It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"US DoD have confirmed the UFO phenomenon is real"

page: 15
129
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Bybyots

I'll ask Kit for clarification and post his response here.




posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: NYCUltra

Hi NYCUltra,

You


We did not have anything like remote controlled drones at that time,


ATS Member, Lt. Col. Michael Aquino


As for extremely fast speeds and instant direction-changes, that's exactly what you get with gyroscopics.

Unmanned, of course, since the G-forces would mash you to pizza. Drone tech has actually been around for a long time; it's just hit the headlines with the IraqiAfganiPakistan gig.

Skunk was building drone versions of the Oxcart, aka SR-71 Blackbird, half a century ago.

LINK


Food for thought.

Have a nice day,


edit on 19-3-2015 by Bybyots because: . : .



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Anaana



...they choose the arse end of East Anglia to drop in on.


When I was a little kid reading C.S. Lewis' books I would dream sometimes at night of an enchanted forest that let out to the ocean. I think the idea grabbed me so deeply because the forests that I grew up around let out in to tract homes in one direction and the mountains in the other. Forests that open to the sea mean adventure and High Fantasy to me., and East Anglia means witches, but that's because I'm not from Britain and can only read about it.

Anywho, I about died of laughter when I read that bit from you. Rendlesham Forest does, indeed, open out to the ocean on the eastern side. It's kind of funny to look at it on Google Maps, you can even see the eastern end of the runway where the "event" took place.


edit on 19-3-2015 by Bybyots because: . : .



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bybyots
ATS Member, Lt. Col. Michael Aquino:
As for extremely fast speeds and instant direction-changes, that's exactly what you get with gyroscopics.


Quite the opposite: Gyroscopes are resilient to directional changes and therefore are used to stabilize drones.

Wikipedia:

Applications of gyroscopes include inertial navigation systems where magnetic compasses would not work (as in the Hubble telescope) or would not be precise enough (as in intercontinental ballistic missiles), or for the stabilization of flying vehicles like radio-controlled helicopters or unmanned aerial vehicles.


Of course unmanned aircraft are as old as the invention of autopilot (1912) and RF communication (1900’s). But for sudden 90 degree turns you need either very low mass or very high propulsion power. So either a very small drone or one that makes a LOT of noise…

Another trick would be to artificially manipulate the gravity field surrounding a craft, but that requires fundamental new physics since our brightest minds are still struggling to combine electromagnetism and gravity in one unified theory.
It would work better than anything else though, because the occupants will not feel any inertia and hence aren’t mashed to pizza. It’s like free falling instead of flying, but instead of downwards you can ‘fall’ in any direction you like.

That’s why some scientists think this is the trick that makes UFO’s work, and that it somehow requires massive electromagnetic fields that turn the air around a UFO into atmospheric plasma, which explains the strange glow with different colors and the massive amounts of EM radiation in a broad range of frequencies.
NASA engineer Paul R. Hill neatly describes this theory in his book ‘Unconventional Flying Objects, a Scientific Analysis’.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: NYCUltra


I think you have made some very relevant comments which I'll address.



The uncontrolled testing of microwave weapons in the middle of the forest for three consecutive nights just sounds highly unlikely to me. They wood test these in a controlled situation, not just place out in a first and lure innocent unsuspecting airmen to out for three nights to see what happens.


Not sure if you know but East Anglia (the area around Bentwaters) is an area where radar was developed and many other defence experiments were/are conducted. The airmen may have run into something the British were testing (as they were outside US jurisdiction). Or it may have been something on the perimeter of the twin bases switched on to deter Soviet "birdwatchers" that went horribly wrong.

But my own problem is still, why over Christmas & why over three nights as you rightly point out?

However if there was a UFO then where did the UFO(s) go during daylight for 3 days? And if it was all nothing but a space rocket booster, a lighthouse and a meteor display then how the hell did it continue to fool a US airbase for three days?



On top of that what do these weapons look like? How would it land and take off? We did not have anything like remote controlled drones at that time, especially small triangular ones that can lift off vertically with no noise. Not only that, what about Halt and his team's account of a flying object shooting "lasers" at alleged secret nuclear bunkers?


If I was offering speculation the 'experiment' could have come from any of the existing dish arrays in the area, a temporary set up near the base or a vehicle mounted array. The triangular craft story has only ever really been told by Jim Penniston. A man who only saw something from 50m away according to his original statement a few days after the incident. None of the other witnesses really saw anything other than strange lights.

As for the lasers shooting down onto the base and in front of Halt. Firstly a guy called Tim Eggercic (who was in the Weapons Storage area at Bentwaters on the very night Halt was in the forest) has contested this on live radio with Colonel Halt and said there were no beams hitting anywhere near where he was stationed. Halt backed off a little then. Secondly if you were in charge of operations and something was firing beams of light and circling the skies above a major NATO base wouldn't you have called in an interceptor or two. Halt chose to simply walk around the forest "chasing UFOs" and then return to base with the "objects still in the sky" according to his tape. Doesn't really make sense does it?




One thing that it's now confirmed, is that it wasn't a lighthouse. Those skeptics should be embarrassed they even presented this explanation in the face of such credible witnesses.


Well here in Britain it is still given a lot of credence by the 'uber-skeptics'. It has never been 'confirmed' it wasn't a lighthouse (and various other phenomena by the way). Various UFO documentaries have tried to prove the lighthouse could not be seen because it was covered by a shield or the lighthouse keeper confirmed it could not be seen but they are generally misleading. The lighthouse was visible in the woods.

However the first proponent of it, a forester called Vince Thurkettle, found it hard to believe this could fool trained airmen for 3 days and has tended to distance himself from the story these days.

For posterity it could be seen from where Halt was standing in the field (sadly the lighthouse has now been decommissioned). Here is a picture of it.


The lighthouse is the slightly off centre bright dot. However, as anyone who lives near the coast is aware, certain conditions can make objects miles away look a lot closer than they are in reality. Personally I think it added to the confusion of the nights but does not fit the full story.




I commend Burroughs for his persistence, he is a true fighter. I'm sure the military would rather have him die at a much earlier point. This a true victory that lends some creedence at something truly unexplained happened.


Absolutely! and now he is on the mend his work continues and another bunch of UK MoD documents related to the case are due for release later in the year. Well done John Burroughs.

Those are just my comments but please don't take it from me I may be way off. If you are interested in the case further there are some resources I collated here in another post : www.abovetopsecret.com...

(In fact large chunks of the Rendlesham story are in that full thread but it will take some persistence to wade through it all).

There's plenty more out on the web and all 3 major books "Left At East Gate", "You Can't Tell the People" and "Encounter in Rendlesham Forest" are all available in e-book form.

And finally and most importantly of all may I wish you a full and speedy recovery from your surgery. I'm sure everyone here on ATS does too.





edit on 19/3/15 by mirageman because: t



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Bybyots

If you look at a map of Britain. East Anglia really does look like the arse end of Britain. Literally! LOL




posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Springer, does Kit actively lurk the board or is this like a post by email thing?

Also the Aquino stuff - he's talking about gyroscopes in terms of Nazi UFO/antigravity claims. Drone aircraft have a long history, but they don't do the things Paul Hill describes for example. I buy Hill's ideas over anything I've seen that claims to be Nazi research. I even dug into the directed energy work they did - it was entertaining but not exactly beyond American technical ability. I think Nick Cook got fed disinfo, but the ultimate origin of The Legend probably stems from USAF concern over UFO's in '47 - there was considerable concern over these being Russian aircraft (with German assistance) launched from submarines. Worrying over what the Russians potentially grabbed probably kicked off the mythros.

Drone wise: CL-227 would be the best potential suspect in my mind.




posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 02:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Anaana
I am overdue on an assignment and if I don't get my arse in gear I am somewhat buggered, just popping in to keep up to date with the discussion, which is proving very interesting. As a general disclaimer because right now I do not have the time to reply in detail, to spacevisitor in particular.


Hi Anaana, thanks for your post.
I just want to say that it’s no problem that you do not have the time now to reply yet, the same counts in fact for me.
It seems that we all need more time so now and then while it seems that time for ETs does not even exist, but that’s another story of course.

You said;

I am interested in learning here, I may be rubbing some of you up the wrong way, but that is on the basis that I am attempting to learn from your informed opinions, not ridicule any one or any aspect of this case, it is therefore my general ignorance that I put down to the irritation that I may or may not be generating, that and possibly my annoying personality, there is less that I can do about that, or want to do about that if I am honest about it...


We all have our personal views and believe about those things and they obviously can differ from each other.
Suppose they were all the same, then we would not have all those interesting discussions here about it, right.
So I think I can savely say that we in fact all are learning here.
I hope that you will have your head back above water again as soon as possible and I am looking forward to your posts.



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: spacevisitor

Whatever happened it was life changing for them all.


Thanks for this reply my friend, its appreciated.
And you are absolutely right in my opinion by saying that whatever happened it must have been life changing for them all, no doubt about that.

You said;

Colonel Halt was a seasoned military officer and never wanted to be associated with any of this. He thus holds a long running grudge against Larry Warren. And it is highly probable that being a" UFO Colonel", probably dampened his career prospects for good. Jim and John both have their own different perceptions of what went on but their lives have also been deeply affected as well. John Burroughs almost lost his life. That is how serious things were. Whilst Jim Penniston seems very, very deeply confused by the whole affair . Of course all three have dismissed Larry's story down the years and even tried to totally discredit him through some less than savoury methods.


And how very right you are here, I have followed this case for quite some time now and participated in more then one discussions about it and I have also seen that happening over the last years and which btw is still being done.
But do not forget Nick Pope in this whole matter because he also have dismissed Larry's story over the years and left it therefore even completely out of their book “Encounter In Rendlesham Forest”.

However it’s interesting to read Peter Robbins – Deception: A Review and Critical Analysis of the book, Encounter In Rendlesham Forest.

www.kgraradio.com...

You said;

Yet Larry Warren, at least to me, seems to be a guy with a very strong sense of justice. He's a straight talking New Yorker, who wanted this all out in the open so the truth would be known. I bet he never guessed that he'd still be waiting 35 years later. But Larry is the guy we all have to thank for that headline "UFO Lands in Suffolk and That's Official".


Again my friend, I cannot agreed more, and I have to say that I do personally believe that Larry Warren is from day one the most credible and honest witness of them all.

You said;

Time is the fire in which all burn and the years are passing by. If these guys won't try to work it all out together then none of them, and none of us, may ever know what happened.


I agree with you here, although I believe that it is not only about ‘If these guys would try to work it all out together’, I believe also that the ‘powers’ that are ‘controlling’ this UFO phenomenon are doing everything they can to for come that they will do just that in order to keep especially Larry’s case as good as possible under the carpet so to say, and for obvious reasons.
I do definitely not rule out the possibility that even advanced mind-control techniques and/or heavy threatening could have been used for achieving what we see happening.

That’s why I think that the chance that those witnesses are indeed going to work it all out together and make because of that some public announcements about what they all really have seen happening is very small indeed.
And I assume that especially the heavy threatening part could be very well responsible for why most of the other witnesses still not have coming forward so far.
And for what I ‘think’ to know about that is that very understandable.

But those are just my thoughts of course and nothing more.

Thanks again for your very interesting reply my friend.

edit on 20/3/15 by spacevisitor because: (no reason given)

edit on 20/3/15 by spacevisitor because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 12:58 PM
link   
It amazes me that there is so much sniping going on regarding the reality of UFO's.

I don't need more convincing, nor do I wish to spend my valuable time cutting down researchers and spokespeople who have stepped up and devoted their lives to this phenomenon, and I will not for another minute waste my time deciding whether or not to believe the thousands of good witnesses who have come forward from all walks of life and professions.

I am tired of the people who scream FACTS every 15 seconds so they can exercise their cognitive muscles. It's a cover up people! How many facts are going to come dancing down your driveway? A unprecedented amount of black ops money has been devoted to hiding this from the human race.

The millions and millions of hours spent writing books and researching this topic should be enough to convince you. But for most of you, it's just easier to hate people like Dolan and Greer, or to discount EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF RESEARCH OUT THERE. If you're so high and mighty, where's your research? What have you done to contribute?

The fact that the Universe NEVER ends should be enough to at least get you thinking that the chances of intelligent life are very, very high. And the FACT that this earth is such an incredibly messed up place should be proof enough of why no entity would want to land here. Hell, I don't even want to be here half the time.

The fact that our government proves to us EVERY SINGLE DAY that they are lying, scheming no good fools, should have you questioning whether they are telling the truth versus an ex-military careerist on his deathbed. Really? You're not sure who to believe?

Some folks here get high on demanding solid, irrefutable proof to the point where their intelligence should be questioned. What more proof do they need? There are library shelves FULL of books and research. There are reams of witnesses--policemen, astronauts, military folks, scientists, etc. who say THIS IS REAL.

How about if we spend our time instead thinking of the repercussions of this phenomenon? Thinking about WHAT'S NEXT?

If you still need convincing, you are, in my opinion, one step back on the evolution of this topic. Many, many good people have moved on from the question of whether aliens exist to a much more pertinent and relevant line of thinking.



edit on 20-3-2015 by MRuss because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-3-2015 by MRuss because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: MRuss

You are free to choose to believe whatever you want to believe my friend.

But what do you say about the evidence for Bigfoot, Nessie, ghosts, psychic powers and people who can talk to the dead? Plenty of stories, plenty of 'evidence' and yet...





The millions and millions of hours spent writing books and researching this topic should be enough to convince you. But for most of you, it's just easier to hate people like Dolan and Greer, or to discount EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF RESEARCH OUT THERE. If you're so high and mighty, where's your research? What have you done to contribute?


As for people who don't like Dolan and Greer and whoever else. Well that is also up to them. I personally like Dolan's first two works but he has since become 'locked in' to the "alien" industry with all that it entails.

I have personally found that some of these classic UFO cases like Roswell, Rendlesham and even some of the lesser ones are not what you were first led to believe. If you read only books by people like Stan Friedman, Bill Birnes, Don Schmitt and Tom Carey etc. then you only get half a story I'm afraid. You also need to balance this out by reading what the sceptics say.

So I politely ask where is your research that took you beyond needing the proof us lesser mortals search for?




I am tired of the people who scream FACTS every 15 seconds so they can exercise their cognitive muscles. It's a cover up people! How many facts are going to come dancing down your driveway? A unprecedented amount of black ops money has been devoted to hiding this from the human race.


Is that a FACT? If so prove it. If you can't then can you not see the irony in this part of your post?




Some folks here get high on demanding solid, irrefutable proof to the point where their intelligence should be questioned. What more proof do they need? There are library shelves FULL of books and research.


Please enlighten us on which of these books is your solid irrefutable proof?




If you still need convincing, you are, in my opinion, one step back on the evolution of this topic. Many, many good people have moved on from the question of whether aliens exist to a much more pertinent and relevant line of thinking.


Or you remain, objective in the search for wherever the data takes you. Many not so good people have also taken our cash and choose to perpetuate a myth or obscure the full facts to keep the pennies rolling into their bank account.


So please understand everyone's parameters of proof are different. Many people accept this huge universe is almost certainly full of life. But there is still nothing to prove there are aliens, never mind that they possess the technology to visit us.






edit on 20/3/15 by mirageman because:




posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: spacevisitor

Hello again spacevisitor. Thanks for spending a few moments in the thread. I know you have deep knowledge on this case. Yes - Peter Robbins was particularly cheesed off with Nick Pope's treatment (or should we say dismissal) of Larry Warren in the book he penned with Penniston and Burroughs. I guess Nick Pope had to tread carefully, by telling the stories of the two witnesses, he must have compromised to some degree. Let's not forget all these three men remain tied to the "company" in some way as well. Larry was a whistleblower.

I have some respect for Nick Pope as he has done an awful lot to soften attitudes in the media to the UFO topic. However it is also apparent that he has chosen to make a career out of being a 'media personality' and moved to Arizona (???). In the United States he has been mentioned as a former "Head of Britain's UFO Project". A heavily exaggerated title for something that probably took up a few hours a week and was far from a senior role. But we all have to earn a wage and good luck to Nick.

Peter Robbins' "Deception" booklets were certainly great data sources even if you think he was a little excessive in attacking Nick's book with a book of his own. But what I admire about Peter is that he is passionate about his work and, like Larry, he doesn't like BS. I think John Burroughs own story is one that has remained relatively consistent as well in fairness.

Which leaves Colonel Halt as the last of the 'gang of four' to have not written a book and he must be in his 70s now. Gary Heseltine was rumoured to be working on TV/Film screenplay with him but it all seems to have fizzled out a few years ago. Halt has always said that he was not prevented from talking about Rendlesham after leaving the military. Sometimes I wonder why that was after all the statements he's made down the years.

Steve La Plume, Monroe Nevels and some of the other guys have added invaluable input in recent years. I have also heard that some witnesses are frightened to speak out or simply don't want to be part of the never ending circus.

As to whether there was a cover-up. Well in this one isolated case it's entirely plausible but then we have to work out what's being covered up.

I am still working on it. But maybe the new document releases later this year by the MoD will add another jigsaw piece to the case.



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 05:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: mirageman
I am still working on it. But maybe the new document releases later this year by the MoD will add another jigsaw piece to the case.


I hope you are right, but I won’t hold my breath…

Someone who already added new and very interesting jigsaw pieces is Robert Hastings:
www.ufohastings.com...

He found and interviewed new witnesses to the RFI and also uncovered some other Rendlesham UFO cases in the 1980-1982 period.



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 05:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Guest101

Thanks for this link Guest101, I never saw it before.
I took a quick look at it and find it very interesting indeed.


edit on 21/3/15 by spacevisitor because: added find



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 07:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Guest101

A great find there.

I've seen Hastings report on the two base radar operators before but not the details of interviews with the guys at the the twin bases discussing their own experience and suggesting there were more sightings of strange objects beyond Xmas 1980.

I notice again that a couple of mentions that "Heathrow" or "London" tower tracked something. Sadly no one has every pursued that angle. Any records would be long gone but someone in the Heathrow control tower might have remembered something down the years. If they have I've missed any comment on it.

The beams of light Colonel Halt described are recorded on his tape at the time of the incident. But it seems that it is very difficult to corroborate anyone else who saw them as Halt did.

In the previous Rendlesham thread Arbitrageur posted a very interesting video :



Here's a still from the video.



Arby's theory was




The videographer was using a night vision scope, as I think was Halt, and both seem to think they see beams coming to the ground from lights in the sky. In the attached video, you can see the light in the sky pulsating, and the "beam" pulsates along with it, which says to me that it's not a beam at all, but an artifact of the night vision equipment (which happens to pass through the centerline of the optics). I suspect an effect like this is probably what Halt saw


You have to admit the video/still look impressively like something firing a beam down from the sky. Perhaps this is similar to what Halt saw?

I'm not holding my breath about the future MoD document releases either but thanks for an interesting addition to the thread.



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: mirageman

Never seen this video before, but from 0:19 – 0:24 the beam really seems to shine through the branches of the trees, with some branches in the foreground and some in the background. An optical artifact that propagates from the light flash would put the whole tree in the background. No idea what it is and why the flash and the ‘beam’ go on and off together.

The light beams that Halt saw are corroborated by Nevels, in his interview with LMH.

After 30 years he remembers them to be like pencil-thin faint laser beams that could be seen against the black sky.

Note that the Halt memo explicitly mentions only one specific object that beams down a stream of light from time to time. It was first visible to their south and is heard to approach the men on the tape.
However, when the men return to the base at 04:00 this 'beaming' object is hovering above Woodbridge base (which is to their west). Was that the reason they returned to the Woodbridge base? The other two objects had already left so it seems logical to walk towards the one remaining object.

edit on 21-3-2015 by Guest101 because: clarification



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Guest101

I agree the beam does seem to be 'real' at that point you highlighted in the video. But I am no optics expert. I have seen something similar myself whilst driving through the countryside one misty night. It looked extremely eery because there was no apparent sound either. But then as I got nearer it became apparent it was a police helicopter with a search beam.

And thanks for that link to the LMH interview with Nevels (another one for the collection). Nevels was one of Halt's team out in the forest so perhaps their vantage point gave them better visibility than those on the base(s)?



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 08:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bybyots
a reply to: NYCUltra

Hi NYCUltra,

You


We did not have anything like remote controlled drones at that time,


ATS Member, Lt. Col. Michael Aquino


As for extremely fast speeds and instant direction-changes, that's exactly what you get with gyroscopics.

Unmanned, of course, since the G-forces would mash you to pizza. Drone tech has actually been around for a long time; it's just hit the headlines with the IraqiAfganiPakistan gig.

Skunk was building drone versions of the Oxcart, aka SR-71 Blackbird, half a century ago.

LINK


Food for thought.

Have a nice day,



Thanks, I checked out the link and really couldn't gather anything anything about what you posted. A drone version of the SR-71 still doesn't come close to the alleged object in this incident.



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Springer



I'll ask Kit for clarification and post his response here.


I appreciate the effort, Springer, but is he going to need a whole week to sort that out?

His post seemed so confident.




posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Springer

What do you suppose the chances are, Springer, that I have worked in the OR for years and have real life, direct experience with radio frequency and microwave ablation systems and the doctors (cardiac and otherwise) that I assist in using them? Not to mention the reps, technicians, and occasionally the engineers that field them?


edit on 24-3-2015 by Bybyots because: . : .



new topics

top topics



 
129
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join