Wednesday, November 8, 2017

Westall - a dissenting view

Introduction

We continue to hear references to the 6 April 1966, Westall school incident, in a variety of media outlets. Unfortunately, for us, these outlets, are simply using the event for their own gain. In almost all such instances, this is simply a matter of ratings and entertainment. UFOs are very newsworthy for this purpose. 

In my opinion, continuing to try and raise the profile of the incident, via radio, television, podcasts, newspapers, and websites, in the hope of officially confirming the nature of the incident, is doomed to failure. 

The year’s long search, for official Australian government documentary proof, has been unsuccessful. In addition, no one from the Australian Department of Defence (Army, Navy, and Air Force); ASIO, or any other government department has ever come forward to confirm what happened at Westall that day. These negative facts continue to fuel a ‘conspiracy’ perspective, when they may merely indicate, that there is no such ‘evidence.’ Indeed, I note that under the main title for the Westall66 documentary are the words ‘a forty-four year conspiracy.’ Suggestions of this nature do not help.

Closure

I have been told that Westall ‘witnesses’ need closure on what actually happened. However, all I see from my viewpoint, is frustrated individuals becoming even more frustrated and angry, e.g. the reactions on the Westall Flying Saucer Incident Facebook page to blog posts by myself on the HIBAL hypothesis (an idea to be debated); and to Paul Dean’s recent piece about Hazel Edwards’ testimony.

What is a ‘witness?'

I note the Facebook debate about what constitutes a ‘witness.’  Perhaps a better term would be ‘eye witness,’ someone who saw an unusual object. Then, there are other individuals who have knowledge relevant to an incident. Here, I would suggest, we might find people who an ‘eye witness’ told their story to (preferably at the time.) Police forces rely on such individuals to confirm the account of an ‘eye witness.’

Publish all available information

On the publicly available information (and if anyone has any addition information, please publish it for us all to debate and discuss) on the Westall incident, there is still much confusion as to basic pieces of data, e.g. (a) how many objects were present at around 10.20am that morning, or were subsequently present; and (b) the precise location of physical traces.  

There is no official Australian (or American) government information, and no Commonwealth government official has come forward to tell us what happened that day.  These facts need to be continually kept in mind, not summarily dismissed.

Large numbers of ‘eye witnesses’ do not necessarily increase the probability that something really unusual occurred that day. If you take a look at literature on ‘mass hysteria’ events at schools, you will get an overview of the difference between what was said by students/staff, to have happened, and what can be forensically reconstructed as having taken place, in these kind of events 

In summary


If after all these years of trying to get to the bottom of this incident, we haven’t succeeded; then perhaps it is time to let go. To close down the Yahoo Groups and Facebook Westall pages, and move on to other more profitable areas of UFO research. Offer closure to ‘eye witnesses’ by stop talking about the incident. Otherwise, I see we are simply in for years more, of the same circle.

2 comments:

  1. Author, you raises some curious points. I think myself that the "trick' with Westall has been to keep the hype going by inflating the number of witnesses continuously. The individuals promoting the case are guilty of this, not the witnesses. Theres no easier way to increase the hype than claiming a massive coverup too. All this 50 years after the fact. It needs to be put to rest. Just sayin

    ReplyDelete
  2. Blog readers, with anonymous comments caveat emptor.

    ReplyDelete

European Parliament member and UAP

Five Eyes Out of the Five Eyes partners, which consists of the U.S.A., the U.K., Canada, Australia and New Zealand; questions about UAP hav...