Talk:Westall High School UFO

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Paranormal Portal This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

	This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page. See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. The only thing that benefits from doubt is truth.

[edit] Wish List & Speculation

Vufors, you seem to have a predilection for deleting text that I write, and replacing it with your own. I am happy for you to argue with my contributions, or challenge or critique them, but merely erasing text and riding roughshod over it, seems to smack of barrow-pushing. May I be so bold as to enquire who you are, and what your connection with the Westall flying saucer incident actually is?

Vufors, I am very happy to collaborate with others on this topic, but, please, leave the cloak and dagger stuff in the closet. Let's be open and collegial, it really is the only way forward.

Shanelj (talk) 11:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Shanelj

1. Well your statement that "Unfortunately, no evidence, on the public record, exists of any investigation having been carried out by Mr Brian Boyle" is an assumption. Because you don't have that data does not mean that it never existed etc.
2. Now, as an academic you should have known that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
3. As you are a “new fry” (with respect) into the Victorian UFO field, and especially dealing with activities that took place over 42 years ago, you for one, especially as an academic, should realise that you are on the extreme end of the long trail. Some interstate researchers some with over 30 years in this field constantly surprise me when they for some odd belief think that they would be privileged to the internal operations and internal field research of groups in Victoria, on topics that when all is said and done the said interstate researches (say today a 55 year old) at the time (say 1966) were only 13 years old. Also, I have spoken to even the children who saw this object (Westall) and even their memories of the day are varied and vague in the extreme, add that to the subject problems.
4. Then this next statement by you - "Naturally, many of these people, in good faith, would welcome the publication of any (and indeed all) further investigative data that hitherto has not been made available." is nothing more than a "Wish List". I am disappointed in the fact that your, demanding information from someone who for all we know, owns that data! If the said parties (Owners) wish to sit on their data, eat it, publish it, or burn their data etc - then that is their right & privilege. Neither you nor anyone has any right to dictate or demand anything, over the legitimate owners rights & needs.
5. Then we have this from you - "Were these responses to the Westall incident the day before? Did some direction come down to the cartoonists from their editors to make light of the situation - and for what reason? Their timing - in two state-wide newspapers - is amazing". When it comes to the Wiki format you need to read up on what is acceptable and what is not. The statement is grossly speculative.
6. "May I be so bold as to enquire who you are," Well no! You should know better than to ask me that. Follow the rules. Before you run off down the conspiracy trail, there are many reason why one may use an Anonymity tag or profile, please keep that in mind. SEE Wiki - Anonymity
7. "I am very happy to collaborate" as I.
8. “the cloak and dagger stuff..." Again this is emotive and a prejudice based assumption on your part.
9. “Let's be open and collegial, it really is the only way forward.” Yes lets be. Then you should follow your own advise, I realise your writing a book, however, you have the opportunity to show by example, place all your data, all your notes, lists, drafts and discoveries, the witnesses names, addresses, phone numbers, interviews, video, tapes, private & public photos, maps, notes – all items… not bits or low quality part – the whole. So that we the general public can view your data and equally in a open a collegial way produce our version of your book as soon as we can. These previous demands absurd in the extreme, are similar to what other with an agenda to write a book, produce a documentary, busy body around or resolve an issue or simply for profit etc, they roll out the absurd as a collective wish list, fishing, bate or in bully tactic formats. They would tax you and they would tax me, with the above in mind, I can find a host of reasonable reasons why I may not issue the full data, can you?
10. I would be interested in your views, comments and rebuttal. Keep up your interesting research into the Westall case.
11. Best RegardsVufors (talk) 01:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Good morning Vufors.

Thank you for your lengthy responses to my missive. Your replies were certainly illuminating.

It seems to me that the main point in looking at the Westall flying saucer story is, simply, but importantly: what was it? I don't yet know the answer to this question myself, although there have been clues along the way. I wonder what in your opinion (or in your knowledge, even) you think it was? Does anyone know (in Victoria, or elsewhere!)? Perhaps the answer lies here in the Australian Capital Territory in some musty manilla folder!

Best wishes,

Shanelj (talk) 23:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Shanelj

1. Firstly, I apologise if my text was excessively elevated or belligerent in any sense at all. It was not a put down or to suppress your good intentions. The reality or truth of the matter resides in time and in the Victorian hemisphere. A friendly warning to you ;) watch the illusive help/gifts of data from the Sydney side, a examination of that data leads straight back to Victorian groups and newspapers. With that in mind don’t let the Sydney research mafia 'edit, forward or after thought' any part of your new book… seek independent people not related to Sydney.
2. I do recommend that you try and speak to Paul Norman or John Auchettl. Now you will have a problem with this as both, may I say after so many years of being generous with their data and time, now they seem to have taken a back seat when it comes to this case… Why? Well many reason as I see it, but they are very suspicious of press, writers, TV, film maker et al… not because they dislike them on a personal bases, but because they have been burnt by them consistently. They may talk with you but I bet you don’t get to much extra info out of them. I once asked Auchettl why he had stopped feeding out the info and his reply was simple... “It’s finished… it’s as dry as a bone, we ran it to the very end and then some more but its dry and I am not going to waste another second with it we need to get on with the next task”. Never-the-less give both a try. I last spoke to Norman about 4 months ago; I bumped into him at Southland Shopping Centre. I have not seen Auchettl for about 15 months now… I am told that he is in or has been in the US (?).
3. Do I have an answer? Well no nothing at all… and I have had a good look at the case. Mind you it is one of the best. But it has all the hall marks of the real UFO mystery. It’s full of data but never a reason why?
4. Will you/we solve or answer this case… well in my honest opinion NO!
5. The closest explanation/ in-depth reasoning that offered hope? The best I was able to gather came from four reports. I got these from Auchettl lectures at the Royal Society of Victoria. I don’t remember the details but:
6. Auchettl noted that there was some linkage to the 1966 “Balwyn ufo photo”. It seems that he had another look at that case and did another investigation and image analysis. http://ufocasebook.com/australia1966.jpg.
7. The next item of interest (from my point of view) was that Auchettl found the soil sample taken from the Westall circle had a similar physical texture or hardness with those that he had analysed from the 1989 Jolly Farm crop circles in The Mallee wheat belt of Victoria. In the CH7 TV production of the 1990s “The Extraordinary” you can see the Auchettls soil sample and how hard it was. The grass had been levered over by a heat source (Microwave) at a node in the stem and the soil baked rock hard. He did emphasise that the two soil events were not directly related but the data was surprisingly similar. Again the soil samples were on display at various locations.
8. He reported that the original research team (PRA) did a check with the State Electricity Commission of Victoria (SEC at that time), and discovered that there was a power surge down that line. I believe (from his graphs) that reports into the SEC were collected for that day by PRA and then ranked against the average daily reports, although not absolutely compelling, Auchettl reported that it was above and significant.
9. That the so called 5 aircraft may have been counter rotation vortex stems with a harmonic frequency. He showed us a mathematical model and the reasoning behind his research. As the object rose through the air, it displaced the air in such a way that a five point rotating patterns emerged, visable due to either ionised particles or vapour points due to pressure gradients.
10. ”Perhaps the answer lies here in the Australian Capital Territory in some musty manilla folder!” Mmmmmmmmm? May be? But from what I know, these files have been destroyed by the DoD. I do find it interesting that they are not in the National Archives… not even a mention. I know that the documents existed in the past; I attended a few lectures by Auchettl where they were displayed in an OHP presentation. They were also on two or three display boards at one of VUFORS displays at the Royal Society of Victoria. But I would say they are gone forever, from the national record. Disgraceful behavior by some imbecile in the DoD!
11. Best Regards Vufors (talk) 03:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Vufors.

Thank you very much for your reply. No hard feelings mate from any of the above. Your commentary was robust, but at least you only called me "new fry" and not "small fry"!

Thank you especially for the information supplied and the suggestions made. Very helpful and much appreciated.

Would it be better for us to communicate directly by email, rather than "in public" on this site? If you are open to the idea, please feel free to email me - I presume you have access to my email address?

Best wishes, Shanelj (talk) 09:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Updates and New Page Ref Data

Shane,

It seems that you are a slow learner; well it looks as if you do not grasp the Wiki format, so again please “do not reduce the data” because you feel it does not fit your idea of data. Wiki frowns on this practice as the reduction process has no boundaries and eventually people like you would reduce the Wiki entry to just about nothing. Shane, sometimes wiki data and references are place into the text as that is all we can find or have at that time. This data should stay there as an arrow or pointer for future access or upgrades, once people like you have removed it out of the public eye the expansion process will not transpire. Watch your step you have a book & financial barrow to push on this entry, which in its self is grounds for all your data/references to be pulled under the Wiki code as a troll for a book production and sale. For example your last stupid effort reduced a photograph, when in fact you should have replaced it with the correct one, you do have that photo! Fix the data/page don’t reduced it! For goodness Sake... ask for the data in this discussion area and give people who look after the wiki ufology pages some time to get home from work to scan the pages or ask for, get to or find correct data etc before you change something again because it does not fit your mind set… FAITH, people may surprise you and your inbuilt bias and greed for knowledge. Vufors (talk) 07:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)