UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2005 > Oct > Oct 23

Re: Gill Sighting - Borraz

From: Manuel Borraz <maboay.nul>
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 00:44:07 +0200
Fwd Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 13:07:44 -0400
Subject: Re: Gill Sighting - Borraz

>From: Martin Shough <mshough.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 11:36:43 +0100
>Subject: Re: Gill Sighting

>>From: Manuel Borraz <maboay.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 21:43:31 +0200
>>Subject: Re: Gill Sighting


>>C. Allan and M. Shough have commented on Rev. Gill
>>probably misidentifying Venus on July 6, 1959. Note also
>>how it all began on this particular occasion:

>>I was visiting David's college - the teachers' training
>>college there - 20 miles away from us, and we were
>>talking about this experience. With me was the Reverend
>>Edwin Dams, the Reverend David Durie, the acting
>>principal, and his wife. And after we had discussed it for
>>a few minutes he said, well, why not come out and have a
>>look at the sky and see if there's anything there? And I
>>said, oh, they just don't come at beck and call like that, I
>>think that would be rather useless. He said, well, I'm
>>going out at any rate. And he went out and he came
>>rushing back and said, "There is something - I'm sure
>>there is". And so we all went out and sure enough, I
>>identified it as one of these objects.

>>[Same source as above; Rev. Gill answering written
>>questions at the end of the talk.]

>I find this interesting too, again on the positive side. I
>pointed out elsewhere that what they described was a fairly
>accurate portrait of Venus setting, correct as to times and
>elevations and with details of the planet's phase visible in
>binoculars, reddening due to atmospheric scattering near the
>horizon, and autokinetic jiggles of the observer's eye. Now we
>find that this is so, even though they had just been talking
>about Gill's sighting and were (at least some of them) very much
>"in the mood" to see UFOs.

However, on the "negative" side, since Gill also stated that "I
identified it as one of these objects", it casts serious doubts
on Gill's ability to identify Venus.

We can also deduce that the majority of "these objects" must
have looked like celestial bodies.

And concerning this very sighting, we read in the same

"And as we watched it it came down and hovered under a

"And we saw it come down through the cloud"

"And then it went through a cloud and it came out again and
hovered" . Needless to say that Venus was always over the
clouds. Thus, we must concede that this kind of statements could
involve a high degree of subjectivity.

So, following what has been said in this thread, it appears that
some of the usual arguments against the astronomical hypothesis
might be weaker than supposed:

 - Venus was pointed out by Gill separately in the sky (what
about Mercury?).

- Whereas Venus had set by about 9 PM on June 26, it is a
flatout physical impossibility for Venus to have remained
visible until past 10:30 PM (but don't forget that, by the end,
the sighting was in fact discontinuous...).

- The UFOs were seen descending and ascending "through" the
clouds according to Gill (it seems that Venus "did" the same on
July 6).

Manuel Borraz

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com