BBC Out Of This World Program (1977) Re:Staffordshire 1954 Sighting

reply to post by SplitInfinity



So what your really saying is that she's pulling our legs?

reply to post by CaptainBeno


Seeing Angelic Looking Blonde Aliens....yeah...I would say that is pulling a leg. Could be her own mental state...very well could be the agency....too long ago for me to know. Split Infinity

I hear you! However, she really does seem very straight up! I have seen people lie before (and i'm no expert) but she really does look like she is telling the truth? God! Why is this so hard to prove!!!

Originally posted by CaptainBeno
I hear you!

However, she really does seem very straight up! I have seen people lie before (and i'm no expert) but she really does look like she is telling the truth? God! Why is this so hard to prove!!!

Here's the deal. E.T. is a reality....but this reality is too much for people at this point. At the same time this is going on....a disinformation plan has been opperating for close to 60 years for TREE MAIN REASONS.

1. They want to protect their secrets in development of ULTR high tech. craft.

2. They also at the same time can use this coverup to protect viable programs that are opperating right now.

3. E.T. is a reality and full disclosure would virtually destroy us from within. Split Infinity

I found another interview off Arthur C Clarke's Mysterious World series.



Sincerity aside, the list of encounters allegedly (3rd party accounts) experienced by the lady has made me think twice. It's hard to be sure of an opinion so she goes in the 'grey basket.'

Nuts and bolts aircraft being piloted by dozens of different species who rarely fit the same description twice is a tough one to swallow.

Although these "scout craft" aren't though are they. A common description is that no nuts or bolts can be seen on the craft, as if it has been carved out as a whole. Also the species very often fit the same description. These blue-suited nordics for instance, the greys and the frequently mentioned "Tall grey" etc.

reply to post by Kandinsky


A fine vintage flying saucer tale!

However, as "sincere" as the witness sounds I have to doubt the story's veracity. It has the Adamskian humanoids piloting the saucer and comes a year after Desmond Leslie/Adamski's Flying Saucers Have Landed was published. Gavin Gibbons' The Coming of the Spaceships goes on to state that "They had only vaguely heard of Flying Saucers (their father had read a magazine article on the subject a year earlier)" So was a magazine review of Adamski's book read, if not the book itself?

The couple go on to relate a second sighting on Sunday October 24th in which they observe a giant aerial craft, "There, flying slowly along in a great semi-circle, was an enormous, cylindrical, sausage-shaped object.. They agreed that it had been aluminium coloured and had appeared to be divided into four or five segments". They conclude that this is the mother ship from which the smaller saucer derived. Again, duplication of Adamski material whose "mother ship" is described as of "a shining silvery appearance" and the photo of it displays a "segmented" form.

It would be marvelous if the story were true but for me the Ranton incident is most likely an Adamski-influenced fabrication.

reply to post by torsion
I tend to agree with you for similar reasons and mentioned a change of heart in the last couple of posts from the same evidence.

The report goes in the 'grey basket' as one of historical interest.

As I mentioned earlier, a lot of her claims have been reported through 3rd parties and one of them, Daniel Fry, was a stranger to the truth. The others (below) are likewise not quotes, but hearsay. A huge problem with ufology (ufoology) are the proponents; they'll mishear, misrepresent or just make stuff up to push the *reality* of whatever their position is. So we have Jacobs/Hopkins seeing abductions and 'screen memories' everywhere and Greer pushing fuzzy-wuzzy spiritual entities. Damn near all of them bang the drum for some idea or other...

So yeah, she might have been making it all up, but I'm not certain. Although the Leslie/Adamski book had been out a couple of years, it isn't enough for me to conclude that she mimicked the claims.

So this woman actually had 3 sightings? the 1954 sighting, then the cigar shaped one, and then the mothership one? and she even attended some seance? Doesn't seem like an regular middle-aged woman from a cottage in the middle of nowhere. In the report from that sighting of a cigar shaped object she claims to have called next-door neigbor...she was supposed to have been living on an cottage few miles from another house. How could she immediately call another neighbour? Did she move?

reply to post by pat25
Some good critical-thinking for a brand new member. Very cool.

In the extract I posted, it says she 'called out a next-door neighbour' which could mean several things - the obvious one being she had guests in the house. This is how I read it.

On the other hand, if it's meant to imply she called out to a neighbour, it'd be damn near impossible unless she could whisper over five fields. Satellite view >>>



For a number of reasons (some I've explained), she's in the grey basket with a cloud of suspicion hanging overhead. In one account the craft went 'three times round the house' and then straight up, in another, it went 'one and half times' round the house. Petty details, I know, but they add up and cast doubts.

reply to post by Kandinsky


files.abovetopsecret.com...
Reading that indicated the men she saw were out side the disk ship.
Perhaps no way to see inside the ship.



files.abovetopsecret.com...
An aluminum ship might be correct.
Sure no one will say they were British pilots.

reply to post by SplitInfinity


National security agents smooth over the details to be released to the press.
We can't go on saying ET when that says don't look at man who have been
payed off like the agents and follow what is obvious occultation of facts.

reply to post by Kandinsky

I’m a little bit late to the party I know and whilst I agree with Kandinsky regarding certain aspects of this case with perhaps the discrepancies in subsequent tellings of the account, the fact that she’s a repeater and the physical appearance seeming to nestle nicely into the expectations of the day being perhaps the main ones.

However I really wanted to share a couple of quotes regarding the theory touched upon in the OP, i.e. that there are Jungian archetypes embedded in the psyche of humanity and the possibility that UFOs could be a projection or even a subconscious externalisation of one or more of these primal archetypes.

It sounds ridiculous on the face of it and whilst it’s not a theory I necessarily embrace it is one of the more robust ones as it’s one of the few theories that remain relatively intact when factoring the paradoxical nature of UFOs imitating our current cultural trends into the equation. Their appearance somehow morphing to reflect current cultural consensus is an aspect which has proved difficult to reconcile with what we currently know of the physical world, this is all a matter of record with airships, ghost rockets and flying saucers being three of the more notable shifts in how we perceive the core phenomena.

Anyhoo, I digress, here are the quotes:

"But the UFO phenomenon simply does not behave like extraterrestrial visitors. It actually molds itself in order to fit a given culture."
John Ankerberg

"Human beings are under the control of a strange force that bends them in absurd ways, forcing them to play a role in a bizarre game of deception. "
Dr. Jacques Vallee

"We are part of a symbiotic relationship with something which disguises itself as an extra-terrestrial invasion so as not to alarm us. "
Terrence McKenna

Cheers.

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
reply to post by SplitInfinity

 

National security agents smooth over the details to be released to the press.
We can't go on saying ET when that says don't look at man who have been
payed off like the agents and follow what is obvious occultation of facts.

Occultation of the facts? Excuse me? Please Explain?
Split Infinity

Originally posted by -Blackout-
reply to post by Headeraser

 

He described the typical Greys.

Only initially during the waking up on the craft. The grey beings, however, were, it seemed, under the command of tall blonde humanoid beings, that then interfered and lead him away, as can be seen from the 8:10-Mark in the attached clip;

reply to post by Kandinsky


It seems to me, if a normal woman and her two children, said that they saw a flying disk materialize in her garden and saw it had two occupants then that is what happened.

And just because we ourselves cannot time-travel and do similar or even understand the principles perhaps, does not mean that people from some other time and space have not developed technology to either breach the firewall in the Matrix, from another galaxy, through the universal mainframe, or from another time-line or another dimension.

If you were a computer programmer as I am, and if I write a game lets say and I want to address the screen, (put dots on the LCD monitor) then I need to address those dots in order to give them a value and in this case its only a screen so I just need to give it a color number. But I address it as xyz.

So there now is 3 dimensions and in the code I create a type. So I want a point type.

So I say p will equal a value of x but it will be a point type so inside of it, that p, it will actually have an address of xyz and inside that p will be the color number and lets just say 255 which is white.

Ok so in my program when I want to put a picture on the screen I have a file full of p values in little packets.
Little packets of information where it is and what color at each point.

So now then if I want to create another dimension, I give p 4 coordinates instead of 3.

so now in each p you have xyzn

And I put n there because you can have as many dimensions in there as you want to add by just adding another coordinate. Now since I can only portray visually 3 dimensions the 4th is invisible.

But at any time, could I take yzn values of p and just transfer those values to to xyz.

Or I could have a p with a list of color values. And each of those could represent a dimension.
Its just that our dimension uses the information which in this case is 255, in the next dimension it might be 22.

So looking at the spot xyz what we see is a dot turn from white to lets call 22 blue.

So then in this case I am merely using a color to represent that information that resides in p at xyz but what if instead of a color, it is an atom of type A. So in my file I have at xyz the atom is A because I am using the value that resides in the first slot and I have a list of atoms in p but am only using the first one.

So all of a sudden I decide, for all xyz we will now use the second atom in the list inside p and so the first point xyz switches from A to B.
With computers this is very simple to accomplish. Its called a point array. And if you merely create an object p and made it a packet, and you can put whatever values you want in that packet. As long as each packet, has the same number and type of items.

reply to post by Rocketman7


Ok, so in my last post I explained how you can have a file and in that file are packet objects.
And each one looks the same except the values inside those packets are different from each other.

Now I run the Matrix operating system and it runs some software, that looks at that file and takes those values and makes atoms at the locations which are addressed inside each of those packets.

And it does that with atom making software which uses the laws of physics.

But I have a bit of a multi-verse going on in this example so we also said that, inside those packets, there are other values other types of atoms that are not being used at the moment but we can say we will instead of in each packet taking the first atom in the list we will use the second.

Ok now suppose that although the software is using the first item in the list in each packet for what type of atom exists at xyz, it is simultaneously using the second value as well, but just sending that to a second monitor.
And continue with the next item and send that info simultaneously to a third monitor.
So then you have a multi-verse of monitors all on at the same time and at any time, you can switch all the information from one monitor and now send it instead to another by switching the values you are sending.

Time-travel and interdimesional travel is all there in Mario Brothers basically. He fades in and fades out and things can appear out of nowhere and any time you pause the game you freeze time, reload a game you are going back on a time-line etc. Its not that we don't know how to do it, we just don't have access to the matrix computer to instruct the software to switch values at xyz or we could travel through dimensions.

Providing they exist of course. Or merely offset each value of xyz and instantaneously teleport.

reply to post by Rocketman7


Now lets imagine for a second, one that you read and understood what I just wrote because I tried to make it as clear as possible so that when you die and get out of this world you can write yourself back in if you can find a keyboard.

I really wanted to just write out the math formulas but only a few would understand it. Math people or programmers.

But suppose you understand this far now so lets apply it...

So you are there in your garden with the kids and all of a sudden a craft appears and there are two people in it.

So then you could say that at that moment in the matrix, someone just figured out how to go back in time.

So they just wrote some code that transfered their value packets from one monitor, in this case a galaxy that has dots in 4 D space time. That is to say that for each xyz you need to give it a time value t.

Physicists are all about xyzt. Einstein.

But by doing so, now you can have things such as real objects moving in space together and that is because each value of t for that object is the same so all the atoms in that object are moving through space together.

So you take all the atom values for your craft and occupants that the software is sending to your galaxy and you say lets go see what Doris is doing in the Titan galaxy and you instruct the mainframe to send your data to a different monitor, in this case the Milky Way galaxy.

And presto a UFO appears in the garden.

Now physicists like to take things deeper philosophically. So any time that happens you could say someone here today just invented how to do that, and so that is why time-travelers just appeared. As if from this point on there was time-travel.
Or interdimensional travel. Or dum ta da dummmm intergalactic travel.

reply to post by Rocketman7


If you like the physics of time-travel read on. This is your lucky day...

So ok, we have instructed the mainframe operating system to transfer our craft and two occupants and we will do the time-travel in this gedanken because now it has been invented.

Can we go back in time to before it was invented?

Of course, where we are, it has been invented. It is the os which we are merely telling it to transfer the values of our atom packets to a different t offset.

So then you have characters and a craft but it needs an evolved galaxy and planets.

So we can go back in time as far as we have some background. Now the mainframe runs software for the stage.
The galaxy and galaxies evolve in time according to the laws of physics (the software formulas that it uses to decide where xyzt packets are placed) the atoms that make up the rock of planets and gas and stars.

Now in our example we have universal space-time coordinates Newton used universal space coordinates.

Newton xyz and Einstein xyzt

With Newton he said hey, we can look at the universe as one big cube and give each point an address of xyz.

Einstein said we don't have to address the whole universe, we just need to address this galaxy (as an example of a reference frame)
So if you want to address xyzt in a galaxy well it is moving and evolving according to formula. (the forces of gravity etc)

And lets say we have that neat little formula and for the sake of keeping it simple lets just borrow E=mc2
although it doesn't apply because it has no t that just describes E how much potential explosive force as an example it has.

So instead of with Newton where we merely could offset our coordinates add 200 to each value of x and you just moved to the right 200 points. If you add 200 to y you went down 200. Down in relation to some center point or outer edge of 0. You need to decide where zero is then reference points by adding values or subtracting to obtain an offset position from zero. You are on the radio, someone asks you where are you, I am 200 points east of zero or the center marker and 200 points down from there and each point could be a mile.

So you say 200 miles to the right and 200 miles down from the marker buoy.

Now with Einstein since the galaxy is a dynamic system, you could say well we have the formula that describes how the galaxy is changing shape through time as each atom moves, and we know that formula so lets apply that formula as an offset to the craft and occupants. To each of their atoms.

So since it is a dynamic system you can't just add and subtract values of real space and say I am 200 miles away from marker, you have to say I am in the Titan galaxy known as the milky way and I want to go to the Sombero galaxy and you will need to tell it where inside so you give it coordinates.

It now applies the formula that is creating that galaxy in real time to the atoms so they are now maybe moving faster or slower or are colder or hotter so that it fits in with the formula for that galaxy which differs from the Milky Way because it is in a different state of development. A different age, so it has not evolved as much.

So you apply an offset formula.

Now the universe is expanding and lets say that atoms expand along with it for the sake of argument they get larger but by comparison to what? If they are all expanding at the same rate. You wouldn't be able to tell it was expanding unless you got out of the machine and then by comparison and an objective view to where you are there, you could see it getting bigger. But since its just a computer matrix program, and you are inside, you cannot tell the atoms are getting bigger and so you can just take that out of your formula. All things being relative where you are.

If in fact however when you went back in time, you were teeny weeny it would be because the atoms were getting bigger as time progressed because of expansion of the universe. So you test, you go back a microsecond or two is the world big by comparison to your craft? If not then its ok to time-travel without a size offset as well. Otherwise you need a size offset so you are the same size as your surroundings when you time-travel.

So your craft appears or fades, if you merely tell the mainframe to do a fade out, that is to very slowly mix the values in those locations those coordinate values for each atom in your craft and the atoms that would be there if it wasn't there. So if you want to be dramatic you fade out. Otherwise if you want Pleiadean stage act type of smoke bomb and disappear three stooges level pyrotechnic and film editing style, like a Billy Meir film, then you tell it use transition SBTSP lets say. (Smoke Bomb Three Stooges Pyrotechnics)

From your long list of transitions that you use for dramatic effect to knock over the kids and give Doris the fright of er dear life.

reply to post by Rocketman7


Hey! I just had a great idea. Lets pretend that we were aliens, and we had one of those looking glass time-travel devices they have in the basement of the Vatican, and lets peak back in time, and see whats going on.
It might be a less than perfect image but we will try to see if we can't get sound as well.

Lets go back to oh lets say I don't know how well we can calibrate this thing but lets try for 1981. ANd see what the heck those people were on back there...
hope this thing works

That is the same as time-travel. We have sight and sound but we just can't feel or smell or taste. If we could just get more info into that file-type.