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

Besides the other well-taken objections that have been raised to time travel, and so, time travelers from the future being mistaken for extraterrestrial visitors, there is the following to consider: Time travel to Earth's past is also space travel. The Earth moves about the galaxy at a speed calculated to be ~ 550,000 miles per hour. If one wanted to visit Earth 100 years ago, they would have to travel about 480 billion miles in space. Since one would exit the time stream in the present, and reenter it 100 years ago, they would have traveled 480 billion miles in essentially zero time, far exceeding the speed of light. Those who object to the presence of extraterrestrials at Earth, because the light speed limit presents an insurmountable barrier to stellar travel should be consistent. It should, to this way of thinking, also prevent time travel to the past.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:sk

I love reading these threads . It never ceases to amaze me how much you guys can back and forth and post Intel and opinions.

Seriously .Just had to say .

Carry on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

[/size]

???? 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

I was referring to this case specifically. glad you are able to see the whole picture in the later post.

If you sensed an air of resignation, you are not wrong, mate. What are the motivation to carry on for some believers? No matter what information they think they can get here, it's sure as heck won't be as mind blowing as their own personal experience. That in of itself can lead to disinterest very quickly. What other motivation is there? try and convince a skeptic? We all know how futile it is.

What are the motivation for the skeptics? I am sure they would say to find the truth, to advance the subject, to understand our world better. For some skeptics this is the case. They are fair, they keep an open mind. They entertain the possibility that there could be something out there beyond human. These are the competent skeptics. Unfortunately, there aren't many of them.

For a lot of skeptics, it's all about "winning" the argument. Their mind are already made up. They do not entertain the possibility at all. They completely shut the door on it. No matter how many non-stick bs alternative explanations they throw out there. At the end of the day, they still hold the ultimate trump card. All they have to do is pull out the "scientific evidence" card and they would "win" the debate. Their ego would receive a boost. They would congratulate each others on a job well done, having vanquished yet another feeble minded believer. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. No matter how many fishes they fry, more will come. If their main motivation is to "win" the debate, then stick around. At the end of the day, the ego is guaranteed to get stroke. Anyway, that's just my two cents.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was referring to this case specifically. glad you are able to see the whole picture in the later post.

If you sensed an air of resignation, you are not wrong, mate. What are the motivation to carry on for some believers? No matter what information they think they can get here, it's sure as heck won't be as mind blowing as their own personal experience. That in of itself can lead to disinterest very quickly. What other motivation is there? try and convince a skeptic? We all know how futile it is.

What are the motivation for the skeptics? I am sure they would say to find the truth, to advance the subject, to understand our world better. For some skeptics this is the case. They are fair, they keep an open mind. They entertain the possibility that there could be something out there beyond human. These are the competent skeptics. Unfortunately, there aren't many of them.

For a lot of skeptics, it's all about "winning" the argument. Their mind are already made up. They do not entertain the possibility at all. They completely shut the door on it. No matter how many non-stick bs alternative explanations they throw out there. At the end of the day, they still hold the ultimate trump card. All they have to do is pull out the "scientific evidence" card and they would "win" the debate. Their ego would receive a boost. They would congratulate each others on a job well done, having vanquished yet another feeble minded believer. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. No matter how many fishes they fry, more will come. If their main motivation is to "win" the debate, then stick around. At the end of the day, the ego is guaranteed to get stroke. Anyway, that's just my two cents.

No amount of clever debunking attempts can disprove that this planet is being engaged by ET's

Far too many corroborating testimonies. The problem is that the skeptics are all waiting for evidence that they can hold in their hand. A piece of a space ship maybe. Trouble is that some wag will then come along and try and argue that it's nothing but a chunk broken off a plane.

That's the flaw in the so called scientific method. Anything in the end can be denied. It's to easy to do.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's possible that the scientific method itself has not prevented the broad and open acceptance of evidence for an extraterrestrial presence at Earth. Political and emotional considerations enter into this, too. Science, being a work in progress, and far from perfect, is subject to preconceptions, inertia, and (sometimes unconscious) biases.

It's also possible that there is another problem. What if *we* are the observed, trying to observe the observers? This would probably introduce complications. Suppose extraterrestrials observing us had a protocol that said that we were not be be allowed, as a species, to unambiguously know that we were being observed. They might feel that such knowledge would interfere with the sorts of human behavior they wish to study. Trying to observe such observers using the scientific method could be fruitless, or at least produce ambiguous results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi zoser

No offense but I think what you wrote is flawed. Read that sentence again:

That's the flaw in the so called scientific method. Anything in the end can be denied. It's to easy to do.

1st of all, there is nothing fundamentally flawed about the scientific method FOR WHAT IT IS. It is for doing science.

Perhaps you're comparing apples and oranges.

Discussing UFO vs ET craft and HOW you're discussing them, whether you're talking about belief, or proof, evidence vs proof, etc etc

It seems to me you are suffering from a simple misunderstanding with skeptics.

The second part of your sentence is also flawed because if said 'scientific method' proves something, then, no, it can't simply be denied....

Try to remember if skeptics do not agree with you, it's not because they don't believe in ET, it's because, after MUCH research, they believe that there hasn't been sufficient 'PROOF' to accept the ETH as an explination for UFO. (TO BE ABSOLUTELY SURE - remember MANY MANY MANY have been proven to be MISTAKEN!)

Also, Please note the difference between 'proof' and 'evidence'. Most skeptics agree there is PLENTY of evidence of the ETH but believe this evidence is mostly anecdotal or circumstantial. However, skeptics believe there is no proof. This is why they are skeptical of the ETH.

And, before making grand sweeping statements about skeptics ignorance, please remember most skeptics want to believe. This is why they are members here. The reason they are skeptics is that there is no proof. < A lot of skeptics find this, in itself disturbing... (with THOUSANDS or hundreds of thousands of sightings etc etc etc - You would expect there to be SOME proof if the ETH was true!!!)

Edited by Paxus
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's possible that the scientific method itself has not prevented the broad and open acceptance of evidence for an extraterrestrial presence at Earth. Political and emotional considerations enter into this, too. Science, being a work in progress, and far from perfect, is subject to preconceptions, inertia, and (sometimes unconscious) biases.

It's also possible that there is another problem. What if *we* are the observed, trying to observe the observers? This would probably introduce complications. Suppose extraterrestrials observing us had a protocol that said that we were not be be allowed, as a species, to unambiguously know that we were being observed. They might feel that such knowledge would interfere with the sorts of human behavior they wish to study. Trying to observe such observers using the scientific method could be fruitless, or at least produce ambiguous results.

This is what i've often said. That is a basic principle of science, after all; don't interfere with what you're studying, whether it's chemical reactions or studying animal behaviour. Any kind of intrerference, like letting them know you're there, can affect their behaviour, after all.

(So maybe the ETs haven't been all that good at hiding themselves from us? Or, since people always insist that there's never been any hard evidence that they have been, maybe they are. Who knows.) :cry:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what i've often said. That is a basic principle of science, after all; don't interfere with what you're studying, whether it's chemical reactions or studying animal behaviour. Any kind of intrerference, like letting them know you're there, can affect their behaviour, after all.

(So maybe the ETs haven't been all that good at hiding themselves from us? Or, since people always insist that there's never been any hard evidence that they have been, maybe they are. Who knows.) :cry:

And maybe they've done as much observing of basic human behavior as they feel they need to, and have now begun to observe how isolated individuals and small groups react to their presence. There are parallels to this in our own primate research, of course. Were everyone to finally agree that extraterrestrials are present at Earth, it would probably mean that we had been 'graduated' from biological specimens to anthropological subjects. Edited by bison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

duplicate

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi zoser

No offense but I think what you wrote is flawed. Read that sentence again:

1st of all, there is nothing fundamentally flawed about the scientific method FOR WHAT IT IS. It is for doing science.

Perhaps you're comparing apples and oranges.

Discussing UFO vs ET craft and HOW you're discussing them, whether you're talking about belief, or proof, evidence vs proof, etc etc

It seems to me you are suffering from a simple misunderstanding with skeptics.

The second part of your sentence is also flawed because if said 'scientific method' proves something, then, no, it can't simply be denied....

Try to remember if skeptics do not agree with you, it's not because they don't believe in ET, it's because, after MUCH research, they believe that there hasn't been sufficient 'PROOF' to accept the ETH as an explination for UFO. (TO BE ABSOLUTELY SURE - remember MANY MANY MANY have been proven to be MISTAKEN!)

Also, Please note the difference between 'proof' and 'evidence'. Most skeptics agree there is PLENTY of evidence of the ETH but believe this evidence is mostly anecdotal or circumstantial. However, skeptics believe there is no proof. This is why they are skeptical of the ETH.

And, before making grand sweeping statements about skeptics ignorance, please remember most skeptics want to believe. This is why they are members here. The reason they are skeptics is that there is no proof. < A lot of skeptics find this, in itself disturbing... (with THOUSANDS or hundreds of thousands of sightings etc etc etc - You would expect there to be SOME proof if the ETH was true!!!)

Hi paxus, thanks for the valiant defence of sceptisism my friend, but I think that it was not necessary because I believe that Zoser was really referring to the 'debunkers' and in no way was he trying to admonish the true sceptical faction, which I may add is an essential trait that we must all have in our quest to try and get to the bottom of any case,[ and please bear in mind that there are many degrees of scepticism,!]....For instance,I myself am very sceptical of the vast majority of cases! ...but the 'Father Gill case' is a rare example of an encounter in which I personally can see no alternative to the ETH explanation. I've thought long and hard about the possibilities for years, [ and yes...got a headache for my troubles. lol]..but could not see any reasonable prosaic explanation!..eg, the source is of impeccable quality with the utmost rectitude available!....Too many other decent witnesses for this to be something as simple as 'mirages' etc, and also independent witness statements from unrelated parties from different locations to corroborate the story! ....It is the proposers of 'authoritative explanations' of 'Mistaken Planets', 'Myopic Witnesses', 'Cargo Cult Effect' etc given by the kind of debunker that nonchalantly continue to insult our intelligence..that somewhat irks people like me and Zoser, and prompts posts with an air of indignation aimed squarely toward them ...and not the genuine sceptic!

Military Black ops is another supported proposal to explain this phenomenal occurrence. ...Again, with the aid of my internet explorer I have considered this ...but have to say that in my opinion..the advanced secret technology required for the viability of this option in 1959?, it is a none-starter!

I'll even go so far as to say that I severely doubt that it would be possible today!

I'll freely admit that [as with all cases],I have considered all of the prosaic possibilities that I can think of for what might have been witnessed in Boianai and other parts of the region , but I am stumped for an Earthly explanation?....And so I am left with the old Conan Doyle maxim of... "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth!"

And though when I first heard about this fascinating 'possible extraterrestrial encounter' , I thought it 'improbable'...now , some years later...I believe that it 'must be the truth'!

And so Paxus...what are your thoughts on the validity of this ETH offering...?

Cheers buddy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

Well there we go, Vladimir Ilyushin! The real story!

Like I say, it depends how far one wants to go, but if calling this an ET craft, as many are prone to do as a knee jerk reaction to anything new that we might encounter, is rather premature as what we are looking at is not something that is engineered for space travel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

[/size]

???? 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

Oops, sorry mate, I will have to take a rain check, forgive the pun considering the cyclone raging outside on this marvellous public holiday, I worked all night on Thursday, and was not very coherent by knock off on Friday.

But you can see why I can be found there :D My apologies once again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know what I said on post #65. I would like to go back in time and rejoin the discussion if possible. :D

I know some skeptics of ET will completely shut out the possibility of it. I, being a skeptic of time travel, Know that I don't know everything to be able to shut it out completely. I did go back and read on the near speed of light travel. From my limited understanding, here's what I got. Please correct me if I am wrong.

If someone travel near the speed of light, they don't actually go back in time. Their time still move forward(aging) but at a slower rate than people who stayed on earth. If you travel away from earth near the speed of light and then return after many years, you don't actually end up in the past. You and the people on earth still move forward but at a different rate. This person can't go back and kill Hitler, see how the pyramid was build, or running from the dinosaurs. Is my assumptions correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Besides the other well-taken objections that have been raised to time travel, and so, time travelers from the future being mistaken for extraterrestrial visitors, there is the following to consider: Time travel to Earth's past is also space travel. The Earth moves about the galaxy at a speed calculated to be ~ 550,000 miles per hour. If one wanted to visit Earth 100 years ago, they would have to travel about 480 billion miles in space. Since one would exit the time stream in the present, and reenter it 100 years ago, they would have traveled 480 billion miles in essentially zero time, far exceeding the speed of light. Those who object to the presence of extraterrestrials at Earth, because the light speed limit presents an insurmountable barrier to stellar travel should be consistent. It should, to this way of thinking, also prevent time travel to the past.

That is what I have been trying to get across all along. Now you are recognising the space and time are indeed interconnected, and no doubt this is why NASA insist a wormhole or the like is required for time travel.

This is what I have been saying from page one. We are talking space-time, not space and time. They are intimately connected, so if you propose folding space is more than plausible then according to NASA. Time travel should be in the same theory. If you wish to say that Aliens might be here because they managed to fold space, then you have to accept that time travel might also be a possibility. The incidents such as the 1896 airship and the propellor powered flying saucer investigated by Vallee show that such anomalies show up from time to time, and aliens simply do not explain those. Only the performance characteristics stand out here, and that is based on descriptions by people who admittedly have no idea what they are looking at. As such, it is entirely conceivable that costing was lost in translation that coud be all important to solving this mystery.

I think the believers seem to think that because the performance characteristics as described cannot be resolved immediately with the provided description, that this is instantly ET and nobody can challenge that. That is quiet an assumption to hang one's hat on IMHO. Nobody can still say any aspect that is specifically ET, the closest people come, and seem to feel is some type of answer, is that "We cannot place it so it must be ET."

NASA Said that tome travel is not directional, so if you have som calculations that trump their, please feel free to present them. I do not believe this is an undebunkable case in regards to the ETH. That link has been assumed, not established. The craft is not engendered for space travel, for many reasons, and more so than those presented to reject time travel as an alternative possibility. A small craft with viewing decks is not an Interstellar spaceship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know what I said on post #65. I would like to go back in time and rejoin the discussion if possible. :D

I know some skeptics of ET will completely shut out the possibility of it. I, being a skeptic of time travel, Know that I don't know everything to be able to shut it out completely. I did go back and read on the near speed of light travel. From my limited understanding, here's what I got. Please correct me if I am wrong.

If someone travel near the speed of light, they don't actually go back in time. Their time still move forward(aging) but at a slower rate than people who stayed on earth. If you travel away from earth near the speed of light and then return after many years, you don't actually end up in the past. You and the people on earth still move forward but at a different rate. This person can't go back and kill Hitler, see how the pyramid was build, or running from the dinosaurs. Is my assumptions correct?

Yes that is time dilation, nature spreading out time. NASA concludes with a wormholes that time is not directional, and theoretically can be traversed in any direction.

Length contraction also comes into the picture at those speeds. - LINK

And more than the people, that craft is not engineered for space. That shuts out ET. If a species is to have come from another planet, it needs to cross space Nobody is crossing space in what was described by Father Gill, just as the farmers saucer that Valles wrote about was not going into space powered by propellors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes that is time dilation, nature spreading out time. NASA concludes with a wormholes that time is not directional, and theoretically can be traversed in any direction.

Length contraction also comes into the picture at those speeds. - LINK

And more than the people, that craft is not engineered for space. That shuts out ET. If a species is to have come from another planet, it needs to cross space Nobody is crossing space in what was described by Father Gill, just as the farmers saucer that Valles wrote about was not going into space powered by propellors.

How would one get to a wormhole?

And report of ET ship with viewing deck are not unique is there?

Be back later. watching some Downton Abbey

Edited by SwampgasBalloonBoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's possible that the scientific method itself has not prevented the broad and open acceptance of evidence for an extraterrestrial presence at Earth. Political and emotional considerations enter into this, too. Science, being a work in progress, and far from perfect, is subject to preconceptions, inertia, and (sometimes unconscious) biases.

That is absolute Codswallop. From the days of Drake and Sagan, real minds have been analysing the problem for decades. Dressing your claim up in prose and woo woo does not take away from the achievements of these great pioneers. Boys playing war games have merely convoluted the field. Considering the lousy management of the study of the phenomena and so many grown men "afraid of ghosts" influenced by pop culture, I am surprised that the field retains as much credibility as it does today. That the wo woo side exists at all is merely a sad testament to the lack of education being provided in the public system. The many who remain in tainted by the alluring side of pop culture, and the fame bowing to that brings, are overshadowing the real leaps forward, small as they may be, by the real brains tackling this phenomena. Whilst absolute embarrassments to science, and the human species for that matter, such as Lier and Greer tout their unashamed garbology, Hawking, Greene, Kaku and such maintain the credibility these cretins feed from. We owe these great names a wealth of debt as without them, the UFO phenomena would be about as believable as Roswell Rods.

It's also possible that there is another problem. What if *we* are the observed, trying to observe the observers? This would probably introduce complications. Suppose extraterrestrials observing us had a protocol that said that we were not be be allowed, as a species, to unambiguously know that we were being observed. They might feel that such knowledge would interfere with the sorts of human behavior they wish to study. Trying to observe such observers using the scientific method could be fruitless, or at least produce ambiguous results.

And it might be an International requirement that we wear green hats. This is based on imagination and science fiction Our history goes nothing like this whatsoever and all we have to work with is a pool of one. Once we dip into imagination land, no ideal is right or wrong. Time travel becomes very plausible in such an open field. What you ETH'ers are simply refusing to admit is that the design of the craft is not one for interstellar travel. You want to pretend that in some fantasy land, it is workable, but you cannot present why. This takes ET from any structured and sensible evaluation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would one get to a wormhole?

One creates it, all you need is the energy of a sun or two. Which in my mind, makes traversable wormholes rather unlikely in general. It is not only cresting one, keeping the entrance/exit open is another great hurdle. I do not know of a single one that has been observed in nature.

And report of ET ship with viewing deck are not unique is there?

Please feel free, but the plural of anecdote is not data. How is that proof of ET, and not proof of time travel?

This is where we are parting. You are assuming that if someone else saw something that cannot be immediately explained then it must be proof of ET. You are also jumping to the technology over the basic possibilities to skip to ET. Other small craft have been reported also that are too small to cross space. The nonsense at Roswell tries to say the craft, that carried all those beings and crossed space is as big as a Volkwagen Beetle. I mean, lets face it, this makes no sense at all. Even is you could fit the occupants in the craft!. Kecksburg, smaller again, but something that propels itself through space? Physics take precedence here, and the claims simply do not add up. What we have is a design, this is not possible of doing what ETH'ers say it's function actually is. That is like me saying you can stick apples in your car and it will run. It will not. It will not work, and a 35 foot craft with viewing decks is not going to be crossing space. That just makes no sense whatsoever.

Be back later. watching some Downton Abbey

I have no idea what that is, but I have to say it does not sound like my sort of thing. Downtown Abbey does not sound like it will have many explosions in it. I am sitting out the wrath of a cyclone at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi zoser

No offense but I think what you wrote is flawed. Read that sentence again:

1st of all, there is nothing fundamentally flawed about the scientific method FOR WHAT IT IS. It is for doing science.

Perhaps you're comparing apples and oranges.

Discussing UFO vs ET craft and HOW you're discussing them, whether you're talking about belief, or proof, evidence vs proof, etc etc

It seems to me you are suffering from a simple misunderstanding with skeptics.

The second part of your sentence is also flawed because if said 'scientific method' proves something, then, no, it can't simply be denied....

Try to remember if skeptics do not agree with you, it's not because they don't believe in ET, it's because, after MUCH research, they believe that there hasn't been sufficient 'PROOF' to accept the ETH as an explination for UFO. (TO BE ABSOLUTELY SURE - remember MANY MANY MANY have been proven to be MISTAKEN!)

Also, Please note the difference between 'proof' and 'evidence'. Most skeptics agree there is PLENTY of evidence of the ETH but believe this evidence is mostly anecdotal or circumstantial. However, skeptics believe there is no proof. This is why they are skeptical of the ETH.

And, before making grand sweeping statements about skeptics ignorance, please remember most skeptics want to believe. This is why they are members here. The reason they are skeptics is that there is no proof. < A lot of skeptics find this, in itself disturbing... (with THOUSANDS or hundreds of thousands of sightings etc etc etc - You would expect there to be SOME proof if the ETH was true!!!)

Hi Pax

Beautifully said mate. Thank you for pointing that out, This is exactly how we all should look at this. I cannot shake the Mystery Airship of 1896, nor Vallee's saucer with propellors. Some strange things happen but I think it is not the right option to just stick an ET label on it. In my mind, that is what the ETH'ers are accusing skeptics of. FInding an easy answer such as "black ops' or "they are lying" when this contingent is incapable of producing any better. Less so if anything, as we are faced with but one all encompassing option. ET can do anything.

It's a conundrum allright, but if we all stick our heads together and take such instances on as a blank page, they have a much better chance of actually resolving, then they do just being argued back and forth over one's favoured conclusions. At the end of the day, the performance is puzzling as per the description. THere is no way to attribute the origin of what Father Gill saw to any sourced based upon his description. Only cherry picking that description provides an answer of ET. And I think I have annoyed some people by pointing that out.

Indeed, one ray gun would go a long way to making any skeptics take an entirely different approach, yet the best we can be faced with is some slag from an Aluminium press claimed to be spaceship parts. When this is what we have to work with, I truly wonder why skepticism is not the only way to look at this mystery.

Cheers.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what i've often said. That is a basic principle of science, after all; don't interfere with what you're studying, whether it's chemical reactions or studying animal behaviour. Any kind of intrerference, like letting them know you're there, can affect their behaviour, after all.

(So maybe the ETs haven't been all that good at hiding themselves from us? Or, since people always insist that there's never been any hard evidence that they have been, maybe they are. Who knows.) :cry:

But as pointed out, never with intelligent species. We just land a ship in the shores and say Howdy Do. The only time we observe in stealth is when we cannot communicate with a species to ask it how it manages to fit into the ecosystem for our records.

It is not a basic principal of science, it is a convoluted Ideal borne from Star Trek fashioned to support the ETH. I imagine the Australian Indigenous, as well as native Americans sure as heck wish this was how we initiated first contact. You guys act like we are ants. We are not. That is another stupid ideal left over from the ETH. We are an intelligent species capable of traversing the stars, and communicating in many different ways. No matter how you look at this, Ants are not going to come up with plasma Tellies. That is the big difference, we have attained the intelligence to answer first contact. Not one of the species we observe can mange this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle might not seem so prophetic when we note that he was taken in by two little girls with a brownie camera. In the case of the Cottingley Fairies, his adage to the improbable could not have been more of the mark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THe best thing about being Human ! We can forget,we can remember to forget ,and we can forget to forget .ANd we can even not even Give a Flippin care about it !

THe Worst we will be is Human as we tend to be . But If we stop Dreaming and Looking Only board we will be !

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One creates it, all you need is the energy of a sun or two. Which in my mind, makes traversable wormholes rather unlikely in general. It is not only cresting one, keeping the entrance/exit open is another great hurdle. I do not know of a single one that has been observed in nature.

Since human are unlikely to create wormhole here on earth to be able to travel backward in time, can we eliminate the men from the future scenario as a possibility in this case? or at least put it last on the list of possibilities, even behind that of ET?

Please feel free, but the plural of anecdote is not data. How is that proof of ET, and not proof of time travel?

This is where we are parting. You are assuming that if someone else saw something that cannot be immediately explained then it must be proof of ET. You are also jumping to the technology over the basic possibilities to skip to ET. Other small craft have been reported also that are too small to cross space. The nonsense at Roswell tries to say the craft, that carried all those beings and crossed space is as big as a Volkwagen Beetle. I mean, lets face it, this makes no sense at all. Even is you could fit the occupants in the craft!. Kecksburg, smaller again, but something that propels itself through space? Physics take precedence here, and the claims simply do not add up. What we have is a design, this is not possible of doing what ETH'ers say it's function actually is. That is like me saying you can stick apples in your car and it will run. It will not. It will not work, and a 35 foot craft with viewing decks is not going to be crossing space. That just makes no sense whatsoever.

No, I am not assuming it is proof of ET. I am only making a connection that it could be ET since people have reported seeing non-human in crafts with viewing deck. So the mere fact that a craft containing a viewing deck completely ruled out the possibility of ET is nonsense.

While you accusing me of assuming, you are doing the same. You assumed that a 35 ft craft cannot travel in space. Do you know this for a fact? Maybe you do know something no of us do? :hmm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since human are unlikely to create wormhole here on earth to be able to travel backward in time, can we eliminate the men from the future scenario as a possibility in this case? or at least put it last on the list of possibilities, even behind that of ET?

Does that mean the Aliens are unlikely to ever create a wormhole to traverse space? Humans right now are unable to create a usable wormhole to the best of my knowledge for any reason. Will that change in 100 years? 1,000? 50? If you cannot answer that, why is ET a better candidate? The difference here is one of us is talking a difference in space, the other a difference in time, yet we are both discussing space-time. With hypothetical means of travel, I do not see how one negates the other when as far as we now, both are pretty much impossible for us, or anyone for that matter, to achieve.

You keep trying to give ET the upper hand here, yet claim no bias. I find that confusing. ET does not have any hand, the performance characteristics are anomalous and as such, some have attributed that anomaly to a higher power. In my mind, that is not an answer, that is self gratification. From where I sit, no answer "fits" perfectly. It's not a whole lot different to religion and invoking God to explain Cyclones IMHO.

No, I am not assuming it is proof of ET. I am only making a connection that it could be ET since people have reported seeing non-human in crafts with viewing deck. So the mere fact that a craft containing a viewing deck completely ruled out the possibility of ET is nonsense.

I do not see how you can come to that conclusion. We are talking about a craft that has supposedly just crossed an Interstellar medium right? A spaceship by description right? As such a viewing deck is hardly something to be brushed over. You want to delve into specifics of theoretical space travel and time travel, but want to gloss over the fact that this craft clearly is designed for terrestrial use? In essence that is making things up to fit into a preconceived conclusion whilst negating aspects of Father Gills recollection. One comment I saw was "I suppose they were all doing mushies" but that has not been anything like the case has it? What has been presented is many links and ideas, I admit that the case is perplexing, but you want to think that either Father Gill described the craft wrong, or that the described viewing deck canot be as per the description. If that is the case, why do we then take the take of scenario and performance characteristics as gospel?

While you accusing me of assuming, you are doing the same. You assumed that a 35 ft craft cannot travel in space. Do you know this for a fact? Maybe you do know something no of us do? :hmm:

I am not assuming that at all, I am unsure how you could have missed all the reasons why this is not an interstellar craft, namely size and the design. That craft is not crossing space. You can tell me until you are blue in the face that we do not know what a craft looks like, because all I will do is agree. The believers are attributing a saucer shape to alien craft, not I. All I have done is question resources vs capacity to hold them, and it makes no sense. Nor does the viewing deck. It is not enough to say, "Well it could be normal to have viewing decks on spacecraft". That defies logic and common sense, and all to push a certain conclusion.

What propulsion system can traverse light years yet carry enough fuel to comfortably fot in a 35 foot craft?

How do astronauts survive a distance between planets in a 35 foot craft?

How does a 35 foot craft hold enough supplies for an interstellar journey for craft and crew? Is it a TARDIS?

What conceivable notion is there for viewing decks on an interstellar craft, and what an immense waste of space for something so compact that does so much!

The only way to answer the above is to say "Aliens can do anything" and honestly, what sort if an answer is that? And that is not even touching the fact that not a single person on earth can confirm that this thing ever saw space Not one single pair of eye's nor satellite has recorded an anomaly that could explain such.

You think that suggesting time travel is silly? Some have claimed that they can effectively rule out black ops! Yeah, I surely believe someone on this board has access to every single black op ever undertaken and can effectively rule such out! We have the Hiller platform, that was an experiment to prove that people thought of doing what Father Gill described. And in fact many designs were stabilised, a popular can manufacturer has such a product I believe. I can honestly say I do not know for certain if it was ever achieved, yet some feel they can say with confidence that it most cretainly was not. The truth is not to the best of their knowledge, but considering the people who state such do have a bias toward an ET solution, such is hardly surprising.

If so much logic has been expended on proving this is ET, then why can not one person tell me what is it about this craft that can only be ET and nothing else?

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THe best thing about being Human ! We can forget,we can remember to forget ,and we can forget to forget .ANd we can even not even Give a Flippin care about it !

THe Worst we will be is Human as we tend to be . But If we stop Dreaming and Looking Only board we will be !

And there is nothing wrong with dreaming about being better humans. We are what we are, and things will be what they will be. :tu:

Humans might be able to do more than Aliens I think we need to get the overlord scenario out of our heads. You never know who is coming to dinner, and who will be dinner! It's all up in the air at this stage of the game.

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.