Aliens from space (split from Time to talk about UFO's or now as the military calls them UAP's?)

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, TheVat said:

It's hard to decipher some of your oracular comments.  Can you offer a summary of what the podcast is about, in case I don't have the 41 minutes required to hear it?  And how it's relevant?  

There's no such thing as fish

[Moontanman]

16 hours ago, swansont said:

Without links to their source and a way to vet them they are worthless. 

I have to agree, I know I'm supposed to be a true believer nut case, but these documents are of unknown providence, in fact they are copies  of copies sent anonymously to a UFO researcher back in the 70s or 80s if I remember correctly. I've googled this to death and I can't find a source but I'll keep trying. 

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

And how it's relevant? 

Isn't it obvious???

[TheVat]

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

There's no such thing as fish

Well, thank you.  So, am getting a glimmer now of what this is about...

Quote

The title for No Such Thing as a Fish comes from a fact in the QI TV series. In the third episode of the eighth series, also known as "Series H", an episode on the theme of "Hoaxes" reported that after a lifetime studying fish, the biologist Stephen Jay Gould concluded that there was no such thing as a fish. He reasoned that although there are many sea creatures, most of them are not closely related to each other. For example, a salmon is more closely related to a camel than it is to a hagfish.

This famous Gould assertion would also make a great thread here at SFN.   UAPs are disparate phenomena, not necessarily arising from some common phylogenetic tree branch, is what you're saying?  

[dimreepr]

13 minutes ago, TheVat said:

is what you're saying? 

Not really, we have yet to identify an alien in the context of this discussion and much like a ghost, we have yet to categorise it... 🧐

[TheVat]

9 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

I have to agree, I know I'm supposed to be a true believer nut case, but these documents are of unknown providence, in fact they are copies  of copies sent anonymously to a UFO researcher back in the 70s or 80s if I remember correctly. I've googled this to death and I can't find a source but I'll keep trying. 

What makes them even more problematic is that the names mentioned are no longer alive (they'd all be well past 100) so can't address any questions about the documents.  Like it would be helpful if the two doctors who allegedly conducted these autopsies were around, to vet the claims made.   Not to mention that, with such extraordinary claims, the originals would properly be subjected to full forensic analysis - paper composition and watermarks, ink, type font (including retyping passages on a 40s typewriter to see how keystrokes land), official stamps, etc.   Sagan's law really applies here, eh?

[Moontanman]

5 minutes ago, TheVat said:

What makes them even more problematic is that the names mentioned are no longer alive (they'd all be well past 100) so can't address any questions about the documents.  Like it would be helpful if the two doctors who allegedly conducted these autopsies were around, to vet the claims made.   Not to mention that, with such extraordinary claims, the originals would properly be subjected to full forensic analysis - paper composition and watermarks, ink, type font (including retyping passages on a 40s typewriter to see how keystrokes land), official stamps, etc.   Sagan's law really applies here, eh?

The signature is the kicker, it was lifted from another document and "xeroxed" onto the document in question. This one thing negates the entire document cashe'.

 

[dimreepr]

21 hours ago, TheVat said:

This famous Gould assertion would also make a great thread here at SFN. 

I suspect he was just annoyed at the "tomatoes are a fruit" brigade, which is of course wrong bc "if it doesn't go in a fruit salad, then it's obviously not a fruit" brigade, and then just exploded "of course they're not fish, they just live in the sea... FFS" 🙄.  

21 hours ago, Moontanman said:

The signature is the kicker, it was lifted from another document and "xeroxed" onto the document in question. This one thing negates the entire document cashe'.

 

You're missing the point, it doesn't matter who says it if it's obviously true...

My signature, for instance...

[Moontanman]

Who was it that brought up the Westall sighting at a school in Australia 1966? I've been looking into it and this really is an impressive sighting! 

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

Who was it that brought up the Westall sighting at a school in Australia 1966? I've been looking into it and this really is an impressive sighting! 

I may have mentioned it years ago at another website, but only as a classic misinterpretation of a radiation monitoring balloon.  A wiki clip:

Quote

According to Keith Basterfield, a runaway balloon from the HIBAL high-altitude balloon project used to monitor radiation levels after British nuclear tests at Maralinga is a likely explanation. Basterfield located documents in the National Archives and former Department of Supply indicating a test balloon launched from Mildura may have been blown off course "and came down in Clayton South in a paddock near Westall High School, alarming and baffling hundreds of eyewitnesses, including teachers and students". Basterfield said HIBAL balloons had a white silver appearance and featured a parachute and gas tube trailing from the top, which is consistent with witness descriptions of the object. There were also reports that after the incident, "men in suits" cautioned witnesses not to discuss details of the secret government exercise.

 

best regards,

Dana Scully 

Edited May 28 by TheVat
my cats types better than I do

[Moontanman]

2 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I may have mentioned it years ago at another website, but only as a classic misinterpretation of a radiation monitoring balloon.  A wiki clip:

 

best regards,

Dana Scully 

Of course that ignores the eye witness testimony but your point is well taken. 

[TheVat]

I am not anti-children or anti-schoolteacher, but I think the unreliable witness problem is significant here.  It feels like the Zimbabwe sighting all over again.  Do you have a link to witness reports?  Maybe I can look through the wikipedia footnotes and find them.  

 

[Moontanman]

4 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I am not anti-children or anti-schoolteacher, but I think the unreliable witness problem is significant here.  It feels like the Zimbabwe sighting all over again.  Do you have a link to witness reports?  Maybe I can look through the wikipedia footnotes and find them.  

 

To be honest I am going by a report I watched on YouTube, I agree that the current version of the report contains considerable info related many years after the sighting.  But the initial reports are provocative if not confirmable. This is of course a problem with many sightings of years ago. Initial reports are rehashed ad infinitum and are almost certainly added to to some extent. 

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westall_UFO

Quote

According to skeptic Brian Dunning, "the weather balloon is a likely explanation for the first half of the event". Dunning suggested a nylon target drogue, like a wind sock, towed by one plane for the others to chase and known to be in use by the local RAAF at the time, was "at least one very reasonable possibility for the second half". Dunning added, as years have passed, "descriptions of what was actually seen have now become diluted with made-up descriptions by an unknown number of students who didn't see anything, and there's no way to know which is which".^[3]

The bold part is less than supportive of the popular discriptions now being made. It is so easy to be impressed by the reports of the people if the report is made after years of discussing among the witnesses and that fact is omitted. 

Current testimony makes it seem like the sighting has to be extraordinary, I should have looked much closer to see when the testimony was given.