"US DoD have confirmed the UFO phenomenon is real"

a reply to: mirageman

Absolutely that is all it is, a survey but one that incorporated personality profiling.

I was impressed with the scope of the questions.

What people believe in is important in establishing what we all agree reality to be, particularly in ambiguous situations such as this and what the boundaries of possible are.

I was wading through the website for the inventor of the so-called EM drive and found a video presentations (seems to have been recorded over a nice cup of tea)...if anyone is so inclined, the first video from about 5:26...

www.emdrive.com...



"...rather wilder ideas."

We may have a winner.

None linear maths...pinch me

a reply to: mirageman

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm being reminded of this for some reason.

hrmmmmm

a reply to: grey580

Really?

Rendlesham. High speed high altitude unmanned variant that was struck by incoming meteor debris. The outer sheath was shredded, it called a distress emergency and was following guided orders to ditch at the nearest nuclear capable base.

..............
The lights in the skies, the beams, all ours. The beams were and still are communications (laser comms) the repeated over flights were due to needing every scrap of the shell. Nothing could be left to be found.

The weird 'glyphs' reported across the side are not glyphs, they are liquid magnets that activate in a slow release manner letting the handling crew know when the system is safe to be stripped and the core lifted out. They form weird shapes because the outer shell flows and flexes like bird feathers


The lights are actually the lift / propulsion, and those men are very lucky to be alive. She went to a nuke base because they have the access and manpower to cope with such an emergency (The airmen were supposed to form a perimeter and stay there, not go touching her) even when on soil that wasn't strictly theirs to be on.

There was also the small matter of the base not actually being a nuke base. Her sensors told her weapons were there, but not enough crews knew that.

If you go back to the original witness statements though no one saw a "craft" other than Penniston. That was in the early hours of Dec 26th. There was a meteor display at around 3am that morning AFTER the lights in the forest were reported. Penniston did not report glyphs until much later and his statement said he got no closer than 50m.

The following morning, when there was no craft, but supposedly depressions in the ground where it had been the British police came out and plaster casts were taken.

Then there follows the little known night/early morning of the 27th/28th Dec 1980 when there was no meteorite display but strange blue lights in the forest. There was also a well known third night. I could go on but I'm too tired.

Seems like someone pretending to know a lot. But not quite knowing the finer details of what went on at Rendlesham to me. Probably all adding to the bunk information that often surrounds this case.

originally posted by: Anaana
I was wading through the website for the inventor of the so-called EM drive and found a video presentations (seems to have been recorded over a nice cup of tea)...if anyone is so inclined, the first video from about 5:26...

www.emdrive.com...

"...rather wilder ideas."

We may have a winner.

None linear maths...pinch me

More like ERM drive.

www.wired.com...

a reply to: mirageman

Seems like someone pretending to know a lot. But not quite knowing the finer details of what went on at Rendlesham to me. Probably all adding to the bunk information that often surrounds this case.

Do you think that it's possible that it might be of value to come at the "case" as a newcomer who has not developed their opinion of what happened there to a point of fineness?

After 35 years and being that the whole thing is more conflated than Roswell in half the time, I would petition that the answer is yes. "Fresh eyes", and all that.

What do you think?

a reply to: Bybyots

I personally totally agree that at times, fresh eyes can give a whole new perspective on something and often spot details that have gone unnoticed for so long as people have reached the point where they can't as it were, see the craft for the trees . On the other hand I'm not sure some pseudo scientific gobbledegook about a craft they cannot show you a photo of, or prove has ever existed with capabilities like that in 1980 has to be a new low in the "madness of the prosaic explanation" catalogue. The only craft we had back in 1980 that could "hover" in the Earth's atmosphere were almost exclusively manned and would have woken people up with the noise they created for a good few hundred yards in all directions.

I'd also point out that, to the best of my knowledge the base did not contain nuclear weapons it contained nuclear warheads. Now, you might say it merely a question of semantics only it has important legal ramifications. The Americans had no legal right either under the conditions of the lease or, then current international treaties to store nuclear weapons at Bentwaters. Only in legal terms, a nuclear weapon is both a warhead and a delivery system , a nuclear warhead not attached to a delivery system is not a weapon in itself. So yes, totally semantics however, semantics that made a huge difference in the eyes of both the British MOD and the American military.

That is, if you or I were to ask at a Press Conference "Did the Bentwaters base in the winter of 1980 store nuclear weapons, as far the American military and the British MOD are concerned the answer "No" is true. If you however asked them "Were nuclear warheads stored on Bentwaters in the winter of 1980 to answer "No" would be a lie. The chances are that ,even now, the official line on that question would be "We cannot comment as that is part of operational procedures we simply cannot discuss or divulge".

Therein lies one of the keys to trying to study any UFO related incident, it's as much at times, about knowing the right phraseology to ask questions with as much it is about the the general thrust of the question itself.

Here's something to ponder about Rendlesham. Who of the supposed witnesses to the events that winter has probably received the most stick about it all? Who has had the most grief from , not only the sceptic rather those who were there? Larry Warren and what is Larry's probable true crime ? he was the person chiefly responsible for the whole incident becoming public as it was his move to stick in a FOIR that blew the whole episode open to the public. Note how it is interesting that, as other members of the military have come forward and given their accounts of what happened and they have in turn, felt the wrath of the sceptics that, their own attitude towards Larry has softened and Halt now admits that Warren had as he claimed all along, passed out and was on active duty at that time.

Whatever happened that night for me personally, involved a technology that was both, far more extreme and paradoxically, far more subtle than any known military hardware then and for that matter, even now. That does not by any means, discount the possibility it was some sort of "Black Ops test". It could well be that it was a test of a technology that harnesses the world's "weird spots" or, it could have been as some claim, a test of our ability to track what we know as UFOs. it is perfectly possible to accept either of those suggestions without overtly mentioning or claiming the "A" word was involved. UFOs could be a unique natural phenomenon that has a unique interaction with the human psyche, that we rationalise as the "A " word?

What I have noted , through my decades dealing with this subject is that, Ufology somehow, manages to deeply offend the psyche of those whose life is about dealing with "calculated percentages and certainties". UFOs are an affront to those who seem determined to see life in terms of "good and evil", "all or nothing" and whose psyche's seek to exert control over other's actions and thoughts.

My counsel would be and this pertains to Rendlesham and any other truly interesting UFO case and that is to just seek experience and knowledge and the frustration is far less hard to bare than approaching the subject with a "results and explanations are all that count" mindset.

a reply to: FireMoon

On the other hand I'm not sure some pseudo scientific gobbledegook about a craft they cannot show you a photo of, or prove has ever existed with capabilities like that in 1980 has to be a new low in the "madness of the prosaic explanation" catalogue.

You are wrong there, FireMoon, there have been flying rectennae since 1964.

And Alexander the Great supposedly used primitive diving equipment in order to investigate the "mysterious shield" that dived into the river Indus on the other hand, practical diving equipment took a good few more years to happen along. Could it fly under and through the forest canopy in the dark , could it hover silently by 1980? Could it accelerate from standing still to post supersonic speed without leaving a sonic boom in its' wake? Very few would doubt these technologies exist, the flight characteristics they would need to exhibit to account for what was seen at Rendlesham, that's a whole other ball game.

Just out of interest, a friend of mine called Stuart was part of the crew that designed the wing that the Gossamer Albatross used in its' flight across the Channel. Trying to claim that a technology that was still in its' infancy had gone from "balsa wood and tin foil" to non aerodynamic shapes exhibiting preternatural flight characteristics inside a year is , to my mind, pure pseudo science.

a reply to: Bybyots

I agree Bybots I don't think looking at it with tired eyes last night helped at all. And a fresh take on it all is never a bad thing.

However I have reread it and it still doesn't make complete sense to me. The object would have to have been flying around for 3 days and landing on at least two occasions. Where did it disappear during the daylight?

This part seems to be the most confused.

She went to a nuke base because they have the access and manpower to cope with such an emergency (The airmen were supposed to form a perimeter and stay there, not go touching her) even when on soil that wasn't strictly theirs to be on.

Well is that talking about the first, (second?) or third night?

And why not look for an alternative nuke base after no joy from the three Amigos on the first night in the forest. In fact why land in the forest at all?

It also tends to 'legitimize' Penniston's story of spending 45 mins touching, drawing and photographing a landed craft. Which turns everything else on it's head.

There are too many gaps in the story in addition to the concerns that Firemoon raises.

But if you can put that altogether with the stuff you've found out and rationalize it into an interesting theory then I am all ears my friend.

a reply to: mirageman

Just word games. If you can't identify the flying object then it is an unidentified flying object. Simple. That doesn't mean it came from planet Wiiwu. The UFO dreamers just keep on dreaming.

a reply to: Generation9

Just word games. If you can't identify the flying object then it is an unidentified flying object. Simple. That doesn't mean it came from planet Wiiwu.

I am sure that having read the full thread you know we all recently ruled out (what I assume is your home planet) Wiiwu as the origin of of any UAP.

As soon as this this post was made everyone realized that the occupants simply didn't have the concentration to get beyond fast and cheap shots into the cyberspace not real space.

Just word games indeed.

Or do you seriously want to know more about this case?

originally posted by: draknoir2
More like ERM drive.

www.wired.com...

It doesn't really matter whether the EM drive works, what matters is the time line that the developer, Shawyer, gives in the link that I provided, and the reason that he gives for exploring those "wilder ideas" in realtion to the technology involved in the EM drive. If you look back at my posts, in exploring the technological developments before, during and after the Rendlesham incident, I bemoaned the lack of anything that I considered "exotic" technologically. The EM drive may not work, but the ideas behind it are what I consider exotic and experimentation could have had unintended consequences and it could have been worthy of a cover up.

I am not saying that this is the answer to Rendlesham, it's merely another angle to consider.

a reply to: mirageman

mirageman,

That quote is from the Forevermen story.

You've made kind of a tremendous leap there. He and I only agree in the sense that we are cribbing from the same author. I think that you reading "it" must have been motivated by grey580's post.

However I have reread it...

That's great, I'm glad that you did, it's a really good story and you bringing it up gives me the opportunity to once more offer the only real opinion that I have on it (the story).

The story couldn't exist if it hadn't scalped major themes from Project Condign's report. Another way of saying it is that the story is fiction and was confabulated based on the contents of the UAPoUKADR report.

/opinion.

But if you can put that altogether with the stuff you've found out and rationalize it into an interesting theory then I am all ears my friend.

Yeah, no, I wouldn't want to throw in with that story. I've already dismantled it to my own satisfaction. I wrote up a thread about it, if you'd like I'll link you to it.



P.S. I linked it to my signature.

a reply to: Bybyots

I will digest your post linked over the weekend Bybots.

For all I know the government could have fell by then as well!

a reply to: mirageman

Is election time not-so-great right now over there?

Sorry Dudeman, I can totally sympathize.

a reply to: Bybyots

The polls have just closed over here about an hour ago. Look like another hung parliament at the moment from exit polls....Politics is for another time and another forum.

But I will look over your thread over the weekend for sure.

a reply to: mirageman

Interesting, to be sure. So they have confirmed that something unknown has caused his issues.

What they haven't confirmed is what that something is.

That story is one of the best documented cases out there, I believe. Very odd, and I can't see how anyone could say nothing weird occurred.

You know what ? At this point in time the event is insignificant..the cover up worked, that's it. Nobody will know too soon what type of craft it was and what solar system as it's origin.
What's important is that the dod paid for this guy's surgery and some compensation for his suffering as return for his service. The end.

Edit: Here is the pdf from the uk dod. it has a rater nice photo of a triangle ufo/uap. Long story short dod people think these ufo/uap might just be complicated ball lightning events/things.


Edit 2: forgot to put the actual link lol
http:// webarchive . nationalarchives . gov.uk/20121026065214/ht tp://www.mo d.uk/NR/rdonlyres/7D2B11E0-EA 9F-45EA-8883-A3C00546E752/0/uap_exe c_summary_dec00 . pdf

Remove the spaces



Also volume 2 and 3 are here. Vol 2 talks about anti matter and stuff. Lots to read.


http:/ / webarchive . nationalarchives. gov . uk/20121026065214/http ://www . mod . uk/DefenceInternet/FreedomOfInformation/PublicationScheme/SearchPublicationScheme/UapInTheUkAirDefenceRegionVolume2 . htm

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: Bybyots

The polls have just closed over here about an hour ago. Look like another hung parliament at the moment from exit polls....Politics is for another time and another forum.