Ufo Continued Debate on the Nature of these Craft and Possible Origins

[Aethelwulf]

Okay, what's the hard evidence that should convince skeptics in this case? What exactly is it that skeptics should be convinced of?

We have witnesses... Such an unusual group of witnesses. Children, who have nothing to gain from a hoax. One is taken away by Military officials, who according to class mates, is never seen again. Nothing is heard of the parents of this little girl either which adds to the suspicion. The Military where quite obviously chasing this object... question is why? From descriptions of the UFO, it had a blue tinge, perhaps green. It was of saucer shaped origin. Why was everyone warned not to speak of the subject? Threatened almost not to speak of the subject?

We can't deny there wasn't an object - well.. you could - but why would anyone make it up? What makes this sighting unique also is that is was relatively close to the ground, could be studied and was in daylight.

[captain swoop]

That is not evidence, it is hearsay and rumour.

What is the name of the family that the military took away? What are the names of the children?

[Aethelwulf]

That is not evidence, it is hearsay and rumour.

What is the name of the family that the military took away? What are the names of the children?

What is rumor? That the child was never seen again? By the class it wasn't, that's not a rumor?

As for the child's name, I have not a clue. I am basing this on interviews of the now grown up children. I wouldn't be surprised if they have forgotten her name. Surely, I only remember a small percentage of the names when I was in primary school.

[Aethelwulf]

If no one wants to discuss this case, I am happy to go onto a new subject, like Colares Flap Incident or the STS 51a video?

[shriram]

What is rumor? That the child was never seen again? By the class it wasn't, that's not a rumor?

As for the child's name, I have not a clue. I am basing this on interviews of the now grown up children. I wouldn't be surprised if they have forgotten her name. Surely, I only remember a small percentage of the names when I was in primary school.

Well,
Even I don't remember the names of all my class mates. But I do remember names of those involved in some particularly interesting event. And somebody from your class going missing is a big event. That name would in all probability remain in the mind of the kids forever. Unless those being interviewed heard about the incident second hand/ third hand, and so on...

[captain swoop]

Was the child and her family abducted by 'the military'? did they move away? did the child exist at all?

Just because someone wrote it on the Internet doesn't mean it happened. Just re telling a story isn't evidence that the story is true.

[Aethelwulf]

Arguably, not even an event like that would trigger the memory for a number of reasons.

For instance, how long was the child even at the school? Was she a couple of years below you, so you did not know her name as your usual classmates? Most primary schools have many grades. Some several.

Also, not all the witnesses have came forward to speak about the incident, so it only adds to the hypothesis there maybe a number of reasons for not remembering her name.

I think it does a lot of disservice not to take this account as real. Also, an investigator not long ago knew there was some video evidence taken of the event. The video was taken by local officers... and stored somewhere. The investigator was given a key and told to find the video evidence in the archive. When he did so, it took him a while, but he finally found the container - except there was no video evidence in it. Someone removed it.

[captain swoop]

If no one wants to discuss this case, I am happy to go onto a new subject, like Colares Flap Incident or the STS 51a video?

So far there is nothing to discuss.
If you go on to a 'new' subject and just recap the story as you have done with this one then there will still be nothing to discuss.

[Aethelwulf]

Was the child and her family abducted by 'the military'? did they move away? did the child exist at all?

Just because someone wrote it on the Internet doesn't mean it happened. Just re telling a story isn't evidence that the story is true.

The child was reportedly taken from the scene. I don't know of the family - this is what adds to the mystery. You'd think if your daughter went missing, you would explain your problem to the press... but there has been no official record of any family member coming forward to my knowledge... so the question is... what happened, and why hasn't any family member came forward.

We should keep every possibility in the mind. The family may have been abducted (the government have done worse things). Maybe they where paid off... wouldn't have been a nice family if that happened, but, some people care for money more than their own heart.

[Aethelwulf]

So far there is nothing to discuss.
If you go on to a 'new' subject and just recap the story as you have done with this one then there will still be nothing to discuss.

I thought we where discussing it, or are you intentionally being obtuse?

[captain swoop]

Also, an investigator not long ago knew there was some video evidence taken of the event. The video was taken by local officers... and stored somewhere. The investigator was given a key and told to find the video evidence in the archive. When he did so, it took him a while, but he finally found the container - except there was no video evidence in it. Someone removed it.

What investigator? How did he know? Who gave him a key? where did he go with the key?

This is just more rumour. Telling us some unknown person went to an unknown place with a key provided by another unknown person and found nothing is not evidence.

Can't you see this?

[Aethelwulf]

What investigator? How did he know? Who gave him a key? where did he go with the key?

This is just more rumour. Telling us some unknown person went to an unknown place with a key provided by another unknown person and found nothing is not evidence.

Can't you see this?

That is rumor perhaps, does not make the event not real... after all, it was said by the officers to be in a container with a specific code. How would that code have been in the archives if the video evidence was not real to begin with?

I will find the video for you in which the investigator looks for this evidence.

[Aethelwulf]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDF21rKkYcM

interviews and investigation are here.

[chrlzs]

I choose the Westall Incident to start off with. I think that case is most curious. Then maybe we can discuss the Shag Harbor Case.

Curious? Curious is your criteria? That sounds an awful lot like a tacit admission that you don't have any single case with compelling evidence. If 'curious' is your criteria, I can dig up plenty of curious cases that would, using your apparent level of acceptance, be 'sufficient' evidence of fairies, dragons, unicorns or leprechauns...

As has been stated above, the technique of scattergunning/shotgunning multiple cases is a well-known conspiracy theorist card-trick, and it simply shows that all you are interested in is quantity of anecdotes - which means absolutely nothing. It also means you can easily jump from case to case when one doesn't quite work out... thereby ensuring that the necessary rigour isn't applied to any one case.

Let's face it, there are INNUMERABLE reasons for people to:
-see things in the sky they can't identify (=UFO)
-see movements of those things they think are 'impossible' (due to scaling estimate errors, disorientation or other issues)
-attribute those things to an alien origin, having seen too many movies
-make up stories
-embellish/exaggerate stories (whether deliberately or by memory degradation)
-make up hoaxes (both at individual and group level)
-outdo their mates (or even toe an unofficial line) - eg in terms of pilots who use the ufo excuse to perform maneuvers and fire weapons in a way they would not normally be allowed to

(I haven't even begun.. those are just a few thoughts..) PLUS, our sky is filled with flying objects of many, many kinds, so it is hardly any wonder there are lots of sightings out there waiting to be beaten up into a news story..

Compared to those unicorns/fairies/dragons/leprechauns, there is absolutely no contest in regard to the volume of REAL things that can be misidentified, so tell me this:

WHY WOULDN'T THERE BE MANY, MANY UFO CASES?

Given that, do you not concede that to be taken seriously, you NEED to provide the ones with compelling evidence? Reasons, please.

If you don't have any of those, I suggest you might save us all some time and admit that now rather than later.
If you DO have that compelling evidence, then simply get to the point - make THAT one your first selection, and thoroughly CITE your evidence. Thus far all I see is you parroting ufo=alien websites from (flawed) memory. Do you think that is worthy of a science forum?

In particular you made claims about missing people in the Westall case. Please back that up, and don't even think of moving onto some other case.. I'm happy to point out lots more gaping holes in that case.

[Aethelwulf]

Curious? Curious is your criteria? That sounds an awful lot like a tacit admission that you don't have any single case with compelling evidence. If 'curious' is your criteria, I can dig up plenty of curious cases that would, using your apparent level of acceptance, be 'sufficient' evidence of fairies, dragons, unicorns or leprechauns...

As has been stated above, the technique of scattergunning/shotgunning multiple cases is a well-known conspiracy theorist card-trick, and it simply shows that all you are interested in is quantity of anecdotes - which means absolutely nothing. It also means you can easily jump from case to case when one doesn't quite work out... thereby ensuring that the necessary rigour isn't applied to any one case.

Let's face it, there are INNUMERABLE reasons for people to:
-see things in the sky they can't identify (=UFO)
-see movements of those things they think are 'impossible' (due to scaling estimate errors, disorientation or other issues)
-attribute those things to an alien origin, having seen too many movies
-make up stories
-embellish/exaggerate stories (whether deliberately or by memory degradation)
-make up hoaxes (both at individual and group level)
-outdo their mates (or even toe an unofficial line) - eg in terms of pilots who use the ufo excuse to perform maneuvers and fire weapons in a way they would not normally be allowed to.

That's a horrible analysis and almost tries to make a mockery of otherwise credible witnesses. Some people, believe it or not, are capable of witnessing things they can't explain, not because it is vague or unclear, but because many things about it are... unnatural.

As I have shown, my case above is a perfect example. A mass sighting, was relatively low, was seen by people who have nothing to gain otherwise. Extraordinary claims may indeed require extraordinary evidence, but extraordinary rebuttals equally require extraordinary reasons.

[Van Rijn]

We have witnesses... Such an unusual group of witnesses. Children, who have nothing to gain from a hoax.

Memories of people who were children at the time, children who would have even less observational experience than the average adult. But if we say the kids saw something . . . so what?

One is taken away by Military officials, who according to class mates, is never seen again. Nothing is heard of the parents of this little girl either which adds to the suspicion.

Now that's a serious claim. What's the evidence?

[Aethelwulf]

Memories of people who were children at the time, children who would have even less observational experience than the average adult. But if we say the kids saw something . . . so what?



Now that's a serious claim. What's the evidence?

Watch the video I posted. The claim of the girl never being seen again is in it. I can't speak of the parents, as I said, I don't know of any TV appearance of their girl... as I said this adds to the suspicion, because you would expect at least an interview with the press.

''children who would have even less observational experience than the average adult. But if we say the kids saw something . . . so what? ''

That is one of the silliest comments I have heard today.

You are obviously not reading what I write: This object was seen by

children who had nothing to gain from a hoax, and also by the teachers

To add, the headmaster was also prepped and had warned the school not to say anything about what they had witnessed. The headmaster even admits this in the video, so please... watch it.

[Strange]

Children, who have nothing to gain from a hoax.

Ah, yes. Children. Such reliable witnesses. One young person I know told me that his cat has feathers. Fancy that, hard evidence for a flying cat.

[Tog]

Arguably, not even an event like that would trigger the memory for a number of reasons.

For instance, how long was the child even at the school? Was she a couple of years below you, so you did not know her name as your usual classmates? Most primary schools have many grades. Some several.

Also, not all the witnesses have came forward to speak about the incident, so it only adds to the hypothesis there maybe a number of reasons for not remembering her name.

When I was in high school we had an older teacher who was liked by few. Nearly everyone I talked to had head the story that she was once a Playboy centerfold from the early days, and that someone had found her issue and placed it open on her desk between classes. It was "fact". I heard about it from my neighbor who graduated the year before I started there.

The problem is, no one knew what year it happened. No one knew the issue of the magazine. No one knew of anyone who was there to see it happen. I live in an area where it's not unusual to have 4 to 8 kids all attend the same school over a span of 15 years. Surely, someone would recall some useful bit of information. There doesn't seem to be any, so I have to doubt it ever really happened. That it was a legend.

Your missing child is much the same thing. Lots of people "knew" about it, but no one has details.

You're saying that the "military" taking a kid away to never be seen again would be completely forgotten? Really? That would be a school legend handed down from one class to the next for decades.
I remember the first name of the kid in kindergarten (age 5; 37 years ago) who was allergic to peanuts.
I remember a plot from a Hardy Boys Mystery TV show from that same age. (The kid had the same hairstyle)
I remember the name of the girl who lived above the store in the town where I lived at that age.
I remember the first name of one of the two high school boys that lived next door. to us then.
I remember the full name of the weird girl in the third grade that everyone was mean to (some more actively than others).
Those are all trivial. I'm pretty sure could I pull up some detail about a family that just vanished.

I think it does a lot of disservice not to take this account as real. Also, an investigator not long ago knew there was some video evidence taken of the event. The video was taken by local officers... and stored somewhere. The investigator was given a key and told to find the video evidence in the archive. When he did so, it took him a while, but he finally found the container - except there was no video evidence in it. Someone removed it.

I've looked for that teacher's name in the Playboy archives to try and confirm any shred of it and can't find anything. Based on your line of reasoning, the fact that I found nothing means that someone had all traces of her involvement removed, not that the whole thing was an urban legend.

Neither of those pass the sniff test.

[Strange]

The child was reportedly taken from the scene. I don't know of the family - this is what adds to the mystery. You'd think if your daughter went missing, you would explain your problem to the press... but there has been no official record of any family member coming forward to my knowledge... so the question is... what happened, and why hasn't any family member came forward.

Hmmm ... it's almost as if it never happened.

Is this a variation of the old "the lack of evidence proves how powerful the conspiracy is" argument?

[tnjrp]

I'd much prefer if we stuck with the Westfall case until people really have had time to look at information about it and discuss it. For example I barely remembered hearing about it when it was picked up from "the big list". It is interesting enough due to being a daylight sighting with a considerable number of witnesses even tho little to no tangible evidence seems to remain of it.

Memories of people who were children at the time, children who would have even less observational experience than the average adult

At least one teacher looks to have been involved as well, which makes the case that much more interesting because it's a bit less likely the children were able to convince him about there being something extraordinary going on, compared to convincing each other.

But if we say the kids saw something . . . so what?

Yes, a hoax does not have to enter into it at all and if there was a hoax, it doesn't need to have been on the witnesses' side of the issue.

Now that's a serious claim

Indeed. At least the provenance of the stolen child story would be nice to know, as well as the "witnesses were warned/threatened". Did it originate with Brian Boyle for example - he seems to be supposed to have been there at the same with army investigators?

[chrlzs]

That's a horrible analysis

I'm sure no-one noticed that you are a bit short on specifics. Which bits do you dispute? Give reasons.

and almost tries to make a mockery of otherwise credible witnesses.

Even the most credible of witnesses is still subject to the same pressures, the same brain-sense interface that so often screws up, or is influenced by peer pressure or the desire to exaggerate, or memories that have changed over the years.

Some people, believe it or not, are capable of witnessing things they can't explain, not because it is vague or unclear, but because many things about it are... unnatural.

Gee. Really? What about the rest of people? And for those that do get it wrong, make it up, exaggerate, or (as in this case) that make up stories to help drum up paper sales, how do you identify who is who? Me, I want evidence, not hearsay.

For example:
1. The name and proof of existence (let alone disppearance) of your alleged missing person.
2. A PICTURE of the supposed ring of burnt earth.

Please consider those as formal questions - you made the claims - now either back them up, or admit you do not have evidence.

As I have shown, my case above is a perfect example.

Yes, in many ways it is just that...

A mass sighting..

By schoolkids.. - you don't remember what it was like being a kid? By the way, find the very first report on the incident and compare it to later reports... How many saw it? In a later account it was 200! Do you think that is correct? How would you explain that the first reports were of just a few witnesses? Sounds an awful lot like what I was pointing out.. but that you called a 'horrible' analysis..

was relatively low

according to the hearsay

was seen by people who have nothing to gain otherwise.

WHAT?? Do you *honestly* think they have no reason to tell/embellish a cool story? Seriously, you need to pick a different hobby, or put a bit of thought into studying human motivations and psychology.

Extraordinary claims may indeed require extraordinary evidence

It STOPS there. You have not supplied anything even remotely useful as evidence.

There is, at the moment, nothing to rebut.

[Van Rijn]

Watch the video I posted. The claim of the girl never being seen again is in it.

Seems to be something from the Sci-Fi channel, and I'm not going to watch it all just to see someone make a claim. What's the evidence? What's the documentation for this claim?

''children who would have even less observational experience than the average adult. But if we say the kids saw something . . . so what? ''

That is one of the silliest comments I have heard today.

You are obviously not reading what I write: This object was seen by

children who had nothing to gain from a hoax, and also by the teachers

Oh, I read it. Kids say they saw something they couldn't identify. A UFO. I'll quote you:

Be careful folks, I see people equating UFO to aliens. UFO does not mean that, it is simply unidentified.

So I'll ask again: SO WHAT?

[Aethelwulf]

Ah, yes. Children. Such reliable witnesses. One young person I know told me that his cat has feathers. Fancy that, hard evidence for a flying cat.

Ah great... another whose not reading what is written. You'all might as well just spam me with irrelevant topics.

[Aethelwulf]

I'm sure no-one noticed that you are a bit short on specifics. Which bits do you dispute? Give reasons.


Even the most credible of witnesses is still subject to the same pressures, the same brain-sense interface that so often screws up, or is influenced by peer pressure or the desire to exaggerate, or memories that have changed over the years.


Gee. Really? What about the rest of people? And for those that do get it wrong, make it up, exaggerate, or (as in this case) that make up stories to help drum up paper sales, how do you identify who is who? Me, I want evidence, not hearsay.

For example:
1. The name and proof of existence (let alone disppearance) of your alleged missing person.
2. A PICTURE of the supposed ring of burnt earth.

Please consider those as formal questions - you made the claims - now either back them up, or admit you do not have evidence.


Yes, in many ways it is just that...


By schoolkids.. - you don't remember what it was like being a kid? By the way, find the very first report on the incident and compare it to later reports... How many saw it? In a later account it was 200! Do you think that is correct? How would you explain that the first reports were of just a few witnesses? Sounds an awful lot like what I was pointing out.. but that you called a 'horrible' analysis..


according to the hearsay


WHAT?? Do you *honestly* think they have no reason to tell/embellish a cool story? Seriously, you need to pick a different hobby, or put a bit of thought into studying human motivations and psychology.


It STOPS there. You have not supplied anything even remotely useful as evidence.

There is, at the moment, nothing to rebut.

''Even the most credible of witnesses is still subject to the same pressures, the same brain-sense interface that so often screws up, or is influenced by peer pressure or the desire to exaggerate, or memories that have changed over the years.''

What is there to exaggerate in the Westall case? Everyone's testimony is equal and does not pear out of shape... I'd be interested more in your analysis of the video, than you stuck dogmatic views on witness testimony, because just by the looks of it, you are fast to ridicule, blame human emotion rather than the experience of the subject at hand. I'd be very interested one day to see someone like you experience something they had so you may be shunned with similar tactics of denial and ridiculous examples that you gave.

''Gee. Really? What about the rest of people? And for those that do get it wrong, make it up, exaggerate, or (as in this case) that make up stories to help drum up paper sales, how do you identify who is who? Me, I want evidence, not hearsay.''

Now your being sarcastic. Usual steps used by skeptics.

Who is exaggerating exactly? If you took the time to view the witness testimonies, they all pretty much say the same things... You're pulling things out of where the sun don't shine. You've not studied the evidence, but you are far to happy to gladden your point so that they are made to look incompetent or useless, or just flat out incapable of using their eyesight. You'd be more happy I think, if you could destroy what testimony it is, just for the sake of your own views. That is neither morally or ethically right, but it is bad investigative techniques and not less, keeping a closed mind all along the way.

''For example:
1. The name and proof of existence (let alone disppearance) of your alleged missing person.
2. A PICTURE of the supposed ring of burnt earth.''

Now I know you've just skimmed some of the video. Or if you have watched it, it's going in one ear and out another. It was established by most of the witnesses, some of the most credible such as the headmaster, that the camera evidence taken of the UFO (which would have been a lot more better in terms of evidence) has all but been removed by the Military Officials. If this was a hoax, it certainly goes up there as one of the most elaborate, taking into consideration it involved an entire school, whose stories have not changed over the years, also taking into account the Military was involved and so was the press.

I can't be bothered with people like you. You skim over the evidence, and then claim that evidence to be wrong in some way, just because it does not fit your perfect view of the world.

[Aethelwulf]

Seems to be something from the Sci-Fi channel, and I'm not going to watch it all just to see someone make a claim. What's the evidence? What's the documentation for this claim?




Oh, I read it. Kids say they saw something they couldn't identify. A UFO. I'll quote you:



So I'll ask again: SO WHAT?

You do realize, you are in the conspiracies subforum.

Yet you ask... ''so what?''

A saucer shaped craft, of yet unknown origin, was viewed by a mass of people, children and teachers alike, a farmer as well, and yet... you say so what?

If you have no intentions or any interest, then leave and don't spam this thread with idle words.

[Aethelwulf]

(And the documented claims are... in the documentary I posted. It's also got a wiki page). Watch my video, or read the wiki page, either way, at least participate in some kind of way.

[Aethelwulf]

I'd much prefer if we stuck with the Westfall case until people really have had time to look at information about it and discuss it. For example I barely remembered hearing about it when it was picked up from "the big list". It is interesting enough due to being a daylight sighting with a considerable number of witnesses even tho little to no tangible evidence seems to remain of it.

At least one teacher looks to have been involved as well, which makes the case that much more interesting because it's a bit less likely the children were able to convince him about there being something extraordinary going on, compared to convincing each other.

Yes, a hoax does not have to enter into it at all and if there was a hoax, it doesn't need to have been on the witnesses' side of the issue.

Indeed. At least the provenance of the stolen child story would be nice to know, as well as the "witnesses were warned/threatened". Did it originate with Brian Boyle for example - he seems to be supposed to have been there at the same with army investigators?

''I'd much prefer if we stuck with the Westfall case until people really have had time to look at information about it and discuss it. For example I barely remembered hearing about it when it was picked up from "the big list". It is interesting enough due to being a daylight sighting with a considerable number of witnesses even tho little to no tangible evidence seems to remain of it.''

Yes well lets stick on the subject. I agree, very interesting case being a daylight sighting.

''At least one teacher looks to have been involved as well, which makes the case that much more interesting because it's a bit less likely the children were able to convince him about there being something extraordinary going on, compared to convincing each other.''

A science teacher was involved... and I might be wrong... but I think the headmaster could have seen it... or perhaps another teacher. I vaguely remember something there.

''Yes, a hoax does not have to enter into it at all and if there was a hoax, it doesn't need to have been on the witnesses' side of the issue.''

Agreed.

''ndeed. At least the provenance of the stolen child story would be nice to know, as well as the "witnesses were warned/threatened". Did it originate with Brian Boyle for example - he seems to be supposed to have been there at the same with army investigators?''

It would have been nice... but like most evidence the government has diminished, made to disappear, usually there is little more to go on than witness testimony of the girl. The way the Military came on the scene, if undoubtedly ... classic.

[Aethelwulf]

Hmmm ... it's almost as if it never happened.

Is this a variation of the old "the lack of evidence proves how powerful the conspiracy is" argument?

Unless... you just think they were all hallucinating that a girl even existed? There's nothing to investigate if all ties to that investigation have been severed.

[Aethelwulf]

The problem is, no one knew what year it happened. .

Yes we do, 1966. That's why its called, Westall 66 incident.

Oh sorry, you were talking about something else.