A UFO Landing Site. - Page 2

Beady · 11th October 2005, 02:53 AM

Originally Posted by BillyJoe

What if they came from a mother ship?

Then you are postulating, not only some sort of interstellar drive, but one that is inefficient in atmosphere.

So you have two suppositions which are based, not on any known technology, but on the necessities of debate. If you are willing to allow me the same lattitude, I can come up with the proverbial invisible fire-breathing dragon in my garage.

BillyJoe · 11th October 2005, 05:44 AM

glee,

How do we know he was threatened?
The author traced him and he told him this.

How do we know who threatened him?
He said two RAAF officers visited him at home.

What was he threatened with?
No info has been given regarding the nature of the threats.

Why was no lawyer prepared to defend him?
He has not asked to be defended.

What about Amnesty International helping?
He just said he no longer maintains an interest in the case - hard to believe I know.

Where were the Press in all this? Are they in the cover-up?
They simply reported it and then dropped it. No one is suggesting a cover up by the press.

If 1 were true, wouldn't somebody have broken ranks yet?
That is what I asked. They just say the threats were severe enough to keep the witnesses silent for life.

Wouldn't someone want to reveal the most important news in the history of the planet?
It beggars belief doesn't it.

Wouldn't a reporter have started investigating?
Seems no one was particularly interested.

BillyJoe

BillyJoe · 11th October 2005, 05:55 AM

Originally Posted by Kenny 10 Bellys

The thing about the description that worries me is the swirl in the grass. If an obect with anti-gravity had landed, especially with vernier control jets that scorch the grass, why is the grass not blown out radiating from the centre, or simply crushed by the bulk of the object settling down. In combination with the pimple in the centre it does indeed sound like a primitive crop-circle hoax.

They do not presume to say what a futuristic technology would look like or what affect it would have on its surroundings. A anti-gravity device could (or, at least, we cannot exclude the possibility that it could) cause this affect because we have no idea how an anti-gravity device works.
In one of the circles, the grass was said to be flattened hard against the ground, packed like a bale of hay and swirled anti-clockwise. In another, the grass was bent over 2cm from the ground and swirled anti-clockwise. This one also contained the scorch marks.

BJ

BillyJoe · 11th October 2005, 06:02 AM

Originally Posted by Beady

Then you are postulating, not only some sort of interstellar drive, but one that is inefficient in atmosphere.

So you have two suppositions which are based, not on any known technology, but on the necessities of debate. If you are willing to allow me the same lattitude, I can come up with the proverbial invisible fire-breathing dragon in my garage.

They "know what they saw" and it was an alien craft. If the landing craft that they saw was not fit for interstellar travel then perhaps they flew up to a mother ship which did the interstellar travel thing. Somehow it happened because they damn well saw it and they have no time for any goddamn sceptic telling them otherwise.

BillyJoe

BillyJoe · 13th October 2005, 05:14 AM

So does anyone have any examples of jets or propulsion motors that are not circular?
(Kenny: are vernier jets circular?)

If not, why are they always circular?
Is there any possible reason for them to be square or rectangular?

(Remember that the scorch marks at the alleged landing site were rectangular)

BJ

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos · 13th October 2005, 05:17 AM

I know: The craft is spinning (hence the swirl), but firing its jets in time to the spin, so that the scorch marks are in the same place each rotation.

~~ Paul

BillyJoe · 13th October 2005, 06:57 AM

Paul,

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

I know: The craft is spinning (hence the swirl), but firing its jets in time to the spin, so that the scorch marks are in the same place each rotation.

Their take is that the craft was spinning on landing (?anti-gravity device), then stopped spinning, then took off by means of those rockets.
Why it would use an anti-gravity device to land and jets to take off, I don't know.

Now, why were those scorch marks in the shape of narrow rectangles instead of circles like all those other jets I've found at google images.

BillyJoe.

UrsulaV · 13th October 2005, 07:30 AM

Originally Posted by BillyJoe

If I recall, this information came from an older brother or parent of one of the students. His younger brother/son told him that there were 200 kids in the playground when the object came into view. I guess this doesn't necessarily mean 200 witnesses. The author has spoken to a number of witnesses who have agreed to give information provided they are not identified. No witness to the actual flying object has come online. Two witnesses to two of the landing sites have given their accounts, one of which heads this thread.

BJ

Ahhh. So in one swoop, we have gone from "200 children saw this, and were threatened into silence," to "I saw it, and I think there were 200 other kids on the playground at the time." From 200 eyewitness accounts, to one account of 200 eyewitnesses? Yeah, I'd say that that's a pretty significant difference.

If I have a psychotic break in a crowd and think that there are aliens coming after me, that doesn't mean that I have a crowd full of witnesses to aliens. (I'm not saying that anybody had a psychotic break in this case, just that being in a crowd doesn't lend any veracity to a claim unless the other people in the crowd ALSO corroborate your claim.)

Also, 200's an awfully big number to place on the witness list based on somebody's childhood memory of how many kids are on the playground. I personally have a very bad head for such things--I could guess there were 200 cows in a field when there were really sixty. Unless we have some other source on the 200 kids were eyewitnesses thing, we have no way of knowing how many kids were there, and how many, if any, saw anything, let alone how many were threatened into silence. Since there's all these conditions of anonymity, we can't even go check which school it was, on what day, to see class sizes and make a guess as to how many kids would be out on recess.

So in short, I think that whole "200 kids were threatened into silence!" is a vast leap of logic, at the moment almost completely unsupported. If you have other facts to offer about these kids, please, I'm all ears!

MoonDragn · 13th October 2005, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by Starthinker

You see? This is the kind of thing I'd like to hoax. Make a circle and some burn marks, record me doing it, then interview some lonely farmer as to if he saw any UFO's the night before. He'd say no, but I'd give him my card and tell him to call me if he hears anything. He'd find the circle and the burn marks and call me back. News would spread. Other folk would swear they saw UFO's that night, experts would be called in, and we'd make the paper and some web sites. Then, when everyone is convinced that this was a true UFO siting with physical evidence I'd jump up with my video and go, "Gotcha!" And you know what, they'd probably call me liar and for years after the case would be regarded as true.

Yes, beware of paranormal reports that come from Iowa.

Thats what they did with Bigfoot and heck we're still arguing over it.

Starthinker · 13th October 2005, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by MoonDragn

Thats what they did with Bigfoot and heck we're still arguing over it.

I was going to host a contest to see who could fake the best bigfoot sighting with film/video. I still may. We would all learn from it.

Starthinker · 13th October 2005, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by BillyJoe

Paul,

Their take is that the craft was spinning on landing (?anti-gravity device), then stopped spinning, then took off by means of those rockets.
Why it would use an anti-gravity device to land and jets to take off, I don't know.

Now, why were those scorch marks in the shape of narrow rectangles instead of circles like all those other jets I've found at google images.

BillyJoe.

Two points: 1) If you shoot fire or in this case jets from a rectangular opening wouldn't the nature of fire, or jets, mean the marks would still be circular? I can't see fire coming out of a rectangular opening staying rectangular. Any fire experts agree with me? I can see maybe a SMALL jet, like a blowtorch being used to make a rectangular mark but it would have rounded corners. 2)Why jets? Why not say red-hot landing pads made the marks? More believable to me. Anti-gravity devices always heat up my landing pads to red, and sometimes a white-hot state.

BillyJoe · 14th October 2005, 06:23 AM

Ursula,

The school is known. It's about 25km from where I live, although the name has been changed since. They know how many children were enrolled in that year and how many children, on average, would be in the playground for their morning break. It comes out at about 200. Of course, whether they all saw something we will never know. However 30 witnesses have come forward anonymously to talk to the author, so that's 30 at least. There was a police and RAAF presence after the sighting and lots of rumours about threats, secrecy, and cover-up.

Something unusual did happen. What is was I don't exactly know. The headmaster told the school at assembly to say nothing. He said something about "mass hysteria". He obviously wanted to avoid adverse publicity for the school. The witnesses online are pretty pissed off with "skeptics" who presume to tell them what THEY did or didn't see and offering up all sorts of comflicting theories about the nature of the "object" THEY saw. Some sceptics ignore the reported speed. Some ignore the reported shape. Some ignore both in order to make their theory fit. It is interesting to see how the other side ticks.

regards,
BillyJoe

BillyJoe · 14th October 2005, 06:39 AM

Originally Posted by Starthinker

Two points: 1) If you shoot fire or in this case jets from a rectangular opening wouldn't the nature of fire, or jets, mean the marks would still be circular? I can't see fire coming out of a rectangular opening staying rectangular. Any fire experts agree with me? I can see maybe a SMALL jet, like a blowtorch being used to make a rectangular mark but it would have rounded corners.

Yes, seems it doesn't work either way. The jets should be circular but, even if they were rectangular, the scorch marks would still not be rectangular. I have suggested that perhaps only the scorch marks were hoaxed, leaving them their circle, but there was no response to this suggestion. I suppose they see it as the thin edge of the wedge.

Originally Posted by Starthinker

2)Why jets? Why not say red-hot landing pads made the marks? More believable to me.

Yes, that would fit - except that I was thinking more in terms of a branding iron from the back shed.

Originally Posted by Starthinker

Anti-gravity devices always heat up my landing pads to red, and sometimes a white-hot state.

You wouldn't last one second on that site. They definitely do not have a sense of humour.

BillyJoe

UrsulaV · 14th October 2005, 06:49 AM

Originally Posted by BillyJoe

Ursula,

The school is known. It's about 25km from where I live, although the name has been changed since. They know how many children were enrolled in that year and how many children, on average, would be in the playground for their morning break. It comes out at about 200. Of course, whether they all saw something we will never know. However 30 witnesses have come forward anonymously to talk to the author, so that's 30 at least. There was a police and RAAF presence after the sighting and lots of rumours about threats, secrecy, and cover-up.

Excellent! See, more information is always good. We've now gone from "200 eyewitnesses bullied into silence" to "One eyewitness who said there were 200 witnesses, and he was bullied into silence" to "Estimates of the number of potential student witnesses are around 200 based on verifiable data about enrollment, but we have no idea how many people saw anything, and the school principal told everybody at a school assembly that this was mass hysteria, and there are rumors there were cover-ups."

These are, to me, three significantly different stories. Certainly we've come a long way from "200 kids saw this and were threatened into silence!" which struck me as more than a little absurd. Knowing little more about the incident, I can hardly tell you whether we've finally arrived at an accurate account or not, but I can't help but wonder--if ONE PERSON, (namely you) reporting secondhand, years after the fact, calmly and with time to analyze the data, has provided three different versions on the schoolkid-at-witness aspect, then jeez, how muddy are the firsthand waters likely to be at this stage in the game?

Now, to continue this line of inquiry, were those 30 witnesses claiming to have been schoolchildren in that school? That would certainly be easily checked against school records. Or were these 30 witnesses just people who happened to see it? Has any effort been made to contact other children at the school during the correct time frame and say "Hey, did you see a UFO back in the day?"

BillyJoe · 14th October 2005, 07:08 AM

Originally Posted by UrsulaV

Now, to continue this line of inquiry, were those 30 witnesses claiming to have been schoolchildren in that school? That would certainly be easily checked against school records. Or were these 30 witnesses just people who happened to see it? Has any effort been made to contact other children at the school during the correct time frame and say "Hey, did you see a UFO back in the day?"

The thirty include students and at least one parent, one older brother, and a few teachers. The parent and older brother witnessed the "landing site" only. The "flying saucer" was seen at about 11am, the "landing site" some time after school, perhaps as late as 6pm. Yes, plenty of time for a bit of evidence to be planted by some enterprising cowhand. I wonder if he'll step forward to be interviewed at soem stage?

There has been attempts to contact as many potential witnesses as possible. Some are uncontactable. Others do not want to get involved for various reasons.

I think they did see something. It got airplay in the evening news as well as some newspaper coverage. It's the identity of the object that I'm interested in. The book is due out in about six months, so there's plenty of time for new revelations.

BJ

Starthinker · 14th October 2005, 08:28 AM

Originally Posted by BillyJoe

You wouldn't last one second on that site. They definitely do not have a sense of humour.

BillyJoe

What site? And yes, a sense of humor is the only way to stay sane in the chaos. And what does this have to do with my landing pads getting hot from the anti-gravity drive? I'm sorry I can't afford an anti-anti-gravity sheild to keep them from getting hot, how much gold pressed Latinum do you think I have in stomach pouch?

BillyJoe · 15th October 2005, 05:13 AM

Originally Posted by Starthinker

What site?

The site where they are posting info regarding the UFO sighting I've been talking about. The site is for believers, although there is no specific rule that sceptics can not come on board. The first reaction to my presence there was hostile to say the least. When I took it all on the chin and didn't go away, they either ignored or scoffed at the ignorance displayed by my questions. I am now being tolerated by some whilst others are trying to keep me busy with links to other sites where I can inform myself about the subject matter. Good heavens I am such an ignoramus I don't even know what a Force Field is. I plan to keep niggling.

BillyJoe.

11th October 2005, 02:53 AM	#41
Beady Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: 44:57:19N, 73:16:18W Posts: 5,490	Originally Posted by BillyJoe What if they came from a mother ship? Then you are postulating, not only some sort of interstellar drive, but one that is inefficient in atmosphere. So you have two suppositions which are based, not on any known technology, but on the necessities of debate. If you are willing to allow me the same lattitude, I can come up with the proverbial invisible fire-breathing dragon in my garage.
	__________________ I tolerate with utmost latitude the right of others to differ with me in opinion without imputing to them criminality. I know too well all the weaknesses and uncertainty of human reason to wonder at its different results. -- Thomas Jefferson

13th October 2005, 05:14 AM	#45
BillyJoe Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: MOOROOLBARK Posts: 12,539	So does anyone have any examples of jets or propulsion motors that are not circular? (Kenny: are vernier jets circular?) If not, why are they always circular? Is there any possible reason for them to be square or rectangular? (Remember that the scorch marks at the alleged landing site were rectangular) BJ
	Last edited by BillyJoe; 13th October 2005 at 05:22 AM.

13th October 2005, 05:17 AM	#46
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted. Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: a little toolshed Posts: 18,592	I know: The craft is spinning (hence the swirl), but firing its jets in time to the spin, so that the scorch marks are in the same place each rotation. ~~ Paul
	__________________ Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny

13th October 2005, 07:30 AM	#48
UrsulaV Muse Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 957	Originally Posted by BillyJoe If I recall, this information came from an older brother or parent of one of the students. His younger brother/son told him that there were 200 kids in the playground when the object came into view. I guess this doesn't necessarily mean 200 witnesses. The author has spoken to a number of witnesses who have agreed to give information provided they are not identified. No witness to the actual flying object has come online. Two witnesses to two of the landing sites have given their accounts, one of which heads this thread. BJ Ahhh. So in one swoop, we have gone from "200 children saw this, and were threatened into silence," to "I saw it, and I think there were 200 other kids on the playground at the time." From 200 eyewitness accounts, to one account of 200 eyewitnesses? Yeah, I'd say that that's a pretty significant difference. If I have a psychotic break in a crowd and think that there are aliens coming after me, that doesn't mean that I have a crowd full of witnesses to aliens. (I'm not saying that anybody had a psychotic break in this case, just that being in a crowd doesn't lend any veracity to a claim unless the other people in the crowd ALSO corroborate your claim.) Also, 200's an awfully big number to place on the witness list based on somebody's childhood memory of how many kids are on the playground. I personally have a very bad head for such things--I could guess there were 200 cows in a field when there were really sixty. Unless we have some other source on the 200 kids were eyewitnesses thing, we have no way of knowing how many kids were there, and how many, if any, saw anything, let alone how many were threatened into silence. Since there's all these conditions of anonymity, we can't even go check which school it was, on what day, to see class sizes and make a guess as to how many kids would be out on recess. So in short, I think that whole "200 kids were threatened into silence!" is a vast leap of logic, at the moment almost completely unsupported. If you have other facts to offer about these kids, please, I'm all ears!
UrsulaV Muse Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 957

13th October 2005, 01:25 PM	#50
Starthinker Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 5,014	Originally Posted by MoonDragn Thats what they did with Bigfoot and heck we're still arguing over it. I was going to host a contest to see who could fake the best bigfoot sighting with film/video. I still may. We would all learn from it.
	__________________ \|¦¦\|¦ \|¦\|\|\|\|¦\|\|\|¦\|\|¦¦\|¦\|\|\|\|\|\|\|¦\|¦¦¦¦\|¦¦¦¦\|\|¦\|¦\|¦¦\|¦ \|¦¦\|¦ He who doubts victory has already lost the battle. Below the navel there is neither religion nor truth.

11th October 2005, 05:44 AM	#42
BillyJoe Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: MOOROOLBARK Posts: 12,539	glee, How do we know he was threatened? The author traced him and he told him this. How do we know who threatened him? He said two RAAF officers visited him at home. What was he threatened with? No info has been given regarding the nature of the threats. Why was no lawyer prepared to defend him? He has not asked to be defended. What about Amnesty International helping? He just said he no longer maintains an interest in the case - hard to believe I know. Where were the Press in all this? Are they in the cover-up? They simply reported it and then dropped it. No one is suggesting a cover up by the press. If 1 were true, wouldn't somebody have broken ranks yet? That is what I asked. They just say the threats were severe enough to keep the witnesses silent for life. Wouldn't someone want to reveal the most important news in the history of the planet? It beggars belief doesn't it. Wouldn't a reporter have started investigating? Seems no one was particularly interested. BillyJoe

11th October 2005, 05:55 AM	#43
BillyJoe Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: MOOROOLBARK Posts: 12,539	Originally Posted by Kenny 10 Bellys The thing about the description that worries me is the swirl in the grass. If an obect with anti-gravity had landed, especially with vernier control jets that scorch the grass, why is the grass not blown out radiating from the centre, or simply crushed by the bulk of the object settling down. In combination with the pimple in the centre it does indeed sound like a primitive crop-circle hoax. They do not presume to say what a futuristic technology would look like or what affect it would have on its surroundings. A anti-gravity device could (or, at least, we cannot exclude the possibility that it could) cause this affect because we have no idea how an anti-gravity device works. In one of the circles, the grass was said to be flattened hard against the ground, packed like a bale of hay and swirled anti-clockwise. In another, the grass was bent over 2cm from the ground and swirled anti-clockwise. This one also contained the scorch marks. BJ

11th October 2005, 06:02 AM	#44
BillyJoe Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: MOOROOLBARK Posts: 12,539	Originally Posted by Beady Then you are postulating, not only some sort of interstellar drive, but one that is inefficient in atmosphere. So you have two suppositions which are based, not on any known technology, but on the necessities of debate. If you are willing to allow me the same lattitude, I can come up with the proverbial invisible fire-breathing dragon in my garage. They "know what they saw" and it was an alien craft. If the landing craft that they saw was not fit for interstellar travel then perhaps they flew up to a mother ship which did the interstellar travel thing. Somehow it happened because they damn well saw it and they have no time for any goddamn sceptic telling them otherwise. BillyJoe

13th October 2005, 06:57 AM	#47
BillyJoe Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: MOOROOLBARK Posts: 12,539	Paul, Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos I know: The craft is spinning (hence the swirl), but firing its jets in time to the spin, so that the scorch marks are in the same place each rotation. Their take is that the craft was spinning on landing (?anti-gravity device), then stopped spinning, then took off by means of those rockets. Why it would use an anti-gravity device to land and jets to take off, I don't know. Now, why were those scorch marks in the shape of narrow rectangles instead of circles like all those other jets I've found at google images. BillyJoe.

13th October 2005, 11:41 AM	#49
MoonDragn Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: NJ Posts: 314	Originally Posted by Starthinker You see? This is the kind of thing I'd like to hoax. Make a circle and some burn marks, record me doing it, then interview some lonely farmer as to if he saw any UFO's the night before. He'd say no, but I'd give him my card and tell him to call me if he hears anything. He'd find the circle and the burn marks and call me back. News would spread. Other folk would swear they saw UFO's that night, experts would be called in, and we'd make the paper and some web sites. Then, when everyone is convinced that this was a true UFO siting with physical evidence I'd jump up with my video and go, "Gotcha!" And you know what, they'd probably call me liar and for years after the case would be regarded as true. Yes, beware of paranormal reports that come from Iowa. Thats what they did with Bigfoot and heck we're still arguing over it.

13th October 2005, 01:29 PM	#51
Starthinker Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 5,014	Originally Posted by BillyJoe Paul, Their take is that the craft was spinning on landing (?anti-gravity device), then stopped spinning, then took off by means of those rockets. Why it would use an anti-gravity device to land and jets to take off, I don't know. Now, why were those scorch marks in the shape of narrow rectangles instead of circles like all those other jets I've found at google images. BillyJoe. Two points: 1) If you shoot fire or in this case jets from a rectangular opening wouldn't the nature of fire, or jets, mean the marks would still be circular? I can't see fire coming out of a rectangular opening staying rectangular. Any fire experts agree with me? I can see maybe a SMALL jet, like a blowtorch being used to make a rectangular mark but it would have rounded corners. 2)Why jets? Why not say red-hot landing pads made the marks? More believable to me. Anti-gravity devices always heat up my landing pads to red, and sometimes a white-hot state.
	__________________ \|¦¦\|¦ \|¦\|\|\|\|¦\|\|\|¦\|\|¦¦\|¦\|\|\|\|\|\|\|¦\|¦¦¦¦\|¦¦¦¦\|\|¦\|¦\|¦¦\|¦ \|¦¦\|¦ He who doubts victory has already lost the battle. Below the navel there is neither religion nor truth.

14th October 2005, 06:23 AM	#52
BillyJoe Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: MOOROOLBARK Posts: 12,539	Ursula, The school is known. It's about 25km from where I live, although the name has been changed since. They know how many children were enrolled in that year and how many children, on average, would be in the playground for their morning break. It comes out at about 200. Of course, whether they all saw something we will never know. However 30 witnesses have come forward anonymously to talk to the author, so that's 30 at least. There was a police and RAAF presence after the sighting and lots of rumours about threats, secrecy, and cover-up. Something unusual did happen. What is was I don't exactly know. The headmaster told the school at assembly to say nothing. He said something about "mass hysteria". He obviously wanted to avoid adverse publicity for the school. The witnesses online are pretty pissed off with "skeptics" who presume to tell them what THEY did or didn't see and offering up all sorts of comflicting theories about the nature of the "object" THEY saw. Some sceptics ignore the reported speed. Some ignore the reported shape. Some ignore both in order to make their theory fit. It is interesting to see how the other side ticks. regards, BillyJoe

14th October 2005, 06:39 AM	#53
BillyJoe Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: MOOROOLBARK Posts: 12,539	Originally Posted by Starthinker Two points: 1) If you shoot fire or in this case jets from a rectangular opening wouldn't the nature of fire, or jets, mean the marks would still be circular? I can't see fire coming out of a rectangular opening staying rectangular. Any fire experts agree with me? I can see maybe a SMALL jet, like a blowtorch being used to make a rectangular mark but it would have rounded corners. Yes, seems it doesn't work either way. The jets should be circular but, even if they were rectangular, the scorch marks would still not be rectangular. I have suggested that perhaps only the scorch marks were hoaxed, leaving them their circle, but there was no response to this suggestion. I suppose they see it as the thin edge of the wedge. Originally Posted by Starthinker 2)Why jets? Why not say red-hot landing pads made the marks? More believable to me. Yes, that would fit - except that I was thinking more in terms of a branding iron from the back shed. Originally Posted by Starthinker Anti-gravity devices always heat up my landing pads to red, and sometimes a white-hot state. You wouldn't last one second on that site. They definitely do not have a sense of humour. BillyJoe

14th October 2005, 06:49 AM	#54
UrsulaV Muse Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 957	Originally Posted by BillyJoe Ursula, The school is known. It's about 25km from where I live, although the name has been changed since. They know how many children were enrolled in that year and how many children, on average, would be in the playground for their morning break. It comes out at about 200. Of course, whether they all saw something we will never know. However 30 witnesses have come forward anonymously to talk to the author, so that's 30 at least. There was a police and RAAF presence after the sighting and lots of rumours about threats, secrecy, and cover-up. Excellent! See, more information is always good. We've now gone from "200 eyewitnesses bullied into silence" to "One eyewitness who said there were 200 witnesses, and he was bullied into silence" to "Estimates of the number of potential student witnesses are around 200 based on verifiable data about enrollment, but we have no idea how many people saw anything, and the school principal told everybody at a school assembly that this was mass hysteria, and there are rumors there were cover-ups." These are, to me, three significantly different stories. Certainly we've come a long way from "200 kids saw this and were threatened into silence!" which struck me as more than a little absurd. Knowing little more about the incident, I can hardly tell you whether we've finally arrived at an accurate account or not, but I can't help but wonder--if ONE PERSON, (namely you) reporting secondhand, years after the fact, calmly and with time to analyze the data, has provided three different versions on the schoolkid-at-witness aspect, then jeez, how muddy are the firsthand waters likely to be at this stage in the game? Now, to continue this line of inquiry, were those 30 witnesses claiming to have been schoolchildren in that school? That would certainly be easily checked against school records. Or were these 30 witnesses just people who happened to see it? Has any effort been made to contact other children at the school during the correct time frame and say "Hey, did you see a UFO back in the day?"
UrsulaV Muse Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 957

14th October 2005, 07:08 AM	#55
BillyJoe Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: MOOROOLBARK Posts: 12,539	Originally Posted by UrsulaV Now, to continue this line of inquiry, were those 30 witnesses claiming to have been schoolchildren in that school? That would certainly be easily checked against school records. Or were these 30 witnesses just people who happened to see it? Has any effort been made to contact other children at the school during the correct time frame and say "Hey, did you see a UFO back in the day?" The thirty include students and at least one parent, one older brother, and a few teachers. The parent and older brother witnessed the "landing site" only. The "flying saucer" was seen at about 11am, the "landing site" some time after school, perhaps as late as 6pm. Yes, plenty of time for a bit of evidence to be planted by some enterprising cowhand. I wonder if he'll step forward to be interviewed at soem stage? There has been attempts to contact as many potential witnesses as possible. Some are uncontactable. Others do not want to get involved for various reasons. I think they did see something. It got airplay in the evening news as well as some newspaper coverage. It's the identity of the object that I'm interested in. The book is due out in about six months, so there's plenty of time for new revelations. BJ

14th October 2005, 08:28 AM	#56
Starthinker Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 5,014	Originally Posted by BillyJoe You wouldn't last one second on that site. They definitely do not have a sense of humour. BillyJoe What site? And yes, a sense of humor is the only way to stay sane in the chaos. And what does this have to do with my landing pads getting hot from the anti-gravity drive? I'm sorry I can't afford an anti-anti-gravity sheild to keep them from getting hot, how much gold pressed Latinum do you think I have in stomach pouch?
	__________________ \|¦¦\|¦ \|¦\|\|\|\|¦\|\|\|¦\|\|¦¦\|¦\|\|\|\|\|\|\|¦\|¦¦¦¦\|¦¦¦¦\|\|¦\|¦\|¦¦\|¦ \|¦¦\|¦ He who doubts victory has already lost the battle. Below the navel there is neither religion nor truth.

15th October 2005, 05:13 AM	#57
BillyJoe Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: MOOROOLBARK Posts: 12,539	Originally Posted by Starthinker What site? The site where they are posting info regarding the UFO sighting I've been talking about. The site is for believers, although there is no specific rule that sceptics can not come on board. The first reaction to my presence there was hostile to say the least. When I took it all on the chin and didn't go away, they either ignored or scoffed at the ignorance displayed by my questions. I am now being tolerated by some whilst others are trying to keep me busy with links to other sites where I can inform myself about the subject matter. Good heavens I am such an ignoramus I don't even know what a Force Field is. I plan to keep niggling. BillyJoe.