption is being used to qualify an assumption. It just does not work like that.

I do not feel that ET is more plausible, because the spacecraft does not seem to be built for space. I find that as well as the Fathers comments take the wind out of those sails.

Do you think it's a possibility that they could not be real human and actually "wolf in sheep clothing"? Because if you completely ruled this out, then there's only option between gov't black ops or human from the future(assuming the event did indeed occurred).

No, because the more I think about it, the less I believe that described craft ever went into or came out of space. It is just not designed for it, every single thing about the description, other than the performance I grant, screams human. Too small, viewing decks negate space travel.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure how you missed these answers.

Well this is the impasse I hope to crack. What was considered at the start of this thread? Only ET. It was considered a case that cannot be dented as being proof of ET. It is not. Then I suggested time travel, then black ops came along. I think it has progressed already from an "undebunkable" case. More parameters exist. When I suggested time travel, I did not even consider that it might be impossible, just like ETH'ers believe that FTL is quite common amongst every species that is not human. Not because it removes ET, but because without looking deep into the theory, plain and simple, time travel is as possible as FTL. Maybe even more so for all we know at this point in time, because it breaks no laws of relativity. It might not be possible at all, but why can it not be considered quite plausible if FTL is? And I gave more reasons than that. That craft is too small. Look at the rebuttal from bison of all people! TIme travel is unlikely, but he will go on and tell me how FTL is almost here, and how some dodgy bloke has found a piece of Roswell saucer. But should I point out that a viewing deck is like fly screens on a Submarine, I suddenly get "You do not know what an Alien craft might have on it!" I mean, fair go.

What about the many questions I have asked? Namely, what part of this description can only be ET and nothing else? From what I can tell, the way the craft left, came, and hovered is the anomaly. Because we cannot figure it out, people say ET, and how is that not simply attributing a problem to a higher power? Passing the buck to the almighty and telling ourselves "well, this will stick". If it is ET, is there anything we can actually pu against it? Some people say Well, UFO's exhibit amazing behaviour! That means squat too, as no UFO has been proven to come form another planet to date. People like to think they do, but not one person on earth can confirm that. An assumption is being used to qualify an assumption. It just does not work like that.

I do not feel that ET is more plausible, because the spacecraft does not seem to be built for space. I find that as well as the Fathers comments take the wind out of those sails.

No, because the more I think about it, the less I believe that described craft ever went into or came out of space. It is just not designed for it, every single thing about the description, other than the performance I grant, screams human. Too small, viewing decks negate space travel.

No, I have not missed your answers. I expected a more direct answer. Instead of answering a yes or no question with a yes or no answer, you go about it in a convoluted way like a politician.

Your answer to my last question tell me all I needed to know. Since you believe that there is no chance of them being anything other than human, I see no point in us having any more debate on the matter. Since ET is not even a possibility in your book, it would be a moot point for me to bring up any suggestion because I am an ET guy afterall. You said you would only consider ET as an option if more evidences pointed that way. After more than 50 years, I don't think we're going to get more than what's already available.

See you in some other case, Psyche. I'll still be lurking in the background of this case, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I have not missed your answers. I expected a more direct answer. Instead of answering a yes or no question with a yes or no answer, you go about it in a convoluted way like a politician.

A politician will never give you a straight answer, I did give you yes and no. I qualified that yes and no, because of the question. You said can this be ET. Nobody on earth can answer that question definitively not anyone is this forum, not any place. What I was saying is that I do not believe this is ET, but because ET has a small stake in the performance statistics, and totally by way of assumption, nothing qualified, then ET still has to be counted someplace, even though it is a very minimal option. Something like how you described your view of time travel I suppose. And as such, if someone can answer the question that I keep asking, something I have not seen yet may change my mind. Hell, I was convinced MOGUL explained Roswell, it is far superior as a realistic explanation to the ET nonsense, but when I saw Lost Shamans Hypothesis I tried to falsify it. I could not. Something new altogether came along that outdid the previous directions of investigation.

So I keep asking the question, pushing the boundaries. You are the only one with the fortitude and guts to stand up to a skeptic and say what you think and challenge the alternative. I admire that. Bison had a couple of posts. And considering he gives Steve Colbern the time of day, his position in this thread is most perplexing. I understand why he does not like me all that much. I am pretty blunt and pretty forward. And I was right about Frank Kimbler. He was full of it from day one. But hey, that's me. I speak up. I am a happy drinker though, not a bluer. When I get the opportunity. More of an energetic conversationalist I like to think.

Still, I would remain interested if someone could answer the question

What aspect of this case can only be ET?

Do you not find it strange that when faced with that which is commonly accepted, that nobody has an answer? If we are so positive this is ET, then why can nobody say what part of this comes from another planet? People have gone as far as imagining wormholes and the like, but refuse to so much as consider time travel. Yet any percentage of c is time travel, not to mention that NASA says it is theoretically possible, just like a wormhole. And yet, for this I am considered skeptic. What about the people who only believe in half of space-time? The space bit? Are they not skeptics in their own way?

It is because the reported performance of the craft is extraordinary. Nothing else. I maintain that as Father Gill said, this is significant. Many people have seen things they thought were UFO's but fro Earth. Kenneth Arnold did not think what he saw came from space.

Your answer to my last question tell me all I needed to know. Since you believe that there is no chance of them being anything other than human, I see no point in us having any more debate on the matter. Since ET is not even a possibility in your book, it would be a moot point for me to bring up any suggestion because I am an ET guy afterall. You said you would only consider ET as an option if more evidences pointed that way. After more than 50 years, I don't think we're going to get more than what's already available.

Maybe we are not but without questioning, it has no chance of ever moving forward does it.

If ET is a possibility, why can you not tell me what is specifically ET in this recollection? We do not seem to have a craft like that. Is that enough to invoke ET? I really do not think so, and specifically because of tales like the 1896 Airship. That still remains unexplained, and it was not ET.

Do you honestly feel that because the performance described by the craft that we should assume everything about and on it? What about the simple fact that the thing was most certainly not built for space? Or that is never went into space, and not one UFO ever has been recorded as such, despite the claims of RADAR and the like. I have asked you these before, How can it be ET considering all this?

How? so far I have heard that spaceships just might go into warp, and exit this massive burst of energy inside our atmosphere! Then to make the part of the story that is described as "definitely humans" you come up with suits. Can you see my problem here? You keep making things up to run with a preferred conclusion, based on the performance of the craft. Apart form the takeoff, and the hovering, nobody would say this is ET would they? So why keep changing the rest of the story to suit the takeoff bit, because it sounds like what we might expect from ET? Is that not taking the smallest, if not most grandiose, part of the story and building on that? How is that not bias?

That is the ET shoehorn. If some think even the tiniest aspect can built into ET, they will, and then insist it is the only answer. And lets face it, one aspect here suggests merely the possibility of advanced technology. Nobody has seen such a thing here, so we decide to move to the next planet? That might not be what you are doing, but the ETH is pushing you in that direction. Personally, I think that Portage County ET drones are more likely than this, because all we have is performance characteristics to work with. If you want ET, I feel the best bets are Portage County (Maybe) and the WOW! signal. Not a floating platform with a viewing deck and men on it.

See you in some other case, Psyche. I'll still be lurking in the background of this case, though.

Good luck with it, and thank you for the debate. Again, I respect and admire your fortitude. Many lack what you have. All I would suggest is stick to your guns, but make sure your gunpowder is dry.

And if you ever want to answer that question, I'll be listening ;)

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet every believer is quick to jump on statements made by Ben Rich? We have the means to tale ET home, but we cannot build a flying platform hey?

How do you know this is not an inspiration for something more exotic? For instance, 4 adjustable fans would increase stability wouldn't it.

i doubt if they'd have been able to perfect such a thing by 1959.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i doubt if they'd have been able to perfect such a thing by 1959.

I doubt that flying saucer would have viewing platforms ;)

Maybe it was not perfected. It was broken down. Maybe it was never supposed to take of like a rocket, and maybe that is why we never saw one again!

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt that flying saucer would have viewing platforms ;)

Maybe it was not perfected. It was broken down. Maybe it was never supposed to take of like a rocket, and maybe that is why we never saw one again!

Good point. Pilot (twisting throttle) what does this do - waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy.............

*beats Yuri Gagarin into orbit by two years, but sadly, as he was a member of the Secret Special Forces, he was never given the credit

* or ever seen again :cry:

Edited by Lord Vetinari
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst browsing idly over all this - I was stopped in my tracks by:

...

After more than 50 years, I don't think we're going to get more than what's already available.

...

???? So let me get this straight - nowadays, with:

- ever increasing numbers (and quality) of systems observing the skies

- high quality affordable video and still photography equipment (not to mention telescopes (oops I just did) all at prices undreamt of 50 years ago

- an uncensored communications network (Internet) to link everything up and provide easy access to every previous 'case' and allow intense scrutiny from experts and amateurs alike

- the thriving amateur astronomy enthusiasts across the globe giving unprecedented monitoring...

Yet you think that the 'golden age' is over? What an extraordinary thing to say..

And yet... I sense this same air of resignation in others here too - without naming names, it seems a few of the 'old school' of ET=Alienz believers have pretty much lost interest in any new sightings, while poring endlessly over & repeating old cases that have long failed to provide the proverbial smoking gun... So, has closer & better scrutiny driven the ET's away or into hiding...?

There is another possible explanation for this, and I think it's pretty dang obvious what it might be..

PS - psyche, you didn't read your pm's again..! I called by the Tavern tonight, but couldn't find you.. However, it most certainly wasn't a wasted visit - now I understand what you mean by it being the place to be.. Niiiice...!! :w00t::D

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS - psyche, you didn't read your pm's again..! I called by the Tavern tonight, but couldn't find you.. However, it most certainly wasn't a wasted visit - now I understand what you mean by it being the place to be.. Niiiice...!! :w00t::D

Ah, to share a beer (or six) with you guys would be quite enjoyable I'd imagine. Maybe some day I'll make it to Oz... :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S2F, I'm sure I can speak for Psyche and say you'd be very welcome - I like reading your posts and your avatar always gives me a smile..! Sadly I don't get out of the country much to offer the reverse.. but if you're ever down under *anywhere* give us a heads up - airfares are pretty cheap down here and I'm good for any excuse to go somewhere new.. :D

As an aside, on re-reading SGBB's post I may be misinterpreting his intent - perhaps he was just referring to this case alone. If so, I unreservedly apologise for the misread and any inferences I made on that basis.. Sorry, SGBB.

I may raise this overall issue in a new thread, instead - because I'd really like to hear some answers on whether folks agree, and if so why, that there are so very, very few recent cases worth looking at, despite our much better ability to record and examine them..

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

icon1.png Father Gill's UnDebunkable Case?

Hi all!

As a well confirmed member of the 'Pro-ETH-Club', and one that thoroughly enjoys seeing people on 'the other side of the fence' [so to speak] express just why they are of an opposing view of the veracity of some of my own preferred cases,.. I often have this nagging feeling of bewilderment about the reasons stated for the negative responses given with regards to the possibilities of certain testimonies being adequate proof of the probability of the ETH,...or even that I find often is the case that when what I consider pretty compelling evidence [usually in the form of reliable testimony] is presented by one of the excellent researchers that drop by these forums from time to time,[Karl 12 comes to mind] is almost always ignored by the 'heavy-sceptics' altogether!

Does this mean that there is no none-extraterrestrial explanation possible?...if so, then why are you still opposed to the ETH?

A case such as this that I am fairly sure that most people here will already be familiar with, is The weird and wonderful 1959 Father Gill Papua New Guinea Encounters....

It wasn’t hyperbole. There are 38 witnesses. No other entity case comes close to that number. Twenty-five signed their names to a detailed report. Five of them were teachers and three were medical assistants. There was agreement the object was circular, had a wide base, a narrow upper deck, a type of legs, four human figures, and a shaft of blue light which shone upwards into the sky at an angle of 45°. It was visible for hours....

here's a snippet of the main witness himself,..check him out and see if you think he is a snakeoil-salesman?

....And if that wasn't enough,..there is also independent corroboratory testimony that 'unearthly flying vehicles' were uninhibitedly parading around the vicinity at the time in question!

Though I admit that this case is a fairly-unusual one, with an unlikely scenario....it is also a case that has consistently rebuffed any kind of reasonable debunking!...and many have tried over the course of the 54 years or so since the event. And i'll even go so far as to say that it has made monkeys out of the high-priests of UFO-debunkery ....Phil Klass reckoned that the whole thing was just a story made up by Gill and corroborated by all of the other folk designed to wind up Father Crutwell, a friend of Gill's !
rotfl4.gif
...And Donald Menzel proclaimed that, he and all of the 37 other witnesses that were present along with Father Gill, as well as the other seven or so independent witnesses that I know about from other parts of the region had been foolish enough to have been fooled by 'VENUS', !...even though Father Gill mentioned that he could also see Venus at the time!...
shrug03.gif
...and funniest of all was that Menzel asserts that the waving occupants of
Venus
the vehicle was "the witnesses own out of focus eyelashes!"...
:w00t:

The list of attempts to debunk this case goes on and on,...with silly explanations varying from 'moving planets' to 'mirages of boats' etc ...but the plain fact is that no other explanation, and please correct me if i'm wrong, but no matter the unfathomable motivations of operations being carried out by the occupants of those strange flying craft's that were witnessed by so many respectable witnesses on those three nights in Papua 1959 fits the scenario as good as the ETH!...
alien4.gif

Cheers.

"The discovery of truth is prevented more effectively not by the false

appearance of things present and which mislead into error, not directly

by weakness of the reasoning powers, but by preconceived opinion, by

prejudice." - Schopenhauer

GORT...KLAATU BARADA NIKTO.

Similar in many ways to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9sBKE02_gA

Jessie-Roestenberg.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you say undebunkable.

No radar or stamp of officialdom needed. At least not by those with an ounce of ken.

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.