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

The connection seems a cert to me also Quillius!

And as for a prosaic explanation for the glow...besides the possibility of the effect being caused by some kind of electrical protective force-field, or indeed artificial-atmosphere?, ..I have also strongly entertained the idea that the slight 'glowing effect' that is nominally mentioned, could have been something as simple as being effected by the sunlight reflecting off the sheen of the colour of the craft ...it could conceivably to me at least also be a combination of ..that and the glow that was repeatedly-reported to be emanating from the side-panels [portholes]?. :unsure:

Cheers buddy.

Hello 1963,

what do you think about this:

6:55--7:04 P.M. Up to four illuminated humanoid figures seen on top of object off and on.

7:10--7:20 P.M. Sky now overcast at about 2,000 feet. Humanoid figures seen again, and a "thin electric blue spotlight" upward from the UFO, hovering below the overcast. UFO disappears in clouds

This suggests that the blue light came after the 'beings' were said to be illuminated therefore it could not have been the blue light causing the glow....at least not the full glow, if we carry on reading he then states:

''Another peculiar thing was this shaft of blue light. which emanated from what appeared to be the center of the deck. The men appeared to be illuminated not only by this light reflected on them, but also by a sort of glow which completely surrounded them as well as the craft. The glow did not touch them, but there appeared to be a little space between their outline and the light.. . . ''

He does seem quite specific here, especially when suggesting two types of glow plus the gap between 'being' and glow...

:unsure2: ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello 1963,

what do you think about this:

6:55--7:04 P.M. Up to four illuminated humanoid figures seen on top of object off and on.

7:10--7:20 P.M. Sky now overcast at about 2,000 feet. Humanoid figures seen again, and a "thin electric blue spotlight" upward from the UFO, hovering below the overcast. UFO disappears in clouds

This suggests that the blue light came after the 'beings' were said to be illuminated therefore it could not have been the blue light causing the glow....at least not the full glow, if we carry on reading he then states:

''Another peculiar thing was this shaft of blue light. which emanated from what appeared to be the center of the deck. The men appeared to be illuminated not only by this light reflected on them, but also by a sort of glow which completely surrounded them as well as the craft. The glow did not touch them, but there appeared to be a little space between their outline and the light.. . . ''

He does seem quite specific here, especially when suggesting two types of glow plus the gap between 'being' and glow...

:unsure2: ??

Hi Quillius, ..yes that's a fair point my friend...mea culpa!..it would appear that like you, i've been so ensconced in reading so many different sources to this case that I totally forgot that the reflection-theory had already been dealt with in the report! :blush:

And so with that in mind, I am stumped for any reasonable prosaic explanation for the effect?...and can only offer the very un-prosaic aforementioned 'protective or atmospheric shield' theory?

Of course you may well be right...but the 'added for colour' seems to be a stretch for me buddy.

I am of the opinion that a man as honest as the reverend, and whom was meticulous enough to jot down notes on the spot would feel it necessary to use artistic-licence to enhance the unfolding drama of an event that he believed to be terrestrial?...After all, that was in no way a varyfiable terrestrial trait that he could have been witnessing , was it?...and so I believe that it was what he saw,..and the question for me is..what was it? :unsure2:

Cheers buddy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello 1963,

what do you think about this:

6:55--7:04 P.M. Up to four illuminated humanoid figures seen on top of object off and on.

7:10--7:20 P.M. Sky now overcast at about 2,000 feet. Humanoid figures seen again, and a "thin electric blue spotlight" upward from the UFO, hovering below the overcast. UFO disappears in clouds

This suggests that the blue light came after the 'beings' were said to be illuminated therefore it could not have been the blue light causing the glow....at least not the full glow, if we carry on reading he then states:

''Another peculiar thing was this shaft of blue light. which emanated from what appeared to be the center of the deck. The men appeared to be illuminated not only by this light reflected on them, but also by a sort of glow which completely surrounded them as well as the craft. The glow did not touch them, but there appeared to be a little space between their outline and the light.. . . ''

He does seem quite specific here, especially when suggesting two types of glow plus the gap between 'being' and glow...

:unsure2: ??

Not sure of this can cover it, but if this was Project NERVA, as suspected in the Cash Landrum case, and if the craft was suffering some type of failure, spent rods in a nuclear reactor will glow blue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not think Father Gill was exaggerating. I do not think Father Gill used poetic license. The basis of my argument is that people do not listen to Father Gills transcript, it is being interpreted. And anomalies exist that seriously question ET as an answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sighting 5 days prior most likely are connected, could be some kind of reconnaissance before more ships arrived.

the glow thing might be some force field to protect them from exposure to the unknown. their way of quarantine

But your not inventing things to make ET sound more likely are we? Force fields and mother ships are very distant from Father Gills description.

And even though one man has time travelled (Sergei Avdeyev), it's a ridiculous notion.

Honestly, I am not sure how you cannot see your own bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure of this can cover it, but if this was Project NERVA, as suspected in the Cash Landrum case, and if the craft was suffering some type of failure, spent rods in a nuclear reactor will glow blue.

Ah, another angle on the Secret Aircraft theory? But were there any reports of after-effects, e.g. from Radiation? And if they were on board of a nucular powered craft that was suffering some sort of Failure, the crew didn't seem to be too worried about it. And these hypothetical Secret aircraft do seem to rather pop up in the most random places, don't they.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But your not inventing things to make ET sound more likely are we? Force fields and mother ships are very distant from Father Gills description.

And even though one man has time travelled (Sergei Avdeyev), it's a ridiculous notion.

Honestly, I am not sure how you cannot see your own bias.

i really, really don't understand your sheer stubbornness in dismissing "mother ships" as sci fi fantasy, just because no one reported seeing one. of course they wouldn't would they, it wouldn't come into the atmosphere. That's the whole point of it. You seem to have decided on this "Time Travel" theory, even though there's absolutely nothing whatsoever to support it, beyond that the inhabitants of the Craft were reported as looking like Humans, and from that you construct a whole theory about Time travellers? But yet you automatically dismiss any suggestion that there may have been another craft somewhere as sci fi fantasy? I just find this remarkably stubborn.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Quillius, ..yes that's a fair point my friend...mea culpa!..it would appear that like you, i've been so ensconced in reading so many different sources to this case that I totally forgot that the reflection-theory had already been dealt with in the report! :blush:

And so with that in mind, I am stumped for any reasonable prosaic explanation for the effect?...and can only offer the very un-prosaic aforementioned 'protective or atmospheric shield' theory?

Of course you may well be right...but the 'added for colour' seems to be a stretch for me buddy.

I am of the opinion that a man as honest as the reverend, and whom was meticulous enough to jot down notes on the spot would feel it necessary to use artistic-licence to enhance the unfolding drama of an event that he believed to be terrestrial?...After all, that was in no way a varyfiable terrestrial trait that he could have been witnessing , was it?...and so I believe that it was what he saw,..and the question for me is..what was it? :unsure2:

Cheers buddy.

Good Morning 1963,

I actually do agree that 'added for colour' doesnt quite work for me having thought about it further, The specific descriptions (at least twice) do not indicate a slip of the tongue for effect. If it was added for colour then this makes it a downright lie that was repeated and ofcourse would throw doubt onto the whole case.

and yes 'what was it' is where I am at.

Not sure of this can cover it, but if this was Project NERVA, as suspected in the Cash Landrum case, and if the craft was suffering some type of failure, spent rods in a nuclear reactor will glow blue.

Gidday Psyche.

did you know that the blue glow is caused by particles moving faster than light?

food for thought maybe?

also should project blue beam and holograms be considered? :santa:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

food for thought maybe?

also should project blue beam and holograms be considered? :santa:

in 1959? Why not bring HAAAAAARP into it as well? :clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in 1959? Why not bring HAAAAAARP into it as well? :clap:

hmmm...good point. :blush:

I guess time travellers kind of make the date irrelevant :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Morning 1963,

I actually do agree that 'added for colour' doesnt quite work for me having thought about it further, The specific descriptions (at least twice) do not indicate a slip of the tongue for effect. If it was added for colour then this makes it a downright lie that was repeated and ofcourse would throw doubt onto the whole case.

and yes 'what was it' is where I am at.

Hello 1963,

what do you think about this:

6:55--7:04 P.M. Up to four illuminated humanoid figures seen on top of object off and on.

7:10--7:20 P.M. Sky now overcast at about 2,000 feet. Humanoid figures seen again, and a "thin electric blue spotlight" upward from the UFO, hovering below the overcast. UFO disappears in clouds

This suggests that the blue light came after the 'beings' were said to be illuminated therefore it could not have been the blue light causing the glow....at least not the full glow, if we carry on reading he then states:

''Another peculiar thing was this shaft of blue light. which emanated from what appeared to be the center of the deck. The men appeared to be illuminated not only by this light reflected on them, but also by a sort of glow which completely surrounded them as well as the craft. The glow did not touch them, but there appeared to be a little space between their outline and the light.. . . ''

He does seem quite specific here, especially when suggesting two types of glow plus the gap between 'being' and glow...

:unsure2: ??

Hi Quillius,..After a little more thought on this anomalous point that seems to be a deal-breaker to you,..Might not the 'two types of glow' be as simple as No.1... the glow that was coming from the panels/portholes around the craft that was described by the witnesses [including Mr. Evennett,!... though of course it may not have been the same craft, but the glow from around the craft's midriff was a feature of both reports]....

" There also appeared to be about four 'panels' or 'portholes' on the side of the object, which seemed to glow a little brighter than the rest."

and No.2 obviously being a bluish glow from the shaft of blue light that was being beamed,[ for what ever purpose and to goodness knows where?]

...and also, I cannot rule out a third possibility,.. that as you rightly pointed out....that the sky was overcast,...and also the reverend stated that between 6.02 and 6.25pm .."Dark was beginning to close in"... therefore isn't it likely that the entities that were carrying out 'their beam-shining business' would have some kind of lighting 'somewhere on the deck' to see what they were doing?

The description of.. "there appeared to be a little space between their outline and the light"..I must admit, has me struggling somewhat?, and all that springs to mind is that perhaps it could have been an effect caused by some kind of reflective material used in the safety-apparel/suits that the entities were wearing? .

Cheers Buddy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aura-like luminance around the figures, but not touching them. Could be a protective field, as suggested. The situation might be like this: Looking directly at the figures through a minimum depth of the field, little light is seen. Looking to the the sides of the figures, and through, and along the sides of the field, and so through a longer cross section of the field, more light is seen. Perhaps air molecules ionized by the field, and set aglow.

Edited by bison
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, another angle on the Secret Aircraft theory? But were there any reports of after-effects, e.g. from Radiation? And if they were on board of a nucular powered craft that was suffering some sort of Failure, the crew didn't seem to be too worried about it. And these hypothetical Secret aircraft do seem to rather pop up in the most random places, don't they.

Not another angle, a qualified candidate that could possibly fit the description. Aliens who never want to be seen also seem to pop up in the most curious locations. But we excuse that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i really, really don't understand your sheer stubbornness in dismissing "mother ships" as sci fi fantasy, just because no one reported seeing one. of course they wouldn't would they, it wouldn't come into the atmosphere. That's the whole point of it. You seem to have decided on this "Time Travel" theory, even though there's absolutely nothing whatsoever to support it, beyond that the inhabitants of the Craft were reported as looking like Humans, and from that you construct a whole theory about Time travellers? But yet you automatically dismiss any suggestion that there may have been another craft somewhere as sci fi fantasy? I just find this remarkably stubborn.

Yes, becase the time travel theory can be applied without extending on the transcript of Father Gill. One man has actually time travelled, has anyone ever managed warp drive?

What exactly qualifies ET as a candidate here? Can you outline that? WHat we have is a recollection of men on a craft, and there is the big jump to aliens because "we do not have anything in our closet like that"? which is bunkum we do have things like what was described, and examples have been provided, they just do not fit all the performance characteristics.

Why so much stubbornness from the ETH'ers who refuse to so much as tell me what aspect of Father GIll's transcripts can be described as only ET? Why keep looking for evern far fetched explanation you can to try and shoehorn Aliens onto the story, when it does not fit the verbal description? What is with the stubbornness to adhere to that which we actually have? Why the need for motherships instead of trying harder to nut the words out, is that not simply lazy to invoke aliens? You say Black Ops is very loose, I think aliens are much looser. I honestly do not see any merit in sitting around making things up to squeeze ET in here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gidday Psyche.

did you know that the blue glow is caused by particles moving faster than light?

food for thought maybe?

also should project blue beam and holograms be considered? :santa:

Gidday Mate

Tachyons? Yes, the blue Doppler shift demands it. Except we found out that they do not exist, they are entirely hypothetical. They talk about them in Star Trek all the time, made me interested enough to look them up a few years ago. It has been realised that some holes in the theory exist. I remember the LHC making note of looking for them early in the piece.

Lisa Randall, Warped Passages: Unraveling the Mysteries of the Universe's Hidden Dimensions, p.286: "People initially thought of tachyons as particles travelling faster than the speed of light...But we now know that a tachyon indicates an instability in a theory that contains it. Regrettably for science fiction fans, tachyons are not real physical particles that appear in nature."

As such, I cannot see Tachyons causing the glow, if it was, that would also be enough glow to indicate a process in action I would think?

I cannot consider Blue Bean, if we are talking about the Serge Monast CT. The Fatima event is well before Blue Beam, and is an example of what Blue Beam is supposed to be doing.

Holograms? Had not considered such, but then again, Blue Beam is not the sort of thing I ask seriously, are you talking Blue Beam Holograms, or do you have something else in mind, and if so, may I ask how it fits into this jigsaw?

I think that NERVA vehicles are certainly more plausible as ET, because technology we had at the time was concieved to do things like this, as well as the Hillier platform indicating there was a need perceived for such a vehicle to fit things like NERVA engines to. Which I think disqualifies the claim that we could not possibly have possessed such technology at the time. More than one project ended because of unknown health hazards this might be such an embarrassment considering things like the Cash Landrum case. I think Cash Landrum was a classic example of a black project being in the wrong place at the wrong time. This is some time later, (Cash Landrum) se perhaps that is how that incident happened. This could be considered human interaction with NERVA and no side effects which my possibly be why the people involved with the Cash Landrum case managed to get hurt, when previous records indicated that should not be the case.

And Lord V says I do not speculate! Maybe it's the subject matter?

Cheers.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aura-like luminance around the figures, but not touching them. Could be a protective field, as suggested. The situation might be like this: Looking directly at the figures through a minimum depth of the field, little light is seen. Looking to the the sides of the figures, and through, and along the sides of the field, and so through a longer cross section of the field, more light is seen. Perhaps air molecules ionized by the field, and set aglow.

If there are differing refracting patterns in the spectrum caused by an effect of this force field, why does Father Gills transcript not mention shimmering, ghostly like figures, or changes in physical description all of which would be the direct illusion of scattering the photons with the air molecule disruption in our atmosphere?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gidday Mate

I think that NERVA vehicles are certainly more plausible as ET, because technology we had at the time was concieved to do things like this, as well as the Hillier platform indicating there was a need perceived for such a vehicle to fit things like NERVA engines to. Which I think disqualifies the claim that we could not possibly have possessed such technology at the time. More than one project ended because of unknown health hazards this might be such an embarrassment considering things like the Cash Landrum case. I think Cash Landrum was a classic example of a black project being in the wrong place at the wrong time. This is some time later, (Cash Landrum) se perhaps that is how that incident happened. This could be considered human interaction with NERVA and no side effects which my possibly be why the people involved with the Cash Landrum case managed to get hurt, when previous records indicated that should not be the case.

And Lord V says I do not speculate! Maybe it's the subject matter?

Cheers.

The Hitler flying platform was a one man thing that was designed at best to reach a few hundred feet. No one would possibly think of trying to strap a nuclear reactor onto that. That kind of thinking was for intercontinental bombers. The Huffman, Texas case was in 1980; that's 20 years later. But they still hadn't apparently made any significant progress, just the opposite if anything, since, as i remarked previously, no one seemed to have been affected by radiation in PNG?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Hitler flying platform was a one man thing that was designed at best to reach a few hundred feet. No one would possibly think of trying to strap a nuclear reactor onto that.

Yes, that is why I offered other examples in this post - LINK

A Nuclear electrical rocket changes thermal energy into heat energy. A variation produced by NERVA. And this version allows higher exhaust velocities, like one might need for something that hovers.

Not to mention the Avrocar had some people quite stirred up, Avro Ambulances were designed, and each family should have an avro vehicle in the garage by now according to the more zealous proponents. So there is no doubt that we were trying to do something very much like this. I am not sure how you feel you can qualify every project that ever existed, and replace them with an Alien Mothership, that really does not sounds very logical to me at all. Heck you even misspelled the name of the example I provided. You are not exactly filling me with confidence as a block ops specialist.

The desire was there. no doubt about it, and many attempts were made. And I need no more than a failed black op to fit in with Father Gills testimony. I only need to come up with new engines, not new engines, a new species, and a spaceship to hold the spaceship Father Gill saw. That is quite an extension on what is actually perplexing in Father Gill's recollection.

That kind of thinking was for intercontinental bombers. The Huffman, Texas case was in 1980; that's 20 years later. But they still hadn't apparently made any significant progress, just the opposite if anything, since, as i remarked previously, no one seemed to have been affected by radiation in PNG?

Yes, the thinking was, what were the applications?

Exactly, and if Father Gill and all his witnesses came away unscathed, there might be a test a bit closer to home, that was not considered to be harmful, until someone got hurt. Someone gets hurt, we cover up the project, avoid hefty lawsuits and loss of faith from the voters. That sounds like a much more plausible cover up than aliens to be frank. And again, nothing need be embellished in the actual transcript for this scenario to play out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that is why I offered other examples in this post - LINK

A Nuclear electrical rocket changes thermal energy into heat energy. A variation produced by NERVA. And this version allows higher exhaust velocities, like one might need for something that hovers.

Not to mention the Avrocar had some people quite stirred up, Avro Ambulances were designed, and each family should have an avro vehicle in the garage by now according to the more zealous proponents. So there is no doubt that we were trying to do something very much like this. I am not sure how you feel you can qualify every project that ever existed, and replace them with an Alien Mothership, that really does not sounds very logical to me at all.

... because very few of these projects did actually excist. Nearly all of them were just artist's impressions in the Eagle and the Boy's Own Book of Modern Wonders. the Avrocar was able to reach a maximum altitude of about six feet, i think. To suggest that they may have got one device to a stage where it was working well enough to fly about over the jungles of Papua NG (and to shoot off at dramatic speeds), but has never been heard of or mentioned anywhere since, is I'm afraid to just resort to the old "well, it's probably been kept Secret. Who knows what the Military might have developed since then?" off-the-shelf explanation, and I'm afraid if there's nothing tio support that, I don't buy that. There really is nothing more to support either the "nuclear powered hovering thingy" or (even less) the "Time machine" theory than there is that it was an exploration craft launched from an otherworldy craft, there really isn't. I'm very sorry about this. :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... because very few of these projects did actually excist. Nearly all of them were just artist's impressions in the Eagle and the Boy's Own Book of Modern Wonders. the Avrocar was able to reach a maximum altitude of about six feet, i think. To suggest that they may have got one device to a stage where it was working well enough to fly about over the jungles of Papua NG (and to shoot off at dramatic speeds), but has never been heard of or mentioned anywhere since, is I'm afraid to just resort to the old "well, it's probably been kept Secret. Who knows what the Military might have developed since then?" off-the-shelf explanation, and I'm afraid if there's nothing tio support that, I don't buy that. There really is nothing more to support either the "nuclear powered hovering thingy" or (even less) the "Time machine" theory than there is that it was an exploration craft launched from an otherworldy craft, there really isn't. I'm very sorry about this. :no:

You can be sorry about it because I am not. Wallow a little if you really want to! I do not agree with you, and I do not feel you have made any argument, you have done what any ETH'er would do, and that is indeed disappointing. But then again, when you have a pet theory, you do not like to consider much else, hell, you changed Roswell to be a crashed spaceship filled with drones that the witnesses got wrong, and thought were people so you could entertain your robot scenario. Never mind not an ounce of technology was never reported at the crash site and you are the only one in history to consider robot's with the descriptions provided. That's not "out of the box" I am afraid. There is another name for that.

You have convinced yourself, some zealots, and the OP, who simply has a personal problem with me. That is about it. Hardly impressive. You have not qualified any part of the testimony, you have merely expanded upon it to suit your own tale. Like I say, you can say the guesses I have thrown at this are not better than the ET angle, but only in the minds of the credulous, and I am OK with that. Not a group I would relish being bundled with to be honest.

I have not expanded on the testimony I have sought example of real world technology that is in this very design proposal. Many designs were tried, and most failed. If the only working one caused fatalities, then that explains why we never saw it become reality.

Yeah, stuff looking into actual projects, forget that Father Gill said Men, do not worry about the fact this craft is obviously not built for space, we can insert a mother ship for that covers that, and we just assume Father Gill was wrong about calling what he saw human beings. But you lot are very serious about a genuine answer aren't you LOL. As long as you can re-write, insert, and embellish, we have ET!

ET did everything, hell I do not exist, this is ET typing. That Zoser enough for you? Now do you approve? God forbid I should actually try to think of rational explanations. lets jaust say "It's ET and Undebunkable" Lets forget that there is some serious logical holes on the ET credulous claim, because that's no fun, and fun is what we call intelligence in here isn't it :D Lets all get tin foil top hats and just stop thinking. That should solve all these mysteries. My TV's stopped working after the cyclone., That would be ET to.

Mate, if you want to have a discussion, bring something to the table. Don't stamp your feet when I take ET away from the table. It's not very becoming. Admit it, you have squat, but you do not want to stop imagining things.

Hell, there is not only nothing to support ET, ET is a silly answer to a small interstellar vehicle with a balcony. Unless you see good use for ejector seats in helicopters, and fly screens on submarines, your logic is not existant only your foot stamping is.

I have asked every person, including you in this tread, what aspect of Father Gill's transcript can only be ET? I have no answers, but much foot stamping and fist shaking LOL.

I gave you plenty of reasons why I do not think it is ET, but not one person can give a reason with this IS ET. Only that this is the answer the zealots want.

To be frank, after the last few weeks, I was expecting more out of you than to just fall back on your ET cover all, even when it obviously does not fit.

And you guys wonder why the tin foil hat. I mean really. Also, calling this "Undebunkable ET proof" says a great deal as well. It's not even a bloody spaceship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Quillius,..After a little more thought on this anomalous point that seems to be a deal-breaker to you,..Might not the 'two types of glow' be as simple as No.1... the glow that was coming from the panels/portholes around the craft that was described by the witnesses [including Mr. Evennett,!... though of course it may not have been the same craft, but the glow from around the craft's midriff was a feature of both reports]....

" There also appeared to be about four 'panels' or 'portholes' on the side of the object, which seemed to glow a little brighter than the rest."

and No.2 obviously being a bluish glow from the shaft of blue light that was being beamed,[ for what ever purpose and to goodness knows where?]

...and also, I cannot rule out a third possibility,.. that as you rightly pointed out....that the sky was overcast,...and also the reverend stated that between 6.02 and 6.25pm .."Dark was beginning to close in"... therefore isn't it likely that the entities that were carrying out 'their beam-shining business' would have some kind of lighting 'somewhere on the deck' to see what they were doing?

The description of.. "there appeared to be a little space between their outline and the light"..I must admit, has me struggling somewhat?, and all that springs to mind is that perhaps it could have been an effect caused by some kind of reflective material used in the safety-apparel/suits that the entities were wearing? .

Cheers Buddy.

Hey 1963,

Its not so much a deal breaker for me as I think this is an element that points away from any 'human' project (this doesnt exclude any time traveller theory) at the time.

I have been thinking and looking at this case for hours over the weekend and like you I am really struggling with the gap between the figures and the glow surrounding them. I also note that he says the object was around the size of a pineapple if held up at arms length. This means that the figures at a guess (using pineapple scale plus the 35ft estimate) would be around a couple of inches. Also note that he was able to discern two different glows somehow....baffling.

speak soon as only have a ten minute window for some speed posting. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure of this can cover it, but if this was Project NERVA, as suspected in the Cash Landrum case, and if the craft was suffering some type of failure, spent rods in a nuclear reactor will glow blue.

Hey Psyche,

the blue shaft of light has been playing on my mind quite a bit. I have thought that it was plausible that the blue glow may have been from spent rods in a nuclear reactor due to craft failure as suggested. However, this does not make sense in the context of

1- the craft returned the next day with the same blue shaft of light, if it was craft failure then the craft would be no more (as would the operators)

2- the reaction of the beings during this blue glow was not one of distress...which would be expected during a craft malfunction with radiation dangers etc form nucleasr reactor.

I must say I have a few questions that remain with this case:

1- what made Father Gill assume the figures were human?

2- what was the blue shaft of light

3- what was the glow aroudn the beings and roughly how far away from their body's was this light/glow?

4- did he see hair?

5- why didnt everyone sign

lastly before I must dash, have you all seen the letters from Father Gill on two consecutive days?

I will dig out and post quickly, apologies 1963 if I am once again re-posting information that has been put forth on the thread, havent the time to go back and check

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can be sorry about it because I am not. Wallow a little if you really want to! I do not agree with you, and I do not feel you have made any argument, you have done what any ETH'er would do, and that is indeed disappointing. But then again, when you have a pet theory, you do not like to consider much else, hell, you changed Roswell to be a crashed spaceship filled with drones that the witnesses got wrong, and thought were people so you could entertain your robot scenario. Never mind not an ounce of technology was never reported at the crash site and you are the only one in history to consider robot's with the descriptions provided. That's not "out of the box" I am afraid. There is another name for that.

You have convinced yourself, some zealots, and the OP, who simply has a personal problem with me. That is about it. Hardly impressive. You have not qualified any part of the testimony, you have merely expanded upon it to suit your own tale. Like I say, you can say the guesses I have thrown at this are not better than the ET angle, but only in the minds of the credulous, and I am OK with that. Not a group I would relish being bundled with to be honest.

I have not expanded on the testimony I have sought example of real world technology that is in this very design proposal. Many designs were tried, and most failed. If the only working one caused fatalities, then that explains why we never saw it become reality.

Yeah, stuff looking into actual projects, forget that Father Gill said Men, do not worry about the fact this craft is obviously not built for space, we can insert a mother ship for that covers that, and we just assume Father Gill was wrong about calling what he saw human beings. But you lot are very serious about a genuine answer aren't you LOL. As long as you can re-write, insert, and embellish, we have ET!

ET did everything, hell I do not exist, this is ET typing. That Zoser enough for you? Now do you approve? God forbid I should actually try to think of rational explanations. lets jaust say "It's ET and Undebunkable" Lets forget that there is some serious logical holes on the ET credulous claim, because that's no fun, and fun is what we call intelligence in here isn't it :D Lets all get tin foil top hats and just stop thinking. That should solve all these mysteries. My TV's stopped working after the cyclone., That would be ET to.

Mate, if you want to have a discussion, bring something to the table. Don't stamp your feet when I take ET away from the table. It's not very becoming. Admit it, you have squat, but you do not want to stop imagining things.

Hell, there is not only nothing to support ET, ET is a silly answer to a small interstellar vehicle with a balcony. Unless you see good use for ejector seats in helicopters, and fly screens on submarines, your logic is not existant only your foot stamping is.

I have asked every person, including you in this tread, what aspect of Father Gill's transcript can only be ET? I have no answers, but much foot stamping and fist shaking LOL.

I gave you plenty of reasons why I do not think it is ET, but not one person can give a reason with this IS ET. Only that this is the answer the zealots want.

To be frank, after the last few weeks, I was expecting more out of you than to just fall back on your ET cover all, even when it obviously does not fit.

And you guys wonder why the tin foil hat. I mean really. Also, calling this "Undebunkable ET proof" says a great deal as well. It's not even a bloody spaceship.

I realise it is disappointing when one cannot come up with a plausible rational explanation that doesn't neccesitate invoking time machines or nuclear powered hovering platforms, but i'm not sure if it really warrants getting angry over. Anyway, I am, once again, very sorry for this. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey psyche101!

You know, argueing with die hard ETH'ers is futile! You're talking about a race (humans) who largely believe in deities (god, gods, angels etc) without ever having SEEN one!!! No mass sightings from thousands of people from all walks of life!

And you think they would take a skeptical view of the ETH?!!?!? (where there have been thousands of sightings and by a multitude of different people from all walks of life - including previous skeptics and scientists etc)

HAAAAAH!

Edited by Paxus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And incidentally, i'm sure you are just doing it deliberately, but you still keeping on insisting that I was trying to argue, regarding certain incidents in New Mexico in 1947, about "a crashed spaceship filled with drones that the witnesses got wrong, and thought were people so you could entertain your robot scenario". Surely you must be deliberately trying to misunderstand what other people seem to have not too much difficulty understanding; viz. that i never was talking about "spaceships full of robots" like C3PO, but I was talking about unmanned, robotic spacecraft, like the probes that we send to other planets. Not shiny spacecraft that land and ramps descend and shiny metal robots stride out and start walking around, like out of 1950s sci fi. I really don't know why this seems to be so hard to understand, unless one just deliberately wanted to misunderstand. I just thought I'd try, one more time, to try to explain this, even though it is OT, but i doubt it'll have much effect.

:(

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.