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

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.

But until people like Darwin, and perhaps (though it didn't really work out for him in the end) Cook, exploration by Europeans was not really done on a scientific basis, was it? Landing a ship and saying Howdy Do is a very irresponsible way of going about it. Columbus and Cortés are hardly very good examples of good scientific practice, are they. They weren't interested in scientifically studying the natives, it was about either converting them or exploiting their rsources. I mean, you yourself say I imagine the Australian Indigenous, as well as native Americans sure as heck wish this was how we initiated first contact. So why insist that that's what any intelligent race would do, just because that's what Humans used to do? What I'm talking about is properly studying a whole planet - not just the Humans - all of it, its ecology, its fauna and flora. That would surely only be done in any proper and responsible way by not landing and saying Howdy Do, but by observing and perhaps taking samples. You seem to be assuming that the only thing that any ETs that found this Planet would be interested in would by making contact with us. That's a bit anthropocentric, isn't it, not to say big headed? we might indeed be just another kind of fauna to be studyied, like, as you say, Ants. They might not even be all that interested in us at all, it might be part of a wide-ranging and systematic program to catalogue* the whole solar System.

* or catalog

Ants are not going to come up with plasma Tellies

I expect they've gone way past that, and have probably moved on to Holograms.Or they've discarded TV altogether as they've realised that it's just a means for Governments to control the People and suppress dissent. Rather reminds me of Douglas Adams; "a race so incredibly primitive they still think digital watches are a pretty cool idea". :D

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Morning 1963, I am well thanks mate, hope you and the family are well also.

Apologies for delayed response..

I am not sure where I was going to be honest with regards to the similarities. I think it is very unusual to have people walk on top of a craft and as mentioned have only seen it in these two cases, that coupled with the the tight costumes and similar crafts. I do not think its a copy cat hoax at all. I do not think Ruwa was a hoax, not sure what happened but I do not think I have seen anything that suggests hoax.

Having read more into it I now do see the reasoning behind why the Father and co continued with the service whilst 'craft' was still outside. I guess I jump to the conclusion naturally that 'UFO' = awe and amazement. This event proves that this is not always the case.

Sorry its short buddy but will try and come back again by the end of the week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Hey Psyche, apologies to you also mate for delayed response on this.

Anyhow as mentioned to 1963, I do now see the points you both make regarding why the Father and Co. continued with the service.

With regards to viewing deck, I dont think the sketches are similar because of this (I am not sure I even saw a deck mentioned or sketched in the Ruwa case, I meant the carft itself looked similar. The similarity in the accounts are to do with the 'beings' walking on/viewing from the top of craft, have you ever heard an account of the 'beings' walking on the top of UFO?

anyway back soon

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure most informed persons know that, scientifically speaking, time and space as separate entities have been superseded by the concept of spacetime. This is, or course, relevant to any discussion of the warping of space for travel to stellar distances, and of the idea of time travel.

Even in the modern conception of spacetime it is possible to select a space-like path or a time-like path with respect to warped spacetime. If we were to ignore the logical difficulties caused by pursuing a time-like path into the past, we might say that stellar space travel and time travel to the past were equally likely to occur. For the sake of discussion, let us assume this.

If we take seriously the time travel explanation of some flying saucer reports, then we must, to maintain consistency, allow the possibility of visits from extraterrestrials, too. Let 50% be examples of our own descendants visiting, and 50% extraterrestrials calling on us, if you like.

I'm not at all certain what a really advanced interstellar spacewarp transport should look like, or how large it should be. Given sufficient opportunity to perfect the technology, even the most far flung journeys might be accomplished in a very brief time. It could be more like opening a door, stepping into a room, opening a door opposite, and stepping out onto the view of another world; not traveling through space, in the usual sense, bur making a radical short cut.

Its not at all clear, either, that such a transport need be seen at all, when this is not desired. Even our relatively rudimentary science has already begun to work on stealth and invisibility technologies. Is it not logical to assume that very substantial advances along these lines we be available to more mature civilizations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But until people like Darwin, and perhaps (though it didn't really work out for him in the end) Cook, exploration by Europeans was not really done on a scientific basis, was it? Landing a ship and saying Howdy Do is a very irresponsible way of going about it. Columbus and Cortés are hardly very good examples of good scientific practice, are they. They weren't interested in scientifically studying the natives, it was about either converting them or exploiting their rsources. I mean, you yourself say I imagine the Australian Indigenous, as well as native Americans sure as heck wish this was how we initiated first contact. So why insist that that's what any intelligent race would do, just because that's what Humans used to do? What I'm talking about is properly studying a whole planet - not just the Humans - all of it, its ecology, its fauna and flora. That would surely only be done in any proper and responsible way by not landing and saying Howdy Do, but by observing and perhaps taking samples. You seem to be assuming that the only thing that any ETs that found this Planet would be interested in would by making contact with us. That's a bit anthropocentric, isn't it, not to say big headed? we might indeed be just another kind of fauna to be studyied, like, as you say, Ants. They might not even be all that interested in us at all, it might be part of a wide-ranging and systematic program to catalogue* the whole solar System.

* or catalog

You are assuming we would re-write forst contact procedures as opposed to amend them to make such more amicable? Why would that be? First contact with an intelligent species offeres a plethora of shortcuts, particularly in the instance such as you have mentioned above. Want a record of life on this planet? Here you go, here is our fossil record in digital format (and I am sure that an Aliens species capable of crossing space can decipher 1's and 0's if we can) and if you would like to know a little something about out flora? Here is a copy of our Svalbard Global Seed Vault records. Would there be anything else we can help you with?

How is it intelligent to spend decades doing something we have already done, and are willing to share? And indeed we are willing such information is public record. Would the intelligent thing to do not be to simply ask, and exchange information, as we do with first contact? Before the likes of Cook, contact was made between Australia's Indigenous and the Polynesian Islanders. That was amicable, and beneficial to both parties. Why would we not take elements from this, and realize the greed of Empires, not men, who destroyed First contact? As happened when New Zealand entered the picture?

That is why Australia's Indigenous, and the American Natives would wish first contact went like that, but it did not. Had it gone the way you suggested, perhaps many people might still be alive, first contact can evolve too, not just the people who initiate it. Even today, we will approach someone and just ask. Things had improved by the time New Zealand was colonised. The Waitangi treaty is the move forward, and it is not one into spying, but one of democracy and equal rights. We have changed the way we initiate first contact, we did it in a discussion. And now the Maori people are reaping the benefits of that very treaty.

I believe hiding in the shadows has a good chance of leading to distrust between species before forst contact can even be initiated. I think it is a more dangerous way to approach a new species. What is we were spooked by some ET "appearance" and nuked it? Not really our fault is it.

I expect they've gone way past that, and have probably moved on to Holograms.Or they've discarded TV altogether as they've realised that it's just a means for Governments to control the People and suppress dissent. Rather reminds me of Douglas Adams; "a race so incredibly primitive they still think digital watches are a pretty cool idea". :D

I suspect that if Ants are holograms then that is proof that Aliens do not exist at all. I mean, one follows the other, Just logical I am sure you agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Psyche, apologies to you also mate for delayed response on this.

Anyhow as mentioned to 1963, I do now see the points you both make regarding why the Father and Co. continued with the service.

With regards to viewing deck, I dont think the sketches are similar because of this (I am not sure I even saw a deck mentioned or sketched in the Ruwa case, I meant the carft itself looked similar. The similarity in the accounts are to do with the 'beings' walking on/viewing from the top of craft, have you ever heard an account of the 'beings' walking on the top of UFO?

anyway back soon

:nw:

Good point! I will have to look around, nothing coes to mind immediately.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure most informed persons know that, scientifically speaking, time and space as separate entities have been superseded by the concept of spacetime. This is, or course, relevant to any discussion of the warping of space for travel to stellar distances, and of the idea of time travel.

I am not sure if it is just me, but you seem to be repeating what I said, Space-time are one thing and the same. I have been saying this since you guys told me that you can create a wormhole to warp space, but not one to warp time. That is incorrect, both are theoretical, and neither has been proven incorrect. If you accept one, it is merely bias that excludes the other. If we can imagine a species that can warp space, we can imagine one that can warp time. Until we manage one or the other, we will not know what is actually plausible. Considering Einstein's "spooky actions at a distance", transporter technology might be the most viable way to cross the universe yet. We just do not know, but when you open one door into speculation land, you do not have the right to place locks on those you do not personally favour.

Even in the modern conception of spacetime it is possible to select a space-like path or a time-like path with respect to warped spacetime. If we were to ignore the logical difficulties caused by pursuing a time-like path into the past, we might say that stellar space travel and time travel to the past were equally likely to occur. For the sake of discussion, let us assume this.

Possible to select a path, you mean plan a route? I would appreciate it if you could link me to that. As far as I know, all superluminal warp drives require negative energy and pressure to form and maintain the warp bubble. Matter consistent with such properties does not exist in classical physics. How do you map any effects of a hypothetical matter?

If we take seriously the time travel explanation of some flying saucer reports, then we must, to maintain consistency, allow the possibility of visits from extraterrestrials, too. Let 50% be examples of our own descendants visiting, and 50% extraterrestrials calling on us, if you like.

Agreed. Thusly viewing decks are something to seriously consider. As is Father Gills insistance not only that he saw Human Beings, but that he too, felt this was significant.

I'm not at all certain what a really advanced interstellar spacewarp transport should look like, or how large it should be. Given sufficient opportunity to perfect the technology, even the most far flung journeys might be accomplished in a very brief time. It could be more like opening a door, stepping into a room, opening a door opposite, and stepping out onto the view of another world; not traveling through space, in the usual sense, bur making a radical short cut.

And it might be simply impossible. Things are what they are. Do we apply any paramaters to an evaluation at all? Again, nothing about Father Gills descriptions has one element that can only be ET, so why is ET the most popular option? I do not feel Occam's Razor says a viewing deck might be from a distant civilisation that might have developed some type of travel we cannot possibly fathom and just could be a practical item, the function of which we cannot fathom. That is what you are saying above, is it not? I think it says "it's a viewing deck" and would one put a viewing deck on a spaceship? Let's fact common sense, only the same engineer who puts ejector seats in Helicopters might do so.

Why is this ET?

Cause it's kewlerz.

Its not at all clear, either, that such a transport need be seen at all, when this is not desired. Even our relatively rudimentary science has already begun to work on stealth and invisibility technologies. Is it not logical to assume that very substantial advances along these lines we be available to more mature civilizations?

Yet it was.

And yes, substantial devices might be available to as you say, more mature civilisations. Such as one from the future. And if you were going to observe for whatever reason, although it does not seem outrageous to surmise historical record in sich a situation, then one might incorporate viewing decks. Stealth in this instance would be a major advantage but during all aspects of the sighting, during what could be repair, and afterwards, stealth was not reported, so I fail to see why it should be included as a possibility here.

At the end of the day, this is like the 1896 Airship, or Vallee's saucer with fan propellors, a mystery, not at all proof of Interstellar travel or visitors from space. Just because it is a head scratcher does not invoke ET. Again, what is specifically, and can only be ET with regards to Father Gills recollection?

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time-like and space-like paths with respect to a singularity are how this is handled in Penrose diagrams. The 'path', in the case of a ship that can itself warp spacetime, would presumably have to do with the position and shape of the the warp forming equipment, and the geometry of the warp itself, with respect to the ship as a whole.

To say that warped spacetime allows both time and space travel is, of course, theoretically correct. Space travel by this means seems relatively straightforward. The basic geometry was laid out for us by M. Alcubierre, some years ago. All the ways of avoiding paradoxes when time travel is attempted appear to involve additional, highly speculative assumptions. Because of this, space travelers seem a more economical explanation of what was observed than do time travelers. We are to minimize the use of unknown variables in scientific explanations, are we not?

The points raised about what has been interpreted as an 'viewing deck', and the use of the word 'humans' at one point to describe the beings, are noted. One of the Rev. Gill's own drawings also has the word "men" in quotes, just like that. The figurative, rather than literal use of the word seems clear enough. It has also appeared over the years in such usages as "mechanical men", "men from Mars", and even the "men" of a chess board.

That the witnesses were in no position to judge if these figures were literally human beings or merely humanoid seems clear enough for two reasons. 1.) The drawings by the witnesses reveal tiny, indistinct figures. 2.) The lower halves of their bodies were obscured from view. For all we know, their legs could have been too anomalously long, or short to class them as human. beings. To assume that they must have had human proportions is merely speculative.

In raising the possibility of very advanced stealth or invisibility technology, I was answering the general objection that flying saucers were never observed to exit or enter Earth's atmosphere. This does not apply to the Gill case directly, as it deals with a craft already at a low altitude. Further-- the beings gave no indications of being concerned about being seen, they held their position, even knowing they were observed.

The assumption that a structure appearing like a low wall amounts to a 'viewing deck' also appears highly speculative. It might, for all we know, have some quite different function. We know too little about such matters to be so certain in assigning a familiar label to it. The fact that the beings stood and moved behind it may have had something to with what brought them out onto the hull of the craft. Perhaps, as you suggest, they were repairing something on that particular part of the hull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Time-like and space-like paths with respect to a singularity are how this is handled in Penrose diagrams. The 'path', in the case of a ship that can itself warp spacetime, would presumably have to do with the position and shape of the the warp forming equipment, and the geometry of the warp itself, with respect to the ship as a whole.

Penrose diagrams cannot apply to items that have mass. Like beings or spaceships. Namely because one would need to travel faster than light to cross from the Schwarzschild radius back into flat space-time. It has been pointed out by astute people that radiation from blue shift light prevents entry, and might even simply create another black hole. The diagram itself says it cannot be used as you are proposing.

To say that warped spacetime allows both time and space travel is, of course, theoretically correct. Space travel by this means seems relatively straightforward. The basic geometry was laid out for us by M. Alcubierre, some years ago. All the ways of avoiding paradoxes when time travel is attempted appear to involve additional, highly speculative assumptions. Because of this, space travelers seem a more economical explanation of what was observed than do time travelers. We are to minimize the use of unknown variables in scientific explanations, are we not?

Relatively straightforward? Whist we have seen some grandiose claims, we have not yet seen a physical model. The fact that we continue to use Solid Fuel boosters shows that it is not exactly straightforward. Or we would be utilising this instead of being so darn impressed with the Skylon.

Geometry was laid out by Alcubierre but that does not mean it actually works. As such, you are not minimising any actual variable, you are loading your assumptions. Running with what you see to be the best bet, or perhaps, the most appealing. As mentioned previous, transporters might be an even more viable form of travel considering Einsteins "spooky action at a distance".

What the above does not describe is how such a small craft would hold such resources, The type of space travel you are talking about above requires that one have a "Jupiter" in the gas tank for a one way trip. Jupiter is not going to fit into a 35 foot craft, as well as propulsion, life support, supplies, spares, etc etc. Those variables are simply brushed over as "advanced tech".

The points raised about what has been interpreted as an 'viewing deck', and the use of the word 'humans' at one point to describe the beings, are noted. One of the Rev. Gill's own drawings also has the word "men" in quotes, just like that. The figurative, rather than literal use of the word seems clear enough. It has also appeared over the years in such usages as "mechanical men", "men from Mars", and even the "men" of a chess board.

That the witnesses were in no position to judge if these figures were literally human beings or merely humanoid seems clear enough for two reasons. 1.) The drawings by the witnesses reveal tiny, indistinct figures. 2.) The lower halves of their bodies were obscured from view. For all we know, their legs could have been too anomalously long, or short to class them as human. beings. To assume that they must have had human proportions is merely speculative.

And they might just be men in a Helicopter that the Father was too drunk to recognise. What we know is what we have. Father Gill's description. That needs to be analysed word for word. Not interpreted.

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.

There is not claim of Alien, or even Alien like, The craft is obviously not designed for space, and the only descriptions we have state Human Beings.

Again, what aspect is specifically, and only Alien in the Father Gill case?

I have asked SGBB, if we are to interpret the Father words that "Human Beings" are aliens that look very much like human beings, then why take the Fathers account at face value at all? We can assume he was watching a helicopter whilst enjoying asome local kava. If we are to start assuming things here, it can just as easily be assumed in the usual derogatory way. That was the bar I had hoped to lift, but this case is stuck in two modes. Believe this is ET or you are simply wrong. Even the title of the thread makes such an arrogant assumption that this is only proof of ET, and bulletproof at that. But to be frank, I would expect no more in this case.

In raising the possibility of very advanced stealth or invisibility technology, I was answering the general objection that flying saucers were never observed to exit or enter Earth's atmosphere. This does not apply to the Gill case directly, as it deals with a craft already at a low altitude. Further-- the beings gave no indications of being concerned about being seen, they held their position, even knowing they were observed.

Which makes no sense whatsoever as these things are supposedly seen in our atmosphere on a very regular basis. It is very selective to even suggest that they are only invisible when it suits your argument. What about the alleged crashes? Managed to mainatain stealth until just before impact? What about RADAR? It tracks UFO's in the atmosphere, never so much as on an exit route.

Not to mention with al the spectrums we monitor, the explanation is simply preposterous to say the least.

The assumption that a structure appearing like a low wall amounts to a 'viewing deck' also appears highly speculative. It might, for all we know, have some quite different function. We know too little about such matters to be so certain in assigning a familiar label to it. The fact that the beings stood and moved behind it may have had something to with what brought them out onto the hull of the craft. Perhaps, as you suggest, they were repairing something on that particular part of the hull.

Speculative? A balcony has a mechanical function other than restriction? What did you say above? oh yes:

We are to minimize the use of unknown variables in scientific explanations, are we not?

Until you can ascribe another function to the balcony rail, then I am going to run with common sense and the conventional explanation I am afraid that "it might be something else" is a poor view of what was described, and from what I can see, just another attempt to try to use the unknown to change the direction of rational thought. It's a bloody rail. What the heck do you think it is used for?

Again, you try to do Father Gills interpreting for him. I can just imagine what you lot might describe this as! All I can say is thank the good lord that one of his people was in the right place and the right time to offer a sensible unbiased description of what he saw. No matter how much UFOlogy wants to re-write this as ET contact, it is not going to cut the mustard. It's like the 1896 Airship, and Vallee's Saucer with propellors. A genuine mystery, and no ET is required for that. Although I am sure it spices the story up somewhat.

If hull repairs were underway, we still have the mystery of the balcony rail.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

What the hell are we even doing here, Psyche. Obviously we can never solve the case, that's why it's still up for debate. However, we can try to get a better understanding. In order to get a better picture, we have to narrow the possibilities. We have to eliminate some of the more outlandish explanations. Or at least try to put its in order of more likely to less likely.

You keep introducing assumptions and complexity into an explanation that you claimed to be as likely as any. This is bull.

50 yrs from now, the world might be in a nuclear war that could set the it back to the stone age. 100 yrs from now, a deadly virus could wipe out most of the earth population. 1000 yrs from now, an asteroid the size of Australia could hit the earth, killing every human and animals on it. There are a lot of unknowns to overcome for men to be able to travel back in time through a wormhole.

But let entertain the idea shall we? Let say men can overcome its all and create wormholes at will. Do you see the logic in sending them back in time and show up on a remote islands on multiple occasions just to wave at the villagers? Do you see how preposterous this sound?

There's a big debate on another thread about Occam's Razor. You keep introducing more unknowns into the explanation. Aren't you breaking Occam's razor? Your hair is too thick, man. With you around, Occam would be broke from having to buy all the replacement razors.

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?

Again, you keep going back to the "viewing deck" as the most important reason to rule out ET. This is just poor logic. ET and viewing deck are not mutually exclusive! What fact is there to tell you the craft is clearly designed only for terrestrial use? you claiming fact now? come on!

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?

Again, you've made many assumptions but still refused to acknowledge them. Yes, I do make assumptions, but somehow you refused to admits your. Do you even see how ridiculous that it? You are even a skeptic of the fact that you do make assumptions.

You kinda take the whole skeptic thing a bit too far aren't you?

Why do you assume the craft is too small for space travel. You put science above all else. It's safe for me to assume you believe in the big bang theory. The universe was once "infinitely" small. Everything we see now, including us, was once compacted really, really small....infinitely small and dense. We don't even have to go the infinite route. Let assume that the universe was once 35 ft across. How can you explain everything in the universe now was once compacted to "35 ft across". Being able to fit 4 or 5 humanoid into a 35 ft craft with some unknown propulsion would be a piece of cake compared to the whole universe, don't you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are assuming we would re-write forst contact procedures as opposed to amend them to make such more amicable? Why would that be? First contact with an intelligent species offeres a plethora of shortcuts, particularly in the instance such as you have mentioned above. Want a record of life on this planet? Here you go, here is our fossil record in digital format (and I am sure that an Aliens species capable of crossing space can decipher 1's and 0's if we can) and if you would like to know a little something about out flora? Here is a copy of our Svalbard Global Seed Vault records. Would there be anything else we can help you with?

How is it intelligent to spend decades doing something we have already done, and are willing to share? And indeed we are willing such information is public record. Would the intelligent thing to do not be to simply ask, and exchange information, as we do with first contact? Before the likes of Cook, contact was made between Australia's Indigenous and the Polynesian Islanders. That was amicable, and beneficial to both parties. Why would we not take elements from this, and realize the greed of Empires, not men, who destroyed First contact? As happened when New Zealand entered the picture?

That is why Australia's Indigenous, and the American Natives would wish first contact went like that, but it did not. Had it gone the way you suggested, perhaps many people might still be alive, first contact can evolve too, not just the people who initiate it. Even today, we will approach someone and just ask. Things had improved by the time New Zealand was colonised. The Waitangi treaty is the move forward, and it is not one into spying, but one of democracy and equal rights. We have changed the way we initiate first contact, we did it in a discussion. And now the Maori people are reaping the benefits of that very treaty.

I believe hiding in the shadows has a good chance of leading to distrust between species before forst contact can even be initiated. I think it is a more dangerous way to approach a new species. What is we were spooked by some ET "appearance" and nuked it? Not really our fault is it.

I suspect that if Ants are holograms then that is proof that Aliens do not exist at all. I mean, one follows the other, Just logical I am sure you agree.

No, I'm not assuming we would re-write first contact procedures, I'm not talking about first contact procedures at all, you're looking at it from a completely anthropocentric point of view. It assumes that ETs would be so excited to discover that we were here that the first thing they'd want to do would be to jump in and say Howdy Do. I'm not assuming that they'd particularly want to say Howdy Do at all. I'm just suggesting that they might be studying Earth as part of a proper scientific program of studying all of the Solar system, and just because they happen to discover that one planet happens to be conducive to life, and that one of those species might perhaps have attained what they might classify as some level of intelligence and perhaps even Civilisation, they might not find that particularly exciting, it might be nothing unusual, and they might just be interested in studying this species along with all the others, including Plants as well as animals. Perhaps, even if they did have a policy of initiating Contact, they might do it in a very circumspect fashion and take their time carefully studying the inhabitants, perhaps studying a few selected individuals, before deciding whether it'd be worth their while. Why should it necessarily be worth their while? Why would a civlisation capable of (perhaps) spanning the distances between Stars be particularly interested in a civilsation that's only managed to get a manned Craft as far as its own Mooon? They'd be very unlikekly to ever be any threat to them, and there wouldn't be much likelihood of being able to trade with them (to anthropomorphise).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the hell are we even doing here, Psyche. Obviously we can never solve the case, that's why it's still up for debate. However, we can try to get a better understanding. In order to get a better picture, we have to narrow the possibilities. We have to eliminate some of the more outlandish explanations. Or at least try to put its in order of more likely to less likely.

You keep introducing assumptions and complexity into an explanation that you claimed to be as likely as any. This is bull.

50 yrs from now, the world might be in a nuclear war that could set the it back to the stone age. 100 yrs from now, a deadly virus could wipe out most of the earth population. 1000 yrs from now, an asteroid the size of Australia could hit the earth, killing every human and animals on it. There are a lot of unknowns to overcome for men to be able to travel back in time through a wormhole.

But let entertain the idea shall we? Let say men can overcome its all and create wormholes at will. Do you see the logic in sending them back in time and show up on a remote islands on multiple occasions just to wave at the villagers? Do you see how preposterous this sound?

... Whereas, if they were carrying out a scientific study of flora & fauna, if (for instance) they were from another planet and they were cataloguing the flora & fauna of Earth, then Papua NG would be just the kind of place they'd be very interested in, wouldn't it ... ?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the hell are we even doing here, Psyche. Obviously we can never solve the case, that's why it's still up for debate. However, we can try to get a better understanding. In order to get a better picture, we have to narrow the possibilities. We have to eliminate some of the more outlandish explanations. Or at least try to put its in order of more likely to less likely.

No, we cannot get a better understanding, Hell, look at the thread title. ETH'ers have solved this case already. Even you keep saying "I do not say this is ET" but you are. You guys have re-interpreted Father Gills words, cherry picked the items you like, and re-written aspects to suit ET. The ET propaganda machines ET shoehorn.

Lets face it, unless I say, OK, this is proof of ET, then not a one of you will be happy will you? Be honest.

You keep introducing assumptions and complexity into an explanation that you claimed to be as likely as any. This is bull.

50 yrs from now, the world might be in a nuclear war that could set the it back to the stone age. 100 yrs from now, a deadly virus could wipe out most of the earth population. 1000 yrs from now, an asteroid the size of Australia could hit the earth, killing every human and animals on it. There are a lot of unknowns to overcome for men to be able to travel back in time through a wormhole.

But let entertain the idea shall we? Let say men can overcome its all and create wormholes at will. Do you see the logic in sending them back in time and show up on a remote islands on multiple occasions just to wave at the villagers? Do you see how preposterous this sound?

The world might be extinct, as you say it might be a world of time travellers, and it might be something else altogether. One does not negate the other, no matter how much you want it to. As such, that makes a level playing field. What is the assumption there? That all things are equal, and in an equal world ET does not explain Father Gills conundrum?

But following your scenario, that is pretty much exactly what I am proposing, waving at someone does not create a paradox, then what would be the point in returning through time? The most probable explanation seems to me to be study. And what was Father Gill doing there? Converting natives to Christianity. That strikes me as an example in history that one might want to observe, as well as read about. A change of culture.

: I have been on the staff of the Anglican Mission in Papua for thirteen years - my many interest up there has been educational work, and I have been working mainly on the north-east coast of Papua, in Goodenough Bay area, about ninety miles from Samaria Milne Bay.

? Sounds worth observing to me? I wonder what the natives thought, what were their initial reactions, how do some elders feel about the new generations taking an entirely new path, is what Father Gill is doing a crime in the future?

There's a big debate on another thread about Occam's Razor. You keep introducing more unknowns into the explanation. Aren't you breaking Occam's razor? Your hair is too thick, man. With you around, Occam would be broke from having to buy all the replacement razors.

Yes, it seems to have as much logic as ET being Father Gills sighting. Occam's Razor explains Crop Circles. Bit of a joke, wouldn't you say? One of the worst misuses of the phrase that I, and most of the people in that thread, have ever seen. Some might have sen worse I guess.

And I agree with the poster in that thread who said that most people who invoke it, do not understand it, but LS is a bit of a guru I think.

How am I breaking Occams razor, Is that what you think you lot are doing by invoking ET? Honestly? I do not see it like that at all, I think it is lazy to simply ascribe the unknown to a higher power. I think Occam too would be scratching his head over a 35 foot craft with viewing decks that crosses Interstellar distances.

Again, you keep going back to the "viewing deck" as the most important reason to rule out ET. This is just poor logic. ET and viewing deck are not mutually exclusive! What fact is there to tell you the craft is clearly designed only for terrestrial use? you claiming fact now? come on!

It is lazy to assume it might be something we do not know about, so it's function cannot be guessed at, no matter the appearance, and use that to qualify ET as an answer. That to me is no better than saying Zeus threw lightning bolts and Thor used a hammer to make Thunder. Same thing exactly.

What I am claiming is my understanding of a structure, that is applying thought to what we have as opposed to throwing my arms in the air and running in circles saying ET is here, proof! All I find is that Father Gills case shows the arrogance of the believer side, and what happens should you challenge a case they consider sacred. Seen it before when I have debated Roswell. People think they have solid gold, but ask them to show you where ET lies in it all, and assumption is left for dead. Guessing, imagination and speculation take the front row. Assumption is a leap forward by comparison.

GIve me another reason to have a railed platform that men can walk upon. You guys are quick to try and insist my interpretation is wrong but what have you got? It's an ET wonder. I mean fair go mate, you actually believe that a deck is likely to have some function that is helpful to space travel? And what a gigantic waste of space! Have you ever engineered anything? And I do not mean that in a derogatory sense, if you have engineered something you musty realise that things are built to function. If we cannot apply what we know to this, then whart is the point in discussing it al all? Why not just leave it in the UFO archive and pull it out once a year and pat yourselves on the back?

And why the opposition to calling what appears to be a viewing deck as a viewing deck? It's because it takes ET out of the picture isn't it? Why else are you so upset about a possible suggestion? Seriously, you guy are not even honest to yourselves! It is plain as the nose on your face that the opposition to the description of viewing deck is because that makes ET unlikely. Or do you claim the guy who put ejector seats in helicopters is an alien craft designer? That might work! It fits better than the original ohhing and ahhing over this case as ET proof.

Again, you've made many assumptions but still refused to acknowledge them. Yes, I do make assumptions, but somehow you refused to admits your. Do you even see how ridiculous that it? You are even a skeptic of the fact that you do make assumptions.

You kinda take the whole skeptic thing a bit too far aren't you?

I notice you ignore every question I ask you, yet you still have much to protest about! If you had the guts to answer my questions, I doubt we would still be having this conversation, here are the questions again, tell me your assumptions.

  • 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!

Are you saying these questions are unreasonable, and somehow assumptions? If you feel that is the case, please extrapolate, they are questions that ask how the heck is this a craft that can cross space. But I can see why that makes you uncomfortable, it really puts ET into question as an answer to Father Gill's "undebunkable" case.

Why do you assume the craft is too small for space travel. You put science above all else. It's safe for me to assume you believe in the big bang theory. The universe was once "infinitely" small. Everything we see now, including us, was once compacted really, really small....infinitely small and dense. We don't even have to go the infinite route. Let assume that the universe was once 35 ft across. How can you explain everything in the universe now was once compacted to "35 ft across". Being able to fit 4 or 5 humanoid into a 35 ft craft with some unknown propulsion would be a piece of cake compared to the whole universe, don't you think?

Well hell yeah, and if you have a problem with me putting science before imagination, then the problem really is not mine is it?

Yes, I feel the Big Bang theory is the best explanation to date, Hoyle's hypotheses were tested, and were not convincing. They did outline some anomalies, I grant, however that does not make it a fore runner, when the rest of his hypothesis was not as good as the Big Bang, which he coined in an attempt to make fun of it, ironic that. What do you propose?

Do you understand inflation at all, because it would not seem so from your comments. During the period of inflation, the Universe had different states. Not everything was "as is" at inflation was it, I mean you and I did not exist, we are conscious matter, and we do not last forever, but what makes us up does. The Universe was smaller than 35 foot across, but it was not usable, not a resource, it was an action, something in progress. It is not like separating apace time, if that is what you are proposing, space time are intimately connected, inflation was a process that allowed matter to expand, and interact. Pop 1 stars were not here at the start of the Universe, they had to evolve, and life from them. Science builds on science, it is a progression of knowledge. Standing on the shoulders of giants and all that. If you throw that away, you are back to square one.

And no, I do not think it is a piece of cake. With some luck, Higgs will explain inflation, not aliens. And we are on that path right now. LOL, inflation aliens! What sort of matter would that be now?

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I'm not assuming we would re-write first contact procedures, I'm not talking about first contact procedures at all, you're looking at it from a completely anthropocentric point of view. It assumes that ETs would be so excited to discover that we were here that the first thing they'd want to do would be to jump in and say Howdy Do. I'm not assuming that they'd particularly want to say Howdy Do at all. I'm just suggesting that they might be studying Earth as part of a proper scientific program of studying all of the Solar system, and just because they happen to discover that one planet happens to be conducive to life, and that one of those species might perhaps have attained what they might classify as some level of intelligence and perhaps even Civilisation, they might not find that particularly exciting, it might be nothing unusual, and they might just be interested in studying this species along with all the others, including Plants as well as animals. Perhaps, even if they did have a policy of initiating Contact, they might do it in a very circumspect fashion and take their time carefully studying the inhabitants, perhaps studying a few selected individuals, before deciding whether it'd be worth their while. Why should it necessarily be worth their while? Why would a civlisation capable of (perhaps) spanning the distances between Stars be particularly interested in a civilsation that's only managed to get a manned Craft as far as its own Mooon? They'd be very unlikekly to ever be any threat to them, and there wouldn't be much likelihood of being able to trade with them (to anthropomorphise).

And how many decades would they save by asking us if they can upload our databases? That is not us, that is offering a shortcut to that which you say Aliens propose to study, and are we not part of this earth? Why would our history escape such studies when our presence has had so much impact on that which your proposed study is based upon?

I am not saying ET is just dying to meet us, I am saying the intelligent thing to do would be to avoid cataloguing a whole planet when someone has already done it. That is what I would consider intelligent, not hiding in shadows spying on species and doing things twice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... Whereas, if they were carrying out a scientific study of flora & fauna, if (for instance) they were from another planet and they were cataloguing the flora & fauna of Earth, then Papua NG would be just the kind of place they'd be very interested in, wouldn't it ... ?

Or a mission if a study of culture, but I do not know why future humans would not be as interested in their own history, and first hand look. Who would not like to take a safe trip back to check out a real honest to goodness Dinosaur?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, we cannot get a better understanding, Hell, look at the thread title. ETH'ers have solved this case already.

Look at the Thread title? "Father Gill's undebunkable Case"? Where does that assume that it must be ET?

But following your scenario, that is pretty much exactly what I am proposing, waving at someone does not create a paradox, then what would be the point in returning through time? The most probable explanation seems to me to be study. And what was Father Gill doing there? Converting natives to Christianity. That strikes me as an example in history that one might want to observe, as well as read about. A change of culture.

I'd have thought the Crusades, or the conquest of South America, or the Reformation in the 16th c., might present rather more points of interest to someone interested in seeing history being made than a small school in the middle of a Jungle. Why would these Time Travelers consider it worth their while to specifically beam back to 1959 in order to look at it in particular? Whereas if they were interested in the flora & fauna of Papua NG, that might make a trip much more worthwhile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And how many decades would they save by asking us if they can upload our databases? That is not us, that is offering a shortcut to that which you say Aliens propose to study, and are we not part of this earth? Why would our history escape such studies when our presence has had so much impact on that which your proposed study is based upon?

I am not saying ET is just dying to meet us, I am saying the intelligent thing to do would be to avoid cataloguing a whole planet when someone has already done it. That is what I would consider intelligent, not hiding in shadows spying on species and doing things twice.

yet again, that assumes that they'd consider us different from the rest of the flora & fauna, and yet again it assumes that they'd want to say Howdy to us. You're still looking at it from an anthropocentric point of view; you're assuming that they wouldn't want to study us along with everything else, but they'd go along with our assumption that we're so much more interesting and superior to everything else, and moreover that what we think about the rest of the planet can be trusted. It seems rather strange for one who, as I'm sure you do, believes in the scientific process, to call it "spying" when considering that someone else might apply exactly the same process to us. Nothing to do with any particular sinister aims; just, in the interests of complete accuracy & objectivity, doing the research for yourself and not taking the word of those you're studying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or a mission if a study of culture, but I do not know why future humans would not be as interested in their own history, and first hand look. Who would not like to take a safe trip back to check out a real honest to goodness Dinosaur?

... so they'd have made a bit of a mistake setting their co-ordinates for 1959, (or, like Ford Prefect, had skimped a bit on their preliminary research), ... unless they knew something we don't, and that Dinosaurs can still be found in the jungles of PNG, or at least could in 1959. :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at the Thread title? "Father Gill's undebunkable Case"? Where does that assume that it must be ET?

Have you read any post that is not mine?

I'd have thought the Crusades, or the conquest of South America, or the Reformation in the 16th c., might present rather more points of interest to someone interested in seeing history being made than a small school in the middle of a Jungle. Why would these Time Travelers consider it worth their while to specifically beam back to 1959 in order to look at it in particular? Whereas if they were interested in the flora & fauna of Papua NG, that might make a trip much more worthwhile.

They too would be magnificent to view, but surely you do not suggest time travel is a one of?

What would be interesting? A major shift in the species as a whole the end of innocence as Missionaries convert the new world, cultures lost, major changes in belief systems and the break up of a long standing groups of people. From a social aspect, studies coud be very extensive, analysing out own history has always been of huge importance to our species and social studies have always been a major staple in education. I'd say that was worthwhile witnessing the moment when everything changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I notice you ignore every question I ask you, yet you still have much to protest about! If you had the guts to answer my questions, I doubt we would still be having this conversation, here are the questions again, tell me your assumptions.

  • 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!

All of those questions can very easily be answered by the suggestion that it (and similar small craft) are simply landers from larger craft, much in the manner of our Lunar Landers. The objection that is usually used, that any larger craft would be seen by the armies of Astronomers, and that no one has ever seen any Craft entering or leaving the solar System, etc, could very easily be answered by the suggestion that they might not be visually detectable, owing to the method that they use to get about, or that it deflects light or something similar, or that they in fact have been seen but they've been taken to be asteroids or planetoids, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... so they'd have made a bit of a mistake setting their co-ordinates for 1959, (or, like Ford Prefect, had skimped a bit on their preliminary research), ... unless they knew something we don't, and that Dinosaurs can still be found in the jungles of PNG, or at least could in 1959. :o

LOL, no I did not mean they were shooting for Dinosaurs and fell short, but it goes well with the pilot comment you made. I have to admit to a hearty chuckle over that one ;) Makes for a funny scene in one's mind that is for sure.

No, I intended Dinosaurs as one good reason as to why man would desire looking at the past. As mentioned, I would consider if this was future humans looking at people, then social studies seem a likely option. I think there are many reasons we would want to achieve such, if it is possible. But if a space faring wormhole is possible it does not explain the anomalies pointed out on the craft for any sort of Interstellar travel. It seems by all means and descriptions, designed for terrestrial use, as we know a vehicle. I know some say "maybe Aliens use viewing decks for something beyond our understanding" and if that is the case, we have no hope of resolving any time of the tale, however, if we cannot apply what we do know, what is the point of even brining the case up if we are not allowed to apply what we do know? Is that not paramount to expecting all to sit on hands ohh and ahh over the recollection and nod thoughtfully mumbling "aliens"?

But why I insist this is not ET is because of the description of men, the size of the craft, and the description. None of it points at a space vehicle, and we can only arrive at that conclusion by not thinking about it, and figuring Aliens are too smart for us to figure out. I think that is bunkum, and that we can do better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of those questions can very easily be answered by the suggestion that it (and similar small craft) are simply landers from larger craft, much in the manner of our Lunar Landers. The objection that is usually used, that any larger craft would be seen by the armies of Astronomers, and that no one has ever seen any Craft entering or leaving the solar System, etc, could very easily be answered by the suggestion that they might not be visually detectable, owing to the method that they use to get about, or that it deflects light or something similar, or that they in fact have been seen but they've been taken to be asteroids or planetoids, etc.

Well exactly that is an objection, Again that is introducing an fantasy craft to make ET work for Father Gills case isn't it? If one can tie in any anomaly in space with the time frame, we have a candidate, but we do not, we have nothing, we have well, if this happened.....

Which again, could also be answered by saying Father Gill was overindulging on some local kava and exaggerated the entire thing out of proportion and it was a helicopter passing overhead, dropping supplies. And his witness being good missionaries repeated and supported him. That explains rail, hovering, men and waving. But there is no support for the kava theory. Why is it less likely than aliens? Kava might be a great party workaround for a priest!

If we do not stick as closely as we can to the actual description, what is the point of attempting an explanation at all? What I am trying to do is find things that only fit in with Father Gill's description, and so far, it strikes me that he is describing and used the words, Human beings, on what appears very much to be a vehicle engineered for terrestrial use. The anomaly is the described performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well exactly that is an objection, Again that is introducing an fantasy craft to make ET work for Father Gills case isn't it?

... and introducing a time machine isn't....?

In fact, we could say that a landing craft coming down from a larger craft is more probable, since we know that that can be done (we've done it), and, even if we don't think that we have the technology yet for interstellar flight, we know that it is possible to make spacecraft ... I don't know why you always keep insisting that a mother ship is fantasy; doesn't it seem a sensible way to go about deep-space travel, and use smaller craft to explore planets and short-distance travel? You seem to be insisting that it's fantasy just because we haven't seen one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... and introducing a time machine isn't....?

In fact, we could say that a landing craft coming down from a larger craft is more probable, since we know that that can be done (we've done it), and, even if we don't think that we have the technology yet for interstellar flight, we know that it is possible to make spacecraft ... I don't know why you always keep insisting that a mother ship is fantasy; doesn't it seem a sensible way to go about deep-space travel, and use smaller craft to explore planets and short-distance travel? You seem to be insisting that it's fantasy just because we haven't seen one.

Because it does not exist. Like I said, if any anomaly had been reported, we could say, well, this is a candidate, but we do not. There is no reason to believe the thing ever went into space, and it has to do that to meet a mothership.

Yes, time travel is fantasy, but I admit that, it puts ET on the same realm though, and due to design most likely behind ET, and most do not wish to admit that. Personally I do feel there is some connection to other incidents like the 1896 Airship or Valless flying saucer powered by propellors.

Yes we have done this, but is there any reason to think this craft has done this? Is there any reason to think this is time traveler's? Maybe not, but what else can work with a terrestrial vehicle and men? Do you feel ET is a better explanation than time traveller's? Even though you need to invoke a support ship, to explain the anomalies on what you perceive to be a scout ship? I remain unsure as to why you think in the skies we are totally blind. That is not the case at all.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Quillius,

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.

Hey 1963, forgot to thank you for the link, I agree it contains lots of valuable info.

Havent gone through it thoroughly yet, although I think this will take some time due to length, it does provide a nice central point for information.

1 person likes this

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.