You want proof of flying saucers? This is it!

I can be a "fan" of UFOs without ever seeing one... or believing they could be something so mundane as metal ships piloted by aliens sort of like us from a different planet... or having ever, ever been presented with a single shred of decent evidence linking UFOs with aliens of any kind.

It's still interesting, even if it's nothing more than an ongoing display of our own lack of perception and intelligence.

Thus is a good case and I am not sure why it has not been discussed more in America. The documentery is well worth watching. There are so many good UFO cases from other countries that people within the United States seem to not pay attention to as much as we should.

The Mexico City case is another one that needs to be discussed more.

originally posted by: 300RYA
Thus is a good case and I am not sure why it has not been discussed more in America. The documentery is well worth watching. There are so many good UFO cases from other countries that people within the United States seem to not pay attention to as much as we should.

The Mexico City case is another one that needs to be discussed more.

There's quite a few Australians who've posted saying they've never heard of this case, even though it happened in Australia. It seems the more genuine something might be the less air time it gets on the msm.

originally posted by: VoidHawk

There's quite a few Australians who've posted saying they've never heard of this case, even though it happened in Australia. It seems the more genuine something might be the less air time it gets on the msm.

I'd read about Westfall before, I didn't know that there was a full length documentary dedicated to that single event. The researcher was very thorough in the way he went about things, and made an excellent film without all the bull.
I have seen your earlier post as to what you think about the objects, and I'm somewhere in the same place as to the military, but it's the school sighting of two objects the same that has caught my attention. For one, the pictures taken of what does look like, 'The Bell' but for the life of me, I just don't see an experimental craft like that being airborne with more than one prototype at the same time although there would have been an escort like in the Cash/Landrum incident, and while I do think that the bell concept may have been experimented on post WW2, it doesn't really match up to what all the witnesses say they saw, nor with the drawings of the guy who saw the thing on the ground. His pictures were of fried eggs, not humongous mammaries.
The mystery girl Tanya, is the only thing left to the side, that is puzzling, she should be on the books somewhere.

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: VoidHawk

There's quite a few Australians who've posted saying they've never heard of this case, even though it happened in Australia. It seems the more genuine something might be the less air time it gets on the msm.

I'd read about Westfall before, I didn't know that there was a full length documentary dedicated to that single event. The researcher was very thorough in the way he went about things, and made an excellent film without all the bull.
I have seen your earlier post as to what you think about the objects, and I'm somewhere in the same place as to the military, but it's the school sighting of two objects the same that has caught my attention. For one, the pictures taken of what does look like, 'The Bell' but for the life of me, I just don't see an experimental craft like that being airborne with more than one prototype at the same time although there would have been an escort like in the Cash/Landrum incident, and while I do think that the bell concept may have been experimented on post WW2, it doesn't really match up to what all the witnesses say they saw, nor with the drawings of the guy who saw the thing on the ground. His pictures were of fried eggs, not humongous mammaries.
The mystery girl Tanya, is the only thing left to the side, that is puzzling, she should be on the books somewhere.

Hi smurfy
I kept flip-flopping on this one throughout the thread. If they were military then why reveal themselves so publicly? and if alien what was it all about? and if it was a black project, again I cant help but wonder why they landed in such a public space?

It seems the craft landed at least twice in the area, that might suggest at least two scenarios.
1. They had some kind of malfunction.
2. There was something in the area they were interested in.

From what I can gather the first landing was on the road where the farmer man approached them. They then took off and moved to the grassy area where the school kids approached them.
That suggests they may have had a problem and were trying to fix it.

Did you read about the landing in...think it was Africa, where a craft landed near a school and the occupants showed themselves to the children. It was very similar to this case and kinda suggests this wasn't an accidental landing, its purpose being to reveal themselves to the children! Also the drawings of the craft made by the African children were very similar to the drawings in this case.

Tanya.
What a mystery that is! Although she never returned to the school after whatever happened to her, years later she was apparently traced but refused to be interviewed or make any comment. Basically the information that she's alive and well has been injected without any actual proof!
I like to think that if I were her I would at the very least let my school friends know I was alive and well, yet she has apparently chosen not too. All we have is "yes she's alive" but we're not allowed to know any more than that!

Again, thanks for the new vid link, one of the mods has now sorted it.

ETA: The Bell and the photos.
I'm not 100% convinced about the photos. As was pointed out in the thread, the two photos are actually just one photo, one has been rotated. I wonder if that photo has been inserted into the story to lead us astray? As you noticed yourself, the photo and the drawings are clearly not the same craft.

post so I can check this one later.


seems like a cool thread to follow.

originally posted by: jephers0n
post so I can check this one later.


seems like a cool thread to follow.

Dont forget to watch the vid in the op

a reply to: Lil Drummerboy
One man's proof is another man's hearsay, for men who don't know the definition of proof.
.

Interesting that the investigator in the documentary says that he spoke with the science teacher and he shared information, though he didn't want it on public record. May be worth a try to speak with the investigator about the matter or better yet, track down Andrew Greenwood and see if he is up for talking about it now.

originally posted by: VoidHawk


In a court of law witnesses can be proof, how many do we need before we accept it as proof?

Courtroom testimony by alleged witnesses isn't proof it's simply claims that are either believed by the jury or not believed by the jury. The fact that there is often conflicting testimony should make this obvious.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: VoidHawk


In a court of law witnesses can be proof, how many do we need before we accept it as proof?

Courtroom testimony by alleged witnesses isn't proof it's simply claims that are either believed by the jury or not believed by the jury. The fact that there is often conflicting testimony should make this obvious.

I'm wondering how to reply to your comment, it would help if you would tell me your thoughts on this case, ie: do you believe something landed?

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: VoidHawk


In a court of law witnesses can be proof, how many do we need before we accept it as proof?

Courtroom testimony by alleged witnesses isn't proof it's simply claims that are either believed by the jury or not believed by the jury. The fact that there is often conflicting testimony should make this obvious.

I'm wondering how to reply to your comment, it would help if you would tell me your thoughts on this case, ie: do you believe something landed?

My comment about testimony was general. Testimony is just a claim made by someone. People can find it credible or not credible but it is never testable evidence (ie. proof). That refers to UFO reports, court testimony, or anything else. Untainted independent claims by witnesses are certainly more impressive than claims made by individuals or groups that are not untainted or independent. By untainted, I mean claims made by people who come forward without first hearing about some event or report or being prompted by a reporter or investigator with an agenda or poor investigative skills. Independent claims refers to, in the case of UFOs, people who have no contact with other claimants and are separated by location.

As for the case, it seems likely that some event did occur but as to the nature of the event,it's impossible to determine. That always seems to be the case with UFO reports and may be a clue to the nature of UFOs. Do I believe that UFOs exist? Yes. As for what they are, I certainly don't know. I think the alien craft/visitors from outer space theory is the least likely explanation. That is not to say that I think all or maybe even most of them are craft built by one or another government here on earth.

a reply to: Tangerine

Hi Tangerine

Thanks for your reply

Somewhere about mid thread a member (Brighter) made a few posts that impressed most of us concerning evidence/proof. I'm going to copy one of them into this post as he has a much better understanding of the subject (proof) than I do.
I note that you DO believe that ufo's exist and therefore not all of his post is aimed at you, I am only presenting it because he explains it so well. At the end I'll provide a link that will bring up all of his posts in this thread, they really are a fantastic read.

originally posted by: Brighter

I actually made an account on ATS just to reply to this, as I wanted to comment on some of the skeptical replies.

I've been studying the UFO phenomenon for years in my spare time, and as an educated individual I can tell you without a doubt that they are real, and furthermore, that they most likely are not "ours".

If this 1966 case doesn't convince you, and you still demand "proof," then I would be very skeptical as to such a person's ability to reason clearly. In particular,

1) I would be skeptical as to their understanding of anecdotal evidence, or

2) I would suspect some deep-seated psychological / emotional / cultural prejudices that bar them from assessing a novel phenomenon from a rational, unbiased viewpoint, or

3) a combination of 1) and 2)

Let me try to explain what I mean by 1). The school students', administrators' and teachers' accounts are all considered anecdotal evidence, yet anecdotal evidence is not weak by any means, especially when taken in large numbers. In fact, a large portion of our realities are deeply rooted in anecdotal evidence. For instance, have you ever seen an great white shark in person and actually experienced it first hand? I'm guessing you haven't. Yet you still, based on purely anecdotal evidence, believe in great white sharks.

In other words: Even if you have absolutely no direct perceptual evidence of something, your anecdotal evidence can still strongly justify a belief.

The strength of anecdotal evidence depends on quantity and quality. To illustrate this, take this simple example. You are situated outside of a barn in the country, and it is your job to take peoples' tickets to walk into the barn and see some exotic car. You've never been inside the barn, and you've never seen the car. After taking peoples' tickets and watching them walk in and back out of the barn, they all tell you of how strange the car looks, that they've never seen anything like it, its details and its color. Now after this happens, say, 100 times, you'd say that you have strong reason to believe that an exotic car actually is in the barn, wouldn't you? Even though you have absolutely no direct perceptual evidence of it, you are still justified in your belief based on the quantity and quality of the reports. Now obviously, if they were all intoxicated, or blind, or only 2 people went in, then your anecdotal evidence would certainly not justify your belief. But what if they were all sober, came from all walks of life and all cultures, included pilots, scientists, professors, government officials, doctors, police officers and high-ranking military officers, would you say that your anecdotal evidence was strong enough to justify your belief that an exotic car really is in the barn?

This all has to do with 1) one's understanding of anecdotal evidence. The other primary reason why it seems as though some people have so much difficulty thinking clearly about the UFO phenomenon is 2) that there is some sort of underlying psychological / emotional state that creates an immediate prejudice against their existence. It is of course natural to want to deny the existence of something that makes one feel uncomfortable, but just because something makes you feel uncomfortable, that doesn't mean that its denial is intellectually justified. In other words, how you feel about something cannot count as proof for something, no matter how deep seated such a feeling is.

In conclusion, if this 1966 case doesn't convince you that UFOs are real, then I would suggest that you stop and reflect very carefully on a) your understanding of anecdotal evidence, and b) whether or not psychological or cultural biases are muddying your ability to think clearly about this phenomenon.

[ As an aside, I mentioned early on that I both believe that UFOs are real, and that I also believe that they most likely are not "ours". I have no doubt that UFOs are real. On the other hand, I am not as certain that they aren't ours. Yet I find it almost impossible to believe that "we" had fully-functional anti-gravity technology in the 1940s and even prior, and furthermore that we'd be flying it out in the open over heavily populated civilian areas. ]

Brighters posts

originally posted by: VoidHawk
a reply to: Tangerine

Hi Tangerine

Thanks for your reply

Somewhere about mid thread a member (Brighter) made a few posts that impressed most of us concerning evidence/proof. I'm going to copy one of them into this post as he has a much better understanding of the subject (proof) than I do.
I note that you DO believe that ufo's exist and therefore not all of his post is aimed at you, I am only presenting it because he explains it so well. At the end I'll provide a link that will bring up all of his posts in this thread, they really are a fantastic read.

It all gets back to what are they? Seeing or experiencing something does not, in itself, prove what it is. The post that you cited mentioned a Great White Shark. We have hard, testable evidence that Great Whites exist and criteria for establishing exactly what they are to distinguish them from, say, cats and cars and Orcas. In the case of UFOS, it seems reasonable to accept that there are unidentified flying objects that are not Venus, swamp gas, or man-made objects on wires. However, that doesn't explain what they are. I suspect that this all comes down to the nature of reality, a very tricky subject.

originally posted by: VoidHawk


In a court of law witnesses can be proof, how many do we need before we accept it as proof?

Regardless of what they do say, in a court of law witnesses are testimony, nothing more.

originally posted by: bronco73

originally posted by: VoidHawk


In a court of law witnesses can be proof, how many do we need before we accept it as proof?

Regardless of what they do say, in a court of law witnesses are testimony, nothing more.

Testimony can constitute proof in any court of law, so this is just semantics.

a reply to: earthdude

it certainly isnt hearsay, the video at the bottom of the OP is full of direct witness accounts.

And the Australian govt cetainly could remove any uncertainty if they wanted too, just release the camera pictures that were taken... what technology could possibly still be classified from 1966, were not talking about plans for a nuke.

Personally, a photo wouldnt help me one iota, luckily the student was standing directly in front/under it as it took off had some artistic ability and drew a good sketch.... they could confiscate the camera, but not his memory.

originally posted by: 111DPKING111
a reply to: earthdude

what technology could possibly still be classified from 1966, were not talking about plans for a nuke.

One more year and it'll be fifty years! Am I correct in thinking data becomes declassified after fifty years?

a reply to: VoidHawk

No clue about Australian law, but Im sure the information could be reclassified if someone deemed it necessary. They could always say the photos were lost, destroyed, or disregarded because nothing was on them.

From 34:00 to 35:00 on the video you posted, you see there has been documentation released about UFOs in Australia. However nothing about Westall was in it, which leads me to believe nothing will ever be released.

It's 30 years here in Oz. However I have read that censorship laws of national security matters in the media were never lifted after WW2 so could still be in force. Don't know how accurate that is though.