UFO Conjecture(s)

Thursday, December 31, 2015

More on the 1959 Gill sighting and an interesting blog

My friend Martin Kottmeyer has been kind enough to provide more of his exegeses of the 1959 Reverend Gill sighting, which I'm providing as a PDF for those interested:

Martin Kottmeyer on the Gill sighting

And here are a few similar sightings from a 2007 posting at this blog:


While gathering a graphic [above] for this posting, I found this site which seems interesting (and has a Gill segment, plus other intriguing UFO events or sightings):




  • I find it impossible to believe that Gill and the other 25 observers, including teachers and medical technicians, could all mistake the objects described for a natural phenomena. Just does not compute. Either the entire incident is a hoax (doubtful since it would have unraveled with all of those conspirators by now)or something very strange (but not unprecedented) was seen and accurately described.

    By Blogger Dominick, at Saturday, January 02, 2016  

  • Dominick:

    Based on those older accounts and many similar recent account, plus the credibility of Reverend Gill, this is a valid sighting, as many (including my friend Paul Kimball, who doesn't accept UFO sightings readily) see it.

    It's and odd account, not unique, but odd, something that needs an explanation, one outside hoax, astronomical anomaly, mirage, or psy-op experiment.

    Like the Socorro episode, this one ranks up there as a bona fide UFO sighting (no matter what it turns out to be), which I'm sure makes my buddy Zoam Chomsky livid with skepticism.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, January 02, 2016  

  • I agree completely with you Rich. And if Zoam is livid with skepticism, perhaps he can provide a reasonable explanation of the Gill event to all of us. He could, of course, simply assert "astronomical anomaly" or, like Menzel, speculate that Gill wasn't wearing his glasses (!). I guess none of the other 25 witnesses weren't wearing theirs, either.

    By Blogger Dominick, at Saturday, January 02, 2016  

  • I agree that this ranks as one of the best. That does not mean it is impossible to explain. I have read the original Cruttwell report as printed in Flying Saucer Review several times and after the third or so time came away with the impression that whatever it was, it was NOT an ET visit to planet earth.

    You have to look at it in the light of the whole episode, starting from late the previous year (1958) and working up to a 'climax' with the late June 1959 sightings.

    There is something telling about it that leads me to feel these June sightings, plus a lot of the earlier ones, were indeed astronomical in nature, as Martin Kottmeyer says.

    There is also something of 'follow my leader' about it, as though the native mission boys were doing just that.

    There is at least one earlier instance when Rev Gill was indeed fooled by a very bright Venus. In fact several others were, but one and only one, of those present recognised Venus for what it was AND SAID SO. The others all decided it was a UFO. Why?

    Remember also that Gill admits at one point that ALL the other objects he had seen (i.e. all those except for the big one seen with humanoid figures) COULD have been stars or planets. He said as much to Rev Cruttwell in the latter's report.

    We also have to factor in Gill's prior knowledge and reading of ufology, remembering his use of the term 'mother ship' and such.

    Menzel was reviled by ufologists, but is it conceivable that in this instance he got it right? Kottmeyer has added fuel to the flames in the same way, although he disagrees with Menzel over the 'mother ship'.

    I just do not accept that for 3 (or was it 4?) consecutive nights an ET craft hovered over a remote area of Papua New Guinea for several hours on each occasion, so much so that Gill at one point actually got bored with the observation and calmly went in to dinner!

    A tough one. No I do not believe any joking or hoaxing was involved here.

    By Blogger cda, at Sunday, January 03, 2016  

  • CDA raises some excellent points. I also find it hard to believe (impossible, really) that a space ship from another world got stalled over Papua for several nights or that no one was able to film anything. (When I grew up in the 1950's almost everyone had a (box) camera and we took pictures of everything). Yet, if Gill's account is to be accepted, whatever was in the sky those nights RESPONDED to hand waving from below, at least twice. Planets and stars don't respond! Besides, the major object was supposedly the diamater of 5 inches at arms length which is huge and not some undefined pinpoint of light. I agree with CDA that this is a "tough one", indeed, and I'm no closer to figuring it out than I was 55 years ago.

    By Blogger Dominick, at Sunday, January 03, 2016  

  • Dominick:

    Your comments about box cameras rings a bell with me.

    I've protested, over the years, that no one at Roswell took photos of anything during the 1947 incident, and almost everyone had a Kodak Brownie, which they used to take photos of everything, even the most insipid of items. Yet no one thought to grab a shot of the debris that they found or photos of the supposed military gatherings or other happenings?

    The same for the Gill sightings (all of them). No one grabbed a camera and tried to snap a shot of the thing(s) in the sky that allegedly showed up for several nights, and interacted with witnesses? Odd.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, January 03, 2016  

  • Dominick:

    One critical point, which I mentioned, was that we KNOW Rev Gill simply could not identify Venus on one occasion, even when he and others saw it. Yet one member of their party (it was about a month before the big case in late June) DID identify it. If he could, why couldn't Gill and the others? And if Gill made one known mistake, he would be liable to make others, amid all the excitement.

    Were his size estimates accurate or were they exaggerated, as such estimates often are?

    I admit we cannot finally solve this now. But some clues are there. As to the 'waving' of hands, was it psychological or not? A real puzzler.

    By Blogger cda, at Sunday, January 03, 2016  

  • Per CDA:

    "Were his size estimates accurate or were they exaggerated, as such estimates often are?"

    Christopher, right you are! We have a tendency to mentally over exaggerate sizes of objects that we recall from memory. It's a form of mental framing of an image.

    Personal case in point, I've been researching an old UFO case involving an incident near Minot, North Dakota where natural celestial objects appear to be the visual culprits. One culprit being the star Sirius. I've always mentally pictured Sirius as being not only bright, but overly large in appearance, yet when I go outside at night, Sirius is such a small thing, yet very bright. The same can be said of Venus, Jupiter, and Saturn.

    Perhaps this common mental aberration is in play with the Gill case?

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Sunday, January 03, 2016  

  • Well, CDA and Tim:

    I'm inclined to accept a literal view of what witnesses report.

    While nuanced segments of their accounts may contain flaws, I believe the essence of what they see and report are pretty much accurate.

    Venus for the Gill sighting or the 1896 Airship sightings (sorry Gilles), seems a matter of gilding the skeptical lily.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, January 03, 2016  

  • I just watched the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ua8MmT4bIHU

    It includes a few drawings/sketches. But the one that intrigues me is at the 1min 30sec mark.

    Put into the words from this article:

    ``Why 1959 and never again? Why did it float about in the air for hours, slowly drifting, especially when most saucers of that era went blazing about at great speeds? Why do the drawings show a UFO much thicker than most of the saucers of that era? Why are the figures walking about on top of it; something we don’t see much of in reports nowadays? Why are the figures so human-looking; so unlike contemporary Greys? Guyorobo’s drawing shows branching legs that seem unlike anything else in the UFO literature, why? What is with that 45° shaft of blue light? Why is it pointed up instead of down as they usually are in cases with light beams? If it is a laser, as some suggest, what is it firing at, illuminating, or connecting? The case is so singular, one wonders if it even belongs with the rest of the UFO phenomenon.``

    The bolded portion is what struck me as the most obvious. Why have artists seemingly ignored that atypical somewhat bulbous shape in subsequent drawings?

    By Blogger Parakletos, at Sunday, January 03, 2016  

  • Earlier sightings, as I've noted P, mimic the Gill vision: the blue lights/rays, the people in or on the ships or craft.

    Plus there are several sightings after the Gill observation that are almost identical to his.

    I've covered those at this blog, last year, and you can find that them online via a Google search.

    The Gill sighting is NOT unique.

    (And the change in the shape of the drawings of the thing seen is covered amply by Mr. Kottmeyer in the PDF provided.)


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, January 03, 2016  

Post a Comment

<< Home