Westall 1966 flying saucer incident
I would say that rapid changes of direction on that scale are beyond what is capable of physical objects, so they must not be physical objects. Light projections of some sort - like playing with a laser spot on a wall.
The following 2 users liked this post by Checkboard:
I saw 3 ufos here in Philippines last here. Before then I was a skeptical but now I know there is weird stuff in our sky. But I got nowhere in trying to report it as a flight hazard.
Watch USS Nimitz ‘Tic Tac’ UFO: Declassified Video Clip | HISTORY Channel:
https://www.history.com/videos/uss-n...assified-video
Join Date: Jun 2024
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I want to try to dig into this case and uncover new information.
My position is that it was an anomalous craft and not a case of mass hallucination or hysteria, and certainly not a misidentified radiation-testing balloon (a ridiculous 'nothing to see here' cover story concocted by the authorities).
If there is anyone interested in discussing this case and researching it in a mature manner minus childish references to 'little green men' and similar fallback responses that are the hallmarks of the ill-informed and the dogmatic skeptic, then I'm all ears.
For anyone who hasn't seen it, start with the documentary on youtube: Westall 1966 - A Suburban UFO Mystery (2010)
There is no need to conflate the incident with 'aliens'. We don't know what the object was, and you are making a strawman argument if you insert conjecture of this type into the discussion as a means to ridicule and 'debunk' it.
My position is that it was an anomalous craft and not a case of mass hallucination or hysteria, and certainly not a misidentified radiation-testing balloon (a ridiculous 'nothing to see here' cover story concocted by the authorities).
If there is anyone interested in discussing this case and researching it in a mature manner minus childish references to 'little green men' and similar fallback responses that are the hallmarks of the ill-informed and the dogmatic skeptic, then I'm all ears.
For anyone who hasn't seen it, start with the documentary on youtube: Westall 1966 - A Suburban UFO Mystery (2010)
There is no need to conflate the incident with 'aliens'. We don't know what the object was, and you are making a strawman argument if you insert conjecture of this type into the discussion as a means to ridicule and 'debunk' it.
Last edited by size_of_light; 27th Jun 2024 at 20:44.
While based in WA as a military flying instructor, my secondary duties included being the Base UFO Officer. Take the calls, investigate, make report.
The best one I had in the 2 years was a man who was driving on a dark night in the GAFA*, when he looked out the passenger window and saw mysterious lights flying next to him. He sped up, the lights followed exactly. Slow down, even stop, the lights stayed in perfect formation. He decided to get out and look at the lights, but when he shut off his car and got out, the lights disappeared. Mystery!
He was looking at the reflection of his instrument panel in the curved passenger window, distorting the image and making it look 3-D.
GAFA* = Great Australian F-All, there is nothing out there.
The best one I had in the 2 years was a man who was driving on a dark night in the GAFA*, when he looked out the passenger window and saw mysterious lights flying next to him. He sped up, the lights followed exactly. Slow down, even stop, the lights stayed in perfect formation. He decided to get out and look at the lights, but when he shut off his car and got out, the lights disappeared. Mystery!
He was looking at the reflection of his instrument panel in the curved passenger window, distorting the image and making it look 3-D.
GAFA* = Great Australian F-All, there is nothing out there.
The following users liked this post:
I want to try to dig into this case and uncover new information.
My position is that it was an anomalous craft and not a case of mass hallucination or hysteria, and certainly not a misidentified radiation-testing balloon (a ridiculous 'nothing to see here' cover story concocted by the authorities)...
My position is that it was an anomalous craft and not a case of mass hallucination or hysteria, and certainly not a misidentified radiation-testing balloon (a ridiculous 'nothing to see here' cover story concocted by the authorities)...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westall_UFO
I am curious what you mean by "anomalous craft" and why you feel an explanation of it being a baloon is a "cover story"?
From where do you expect to find 'new' information? Australian archives? Bureau of Meteorology? If for example it related to a military aerial project and it was classified, any documents about it would need to have been declassified to be made available. I don't think resources tend to be allocated to such declassification work.
You can safely assume it wasn't a secret military project where they invented silent VTOL as to this day we still don't have that technology. Science speaks volumes to that theory.
A lighter than air vehicle or balloon does make a lot more sense.
Unless of course it was a UFO.
It's strange how all of the UFO sightings are generally silent. You'd think that there might be some kind of noise like from a rocket or propulsion device.
A lighter than air vehicle or balloon does make a lot more sense.
Unless of course it was a UFO.
It's strange how all of the UFO sightings are generally silent. You'd think that there might be some kind of noise like from a rocket or propulsion device.
My view is the same as Ross Coultard. It doesn't really matter what it is. "IF" an advanced non human technology exists as some descibe, then it is important that technology does not become the property of an individual or organisation. Failing to properly investigate with transparancy only makes that prospect more likely.
Since the development of the Atomic Bomb, I think the public needs to have the conversation about new technologies and what we see as in our best interests. AI would be one of them and Anti Gravity would be another one which will have and even bigger consequence if we ignore those developments.
Since the development of the Atomic Bomb, I think the public needs to have the conversation about new technologies and what we see as in our best interests. AI would be one of them and Anti Gravity would be another one which will have and even bigger consequence if we ignore those developments.
Last edited by Xeptu; 28th Jun 2024 at 00:33. Reason: extended
Join Date: Jun 2024
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would highly recommend watching that documentary, as it is easy to find on youtube and is very well done.Some of the eyewitnesses return to the scene and recount the incident and many of them were in their teens; these were not 'little kids'. Adult teachers also witnessed the event. The object was reported as hovering, tilting and then flying off at great speed. It was not a balloon that had drifted off course, unless you discount all the witness testimony and simply prefer that explanation because it is comfortable and convenient. Keith Basterfield uncovered some files about radiation testing balloons released around the same time but there is NO EVIDENCE they were in the vicinity of Westall, yet he and those in the media have somehow decided this is the explanation for the incident. That is why I call it a 'cover story'.
Since the development of the Atomic Bomb, I think the public needs to have the conversation about new technologies and what we see as in our best interests. AI would be one of them and Anti Gravity would be another one which will have and even bigger consequence if we ignore those developments.
Cases in point include sightings of the F-117 in the US night sky long before the programme was announced to the public. Others include.. {oh sorry, that's classified
}.So, no, it's usually not in our best interests to know. Get used to it.
The GAF Nomad began development in 1965. Seems to fit the timeline. Could land anywhere. I think we found our Westhall 'flying saucer'.
The following users liked this post:
Join Date: Jun 2024
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a newbie, I can't post youtube links yet, but if you copy the following to youtube:
you will hear a very interesting 25-minute interview conducted in 1967 (the year after the incident) with science teacher and eyewitness Andrew Greenwood, who gives detailed observations on the flight characteristics of the object, etc.
Science teacher Andrew Greenwood talks about witnessing the 1966 UFO sighting at the Westall School
you will hear a very interesting 25-minute interview conducted in 1967 (the year after the incident) with science teacher and eyewitness Andrew Greenwood, who gives detailed observations on the flight characteristics of the object, etc.
I would highly recommend watching that documentary, as it is easy to find on youtube... Adult teachers also witnessed the event... Keith Basterfield uncovered some files about radiation testing balloons released around the same time but there is NO EVIDENCE they were in the vicinity of Westall, yet he and those in the media have somehow decided this is the explanation for the incident. That is why I call it a 'cover story'.
I haven't worked out who Keith Basterfield is yet (not part of doco), but is there any reason to think he has a secret agenda?
I want to try to dig into this case and uncover new information.
My position is that it was an anomalous craft and not a case of mass hallucination or hysteria, and certainly not a misidentified radiation-testing balloon (a ridiculous 'nothing to see here' cover story concocted by the authorities).
If there is anyone interested in discussing this case and researching it in a mature manner minus childish references to 'little green men' and similar fallback responses that are the hallmarks of the ill-informed and the dogmatic skeptic, then I'm all ears.
For anyone who hasn't seen it, start with the documentary on youtube: Westall 1966 - A Suburban UFO Mystery (2010)
There is no need to conflate the incident with 'aliens'. We don't know what the object was, and you are making a strawman argument if you insert conjecture of this type into the discussion as a means to ridicule and 'debunk' it.
My position is that it was an anomalous craft and not a case of mass hallucination or hysteria, and certainly not a misidentified radiation-testing balloon (a ridiculous 'nothing to see here' cover story concocted by the authorities).
If there is anyone interested in discussing this case and researching it in a mature manner minus childish references to 'little green men' and similar fallback responses that are the hallmarks of the ill-informed and the dogmatic skeptic, then I'm all ears.
For anyone who hasn't seen it, start with the documentary on youtube: Westall 1966 - A Suburban UFO Mystery (2010)
There is no need to conflate the incident with 'aliens'. We don't know what the object was, and you are making a strawman argument if you insert conjecture of this type into the discussion as a means to ridicule and 'debunk' it.
and you reckon the sceptics are ill informed and dogmatic!
Join Date: Jun 2024
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So everyone who doesn’t accept your decision that it was ‘an anomalous craft’ should leave this discussion to the mature adults (such as yourself). The evidence proffered is a completely unscientific documentary on YouTube and your baseless (but inevitable) claim that ‘the authorities’ were involved in a cover up.
and you reckon the sceptics are ill informed and dogmatic!
and you reckon the sceptics are ill informed and dogmatic!
But you're free to express any opinion you like, obviously, and I'm all for sticking with facts and empirical evidence to the extent that it is possible with this case.
The more familiar you are with the incident, the less likely you are to make silly statements about it not having happened or everyone being delusional or it being a balloon of some sort, etc.
It happened, it was witnessed by hundreds of people and it was anomalous.
What was it? I have no idea. But people who accept those basic, indisputable facts instead of trying to deny them are the ones I'm interested in conversing with.
Last edited by size_of_light; 29th Jun 2024 at 10:44.
Join Date: Jun 2024
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I watched it now. Plenty of loose ends in that doco: (1) While former teacher Andrew Greenwood may not have wanted to speak on camera, why not at least detail his account of the incident? In original post, Dick Smith said he also spoke to him so he isn't a recluse. (2) What happened to the student Tanya who was apparently taken away in ambulance and never returned to the school. Surely there would be records and more knowledge of her case? Doco leaves it wide open. (3) Is the teacher Barbara Robins (spelling?) still alive and can she be tracked down and interviewed? Was her camera really taken? By whom and under what authority? (4) Police records of attendance at the school? Any still held? (5) Other teachers at school - surely many still alive. None on doco? (6) The Channel 9 film related to the incident... was the canister empty as implied in the doco or was it simply not located at all?
I haven't worked out who Keith Basterfield is yet (not part of doco), but is there any reason to think he has a secret agenda?
I haven't worked out who Keith Basterfield is yet (not part of doco), but is there any reason to think he has a secret agenda?
As for Tanya. I listened to a recent interview yesterday with Shane Ryan, the researcher featured in the Westall 66 documentary you watched, and he gave an update on Tanya....basically, she has come forward since the documentary was made, had a lot of electroshock treatment as a child and only has very vague memories of attending Westall school, and no apparent memory of the day in question. He said that she doesn't think she was taken away by ambulance after the incident. but due to her memory issues she may be incorrect and the other eyewitnesses who made those claims could be correct. The youtube vid where this is discussed is titled: "Westall UFO Researcher Shane Ryan Ep 158 In Too Deep podcast" (it's a real pain in the ass not being able to post links!).
Not sure about the Channel 9 film canister thing, beyond what we both saw in the film.
Re: Keith Basrterfield, I don't have any evidence he has a secret agenda, but my personal impression from seeing some of the things that he has put out on his blog in the past (I don't have the link right now) is that he may have a mission to find prosaic 'nothing to see here' explanations for the public on the government's behalf by cherry-picking (or being given) declassified documents that point in that direction.
Last edited by size_of_light; 29th Jun 2024 at 10:40.
The plug was pulled on a new AI being pwered up for the first time after just 18 minutes, because its first action was to start writing its own language that we coulnt understand or keep up with, A rethink on what this can have access to while we learn what it is we have created.
youtube... Science teacher Andrew Greenwood talks about witnessing the 1966 UFO sighting at the Westall School
you will hear a very interesting 25-minute interview conducted in 1967 (the year after the incident) with science teacher and eyewitness Andrew Greenwood, who gives detailed observations on the flight characteristics of the object, etc.
you will hear a very interesting 25-minute interview conducted in 1967 (the year after the incident) with science teacher and eyewitness Andrew Greenwood, who gives detailed observations on the flight characteristics of the object, etc.
There was no mention by him of the teacher who took photos as suggested in the doco on YouTube. You would think that of the teachers who saw something, they would have discussed with one another even if the Principal seemed to be dismissive of the whole event.
And I say it is in our best interest to know. To get used to it is to invite Authoritarianism.
The plug was pulled on a new AI being pwered up for the first time after just 18 minutes, because its first action was to start writing its own language that we coulnt understand or keep up with, A rethink on what this can have access to while we learn what it is we have created.
The plug was pulled on a new AI being pwered up for the first time after just 18 minutes, because its first action was to start writing its own language that we coulnt understand or keep up with, A rethink on what this can have access to while we learn what it is we have created.
Our rating: Partly false
Based on our research, we rate PARTLY FALSE the claim Facebook discontinued two AIs after they developed their own language. Facebook did develop two AI-powered chatbots to see if they could learn how to negotiate. During the process, the bots formed a derived shorthand that allowed them to communicate faster. This is a common phenomenon observed among AIs. But this happened in 2017, not recently, and Facebook didn't shut the bots down – the researchers simply directed them to prioritize correct English usage.https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ge/8040006002/