Anybody think there are Aliens (UFO)?

[Stray Cat]

It is those objects which are 'out of place' which fascinate me, and to leave them as 'unidentified' insultls the very nature of man- curiosity of the world around us. To have someone just leave it as unidentified and then dissuade other theories of the event or object is a bit frustrating.

It is those objects that as you describe are "out of place" that deserve the full weight of scientific investigation.
But I hesitate to call UFOlogists scientists.
I want as much as the next man to find the identity of these unidentified's too. But usually by the time we get to hear about them, all raw data has been distorted by people, accounts can not be verified for a number of dubious reasons and the misinformation churned out by blind belief criven websites (earthfiles, filers files, etc) has lessened any credibility they may have had.

Every UFO report I've personally investigated and been able to really get to the original source of first hand (including location visits and interviewing the actual first hand witnesses) has been so less sensational than ANY report I've ever read about a UFO sighting and in that 'more honest' setting is much easier explained by mundane causes. Most genuine people who are genuinely looking for an answer will not fight tooth and nail to maintain a speculative Alien origin stance of you can logically and rationally show them a down to Earth answer to what they didn't recognise.

But yes, I do it because I too want to be able to identify those things which 'don't fit in' but theories have at some point to be proven. Speculations are just that... speculations. What I would like is proof, but I don't rely on people bringing it to me, I go out looking for it.

 

[Nonpareil]

Here is an eyewitness account, in the form of a couple of letters, but here comes the whole 'fog of time argument' train down the track again! LOL!

ufoevidence.org/Cases/CaseSubarticle.asp?ID=894

Eyewitness accounts are extremely unreliable in normal situations, let alone when it comes to identifying UFOs. The person making the account likely wants to believe that it was something mysterious, so their tale is biased. Don't even get me started on the bias of UFOEvidence...

 

[SnidelyW]

This one has all the same hallmarks of sensationalist reporting again sadly.

The original newpaper article (reproduced here at the Wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westall_UFO
Says all accounts given to the VFSRS were second hand and that pupils at the school were reluctant to give witness statements.

The story of the object being followed by light aircraft was also investigated at the time and no commercial, private or RAAF pilots had reported anything unusual and there was no confirming information that any had been flying in the area.

A member of the VFSRS had visited the scene and found some flattened circular areas of grass where the UFO may have landed and yet there doesn't appear to be any photos recording this as evidence.

Given the 200 people for 20 minutes claim followed by the "everyone had been ordered not to speak about it" claim, there's a familiar "something doesn't ring true" about it all.

Here is the facebook page where witnesses to the Westall event have posted their accounts.

facebook.com/group.php?gid=7613851618&ref=share

Why don't you ask some questions of them? They may clear up the whole 'sensationalist reporting' angle for you.

What I find interesting is these people willingly risk ridicule by open discussion of their eyewitness accounts. Seems a bit masochistic to me if the skeptics are correct about this event.

 

[Stray Cat]

ufoevidence.org/Cases/CaseSubarticle.asp?ID=894

As interesting as reading about individual accounts and perceptions regarding paranormal events is, it really doesn't give anything solid enough to change the verifiable facts of the case.
Which are the reproduced newspaper articles giving details at the time.

Interesting though that the much more famous "Tully UFO nest" incident had happened only three months before this one:
http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case65.htm

An event that inspired Doug Bower and Dave Chorley a decade later to venture into the fields of Hampshire and start flattening circles in wheat, starting a whole new religion in the process.

 

[SnidelyW]

Eyewitness accounts are extremely unreliable in normal situations, let alone when it comes to identifying UFOs. The person making the account likely wants to believe that it was something mysterious, so their tale is biased. Don't even get me started on the bias of UFOEvidence...

Yes, I agree, which is why I have attempted to keep my involvement on this thread limited to photo evidence to avoid this entire discussion on reliance of eyewitness reports. I am not saying they are worthless, but unreliabilty is certainly high.

I have found myself sucked into that vortex, and am in the process of attempting to claw my way out.

 

[Akhenaten]

Here is the facebook page where witnesses to the Westall event have posted their accounts.

facebook.com/group.php?gid=7613851618&ref=share

Why don't you ask some questions of them? They may clear up the whole 'sensationalist reporting' angle for you.

Research via facebook?

No face, no palm, anywhere, will provide me with an adequate response.

I doubt if one could use facebook to research facebook.

What I find interesting is these people willingly risk ridicule by open discussion of their eyewitness accounts. Seems a bit masochistic to me if the skeptics are correct about this event.

Nobody knows why fruitcakes do stuff. That's why they're fruitcakes.

 

[StevenCalder]

Why don't you ask some questions of them? They may clear up the whole 'sensationalist reporting' angle for you.

We certainly could, But what would that get us?

We might go from a sensationalist reported unknown, to unknown.

Even if were to accept peoples reports at face value.

Don't take that to mean I'm belittling, but to make the point that it get us no closer to the goal of verifying the reports as of alien origin.

 

[Stray Cat]

Here is the facebook page where witnesses to the Westall event have posted their accounts.
facebook.com/group.php?gid=7613851618&ref=share
Why don't you ask some questions of them? They may clear up the whole 'sensationalist reporting' angle for you.
What I find interesting is these people willingly risk ridicule by open discussion of their eyewitness accounts. Seems a bit masochistic to me if the skeptics are correct about this event.

Thanks for that... if only life was long enough to engage with everyone eh?
But really I'm not in the business of putting myself in believers faces and suggesting to them they are wrong, if they want to believe, then that's fine.
For me (and the wider world in general), there is no proof and a 43 year old story is less likely to be accurately remembered by any of them. So asking them questions on the internet will not help.

 

[Jungle Jim]

Here is the facebook page where witnesses to the Westall event have posted their accounts.

facebook.com/group.php?gid=7613851618&ref=share

Why don't you ask some questions of them? They may clear up the whole 'sensationalist reporting' angle for you.

What I find interesting is these people willingly risk ridicule by open discussion of their eyewitness accounts. Seems a bit masochistic to me if the skeptics are correct about this event.

Unless I'm missing something, there are no witness accounts on the Facebook site.

 

[StevenCalder]

Nobody knows why fruitcakes do stuff. That's why they're fruitcakes.

YOU HOMOPHOBE!

Oh oh, cross thread pollination.

 

[EHocking]

Here is an eyewitness account, in the form of a couple of letters, but here comes the whole 'fog of time argument' train down the track again! LOL!

ufoevidence.org/Cases/CaseSubarticle.asp?ID=894

Correct. These recollections are 24 years (1990) after the "event" in 1966.

2 of the 3 accounts at that link never even saw the UFOs, only some circles in the grass of the sports oval.

 

[SnidelyW]

As interesting as reading about individual accounts and perceptions regarding paranormal events is, it really doesn't give anything solid enough to change the verifiable facts of the case.
Which are the reproduced newspaper articles giving details at the time.

Interesting though that the much more famous "Tully UFO nest" incident had happened only three months before this one:
http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case65.htm

An event that inspired Doug Bower and Dave Chorley a decade later to venture into the fields of Hampshire and start flattening circles in wheat, starting a whole new religion in the process.

Oooh- Stray Cat- Now it's MY turn to play skeptic!

Are you saying the reporter got the facts right? How do you know? Are reporters ever wrong in newspaper articles? How did the reporter 'verify' his facts? What was the reporters bias? What was the editors' bias? What was omitted from the article or edited out?

I think you are violating your own tenets regarding critical thinking.

 

[SnidelyW]

Unless I'm missing something, there are no witness accounts on the Facebook site.

Correct. Some quick and dirty research on my part, and I deserved to be called on it.

the Facebook page is where eyewitnesses are invited to post their recollections.

 

[Rramjet]

Rramjet - Perhaps if your pen an paper drawing were representative of the actual sizes and positions of the objects in the photo (according to the ground plan 'accurately' drawn up by the Condon report, you might be onto something.

You obviously don't understand the conceptual framework that contributes to parallax. If you move the elements in my diagram to match exactly the dimensions on the ground, it will result in the same thing! The relevant point is the relative positioning of the elements. The actual distances do NOT particularly matter in parallax assessments such as I made. If you separate the elements out by distancing them correctly, all that occurs is the angles narrow and the observed distances become less. Doing this however DOES NOT alter the sight lines and relative positioning of the elements when then observer or the UFO moves. This is a pretty basic concept, though I am not surprised you don't get it because you attempted to pass off your Photo analysis WITHOUT the benefit of parallax understanding which would have shown your assessment as erroneous.

You just deny the evidence because it shows up YOUR effort as pure woo!

 

[SnidelyW]

Thanks for that... if only life was long enough to engage with everyone eh?
But really I'm not in the business of putting myself in believers faces and suggesting to them they are wrong, if they want to believe, then that's fine.
For me (and the wider world in general), there is no proof and a 43 year old story is less likely to be accurately remembered by any of them. So asking them questions on the internet will not help.

As Jungle Jim correctly pointed out, there are NO actual eyewitness accounts posted. There is one account from someone who visited the site later in the day and was unimpressed with the flattened grass.

In my haste to refute I very quickly scanned the page and was lazy.

My apologies if I misled anyone. it was unintentional.

 

[SnidelyW]

Research via facebook?

No face, no palm, anywhere, will provide me with an adequate response.

I doubt if one could use facebook to research facebook.





Nobody knows why fruitcakes do stuff. That's why they're fruitcakes.

Good point. See above for my self flagellation regarding shoddy research and subsequent posting of such.

 

[Akhenaten]

YOU HOMOPHOBE!

Oh oh, cross thread pollination.

Have a look around the threads. The same person is doing it all over the place.


They seek him here, they seek him there
Those Frenchies seek him everywhere
Is he in heaven or 'neath the lake?
That damned elusive Fruitycake!

 

[Akhenaten]

Good point. See above for my self flagellation regarding shoddy research and subsequent posting of such.

No problem cobber. We're all here to learn.

 

[StevenCalder]

No problem cobber. We're all here to learn.

And spout fruitcake related poems at the drop of the hat.

In between all the learning.

 

[Stray Cat]

Oooh- Stray Cat- Now it's MY turn to play skeptic!

Are you saying the reporter got the facts right? How do you know? Are reporters ever wrong in newspaper articles? How did the reporter 'verify' his facts? What was the reporters bias? What was the editors' bias? What was omitted from the article or edited out?

I think you are violating your own tenets regarding critical thinking.

I'm not saying that the newspaper is 100% correct and accurate... they rarely are as most of us know.
But in light of the lack of other supporting evidence, it has to be taken into account as the nearest thing to the source at the time.
Unless you can find an account written up by the VFSRS from 1966 which contradicts the newspaper's report, then we may have have something to discuss.
But so far, the cases you have presented have quite easily been shown to be false and badly reported (the South African one the Edwards AFB one and the Rouen one). Yo9u'd have to bring something a lot more compelling than some 43 year old witness memoirs (unsupported by anything recorded at the time) spark my interest in looking any further into it.